|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The offence of defining the Church
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Do you (the generic Baptist you, I don't mean the Wood you) drop the C word from the Creed? I presume you're happy with the belief that you're in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? So wouldn't you argue strongly that the Baptist faith was catholic, small "c" ?
Baptists? Saying the creed? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I think not. And will be most disappointed if hear otherwise. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Oh, please. No, we don't often say it, but we do as a denomination believe it. Sorry to disappoint you, Lep, but there it is.
My church did a series of Bible studies based on the Creeds during Lent, actually.
I'm personally happy to be in the "one catholic and Holy Apostolic Church" (as I define Church, pace my RC and Orthodox friends), but a lot of Baptists don't like the "c" word, and when the creed comes out, there is invariably a lot of qualification as to what the "c" word means, as well as what "baptism for the forgiveness of sins" means.
Still, as I said, it's not the creed that makes one catholic - it's the creed and the threefold order (given that without the doctrine of the threefold order, one can't have the doctrine of the Real Presence).
[ 26. August 2004, 13:19: Message edited by: Wood ]
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Unordered ? Really ? Would you care to reconsider that statement?
I don't deny the OP was inspired (cough) by the current threads involving Catholic-bashing, but I didn't ponder the order - just wrote them as they came to mind. I'm an Anglican, in case it's not obvious from my sig.
quote:
I understand the word "Church" with a capital C to mean something like "the set of all Christians". My understanding is that 1-8 claim to follow Christ and 9-16 don't, so I'd draw the boundary of the Church there.
Have a look at number 13 and see if you're happy to define them as Christians. Number 9 should also get in by your criterion, since they claim to follow him as a renowned prophet. My limited understanding of Judaism is that some groups of them are still expecting the Messiah, so they're in since they're following Christ/Messiah as best they can under their understanding of how things are.
So you appear to have drawn the boundaries of the Church Visible quite effectively, whilst appearing to say there's no such thing and only a Church Invisible.
The prosecution rests ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
I wouldn't use the construction "True Church", because that would mean something like "the set of all True Christians" which is passing a judgement on other people and how well they are following Christ. It implies that there is a False Church.
I'm very interested in how you view the Gnostics, then.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Ok, Wood, I'll bite.
I don't think that you need the threefold order to be catholic. When we say the creed in church I don't say 'I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church (which is nothing to do with us). Indeed, the Methodist Church's Deed of Union (an important foundational document, in which our core doctrinal standards are enshrined) says 'The Methodist Church claims and cherishes its place in the One Holy Catholic Church which is the body of Christ.' Also, we have the doctrine of the Real Presence.
Ultimately though, one's definition of catholic will stem from, and feed back into, one's definition of 'The Church'.
[ 26. August 2004, 13:31: Message edited by: seasick ]
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
Ultimately though, one's definition of catholic will stem from, and feed back into, one's definition of 'The Church'.
This, at least, I agree with.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Please do not infer from this that I don't think any given person who isn't Orthodox isn't a Christian, isn't saved, isn't going to go to heaven, or anything of the sort. First off, it's not my call, it's God's, and second, that's now how we use the term "The Church." That would be to confuse our demarcation of "The Church" with somebody else's explicit definition of "The Church".
Serious question. In what meaningful sense is it possible to be a Christian without being a member of The Church?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan.:
Serious question. In what meaningful sense is it possible to be a Christian without being a member of The Church?
As I understand it, since the early days of the Church, if a catechumen died, they were given an Christian burial. Thus, a catechumen may not yet a member of the Church, but they are already Christian.
Likewise, there were many martyrs who had not yet been baptized, nor even enrolled as catechumens. Think of the 40 martyrs of Sebaste. The 40th martyr became a Christian there on the shore of the lake, although he was not yet a member of the Church.
It seems to me that it's believing and/or being baptized that makes you a Christian, and receiving the Eucharist that makes you a member of the Church. Since, for a thousand years or more, baptism, chrismation, and the Eucharist were all given to you in the same service, when you were an infant, the lines became blurred in our thoughts and in our words. We didn't worry too much about those who believed who had not been baptized, or hadn't received the Eucahrist, because there just weren't that many of them!
But for the last few hundred years, there are many, and we need to work on our thoughts and our words to express nuances that were irrelevant in past times.
(BTW, before anyone asks about Christians who die without ever receiving the Eucharist, there is an icon used in the Orthodox Church that shows our Lord serving the Eucharist to the apostles in heaven. In other words, it's not a problem. Our Lord will take care of them when they get there.)
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
Dear Goldenkey quote:
My view:
The Church = The Body of Christ = All Christians
No institution is The One True Church. Those making that claim may well not mean it in an arrogant way, but IMHO it is an arrogant claim.
Which leaves you open to the charge of hypocrisy, since you're saying what nearly everybody else seems to be saying: My/our definition of the Church is the only true one.
Small difference: this definition of "The Church" includes all Christians.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ex Cathedra
Shipmate
# 4579
|
Posted
Originally posted by GoldenKey:
quote:
Small difference: this definition of "The Church" includes all Christians.
Hardly helps, though, since now we have to define what we mean by 'Christian'.
--------------------
'Horrific deplorable violence is OK as long as people don't say any naughty words' - Sheila Broflovski
Posts: 83 | From: Essex, UK | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ex Cathedra:
Hardly helps, though, since now we have to define what we mean by 'Christian'.
Exactly.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ex Cathedra:
Originally posted by GoldenKey:
quote:
Small difference: this definition of "The Church" includes all Christians.
Hardly helps, though, since now we have to define what we mean by 'Christian'.
IMHO, it only has to be defined for purpose of having communion open to all Christians. I'd say define it as "anyone who considers themself to be a Christian".
That, of course, brings up the question of non-Christians. As I detailed in my first post on pg. 2, there are reasons to welcome them, too.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
GK: I think that you're holding the assumption that including all Christians is somehow morally superior to not including all Christians, and that it's better because it's inclusive.
Now while I'm of the school that defines the Church as including all Christians (although by Christians I mean Trinitarians), I can't help thinking that assuming that people are necessarily going to see the light because the word "includes" makes the idea automatically better.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
Wood,
On the issue of moral superiority, I would have thought 'inclusive' in this context clearly does rate higher. The judgements you are assuming, that the Trinity is a true representation of God, and that commitment to this representation infers some God-access status that should be denied to others, seem to me decidely inferior to those made for the inclusive communion approach. It's the only one to allow for the possibility that in fact God-ness resides in us all.
Anyone respectfully wishing to participate would I have thought be fully qualified. From God's point of view anyway.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
It's largely lingustics this isn't it?
The word inclusive sounds morally superior. the word "willy-nilly" if that is a word, sounds less so. Yet it is one way some would describe an "inclusive" approach to fellowship.
Similarly "exclusive" sounds bad, "discerning" less so.
Just because inclusion is the buzz word of today, it does not make it morally superior. There are times, I am sure, when it is morally superior to exclude people, and bring reproach on oneself.
[ 27. August 2004, 11:26: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
The judgements you are assuming, that the Trinity is a true representation of God, and that commitment to this representation infers some God-access status that should be denied to others...
But it's not my judgement. It's the historical definition of what makes one an Orthodox Christian (and by extension of what doesn't). It has been for an awfully long time.
And anyway, having read my posts, you are no doubt aware that I'm actually in favour of an open table for all those who respectfully wish to come and who can in good conscience say that they are Christians.
What I am saying is that while I may disagree with the closed table, I think it's daft to get upset about Catholics (f'rexample) holding an exclusive table, since it's a traditionally held view and they have very, very different beliefs about what makes a priest, why they should have a three-fold order, and what constitutes a communion. I might in my gut think these beliefs daft, but that's just me, and dammit, like Adeodatus said, it's a whole different culture which I will not impugn. To try and somehow force old-skool Catholics into giving up part of what makes them Catholic is a manifestation that same Star Trek liberal Western cultural imperialism thing, really. The same kind of of thinking that leads us to believe that you could slot a Western-style democracy into Iraq and it'll somehow work.
Another point: Leprechaun actually put it quite well just now - a lot of this is about language. One man's "inclusion" is another's "sacrilege"
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
It's largely lingustics this isn't it?
May be about inclusive/exclusive in general, but I don't think so here. If communion is essentially something like 'approaching God', and church is saying that some people are qualified but others are not, that I would say is a very real judgement.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I agree that there are occasions when inclusion is good, and occasions where exclusion is good.
The issue here is to what extent it is wise to practice inclusion / exclusion at communion.
Communion is clearly (at least symbolic of) a participation in / appropriation of Jesus' sacrifice of himself. (just look at all the OT eating sacrifices imagery, Jesus' use of sacrificial language, etc)
It therefore seems sensible to restrict communion to those people who at least claim to be participating in / appropriating Jesus' sacrifice (i.e. those who claim to be Christians).
I guess my reason for not wanting to restrict it further is that the fundamental thing that unites us as Christians, regardless of denomination, is Christ's sacrifice for us, which is what communion points back to.
If I were to restrict communion, that would then seem to send out the message "We can be part of what Jesus did on the cross because we can share communion together. You can't." Restricting communion therefore sends out the message that those you are preventing from having it are not saved by Jesus' death and resurrection.
I can see that certain groups do have reasons for restricting communion, I just can't see why those groups don't also share the symbolism I have outlined. Hope that makes sense and that my explanation of communion was sufficiently inclusive.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I think Lep got it in one.
The Church has been excluding people from communion from at least the time the Didache was written (130 AD?) because it says not to give communion to people who aren't baptised. I think the moral superiority of "inclusion" that Dave mentions is a cultural artefact and not a Christian virtue.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
I would go further than Mousethief and say that 'inclusiveness' and its misbegotten sibling 'tolerance' are distortions of the Gospel.
No Christian, Orthodox or otherwise, should exclude any other human being (indeed, any other created being) from God's love. I would be failing as a Christian if I treated somebody differently because they were of a different sex, age, race, religion, sexuality, lifestyle or whatever. I should welcome such people as if they were Christ Himself.
But, the Gospel makes demands on us. Some people are excluded from the Kingdom of God on various grounds. They exclude themselves by their failure to turn away from their particular sins, their unbelief. Even if communion is only personal and private communion with God, there are some people who should not receive it, lest they bring condemnation upon themselves. The Orthodox (and RC) view of communion is higher than this. Nobody has a right to communion, not even I, but there are conditions to reception which are as much for my protection as anything else. Communion is the Body and Blood of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Did not Uzzah perish because he touched the Ark of the Covenant (2 Sam 6:6-7)? Did not St Paul warn that this could happen with those who commune unworthily (1 Cor 11:27-30)?
If you disagree, perhaps we should start a new thread on 'inclusiveness' and give it a good going over.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If communion is essentially something like 'approaching God'...
That's a mighty big "if" though.
What if communion is also about being a member of a body of believers, or a means of expressing (for want of a better word) "oneness" with them?
While on one level I would consider myself "one" with all Christians, on other levels I am very different, because I believe different things (transubstantiation for example).
Therefore I wouldn't describe myself as fully "one" with those who believe differently, and thus wouldn't want to participate in an act which explicity says I am (namely communion).
Of course, another of the things I believe differently is that view of taking communion. But now that I realise that's how others see it (took me long enough, didn't it ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ), I have ceased having a problem with their refusal to let me join in with them.
I'd still appreciate it if one or two of them would phrase their objections less (again for want of a better word) arrogantly, but that's an argument about vocabulary, not theology.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
But it's not my judgement. It's the historical definition of what makes one an Orthodox Christian (and by extension of what doesn't). It has been for an awfully long time.
Well, yes if you believe the historical definition is incontrovertibly right. Outside of Christianity, simply looking at how best to think and talk about God the creator, key aspects of orthodox Christian understanding are decidedly up for grabs, so in terms of what 'church' says to 'the world' through communion the 'open to all who respectfully approach' option seems to me the only right one.
On the question of other traditions, I'm all for not giving unnecessary offence (even if I'm not very good at implementing it), but I think that's a different issue. There is a qualitive difference in some ultimate sense between not upsetting RCs or Orthodox and how church understands it's practices in relation to outsiders. If there is God-ness in all of us, and church celebrates communion at which some who are appropriately respectful are deemed not worthy, that to me is how religion gives God a bad name.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
I would go further than Mousethief and say that 'inclusiveness' and its misbegotten sibling 'tolerance' are distortions of the Gospel.
No Christian, Orthodox or otherwise, should exclude any other human being (indeed, any other created being) from God's love. I would be failing as a Christian if I treated somebody differently because they were of a different sex, age, race, religion, sexuality, lifestyle or whatever. I should welcome such people as if they were Christ Himself.
But, the Gospel makes demands on us. Some people are excluded from the Kingdom of God on various grounds. They exclude themselves by their failure to turn away from their particular sins, their unbelief. Even if communion is only personal and private communion with God, there are some people who should not receive it, lest they bring condemnation upon themselves. The Orthodox (and RC) view of communion is higher than this. Nobody has a right to communion, not even I, but there are conditions to reception which are as much for my protection as anything else. Communion is the Body and Blood of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Did not Uzzah perish because he touched the Ark of the Covenant (2 Sam 6:6-7)? Did not St Paul warn that this could happen with those who commune unworthily (1 Cor 11:27-30)?
If you disagree, perhaps we should start a new thread on 'inclusiveness' and give it a good going over.
I totally agree Isaac, but don't see how that affects my point above.
You missed out several references to people who were struck dead for worshipping the right God (or so they thought) in the wrong way. On the other hand, maybe they would have been, like this comment, superfluous.
[ 27. August 2004, 13:40: 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
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
But it's not my judgement. It's the historical definition of what makes one an Orthodox Christian (and by extension of what doesn't). It has been for an awfully long time.
Well, yes if you believe the historical definition is incontrovertibly right.
It might not be.
But say I were to decide that it isn't right and abandon Trinitarian orthodoxy. If I did that, maybe I'd be right to do so in all conscience... but if I were to remain in good conscience, I couldn't call myself a Christian anymore, since I would have become part of what was functionally a different religion.
I'm really not being clear here. I'll try and put it a different way. Maybe Trinitarian orthodoxy is wrong. But it is central to Christianity, in terms of it as the label and the doctrinal standpoint. The label "Christian" became inextricably linked with Nicene and Trinitarian orthodoxy a long, long time ago. It's where Christians have drawn the line since, well, Nicaea. Maybe I can still be a follower of Christ if I don't buy Trinitarianism, but I can't get away with using the term "Christian" to describe myself, since that's part of the label. If I gave up on the Trinity, I'd have to call my religion something else, no matter how much better or how much more right this new religion actually might be.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If there is God-ness in all of us, and church celebrates communion at which some who are appropriately respectful are deemed not worthy, that to me is how religion gives God a bad name.
In the Orthodox Church, Dave, we understand that there is indeed God-ness in every single human being -- you, me, the nice lady across the street, the homeless guy, the Unabomber, everyone. We are all made in the image and likeness of God, and that understanding is reflected in our worship: when the deacon censes the icons and other holy things in the nave, he censes the people, too. All of them.
Now, that imagery might not mean much to folks these days, since the burning of incense isn't part of what lots of folks do. But it still means to us what it always has -- it means a recognition of the divine, of the holy. So our recognition of the image of God in you is there. It's clear. It's part of what we do every time we worship.
Whether you can take communion or not does NOT depend on whether you are worthy or not. It might in your tradition, in your culture, in your mind. Not in ours. In our tradition, absolutely no one is worthy to partake of the Holy Mysteries. Period. End of story.
You don't partake because you are worthy. You partake because you have prepared yourself. It's not something that every Orthodox Christian does every time we attend Divine Liturgy. It's just not that way for us. We have to prepare for it.
There are lots of reasons we have to prepare, and we could go into them if you want to. But the bottom line is, wanting to receive, and being reverent in your reception, isn't the same thing as being prepared.
To be prepared, you have to have been baptized and chrismated in the Orthodox Church, you have to have fasted from meat, dairy, fish, oil and wine on Wednesday and Friday in the week preceding your reception, you have to have fasted from everything from midnight before your reception, you have to have received the sacrament of confession recently (how recently being worked out between you and your priest), and you have to be in a spiritual state appropriate for taking it. I know plenty of people who won't receive if they've yelled at their kids that morning as they're getting ready for Church. For them, that's an indicator, not that they're not worthy (again, none of us are), but that they're not prepared. Others have other indicators, again, usually worked out between themselves and their priest.
As Martin and others have pointed out, the Eucharist doesn't mean the same thing to us as it does to you. It is not a celebration of the God-ness in all of us. We celebrate that in every service we have, in the censing of the people. It is not a remembrance of our Lord's death on the Cross. That's something we commemorate mostly in our Friday prayers and hymns, and you're more than welcome to join us in that. It isn't an attempt to say who's worthy and who's not. None of us are. But we don't just say that, we bring you a piece of blessed bread if you are not partaking of the Holy Mysteries.
If you still feel insulted or excluded, all I can say is, I'm sorry. But, well, it's like the foreign exchange student who went to my high school one year. She was gorgeous, and lots of boys asked her out on dates. She wouldn't go without a chaperone. That confused the American boys no end, and upset some of them. But it wasn't about them. It was about her understanding of herself and what was appropriate for her. She honestly regretted any hurt feelings. But she still didn't go out on solo dates.
And we honestly regret any hurt feelings. But we can't do things differently. I'm sorry.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
I think we're pretty firmly in DH territory here, but I'll blunder on and say something I've said in the past:
If non-Catholic can attend a Roman Catholic Mass and, after listening carefully to the Eucharistic Prayer (including the part where we pray for John Paul, our Pope), can honestly say "Amen," and are not conscious of being in a state of mortal sin, then they should feel free to receive communion.
But this then would raise a further question. Since the Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Rite embody the Catholic understanding of the Church, if you can say Amen to that, then it would seem that one ought to become a Roman Catholic.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I think we're pretty firmly in DH territory here...
Actually, when we talk about communion and closed tables, we are in the territory of DH. Whe we talk about defining where we set our boundary line for the "Church", we aren't.
But there's a crossover. It's not hugely clear sometimes.
quote:
If non-Catholic can attend a Roman Catholic Mass and, after listening carefully to the Eucharistic Prayer (including the part where we pray for John Paul, our Pope), can honestly say "Amen," and are not conscious of being in a state of mortal sin, then they should feel free to receive communion.
But this then would raise a further question. Since the Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Rite embody the Catholic understanding of the Church, if you can say Amen to that, then it would seem that one ought to become a Roman Catholic.
It is a fair point, though, and a good one.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
It's largely lingustics this isn't it?
Well, some of us are talking about how we use words, and whether using terms like "One True Church" is needlessly offensive, or something that we all do that none of us, therefore, should complain about.
And others are flogging the dead horse of inter-communion.
With the connection being that some feel that it is the meanings that the excluded put on their exclusion which are hurtful, rather than exclusion as such, and that such meanings may not be intended by those doing (or condoning) the excluding.
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The word inclusive sounds morally superior.
Considering other people rather than not giving a tuppenny damn for what they think or feel is usually considered a more moral approach to life. But I'd agree that if, having considered everyone's views and everyone's interests, one reached the conclusion that a "closed table" policy was best, that would not of itself be morally inferior to the act of reaching the opposite conclusion.
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Dear Custard quote:
I totally agree Isaac, but don't see how that affects my point above.
I think josephine fleshes out what I'm saying, especially in terms of the Orthodox higher view of communion, and answers your point quite eloquently.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eanswyth
Ship's raven
# 3363
|
Posted
After reading Isaac David's and Josephine's posts, another piece of the puzzle fit into my mind.
Growing up RC, I saw the preparations for Communion (fasting that morning, Confession) as just the rules on How It's Done. Them's The Rules.
Isaac David said:
quote:
Nobody has a right to communion, not even I, but there are conditions to reception which are as much for my protection as anything else. Communion is the Body and Blood of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Did not Uzzah perish because he touched the Ark of the Covenant (2 Sam 6:6-7)? Did not St Paul warn that this could happen with those who commune unworthily (1 Cor 11:27-30)?
and Josephine said:
quote:
To be prepared, you have to have been baptized and chrismated in the Orthodox Church, you have to have fasted from meat, dairy, fish, oil and wine on Wednesday and Friday in the week preceding your reception, you have to have fasted from everything from midnight before your reception, you have to have received the sacrament of confession recently (how recently being worked out between you and your priest), and you have to be in a spiritual state appropriate for taking it. I know plenty of people who won't receive if they've yelled at their kids that morning as they're getting ready for Church. For them, that's an indicator, not that they're not worthy (again, none of us are), but that they're not prepared. Others have other indicators, again, usually worked out between themselves and their priest.
So before you can take the Body and Blood of the Most Holy God into your body, it is necessary that you be prepared, spiritually, mentally, and emotionally, to receive that powerful Gift. Have I got that right?
Posts: 1323 | From: San Diego | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eanswyth:
So before you can take the Body and Blood of the Most Holy God into your body, it is necessary that you be prepared, spiritually, mentally, and emotionally, to receive that powerful Gift. Have I got that right?
Yes, absolutely.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
Wood,
I've no disagreement about what defines orthodox Christianity, only about whether the Trinity is a true representation of God. If this is not incontrovertibly true (I no longer believe it), and a church's view of communion can be reasonably approximated to 'approaching God', I'm suggesting that by not welcoming all who respectfully come forward for communion, that church is saying to outsiders something that does not reflect what God is like.
Mousethief / Isaac David,
Orthodoxy has a different understanding of Church and Communion to that in my old tradition. I understand that. I just don't share it. For me God's approach to creation relies on the principle of us opting in to what he's about, growing into his image in an organic way that adapts perfectly to what's best for each us. I can't think of anything less cultural, less distorting, or more inclusive.
josephine,
I don't feel insulted or excluded by Orthodoxy - honest. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I do not comprehend why you have chosen to commit to God in this way, but we're all different. I find it hard to recognise my understanding of God in your church, I see rocks and hard places that for me would be an obstacle course, but that for you I guess is a framework.
My bottom line in terms of how I see obligations to God (although he never seems to present them as such) would be along the lines of loving truth, doing what's right, and walking humbly where he leads. Is that so far from where you are?
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Wood,
I've no disagreement about what defines orthodox Christianity, only about whether the Trinity is a true representation of God. If this is not incontrovertibly true (I no longer believe it), and a church's view of communion can be reasonably approximated to 'approaching God', I'm suggesting that by not welcoming all who respectfully come forward for communion, that church is saying to outsiders something that does not reflect what God is like.
Even if Communion can be boiled down to "approaching God" (not the impression I got), if you're not no longer approaching the same God that everyone else is, isn't that unfair on everyone else? Not to mention the people officiating?
Or at least in a church where it matters. In my church, the deal is you get to come up and partake if you feel you can in good conscience - it's up to you. I have no doubt that you'd be allowed to do so, no questions asked. But then, it means something a bit different in my church to what it does in Josephine's.
I said this before, but you seem to be imposing your idea of what Communion is onto a Church whose take on it is foreign to you. Can I ask you this: would you walk into the middle of a mosque with your shoes on?
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Whether you can take communion or not does NOT depend on whether you are worthy or not. It might in your tradition, in your culture, in your mind. Not in ours. In our tradition, absolutely no one is worthy to partake of the Holy Mysteries. Period. End of story.
Absolutely agreed.
quote:
You don't partake because you are worthy. You partake because you have prepared yourself. It's not something that every Orthodox Christian does every time we attend Divine Liturgy. It's just not that way for us. We have to prepare for it.
There are lots of reasons we have to prepare, and we could go into them if you want to. But the bottom line is, wanting to receive, and being reverent in your reception, isn't the same thing as being prepared.
To be prepared, you have to have been baptized and chrismated in the Orthodox Church, you have to have fasted from meat, dairy, fish, oil and wine on Wednesday and Friday in the week preceding your reception, you have to have fasted from everything from midnight before your reception, you have to have received the sacrament of confession recently (how recently being worked out between you and your priest), and you have to be in a spiritual state appropriate for taking it. I know plenty of people who won't receive if they've yelled at their kids that morning as they're getting ready for Church. For them, that's an indicator, not that they're not worthy (again, none of us are), but that they're not prepared. Others have other indicators, again, usually worked out between themselves and their priest.
Thank you - that was very helpful and makes sense. We also agree that preparation is useful, particularly when it comes to communion (Mt 5:22, 1 Co 11:28f).
Let me just try and paraphrase it to see if I've got it right:
Because of your view of the nature of the church, you would not allow a non-Orthodox Christian to participate in communion before first being reconciled to the historic structure of the visible church (i.e. becoming Orthodox).
That makes sense.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Wood:
you seem to be imposing your idea of what Communion is onto a Church whose take on it is foreign to you. Can I ask you this: would you walk into the middle of a mosque with your shoes on?
That's not what I'm doing (intentionally anyway), or what I would want to do. As an outsider that's none of my business. But you implied that GoldenKey's preference for an inclusive communion was based on a false claim that 'inclusive' was morally superior in this context. I don't think it is a false claim (if in fact one was being made) and I'm trying to explain why.
If morality is about values not derived from religious belief, and if by God we mean the creator of the universe, then if church defines a ritual it claims provides some kind of 'access to God' available only to those with certain beliefs, the implication that 'exclusive' is justified seems to me to score lower on some morality scale than a similar 'open access' ritual.
The 'open access' (inclusive) version allows for the possibility that a different representation of God (which may be closer to the truth, we cannot objectively know) might show the church's conditions for access to be nonsense. 'Inclusive' will therefore acknowledge the distinction between 'fact' (God the creator) and 'belief' (say, orthodox Christianity) and would in my view be morally 'better'.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
originally posted by Wood:
you seem to be imposing your idea of what Communion is onto a Church whose take on it is foreign to you. Can I ask you this: would you walk into the middle of a mosque with your shoes on?
That's not what I'm doing (intentionally anyway), or what I would want to do.
And yet... You so utterly are. Can't you see that?
quote:
As an outsider that's none of my business. But you implied that GoldenKey's preference for an inclusive communion was based on a false claim that 'inclusive' was morally superior in this context. I don't think it is a false claim (if in fact one was being made) and I'm trying to explain why.
Actually, no. My problem with Golden Key's (and your) apparent belief that "inclusive" is morally superior came from the way you've posted - you each gave the distinct impression that it's morally superior simply because, well it just is. Because it obviously is. Because you say so. End of story.
This last post of yours is the first indication you've given that there's actually more to what you think than that.
quote:
If morality is about values not derived from religious belief, and if by God we mean the creator of the universe, then if church defines a ritual it claims provides some kind of 'access to God' available only to those with certain beliefs, the implication that 'exclusive' is justified seems to me to score lower on some morality scale than a similar 'open access' ritual.
I'm still not sure where you're getting this "access to God" thing from. It does no such thing. In a Protestant Church, the Communion is a symbolic affirmation of our brotherhood as believers and friends with each other and a corporate symbolic re-enactment of Christ's death and resurrection. For us, it's not about any extra "access" to God; we believe that we have that through the simple action of living. For us, it's about us declaring who we are to each other and with each other.
For my Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters (and if I'm wrong, please help me out here - I'm trying to defend your corner and it would nice to have some acknowledgement that I exist) it's not about belief at all, but the grace of God. You seem to have confused two issues, my own about where I define "Christian" (ie as Trinitarian, just like all the other Christians throughout history) and the Catholic and Orthodox posters, who are making a justification as to why they don't let anyone take communion in their churches, just like every other Catholic and Orthodox Christian ever.
quote:
The 'open access' (inclusive) version allows for the possibility that a different representation of God (which may be closer to the truth, we cannot objectively know) might show the church's conditions for access to be nonsense. 'Inclusive' will therefore acknowledge the distinction between 'fact' (God the creator) and 'belief' (say, orthodox Christianity) and would in my view be morally 'better'.
But you can't know. You just said so. Again, there's that spiritual cultural imperialism thing happening here. I feel I have to return to my analogy here, but it's like getting all offended because they won't let you go into a mosque with your shoes on, because your feet are cold and smelly. So it's wrong. Which is a stupid analogy, really, but it gets across just how ridiculous the objection is.
Are you really trying to tell someone of a different Church/denomination/religion that they're wrong because they won't let you take part in their rituals because you're not a member, and that's not fair? Because frankly, that's what it boils down to. If you don't like the idea of being excluded from a Catholic Communion, don't try and take Communion in a Catholic church, because refusal often offends.
[ 28. August 2004, 14:47: Message edited by: Wood ]
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
Wood, happy to acknowledge your contribution. And I think your points are excellent.
John Howard Yoder once observed that liberals are willing to tolerate anyone, so long as they share the liberal ideal of tolerance.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
My problem with Golden Key's (and your) apparent belief that "inclusive" is morally superior came from the way you've posted - you each gave the distinct impression that it's morally superior simply because, well it just is. Because it obviously is. Because you say so. End of story.
Er, not quite. I gave what I thought was a reasonable explanation. You even go so far as to acknowledge it indicates there's actually more to what I think than that:
quote:
This last post of yours is the first indication you've given that there's actually more to what you think than that.
You've latched on to this communion thing, but that was only ever a context. Now you're picking up on communion again as if I've not made clear I'm not disagreeing with you about that.
It's only your implication that in the context of communion (or something similar), inclusive and exclusive are morally equivalent from a non-Christian's point of view that I'm picking up. I disagree. I've had a go at saying why. You've agreed my explanation is more than 'just because I say so'. Not sure what more I can say really.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
John Howard Yoder once observed that liberals are willing to tolerate anyone, so long as they share the liberal ideal of tolerance.
I can't speak for liberals, of course, but I do feel that respect for the capacity to know God outside of Christianity is something churches do well to aspire to.
[ 28. August 2004, 15:45: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
My problem with Golden Key's (and your) apparent belief that "inclusive" is morally superior came from the way you've posted - you each gave the distinct impression that it's morally superior simply because, well it just is. Because it obviously is. Because you say so. End of story.
Er, not quite. I gave what I thought was a reasonable explanation. You even go so far as to acknowledge it indicates there's actually more to what I think than that:
quote:
This last post of yours is the first indication you've given that there's actually more to what you think than that.
Oh, for crying out loud, that's what I was saying! You had hitherto given no impression of having any depth to your opinion, but finally gave some explanation in the post to which I responded.
quote:
You've latched on to this communion thing, but that was only ever a context. Now you're picking up on communion again as if I've not made clear I'm not disagreeing with you about that.
Um, how are you not disagreeing with me about that?
And besides, if it's not about communion, then I really am finding it hard to see what your problem is.
Let's try this again. All I said was that I defined the Church as Trinitarian, because that's how Christians had always done it, and because it had become so inextricably linked with the label that to call yourself something else would be to lose the name "Christian" and find yourself another religion.
quote:
It's only your implication that in the context of communion (or something similar), inclusive and exclusive are morally equivalent from a non-Christian's point of view that I'm picking up. I disagree. I've had a go at saying why. You've agreed my explanation is more than 'just because I say so'. Not sure what more I can say really.
Yes, and I recognised that you got further than that, and I pointed out that that's stupid, since it was kind of like you demanding to walk into a mosqu with your shoes on and complaining about it when this was denied to you. Ball's still in your court.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Wood:
if it's not about communion, then I really am finding it hard to see what your problem is...
Church is organising a get together to which God is invited. Church thinks, "Ah, God's coming, who do we send invites to?".
Mr Exclusive says, "Well it's got to be church members only, otherwise God won't be able to come".
Mr Inclusive replies, "We don't know if all God's people are members, or if all members are God's people. We'd better make it an open invite to God's people and trust no pretenders turn up."
God turns up on the night and is chatting to church. "How did you decide who to invite?" he asks. "We couldn't decide whether to go with Mr Exclusive or Mr Inclusive so we compromised and only invited members who are God's people", says church. God laughs out loud. "I'd have come anyway, you idiots!", he roared. Church was extremely embarrassed, but God said no more about it and a merry time was had by all.
Up in the roof listening to the conversation are two owls. "What did you make of the invitations?", says one as everyone is clearing up. "Well", says the other, "church made a complete hash of it, but God popped out for a bit. The landlord at the Dog and Duck reckons he was in there having a right old laugh."
"But what about the invitation ideas," says the first owl, "both as bad as one another?". "No," says the second, "neither did well, but Inclusive was closer to getting it right". "Hmmm", says the first, "that's not what Wood said".
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
Dave, I really do have no idea whatsoever what you're banging on about.
Name a church group composed of sane Christians which bans outsider from coming to its services. I can't think of one.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Church is organising a get together to which God is invited. Church thinks, "Ah, God's coming, who do we send invites to?".
Dave, if I were the Empress of Mousylvania, and I said, "anyone who wants to be a citizen of Mousylvania can be so -- all you have to do is move here, take an oath of citizenship, and vote regularly." If you said, "I don't want to move, I don't want to take an oath of citizenship, and I don't want to vote. You are so exclusive." Would that make sense?
And if I said, "You're welcome to visit Mousylvania whenever you please. But only citizens may vote," if you responded by saying, "But I want to visit and I want to vote. How dare you not let me vote! You're being exclusive!" would that make sense?
I understand that there are countries that decide that tourists, who have not chosen to be citizens, and didn't know that they might be considered citizens, are citizens after all, and conscript them into the military and such as that. As Empress of Mousylvania, I've decided that such a policy would be an offense against others. Is that really exclusivist?
If you want to be a member of the Orthodox Church, you are more than welcome to become a member. If you have no interest in being a member, but want to be a visitor, you are more than welcome to visit.
What you can't do is be a visitor and do those things that are reserved to members. It's like a tourist wanting to exercise the rights of citizens.
I'm really not sure what your difficulty is. I'm serious -- I really don't understand it. You don't want to be an Orthodox Christian. Why should we act like you are one, when you've chosen not to be one? We're not keeping you out. We are not excluding you. We're respecting your choice. What's wrong with that?
(P.S. to Wood -- I have indeed noticed your posts; haven't responded to you because you've been explaining the OC POV so accurately and eloquently. Thank you!)
[ 28. August 2004, 18:53: Message edited by: josephine ]
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Josephine - exceptionally well put ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
GK: I think that you're holding the assumption that including all Christians is somehow morally superior to not including all Christians, and that it's better because it's inclusive.
Now while I'm of the school that defines the Church as including all Christians (although by Christians I mean Trinitarians), I can't help thinking that assuming that people are necessarily going to see the light because the word "includes" makes the idea automatically better.
Hi Wood. Sorry for the delay; thinking through a response.
Per the OP, Grey Face was asking about how inclusive we are, especially those of us who believe in open communion.
quote:
We all, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) draw boundaries according to some minimum standard of doctrine. Ask yourself how many of this unordered list of groups you would place within the One True Church (aside from questions of which individuals God will save - that's another issue), and answer honestly...
[snip]
Did you have them all in? If you did, you can leave this thought experiment because when I accuse some of hypocrisy in a moment, you're not in the firing line
Now, if you've excluded someone definitionally from the Church on the basis of doctrine, what right have you to whine if the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox or the fire-and-brimstone hyperprotestants do the same thing?
I was answering in the context of what Grey Face said. And, in my later responses, answering the charge of hypocrisy.
I stated my reasoning in my first post, on pg. 2.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Dave, I really do have no idea whatsoever what you're banging on about.
It's a story, Wood, like in the Bible. You have to work out the meaning. (Clue: it's in the last paragraph.)
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Dave, if I were the Empress of Mousylvania, and I said, "anyone who wants to be a citizen of Mousylvania can be so...
Josephine, the story was purely for Wood's benefit. No allusions to or connections with Mousylvania were stated or intended. It's just a little invention about God and some mythical church to provide a context, with a touch of my clearly incomprehensible sense of humour, for the final paragraph, the bit that explains what I've been on about to Wood. Sorry for any offence.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
Please don't patronise me. I understood the story; I just failed to see what the hell it had to do with anything, including the price of Bibles.
Being obtuse is not normally guaranteed to make one well-disposed towards you.
Look. I've had a bad day. I've been in the office today, pretty much all day, doing a contract with a tight deadline. Which is why I've been online. If I'm a little irritable, I hope you will understand and accept my apologies; however, lame "jokes" (I was reminded of a similar non-sequitur posted long ago by pagan nutter Alcuin) are not going to help my mood.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
[cross-post with Wood]
But this discussion isn't about God, Dave, it's about Churches. Which are equivalent to Mousylvania.
But speaking of God: while I quite agree that He probably popped over to the pub and had a laugh with the barkeep, wasn't He also equally there with Mr Exclusive and Mr Inclusive? Fully feeling their distress?
Your ending to the story isn't the only possible one.
[ 29. August 2004, 00:28: Message edited by: jlg ]
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
Apologies for that last post. I got a bit riled there.
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
[cross-post with Wood]
But this discussion isn't about God, Dave, it's about Churches. Which are equivalent to Mousylvania.
But speaking of God: while I quite agree that He probably popped over to the pub and had a laugh with the barkeep, wasn't He also equally there with Mr Exclusive and Mr Inclusive? Fully feeling their distress?
Your ending to the story isn't the only possible one.
What jlg said.
All your little story did (apart from drop a total non-sequitur) was confirm the charge of cultural/spiritual imperialism in my mind, really.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
Wood, sorry about that. It's my day off, I had put a bit of thought into some of those posts, and I was getting a little cheesed off not being able to make myself understood.
jlg, the story was only about the last paragraph. The rest is just my padding and an attempt (clearly badly targetted) at humour. The real God, not the cardboard cutout in the story, would clearly have been in all locations all of the time.
Note, however, that although church chose the worst possible compromise invitation strategy, God did not leave in a huff or make a big thing out of going to the pub. I don't think church even knew he'd been out.
As for the ending, if God had in fact been one to not turn up unless only God's people were present, church's choice would have been the correct one. So, as you say, with a different God my story would have been totally meaningless.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
As for the ending, if God had in fact been one to not turn up unless only God's people were present, church's choice would have been the correct one. So, as you say, with a different God my story would have been totally meaningless.
Apparently I'm dense as a rock, then. I don't see your point at all. Yes, of course God shows up, no matter who is present. What does that have to do with how one defines church?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
As for the ending, if God had in fact been one to not turn up unless only God's people were present, church's choice would have been the correct one. So, as you say, with a different God my story would have been totally meaningless.
[...] I don't see your point at all. Yes, of course God shows up, no matter who is present. What does that have to do with how one defines church?
That's the point. Nothing. The owls (who make my point in the story) are disinterested observers commenting on whether Mr E or Mr I were closer to G's preference. My original post was about something one step removed from church, a question of morality raised by Wood:
quote:
GK: I think that you're holding the assumption that including all Christians is somehow morally superior to not including all Christians, and that it's better because it's inclusive.
If God is inclusive, then church taking a similar line (ie. one closer to church as God's body on earth) seems somehow 'better' morally (ie. closer to the truth). Wood implies this is not so.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
