|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: When is it time to give up calling yourself a Christian?
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
Personally speaking it was when I decided I didn't want to base so many of my decisions and world view on faith. I needed a system where I could understand, work out, weigh up the evidence and then say, "With the evidence at hand this looks like the best decision to make".
I got a bit uncomfortable with "I ought to believe this" and much prefer "What I see leads me to believe".
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Personally speaking it was when I decided I didn't want to base so many of my decisions and world view on faith. I needed a system where I could understand, work out, weigh up the evidence and then say, "With the evidence at hand this looks like the best decision to make".
I got a bit uncomfortable with "I ought to believe this" and much prefer "What I see leads me to believe".
Yes. I got uncomfortable with guesses, I suppose. But I suppose that all accounts of reality are guesses, aren't they? <fades off into incoherent grumbling, weather, young people, pains in legs, getting old ...>
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
And by extension, I would be inclined to question your commitment to obeying the teachings of Jesus (which I assume Christians wish to do) if you rejected his command in Matthew 28:19-20 without having an sound argument as to why such an action is permissible for Christians to do. [/QB]
Thank you, daronmedway. I expected as much and am glad to have this confirmed.
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
daronmedway: quote:
I would be inclined to question your commitment to obeying the teachings of Jesus (which I assume Christians wish to do) if you rejected his command in Matthew 28:19-20 without having an sound argument as to why such an action is permissible for Christians to do.
I don't often give in to the temptation to proof-text, but I see your Matthew 28:19-20 (a command given to the eleven apostles, not to all of his disciples) and raise you 1 Corinthians 12:4-31. Which may not be Jesus' own words, but ARE addressed to the whole church, not just its leaders.
1 Corinthians 13 is probably relevant here, too.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Daron I think you are confused between what is the ideal of what a Christian should be, and what is acceptable to God because it's the best you can do at a given time. You keep demanding of a bruised and broken Christian that they either shape up or justify why their refusal to shape up is what God wants for all Christians. What you are missing is that someone who can't force themselves into the mold you hold open for them CAN'T. It's not that they refuse to. Clearly you have never been there. Thank God for that. And stop beating other people up.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Daron I think you are confused between what is the ideal of what a Christian should be, and what is acceptable to God because it's the best you can do at a given time. You keep demanding of a bruised and broken Christian that they either shape up or justify why their refusal to shape up is what God wants for all Christians. What you are missing is that someone who can't force themselves into the mold you hold open for them CAN'T. It's not that they refuse to. Clearly you have never been there. Thank God for that. And stop beating other people up.
Wise words. It does seem like an impossibly bracing and muscular Christianity, where weaklings are castigated as not up to it.
I was contrasting some of the poems by G. M. Hopkins about his despair and helplessness - 'Not, I'll not, carrion comfort, Despair, not feast on thee'.
I thought that being poor in spirit might actually count for something.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I've more than once heard the phrase:
"Christianity: the only religion that kills its own wounded."
I would not have it be so.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Daron I think you are confused between what is the ideal of what a Christian should be, and what is acceptable to God because it's the best you can do at a given time. You keep demanding of a bruised and broken Christian that they either shape up or justify why their refusal to shape up is what God wants for all Christians. What you are missing is that someone who can't force themselves into the mold you hold open for them CAN'T.
I think it would be far, far easier to give up if things were as cut and dried as daronmedway suggests. In fact, I would have given up ages ago if they were. As it is I'm still hanging on by my fingernails.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
daronmedway: quote:
I would be inclined to question your commitment to obeying the teachings of Jesus (which I assume Christians wish to do) if you rejected his command in Matthew 28:19-20 without having an sound argument as to why such an action is permissible for Christians to do.
I don't often give in to the temptation to proof-text, but I see your Matthew 28:19-20 (a command given to the eleven apostles, not to all of his disciples) and raise you 1 Corinthians 12
My original post addresses this view. I think it's wrong. Attached to the command is a promise. The promise that Jesus will be with them until the very end of the age. This suggests to me that the command to the Apostles also extends to the end of the age and is thereby applicable to the one holy catholic and apostolic church.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
daronmedway: quote:
My original post addresses this view. I think it's wrong.
So, you think I'm wrong. Why should I pay any more attention to your view than you do to mine?
Oh, and what Mousethief said.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[ 23. January 2014, 18:24: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
I rarely call myself a Christian because some bunches of nincompoops have bastardized the word to make it mean fascist flat earth believing anti government moron. I hope someone else might call me one occasionally, nevertheless. That aside ...
IngoB nails it for me. Good God - I haven't fuzzy feelings about faith per se for 30+ years. I have experienced liturgies that have raised my heart to the heavenlies, but sunsets and good books and good movies, too. Don't expect eloquent, passionate, deeply profound ecstasies from this little black duck: I blunder along saying a few prayers, singing a few (magnificent) hymns, preaching a few sermons that I hope help others on this clutzy journey, reaching out clumsy hands to receive the kiss of God in bread and wine, a myriad other drunklike stumblings because ...
... well in my case it's a little easier: I was a fucking basket case in the making before I stumbled into faith, and I sure ain't wanting to go back there. (Psychologists can say what they like about that - I've rarely met a convincingly sane one anyway). But I don't expect it all to be swinging-from-the-chandeliers-wonderful ever again ... It's just that I kinda muttered once to the God I couldn't see that I would blunder along within those divine footprints, and have falteringly crawled, often accidentally, ever since.
Oh ... I guess I wouldn't mind if I have a kind of warm fuzzy beatific vision sometime when I'm in my death throes. Just to get me over the hump, you understand? But there's no guarantees, and I'm more likely to die screaming "fuck shit fuck"* then "Lord have mercy". But this bewildering God can cope, I reckon.
*That based on the experience of being hauled out of a swimming pool with double leg cramps this week.
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Daron I think you are confused between what is the ideal of what a Christian should be, and what is acceptable to God because it's the best you can do at a given time. You keep demanding of a bruised and broken Christian that they either shape up or justify why their refusal to shape up is what God wants for all Christians. What you are missing is that someone who can't force themselves into the mold you hold open for them CAN'T. It's not that they refuse to. Clearly you have never been there. Thank God for that. And stop beating other people up.
I don't want to beat anyone up, least of all Ian. That's truly not my intention and I'm sorry if that's how I've come across. What I'm suggesting is that the type of fellowship one gets from being an active part of the Eucharistic and missional community with a sense of shared corporate purpose beyond the scruples of personal piety can be the perfect antidote to the private and internal spiritual anxiety that Ian has described. In short, Christians are called to spur one another on to love and good deeds. But that spurring on should take the form of "together we can do it", not just "you can do it".
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
daronmedway: quote:
My original post addresses this view. I think it's wrong.
So, you think I'm wrong. Why should I pay any more attention to your view than you do to mine?
You don't have to agree with someone to pay attention to their view. And paying attention someone's view shouldn't necessarily lead to bland agreement. What it requires, I think, is civility and a willingness to explain why one holds a particular view over against other views being presented in the debate.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I don't want to beat anyone up, least of all Ian. That's truly not my intention and I'm sorry if that's how I've come across.
Thank you.
quote:
What I'm suggesting is that the type of fellowship one gets from being an active part of the Eucharistic and missional community with a sense of shared corporate purpose beyond the scruples of personal piety can be the perfect antidote to the private and internal spiritual anxiety that Ian has described.
Doubtless. But you're still not coming to grips with the fact that some people just aren't able to take such an active part. It's like saying, "depressed people would be so much better off with five to twenty minutes of aerobic exercise every day." Well, sure. But when you're in the throws of a major depressive episode, it's hard enough to drag yourself out of bed, let alone do twenty minutes of aerobic exercise. You don't appear to have a place in your theory for people who aren't yet up to exercising.
quote:
In short, Christians are called to spur one another on to love and good deeds. But that spurring on should take the form of "together we can do it", not just "you can do it".
I'd say before "together we can do it," which implies a we-ness that may not exist or that the person may not feel, should come "Can I help you in any way?" or "I'm here if you ever need to talk." Expressions of there-for-you-ness, that acknowledge a person may be in a hard place but don't try to "fix" things for the person or supply unwanted advice, if they are perceived as sincere and well-meaning, may be just what the doctor ordered. "By golly we can do this together" messages, maybe no to much so. In large part it depends on how well you know the person. You may know that what they need is a little "let's git 'er done." But in absence of such knowledge, a gentler approach is probably warranted.
In short, again, sometimes people who are just getting by spiritually just need a space where they can just get by for a while.
Madeleine L'Engle interprets the verse "Bear one another's burdens" to go so far as to mean that when a person gets so low they can't even believe in God or Jesus, the rest of the body can bear them up and believe on their behalf, until they're able to believe again. That strikes me as a better model than, "You know, you're not being very missional right now."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I've more than once heard the phrase:
"Christianity: the only religion that kills its own wounded."
I would not have it be so.
That is definitely a danger, isn't it? Because my own experience was very different, I know it's not always true, and not sure how frequently it is true. But I'm with you, mousethief, in believing it should never be true.
The saying I do recall in this context is that Jesus came to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. He sure didn't come to afflict the afflicted.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I've more than once heard the phrase:
"Christianity: the only religion that kills its own wounded."
I would not have it be so.
Perhaps it's because of Jesus himself rejecting his own followers in Matthew 7:21-23. Does Mohammed say anything similar to this in the Quran? What about the Hindus?
I'm not pointing the finger at anyone else (four would point back at me, etc.), but Jesus wasn't always indulgent. I suppose we just have to hope he meant someone else, not us!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
[ 23. January 2014, 22:22: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
In context, SvitlanaV2, Jesus is warning the self-righteous and judgmental, not the wounded. In respect of mousethief's quote, it is not the wounded who need to repent, but the self-righteous who put them down.
I always remember Paul Simon at this point.
"In the clearing stands a boxer and a fighter by his trade
And he carries the reminders
Of every blow that laid him down or cut him
Til he cried out, in his anger and his pain
'I am leaving, I am leaving'
but the fighter still remains"
Sometimes the fight just gets knocked so much out of wounded folks that their only option is to run away. And I always hope that some of the fighter remains, so that they do not fall into complete despair.
The visible church can sometimes do that to people. I don't think Jesus is very pleased when it does. IMO perpetrators had better look out. Not much room for complacency in their following of Jesus on that point. They've screwed up.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I take your point.
I do find mousethief's quote fascinating, though. Why is Christianity like this but not other religions? Does Christianity generate self-righteousness whereas other religions don't? Are Christian institutions inherently less compassionate to the wounded than religious institutions elsewhere? Why would this be?
These aren't questions for you (or anyone) to answer, but they perhaps lead to disturbing conclusions in themselves regarding Christianity's suitability as a religion for the wounded. Perhaps it's too easy for Christianity to be all things to all (wo)men, which undermines its ability to speak with a clear voice on behalf of certain groups even as it attempts to do so. This malleability is both a blessing and a curse.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I prefer to think of it as something that sometimes gets forgotten, or mislaid. "See how these Christians love one another" started off as an awed compliment. Maybe not so much these days? We can always rediscover what has always been there in standing orders.
Gee D quoted this in another context.
"A new commandment I give unto you that you love one another as I have loved you".
Its the agape-love there; this one
quote:
4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Sometimes I think there's just a little bit of "rejoicing" in other folks failings, or difficulties. "Lord I thank you that I am not like this one next to me " The sense that at least "I'm further up the pecking order than that".
The rebuke against that was also in the standing orders. Better learn to be kind at least and stuff any expression of condescension right at the bottom of the sock drawer. Even better, just throw it out. The sock is full of holes, throw it away.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
daronmedway: quote:
You don't have to agree with someone to pay attention to their view. And paying attention someone's view shouldn't necessarily lead to bland agreement. What it requires, I think, is civility and a willingness to explain why one holds a particular view over against other views being presented in the debate.
Yes, you're right. I apologise for the tone of my previous post; composed at a bad moment.
But I still agree with Mousethief and Barnabas62. Not everyone has the skills to go out and 'make disciples of all the nations'. 1 Corinthians, which goes into more detail about how a church should be organised than Matthew (for obvious reasons), doesn't say they should. You can't tell just by looking at the people who turn up and polish a pew with their backside for an hour on Sunday whether they are wrestling with personal demons and holding on to faith by their fingernails, devoutly spending the rest of the week in private prayer or so busy with other voluntary work that they don't have time for extra church activities but they are showing Christ's love to the wider community. By contrast, someone who is frantically busy with study groups and various other church stuff every evening of the week may be trying to conceal the fact that their faith is wobbling, or too busy to really think about what they're doing, or even (in Britain) cynically going through the motions to get their children into the local religious school.
The first group may look lukewarm to you; the second may seem to be on fire with the Spirit. But what matters is how God sees them, and I am not comfortable trying to second-guess Him.
[ 24. January 2014, 08:54: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"See how these Christians love one another" started off as an awed compliment. Maybe not so much these days? We can always rediscover what has always been there in standing orders.
In those days I suppose persecution or the threat of persecution concentrated the mind. People argued about doctrine, but the religion hadn't been around long enough to create a large army of doubters on the fringes who didn't know if they belonged or not....
Being practical about it, we in the modern Western world do need the kind of churches where people can hang about on the fringes. Postmodernity means there are shades of grey and not just black and white; some of us want to be both in and out, have a foot in different camps, have the option of a quick withdrawal rather than getting in deep and having trouble extracting ourselves. I'm in this situation myself.
OTOH, as a former church steward I realise that this way of being is inconvenient for the church-as-institution, even if it's very convenient for the individual. Only a certain kind of church, at a certain stage in its life cycle, can happily maintain a fringe while also generating the greater commitment needed to function successfully at another level.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Only a certain kind of church, at a certain stage in its life cycle, can happily maintain a fringe while also generating the greater commitment needed to function successfully at another level.
Why? Surely this would be expected to be Business As Usual?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Only a certain kind of church, at a certain stage in its life cycle, can happily maintain a fringe while also generating the greater commitment needed to function successfully at another level.
Why? Surely this would be expected to be Business As Usual?
In some churches, yes. This is what comes to mind:
It requires a church that's already well supplied with committed volunteers so that it doesn't need to pester people on the fringes to 'get more involved'.
It requires a good source of income (internal or external) so it doesn't have to pester everyone, including those who only come occasionally, to give more money.
It needs to be in the right sort of area so it doesn't feel obliged to run community social projects that require church folk to offer more of their time than just Sunday mornings.
It can't be the kind of church that makes a big deal out of small groups and Bible studies, etc. because that promoting that kind of thing will only alienate the people who just want to turn up to church on their own terms.
Well-heeled CofE congregations (but not too evangelical) probably offer the right kind of environment in the English setting. The Methodists would be okay in theory but they're often desperate for volunteers, so you won't be left alone on the fringes for long if you turn up regularly and show any signs of being personable, fairly intelligent and able-bodied. Similar for the URC I expect.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
There are challenges, yes, but they will always somehow to be faced, because people on the fringes exist everywhere; I'd suggest any church that doesn't have them is going to see very little in the way of new members.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Obviously, for most churches people on the fringes are welcomed because it's hoped that they can be encouraged into more commitment at some point. (And I understand that some evangelical churches actually have a very high number of non-members, although non-membership there might represent a deeper commitment than simply sitting at the back and wanting to be left in peace.)
But this thread hasn't really been focusing on the fringe as a potential source of new members, but as a state of being, so to speak. Or so ISTM.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
The Fringe is a bit like the Oort cloud, it seems to me; objects may orbit for years, then one of them dives towards the sun. If it's in luck, it becomes a periodic comet. If it's not, it gets burnt to smithereens. But there's no difference between the objects before their paths are perturbed towards the sun, and they exist in and of themselves, quite apart from their potentiality as comets.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Interestingly enough I find that mission-minded congregations and communities tend to be more pastorally responsive to newcomers and those on the fringe of the fellowship than "pastorally" minded communities. IME, pastorally minded communities can easily degenerate into 'clubs' that exist for the benefit of the inner ring of old timers and power families. The church exists for the pastoral needs of the inner ring.
Conversely, mission minded communities can actually be easier for "outsiders" to find a place in the fellowship. People are actively welcomed into the fellowship and quickly encouraged to participate, contribute and to enjoy the benefits of being included.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Conversely, mission minded communities can actually be easier for "outsiders" to find a place in the fellowship. People are actively welcomed into the fellowship and quickly encouraged to participate, contribute and to enjoy the benefits of being included.
But what about those who do not want "to participate, contribute and to enjoy the benefits of being included" (yet)? Are they allowed to come in at their own pace or badgered every week?
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
As SvitlanaV2 has said, being fringe should really be understood as a liminal or transitionary state rather than a permanent state of being. And I don't think being encouraged to understand and embrace one's part in the great commission should be described as badgering.
Of course it takes pastoral sensitivity to discern the difference between a smouldering wick and a pew potato, but that's no reason to avoid the practice regular invitation.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Interestingly enough I find that mission-minded congregations and communities tend to be more pastorally responsive to newcomers and those on the fringe of the fellowship than "pastorally" minded communities. IME, pastorally minded communities can easily degenerate into 'clubs' that exist for the benefit of the inner ring of old timers and power families. The church exists for the pastoral needs of the inner ring.
Conversely, mission minded communities can actually be easier for "outsiders" to find a place in the fellowship. People are actively welcomed into the fellowship and quickly encouraged to participate, contribute and to enjoy the benefits of being included.
I can see this, but as a definite introvert I find the approach of a lot of evangelical churches totally offputting. Being badgered into a home group on the first visit is guaranteed to make an introvert never come back.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But this thread hasn't really been focusing on the fringe as a potential source of new members, but as a state of being, so to speak. Or so ISTM.
One of the best insights for my money in that bedside book of ex-charismatics Restoring the Kingdom is the observation (by a housechurch "survivor") that healthy churches need fringe memberships to avoid becoming cults (his housechurch didn't have one). I have always thought there was sense in that and I still do.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I love the way Anne Rice did it: “In the name of Christ… I quit Christianity and being Christian.”
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I love the way Anne Rice did it: “In the name of Christ… I quit Christianity and being Christian.”
Couldn't she just have turned Episcopalian instead? Or Quaker? She could even have started her own church.
Perhaps her point is that since all churches and religions are inherently awful it's best to follow Christ alone, without reference to anyone else.
[ 24. January 2014, 19:48: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I love the way Anne Rice did it: “In the name of Christ… I quit Christianity and being Christian.”
Couldn't she just have turned Episcopalian instead? Or Quaker? She could even have started her own church.
Perhaps her point is that since all churches and religions are inherently awful it's best to follow Christ alone, without reference to anyone else.
Slightly ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) at TEC and Quaker being both considered non-Christian! The US still has a significant Christocentric Quaker population (significant within Quakerism that is) btw. Episcopalians are definitely Christians.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
No, you've misunderstood - I wasn't saying that TEC or the Quakers were non-Christian. (American Quakers are closer to Christianity than British ones, so I've read.)
My point was that if she gave up being a Christian because the churches were full of bad things (which is what the link seems to imply) that was unnecessary, because not all Christianity nor all Christians are guilty in the way that she claims. If she'd wanted to, she could have found a more congenial alternative to the RCC.
Obviously she didn't want to, and there must be additional reasons as to why. But I do realise that it can be very difficult to drop one denomination and take up another.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
No, you've misunderstood - I wasn't saying that TEC or the Quakers were non-Christian. (American Quakers are closer to Christianity than British ones, so I've read.)
My point was that if she gave up being a Christian because the churches were full of bad things (which is what the link seems to imply) that was unnecessary, because not all Christianity nor all Christians are guilty in the way that she claims. If she'd wanted to, she could have found a more congenial alternative to the RCC.
Obviously she didn't want to, and there must be additional reasons as to why. But I do realise that it can be very difficult to drop one denomination and take up another.
Whoops - apologies.
IME though, lapsed Catholics often still believe the RCC to be the true church that Jesus founded, they just think it's also horrible.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
