|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Legalism: can anyone be free from it?
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ruudy:
In a reactionary sort of way the words "quiet time" would evoke rancid charges of "the Law", "legalism", and the like.
Precisely.
Whereas, if we had a clue, we'd probably say something like
"Now, I can't speak for God, but it seems to me that He created us to enjoy communicating with Him and and many people have found it useful to make this attempt early each day.
And it's been my experience that if I am able to recognize that it's not an obligation but an opportunity to learn more about God and to develop my relationship with Him, the discipline of spending some time each day recognizing His desire to communicate with me is immensely useful and helpful in my life.
Worm that I am."
Boy, I really appreciate SOF for providing me a venue to meet with other recalcitrant people like myself.
Not that Ruudy is. How would I know?
[UBB beautification]
[ 31. December 2003, 00:14: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Charis, if I thought that the Church was a human institution I would agree with you. It is, however, a divine institution (in the sense that it was established by our Lord and is guaranteed by Him) with human and divine members..."Christ is the head of the body, the Church".
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
Bingo
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ruudy:
Individually, I am a poor judge of God's will in my life.
As some might say: "God and I alone have gotten into some pretty bad scrapes. God and I and my priest never have."
I recognize the value of counsel but but I think you are in fact the best judge of what God would have you do.
And I'd make the distinction that priests are on the same level as anyone you recognize as someone who helps you be accountable, except there's a tendency to think they have a more direct line to God because they've gone through some humanly originated protocol.
Overall I think we agree.
[UBB beautification]
[ 31. December 2003, 00:13: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion: Charis, if I thought that the Church was a human institution I would agree with you. It is, however, a divine institution (in the sense that it was established by our Lord and is guaranteed by Him) with human and divine members..."Christ is the head of the body, the Church".
I also believe the Church is a divine institution established by Jesus.
However, I can't say with any certainty which particular church is the precise one He put in place.
Please provide the method by which you identify it. TIA.
[More UBB beautification]
[ 31. December 2003, 00:15: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
quote:
Sin is a piece of candy that Christians don't get to taste
I've never heard it said better.
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
quote:
Charis writes:
I recognize the value of counsel but but I think you are in fact the best judge of what God would have you do.
It depends on 1) how bad a judge I actually am, and 2) what the alternatives are.
With regard to 1) - Lord, if you only knew!
With regard to 2) - If my options were limited to those I had experienced up until a few a years ago, I might have been forced to agree that I as an individual am the least worst alternative. Fortunately, from an examination of Church history and conversations with others, I am coming to believe that there is an authority that is much greater than any individual interpretation of scripture, that it has an earthly organizational manifestation, and that I can trust it.
I no longer have to believe the Serpent's accusation that all (including the earthly institutional part of the Church) is a construct designed to keep me from what would taste good.
[More UBB beautification]
[ 31. December 2003, 00:17: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ruudy:
It depends on 1) how bad a judge I actually am, and 2) what the alternatives are.
Arguably the least bad judge, which is no small thing.
quote:
Fortunately, from an examination of Church history and conversations with others, I am coming to believe that there is an authority that is much greater than any individual interpretation of scripture, that it has an earthly organizational manifestation, and that I can trust it.
Any qualifications on the trusting part?
quote:
I no longer have to believe the Serpent's accusation that all (including the earthly institutional part of the Church) is a construct designed to keep me from what would taste good.
Well, OK. The Serpent never said that to me.
[More UBB beautification. Do check out the "Practice your UBB here" thread in the Styx. quote:
Bold
helps quotes stand out as quotes]
[ 31. December 2003, 00:23: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
Once upon a time, long ago in the 1960's, there were these young people who didn't like how things were being done around them by older people. There wasn't enough humanity, enough love, enough sharing, enough human connection in their world and they felt this was bad.
The world they lived in was all about rules and rights and people getting their hands on more power and money. It all seemed to be proof that society exists in order to preserve positions of priviledge for certain people.
There were a lot of rules these young people didn't like in society. Many of them weren't even real laws, but were treated as if they were. Things like how long people's hair should be, how they should talk, how they should dress, what they should be allowed to believe, all of this bothered them.
They decided to go off on their own and do things in a new way. A better way. The older people told them "Who are you to do this? You can't do that! It won't work! It's a Bad Idea!" These young people tried to do it anyway. If men weren't supposed to have long hair, their men had long hair. If women were supposed to wear bras, they didn't wear any. Whether there was more loving, caring, sharing and human connection resulting from a permanent, internal change in the spirits of the people will be seen later by how they dealt with getting older themselves.
A lot of young people were just along for the ride. A lot of people just wanted to smoke a lot of pot and have a lot of sex and in other ways live free of the stringent rules and expectations they felt they were now no longer under the power of. "Do as thou wilt is the full extent of the law" became a popular credo again (originally coined by that lapsed Plymouth Brethren Christian, Aleister Crowley.) For these people, this was like a nice vacation from the structure they eventually rejoined with.
Thing is, many people wanted much more freedom and much LESS responsibility to do good with that freedom. That never works. Freedom is a kind of power to choose, and with great power comes great responsibility, as Peter Parker, reknowned wall-crawler could tell you.
As often happens, they tried it out whole-heartedly for a while, it didn't seem to be working out how they thought, they sounded like a Cheech and Chong routine, fighting over balongna in the same way they would soon fight over money and power and positions of priviledge, so they gave up, lived a lot more like their parents than they'd ever have imagined possible, and forever after told young people who wanted to live differently "Who are you to do this? You can't do that! It won't work! It's a Bad Idea!"
Now they had a special new bit of their own to tack on the end. It was: "I know. Take it from me. I've been there and tried that, and I couldn't make it work out the way I wanted it to, and I'm sure you'll find neither can you. Don't fight the system. BE the system."
The moral of this story is that humans like to err on both sides of most questions and then give up and pretend that nothing works. Legality is one error, just as using liberty as a license to sin is another. Doing both at different times in one's life is typical.
God forgives a lot of things. We don't need to live lives of quiet, careful desperation. We don't need other people to tell us who God is, but maybe they can help us remember to look to Him.
There are Christians who are here to help us, from hundreds of churches all claiming to be in some special position of Divine Stamp of Approval-ship. Many of them are obviously (to judge by the elabourateness of their places of worship and the number of people doing what they're told) getting their hands on an awful lot of power and money. Best of all, they like to hold a position of priviledge. Being "God's Favourites" makes them very happy. How nice for them.
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
that wikkid person said:
Many of them are obviously (to judge by the elabourateness of their places of worship and the number of people doing what they're told) getting their hands on an awful lot of power and money. Best of all, they like to hold a position of priviledge. Being "God's Favourites" makes them very happy. How nice for them.
Shudder.
God keep us from human approbation.
[UBB]
[ 31. December 2003, 00:24: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
Ah, but I am God's Favorite.
Love Transcendant whirled itself into a speck of mass
and measured time and cried and pooped its Palestinian nappy
and grew and lived with His hands on wood
and died with His hands on wood
and exploded the chains that held me dirty and naked and helpless
when that stone was rolled away...
You are God's Favorite, too. You yourself.
At the last it's a crowd, a cloud, of us favorites who will take the bride's position in the wedding. That is the Church, that throng, guys.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine: Ah, but I am God's Favorite.
Proven incorrect by not placing "u" in favorite. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:
You are God's Favorite, too. You yourself.
I know, I know, but it's figuring out how to balance it against knowing that what you do just doesn't jive with that.
It's all so complicated...
[UBB]
[ 31. December 2003, 00:26: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
Dear Charis, you ask:
quote:
Any qualifications on the trusting part?
Yes, certainly. Note that I wrote "coming to believe". This is a process, not a binary deal. Trust grows.
I do not consider infallible any individual, particular congregation, or any church in its entirety at a particular time. But I am convinced that my salvation will occur over time within a community and that I must commit myself among those in whom I see the fullest manifestation of Christ.
quote:
Well, OK. The Serpent never said that to me.
Apparently he didn't have to. I infer that you are saying it yourself. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
[Fixed UBB. As I said to Charis, bold makes quotes stand out.]
[ 31. December 2003, 00:28: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
Once upon a time, long ago in the 1960's, there were these young people who didn't like how things were being done around them by older people. There wasn't enough humanity, enough love, enough sharing, enough human connection in their world and they felt this was bad.
The world they lived in was all about rules and rights and people getting their hands on more power and money. It all seemed to be proof that society exists in order to preserve positions of priviledge for certain people.
There were a lot of rules these young people didn't like in society. Many of them weren't even real laws, but were treated as if they were. Things like how long people's hair should be, how they should talk, how they should dress, what they should be allowed to believe, all of this bothered them.
They decided to go off on their own and do things in a new way. A better way. The older people told them "Who are you to do this? You can't do that! It won't work! It's a Bad Idea!" These young people tried to do it anyway. If men weren't supposed to have long hair, their men had long hair. If women were supposed to wear bras, they didn't wear any. Whether there was more loving, caring, sharing and human connection resulting from a permanent, internal change in the spirits of the people will be seen later by how they dealt with getting older themselves.
A lot of young people were just along for the ride. A lot of people just wanted to smoke a lot of pot and have a lot of sex and in other ways live free of the stringent rules and expectations they felt they were now no longer under the power of. "Do as thou wilt is the full extent of the law" became a popular credo again (originally coined by that lapsed Plymouth Brethren Christian, Aleister Crowley.) For these people, this was like a nice vacation from the structure they eventually rejoined with.
Thing is, many people wanted much more freedom and much LESS responsibility to do good with that freedom. That never works. Freedom is a kind of power to choose, and with great power comes great responsibility, as Peter Parker, reknowned wall-crawler could tell you.
As often happens, they tried it out whole-heartedly for a while, it didn't seem to be working out how they thought, they sounded like a Cheech and Chong routine, fighting over balongna in the same way they would soon fight over money and power and positions of priviledge, so they gave up, lived a lot more like their parents than they'd ever have imagined possible, and forever after told young people who wanted to live differently "Who are you to do this? You can't do that! It won't work! It's a Bad Idea!"
Now they had a special new bit of their own to tack on the end. It was: "I know. Take it from me. I've been there and tried that, and I couldn't make it work out the way I wanted it to, and I'm sure you'll find neither can you. Don't fight the system. BE the system."
The moral of this story is that humans like to err on both sides of most questions and then give up and pretend that nothing works. Legality is one error, just as using liberty as a license to sin is another. Doing both at different times in one's life is typical.
God forgives a lot of things. We don't need to live lives of quiet, careful desperation. We don't need other people to tell us who God is, but maybe they can help us remember to look to Him.
There are Christians who are here to help us, from hundreds of churches all claiming to be in some special position of Divine Stamp of Approval-ship. Many of them are obviously (to judge by the elabourateness of their places of worship and the number of people doing what they're told) getting their hands on an awful lot of power and money. Best of all, they like to hold a position of priviledge. Being "God's Favourites" makes them very happy. How nice for them.
Wow Wikked Person. You told a little bit about your personal experience to demonstrate why you disliked legalism and later I told a little bit about my personal experience to explain why a little bit of legalism has been a good thing for me.
The next thing I know you've taken my sketchy bits of information and developed and exaggerated them into a story of a totally phoney, lascivious, drug using woman who has sold out her principles for money and power and goes around telling other people how to live. None of that is true. I'm just expressing what has and hasn't worked for me and my friends. I have never told anyone how to live or whether or not their actions were wrong or right. You have absolutely no right to make these judgements about me.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
Sorry, should have clarified: The parable is about your generation, not you in particular.
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
Sasha, if it's any consolation, I really appreciated your thoughtful contribution to the thread. Wikkid Person's use of your story struck me as rude. It is one thing to parody an institution when parody is the only voice available, it is another to parody a person's personal story without regard for their welfare. I felt it reflected on you in no way at all.
*intercom announcement voice*
We are glad you left the Brethren, Michael. You can stop using parody now. You're 34. You can also stop projecting the faults of the Brethren onto all organized forms of Christianity. Your anger and resentment is unbecoming. Enjoy life.
*intercom announcement ends*
I think it/s getting hot in here
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
1. I have not left the Brethren.
2. That wasn't parody of any kind. It was a parable about the generation that ended being my generations bosses. It was an attempt to tell the truth about something using generalization. I think we've all heard of someone who does that?
It's not everyday I put forward my best attempt at understanding the spirit of Christ and have an exhippie tell me I'm being idealistic.
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Charis
Context is important. My Church does not tell me what to do. Nor would it approve of me telling other people what to do. Sure, there are some self appointed bogus staretz around who hold people in bondage. There are these in all the churches ... but it is not typical of where I'm speaking from. I have not had to react against legalism like you ... I have sought shelter from the howling winds of "Well, I don't know really. Nothing matters that much surely."
Remember, don't call me Shirley! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
Sorry, should have clarified: The parable is about your generation, not you in particular.
HOSTING
Ah, an opportunity to knock heads.
Thanks for the clarification, that Wikkid Person. Please apologise to Sasha, as that was crass.
Sasha - you are reading too much into that Wikkid Person's post, as well as being over-sensitive. I agree that using your story in a generational parody was ill-considered and merits an apology from him.
Ruudy - You have gone too far. Your parody of that Wikkid Person's post was a direct attack on his beliefs and why he remains in the Brethren, as well as a breach of Commandment 3. That merits an apology too. Debate the issue, not the person. Fights belong in Hell - take it there.
Never let it be said that I can't be even-handed.
Duo Seraphim
Purgatory Host
HOSTING off for now
[ 31. December 2003, 01:06: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
It was a parable about the generation that ended being my generations bosses.
Yes, my generation ended up being your bosses. The WWII generation was my boss and I didn't hate them for it - in fact my radio is tuned to their Big Band music right now. Soon most of your generation will be someone's boss, it's the natural order of things. So what?
quote:
It's not everyday I put forward my best attempt at understanding the spirit of Christ and have an exhippie tell me I'm being idealistic.
I did not call you idealistic, in fact I said that I would probably share your opinion if I had endured the same experience.
I'm also sorry that you think having to share this thread with an "exhippie" is such a disgusting thing. I was against the war in Vietnam and went on a few protest marches about that and a few to promote Civil Rights. I would do the same today. By the time I was twenty, I had married and started to raise a child while my husband taught school. Neither the decadent nor lavish lifestyle you have pictured.
I do have friends who spent time in communes and some who are still living what you would probably call "hippie" lifestyles, working as artists and social workers, keeping their homes open to friends, homemade bread, recycling...you get the picture. They're fine, caring people and I resent the way you talk about them.
Only time will tell if your generation has added to or eased the worlds problems. I doubt if it will serve as a parable of perfection.
You have been extremely insulting and ageist.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
I apologized in PM to Sasha already for being reactionary and insensitive (I felt like she was being extremely condescending to my best efforts in a big way and maybe she wasn't). Hopefully that's good enough. Again, Sasha, sorry I wrote something that made you feel judged. I suppose I should have said "I feel you're being extremely dismissive of my view on the power of brotherly love to fulfill the law" instead of getting all "cute" and trying to sketch the bigger picture.
I can't apologize for "parody", as I didn't do any. A parody is an imitation of the style of some other piece of work to expose it to ridicule. For instance, if I wrote the thing like Shakespeare, or Stephen King, it would be parody, with a view to making fun of Will or Steve. Parody would have been writing in the style of Sasha, to make fun of her, which I did not do. What I did was write a little story about my view of the hippie movement (as its attitude toward rules, laws, freedoms and the establishment were already correctly raised by Sasha as being relevant to the discussion of legality). I think there are a lot of sillinesses and human foibles depicted in almost any story I tell. That's how I view history: people being predictably human. My writing is usually supposed to be amusing, so I guess people who see themselves in it (whether I intentionaly put them there or not) may feel like they are the butt of something.
Parody got me into trouble in the past, and I don't really use it anymore. Satire, now...
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Sorry. I cross posted, so much time had passed I wasn't expecting any hostly action.
Yes, very even handed. I seem to be in more trouble for being sensitive than Wikked person is for being insulting. My apologies for being offended.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
Oh, and Ruudy isn't in the least guilty of parody either, just of being extremely condescending and poorly informed as to my position as regards the PB, as well as the definition of "parody", apparently.
Sasha, I think the hippies didn't go far enough. I like hippies. I wouldn't have fought in Vietnam either, if I was living in America and 10 years older when it was going on. I have a beard, my hair is long, I play guitar and love Bob Dylan and Neil Young, most of my friends smoke an awful lot of pot, and I was kicked out of my church for being "anti-establishment". Any and all impression that I share Eric Cartman's views on hippies is due in part to my lack of clarity of intention in writing my parable and perhaps in part to your taking it as only personal comments.
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
Sorry, Wikkid Person. My apologies.
I also would like to take a moment to correct my embarassing grammar mistake:
Your anger and resentment ARE unbecoming.
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
Thanks for the apology, that Wikkid Person - here and by PM. Sasha, you are still being oversensitive. Please accept the apology. I'm not having this thread derailed. If you want to fight - take it to Hell.
Duo Seraphim
Purgatory Host
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
Thanks also to Ruudy for his apology.
I perceive some of you have issues about my hosting - take it to the Styx. I think we were with Fr Gregory's point...
Duo Seraphim
Purgatory Host
[ 31. December 2003, 01:49: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
Ruudy: I agree, my anger and resentment ARE unbecoming.
Trying to learn to enjoy life. Hard not to see most humans screwing up the same things in the usual two ways. Trying to deal with the PB without becoming like the worst of them, compromising myself or putting myself under law.
Oh! We're in danger of swerving back into a discussion of legalism!
Can we agree that "legalism" is a word used to describe a problem, and that one doesn't say "a little legalism" any more than one says "a little bit pregnant"? I don't think people say "Our church is nice and legalistic to just the right degree" so much as they say "We/They have a real problem with legalism."
Having a good attitude to structure, rules, authority, compromise and submitting one to the other, while also knowing about being free, giving an account of YOURSELF to God, bearing one another's burdens but also bearing your own, this is what to me seems like the healthy balance we're seeking.
I don't think anyone (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant or Bohemian) would want NO rules, or a spiritual life solely defined by them. I think we can agree upon that?
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Sorry, lots of cross posting, it takes me a terribly long time to write a post.
Wikked Person, I didn't see your PM until just now, I'm sorry that you felt my first post on this thread had "slapped you down" and was condescending. For the most part I was agreeing with the quote by Fr. Gregory and not responding to you at all, I'm sorry you saw it that way.
I'm grateful for your apology and I'm sorry I derailed the thread.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sasha:
Sorry, lots of cross posting, it takes me a terribly long time to write a post.
Wikked Person, I didn't see your PM until just now, I'm sorry that you felt my first post on this thread had "slapped you down" and was condescending. For the most part I was agreeing with the quote by Fr. Gregory and not responding to you at all, I'm sorry you saw it that way.
I'm grateful for your apology and I'm sorry I derailed the thread.
And with that - finita la commedia. On with the debate...
Duo Seraphim
Purgatory Host
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
'Kay, how 'bout this:
quote:
I've seen first hand the vanity of thinking that we can make right decisions all by ourselves based on our own capacity to love
I stick by the idea that loving one another is Christ's commandment to us, and that Romans says that if we love our brother we fulfil the law. You can't "love your brother" in an effort to make decisions all by ourselves. The point of loving your brother (why do I always mistype that word as "bother"?) is identifying with him, putting yourselves in his shoes and him in yours. When you feel a connection, a oneness with someone (and Christians are part of one body) then you don't tend to rob, defraud or otherwise injure each other, and thus fulfil the spirit of any laws or rules about how to treat him or her.
When you hurt someone who is a Christian, you sometimes need a Duo Seraphim (third party Christian) to step in and arbitrate. When you love someone, you have more capacity to hurt them than a stranger. Hurt is never just on one side, nor is there any shortage of it. Love is powerful, covers a multitude of sins, and makes an exhortation stick, instead of just rankle.
Too often legalism is a bunch of people having a contest to see who can be offended by more stuff, or abstain from more things.
I don't call seeking the good of others and seeking to live like Christ did, and submitting myself to what authority church elders have over me (without letting them run my life) "legalism" as I feel it is a negative, not neutral term.
Apparently, neither would Merriam-Webster's:
quote:
LEGALISM - strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice>
I daily put myself under the authority of the PB elders in my assembly to the extent that I absent myself from church social functions until such time as I am no longer suspected of being sinful "leaven" leavening the whole lump of them. I remain "out" still, on the basis of their doubting my spirit, not because of an actual judgment with proof and all that. Right or wrong, they've got a job to do and the authority to do it as well.
The original assembly I was kicked out from has been a hotbed for malice and judgmental legalism for generations, but the one equally close to where I live (in which I grew up, where my relatives and people I grew up with are) is a sleepy little place without the agenda of hate. I've been attending there since November, and never have heard a discouraging word. It's quite possible they will be satisfied with my regular attendance and attitude and will let me Break Bread there sometime in the new year. Legalism is there, as it is everywhere. I grew up with these people. They are my own. I'm related by blood or marriage to many and went to high school with the rest, or with their kids. I fit in there and have no voice from the Heavens telling me either that that is The Only Right Place To Be, nor that another church is, no matter what the Orthodox View might officially be.
(Meanwhile, in the other assembly, having kicked out pretty much everyone under 60), the old people are now fighting over which of the other old people they will kick out if they don't agree to the same system of conformity that the Aryan City Planner who runs everything there envisions.)
Believe it or not, the above precis contained no parody or even satire. It was not entirely innocent of whimsy, however.
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
by Ruudy: Then what of unity? - emphasized over and over again in the NT.
That really begs the question then, what is unity? Is it simply one church body, one way of looking at the atonement, one way of interpreting the Bible, etc.? The oldest traditions of Christianity from what I can tell show a striking diversity, even when part of one "church".
Could unity be a common set of principles that gain assent as to what Christianity is, something like what Vincent of Lerins said in his famous maxim -
"what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all"
and that this potentially cuts across traditions?
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
The Vincentian method is certainly a good place to start. The trouble is that some Christian traditions are not at all interested in doing the Christian History thing. For them, anything beyond Acts 28 is suspect.
Back to legalism ... the basis for "heavy shepherding" (as some have called it) is the idea that the Church must at all costs be absolutely pure. Those who preach it are the last to disenfranchise themselves and the ones with LEAST self-knowledge ... which can be a pretty dangerous combination.
Do we REALLY believe that there is NO sin of which I am not potentially vulnerable / capable?
Of ANY sinner I must say ....
"There, but for the grace of God go I."
This is NOT to say that Christianity doesn't have standards but it IS to say that nobody can perfectly fulfil them.
As Josephine said somewhere ... it's good to belong to a church where there is an acceptance of "shit happens" and where actual sin can be dealt with by forgiveness and healing ... (I would add) ... and not by self-righteous condemnation of the elders ... whoever they might be ... Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican whatever.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
Hats off to that Wikkid Person. Thank you for giving more personal background, it helps me understand the context of all you write. Although the details are different, we share similar struggles and frustrations. And I am glad you swerved back to the topic of legalism.
You’re right. No group sets out to be legalistic. The phenomenon is akin to boiling frog syndrome.
quote:
that Wikkid Person: Having a good attitude to structure, rules, authority, compromise and submitting one to the other, while also knowing about being free, giving an account of YOURSELF to God, bearing one another's burdens but also bearing your own, this is what to me seems like the healthy balance we're seeking.
I agree.
The question I ask is what are the mechanics of “submitting one to the other”? Can anyone in my community or church come up and tell me what to do? Or is it limited to a small group of “accountability buddies”? Or limited to a spiritual advisor/mentor with whom I have developed a deep relationship? These clearly vary by tradition and culture. Is there dysfunction in my community regarding this? Either with too little or too much “accountablility”? In my community, what is the prevailing motive behind such interaction? Is it love or fear?
These are all questions that come to mind when dealing with such issues. I am sure no church or congregation is 100 percent correct on this issue, but I believe that some are healthier than others.
quote:
Alt Wally: That really begs the question then, what is unity? Is it simply one church body, one way of looking at the atonement, one way of interpreting the Bible, etc.? The oldest traditions of Christianity from what I can tell show a striking diversity, even when part of one "church".
I do not believe that unity is primarily creedal or based on common intellectual assent . Diversity in unity makes sense when unity is understood primarily as relational or communal.
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Ruudy wrote:
quote:
Can anyone in my community or church come up and tell me what to do? Or is it limited to a small group of “accountability buddies”? Or limited to a spiritual advisor/mentor with whom I have developed a deep relationship?
I'd make the point that NO one can TELL anyone what to do.
Provide counsel? Sure. Make recommendations? Please - I need advice. Challenge me? Don't stop - I have to have it.
But imply you somehow have a closer line to God than I do by telling me what God would have me do without making repeated disclaimers it is just your opinion, your best guess?
Does anyone really believe any human has the prerogative to do that? The idea gives me the willies.
But that's just me and I've been wrong before: one time I thought I was wrong but it turned out I was right... ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
And thanks for the thoughtful discussion: I remain convinced legalism is a problem with huge ramifications and overcoming it will remain, alas, a distant goal we can only aspire to.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
"Submitting yourselves one to another" is a thing I do on a case by case basis. Me being me, most people don't want the agravation of having to convince me of anything anyway.
I feel my church has authority over who worships there and about how church events will go. I don't feel they have authority over whether or not I have "non Christian room-mates" and stuff like that. They have tut-tutted over things as individuals, but have never as a group, officially tried to wield any authority I don't believe they have.
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
by Ruudy: Diversity in unity makes sense when unity is understood primarily as relational or communal.
I can go along with that. Again the struggle for me would be to come to terms with the ambiguity of what a relationship is within or between churches. Trisagion pointed out the relation of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism as being grounded in apostolic inheritence, but that already implies two streams within the relationship. Is two too many, can there be more, where is the limit, could the Oriental Orthdox then be part of the relationship then even if they have credal differences?
One thing that has always intrigued me is that Augustine in the City of God didn't seem to identify God's kingdom as the institutional church. My understanding is that he saw both good and bad, wheat and tares, both within and outside of the church and that it will all be sorted out on judgement day. I guess it both clarifies and muddles things for me to some extent. I think this is related to this thread because Augustine clearly felt that sinners were present in the church and would always have a place there. This probably was framed by his confrontation with the legalism of the Donatists and their drive to create a purified church that only had a place for the most scrupulously moral members.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Cardinal
Apostolic credentials constitute a knotty problem for some. The essence is quite simple ... ask oneself of a church ... is there historical organic continuity here with the Church ab initio? AND (and by NO MEANS LEAST) is the Catholic faith taught and lived?
"Is this apostolic?" is not the same question as "is there grace?" or "is there salvation here?" We are talking about where a Christian can have confidence ... but it is not an exclusive claim.
[ 31. December 2003, 15:43: Message edited by: Fr. Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
quote:
Can anyone in my community or church come up and tell me what to do? Or is it limited to a small group of “accountability buddies”? Or limited to a spiritual advisor/mentor with whom I have developed a deep relationship?
I'm not sure that anyone can come up to someone else and tell them they must do something or other. This applies whether it would be to man who is going to commit bigamy or to a woman to say she must wear a hat. Advise, counsel, yes, yes, yes!! But ultimately we are responsible for our own actions, and we must be prepared to take that responsibility.
But legalism also exists where pastors/minister/leaders tell their congregation, or individual members of it that they must do something without taking circumstances into consideration
An example of this would be where a woman had suffered abuse from her husband for many years, both prior to becoming a Christian, and afterwards, and yet was told that if she were to leave that abusive husband she would have to leave the church. That to me is legalism gone mad. Where is the love, support, compassion that she would need?
Unhappily there are many churches who would hold views like that. It would be hard to sit in submission to such leadership.
Nic
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
quote:
Me being me, most people don't want the agravation of having to convince me of anything anyway.
Congratulations on creating that environment. Life is much simpler when everyone understands their respective roles. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
They have tut-tutted over things as individuals, but have never as a group, officially tried to wield any authority I don't believe they have.
You are fortunate in that respect. People who mistakenly think they have authority and attempt to wield it creates something ugly.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
The Catholics and Orthodox claim direct apostolic succession. The Jews claim Jesus wasn't the Messiah. The Muslims claim that Jesus was merely a prophet, and that Muhommad was a more-recent prophet with fresher, newer prophecies. The Mormons claim that Joseph Smith received new instructions from God that the rest of us are missing.
The Plymouth Brethren claim that the formation of what we now call "church organizations" was apostasy, a falling away from what the apostles did both in spirit and in structure, and that ever since the apostles, other, wiser people have been meeting in houses and small buildings in an informal way (as the apostles did) and that the PB movement was a bunch of church people seeing the error of the church systems, repenting of it, "going to him outside the camp" and rejoining the apostolic way of doing things, gathering to The Lord's Table. They see any other church system as a "table of men", even if those at that table of men claim to be directly descended by spiritual lineage from the apostles(neither claim can be properly proved). They claim that, with no apostles alive, no one has authority of the kind the apostles wielded anymore (as the authority rested in the fact that they were apostles who had seen Jesus personally and been sent on their apostolic mission by him, and, no matter how tall a hat you're wearing, no one today is an apostle).
Everybody claims their own stuff. Everybody wants their story to be taken at face value. I think it's ridiculous to act as if your church's own personal Superhero Origin Story is the one to be taken seriously. You can believe it. You can think it's right. Approaching others with an attitude of "We think you're wrong, but we like you anyway and hope one day you will see the superiority of our way" is pretty infantile.
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
I don't think it's infantile to believe something is true or right. We believe in something because we think it is true, that is the strength of faith. It is infantile to be threatened in your faith so that you act in a manner contrary to it while supposing you are defending it. To me saying that all belief systems are equally valid or that making any claims to truth is impossible is insane.
Christ stood up in the temple and announced that the scriptures had been fulfilled in front of everyone listening. I think he took his superhero origin story seriously.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
I said "approaching others" with the attitude I described is infantile. You believe you're right, you believe you aren't fat, you believe your wife is better looking than your brother's, you believe anything you want, but fact that in interactions with other Christians, these beliefs are not going to facilitate connecting with them socially or intellectually.
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
In that case it's worse than being infantile. You seem to be talking about pride.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
quote:
Everybody claims their own stuff.
True, and some claims are stronger than others. And as one who (like you, I think) believes that an integral part of being a Christian is being part of a Christian community and submitting to its authority, I must decide whose claim of authority is strongest. I don't believe all the claims are equally valid.
I grew up in a non-denominational church that would have viewed the organization of the PB with with the same suspicion the PB views earlier organized Churches. I share your background of scepticism as regards organized Churches.
But the Gospel has Jesus using the word "ecclessia". And according to my Penguin Atlas of World History, for centuries before the Gospel was written "ecclessia" had referred specifically to a governmental assembly in Greek culture. I believe that the Gospel's use of the word "church" clearly means a concept that includes an earthly institutional aspect.
Have you read the apostolic fathers - Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius? Or Justin Martyr or Irenaeus? Penguin has a great handy little edition called Early Christian Writings.
When I read these writings I am shocked to find that the bishop/priest/deacon church structure goes back to at least 95-105AD - the same time some of the gospels were written - New Testament times! And unless I take a Garden of Eden conspiracy theory view that organized religion suppressed all evidence of a different history, then I conclude that the Church of Peter and Paul in places like Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome and Alexandria was an organized institution.
If that institutional Church is still in existence today, and has remained faithful to the Gospel, then how could I choose not to be a part of it? Would it not be my best bet with regard to community and authority?
What think you?
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
Well, my decision as to where to attend has more to do with feeling like God chose to have me be born into it, and to not having a single good reason for going anywhere else, or at least not one I've yet recognized.
I am quite ignorant of early church history, and also have been raised with a suspicion of all historical writing as being biased and untrustworthy, which tends to remove that from the very top of my reading list. Right now I'm busy reading books of the bible at a sitting.
Everyone claims what they claim. We shouldn't approach one another with that infantile kind of pride that says "My Dad can kick your dad's ass, nyah, nyah", and "going back to the source" isn't the only concern when it comes to where to worship. If Paul the apostle attended an Orthodox church, and then a PB church, I have absolutely no idea which one would seem more fitting to him.
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
that Wikkid Person, I agree with you wholeheartedly that
quote:
We shouldn't approach one another with that infantile kind of pride that says "My Dad can kick your dad's ass, nyah, nyah"
But that's really not what I'm talking about here. I am talking about the pure glee expressed from one child to another after having discovered an amazing abandoned treehouse in the forest. "Over here, over here. Look at what I've found! Let's enjoy this together."
[ 31. December 2003, 19:32: Message edited by: Ruudy ]
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
I think I may be following the same route as Ruudy, though coming from a different direction. I too was very ignorant of early church history and thought, and like WP suspicious of it. What I have found though was that the prejudice was really mine. I find an amazing consistency and clarity in Patristic Christianity now that I've begun seriously looking at it. The wake up call was realizing that scripture came from the church, and not the reverse.
Overall I have come to view the Protestant tradition as one largely lacking historical memory, and showing a tendancy to always start anew, ignoring what's been written or thought about before. IMHO this has led to a lot of serious theological errors. I seem to remember Alexander Campbell who was a leader in the Restorationist movement saying he wanted to read the NT like it had never been opened or read before, a complete tabula rasa. When I think about it, I think it is essentially the worst possible approach to take in understanding scripture. That's what I think Ruudy was talking about earlier when he said unity is relational. We can't approach faith in a vacuum.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear TWP
If truth claims are not utterly subjective and, therefore, susceptible of unsubstantiated claims and counterclaims, seriousness and cynicism, then they have to be based on something reasonably objective.
I say "reasonably" objective because complete objectivity is impossible. However, complete subjectivity is an intellectual nihilism which is also entirely unproductive (and out of touch with reality come to that).
You are cynical about history ... I suppose because "history belongs to the victors." However, professional historians (no magicians or propagandists these) engage in a discipline which has procedures to ensure reasonable reliability of conclusions based on cross referenced sources.
There is no reason why ecclesiastical history should be any different. It is entirely irrational to pick up a Bible as if it had no history; before, during and after its composition. Muslims share that irrationality about the Qur'an ... aided by Caliph Uthman of course who had all variant manuscripts destroyed. To this day Islamic scholarship eschews historical criticism of the Qur'an ... much in the same way that fundamentalist Christians do today.
It's not enough that an individual approaches the Bible with his / her wits and reason. The point of the book is lost if the author(s) of the constituent books lose their histories and their contextual communities (constituting the Church)that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit spawned them.
I think that it is a shame that you have not looked at church history (before and after the Incarnation). You cannot really see the Bible in context until you have.
On Ruudy's point about an ordered community ... look up St. Ignatius of Antioch. Very early ... and episcopal. This sort of thing just simply can't be argued away. It's a brute fact ... as immoveable as Everest.
[ 31. December 2003, 19:59: Message edited by: Fr. Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
Funny you should bring up moving mountains...
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
and ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
and ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
.
