homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » The Church, without God. (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The Church, without God.
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807

 - Posted      Profile for Macrina   Email Macrina   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Double post. Double post.

Interesting that everyone is worrying about morality and then being careful to say that it's not that God encourages people to be moral but they're worried nontheless.

My own experience, which is only my own, is that my altruistic behaviour as a practicing Christian was always tinged with guilt and worry and obligation. Should I give to this organisation who do some things the Church doesn't like? Is it wrong not to give change to the homeless person when I know it might be spent on drugs but God said Jesus is everywhere, what if I get to heaven and they turn me away etc etc. This is a feature of my cognitive make up. I have issues with anxiety and it shows through like that.

Since I went through my slow de-conversion I have a much less anxiety driven process towards helping others since I feel less 'overseen'. I can describe my realisation that we ALL have PERSONAL responsbility to own our stuff and support our communities best by sharing a quote from an Atheist comedian who described the moment she realised she didn't believe in God as: 'Oh my God, there's no one minding the store.'

As a baby Atheist I feel a very strong commitment to helping others and my community because I don't think there's any divine force out there that will do it for me. My prayers won't help but my donation of time or money or a shoulder to cry on will. Asking God to divert a hurricane or help earthquake victims will do nothing but again charitable donations and organising events to raise money will, behaving in an ecologically sustainable way benefits future generations etc. I feel MORE socially responsible and morally committed as an Atheist, not less. And my motivations and mental state are healthier (for me) than they were as a Christian.

So no I don't think that if God were proven to not exist we would all become amoral monsters. If we did then there are already a lot of amoral monsters you meet every day and they haven't ruined us all yet.

Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Your penultimate paragraph makes you a very real, most faithful Christian, not an atheist.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Your penultimate paragraph makes you a very real, most faithful Christian, not an atheist.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

I've challenged the insanity of Greg Boyd's demiurgy here and no one took offense. So I don't see how they could possibly take offense at what you say.

Disagreeing with a the theological musings of an academic who himself would acknowledge he's striking out in new and uncharted territory is not at all the same thing as questioning someone's integrity.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's not offensive in the slightest SvitlanaV2.

Yes, it is. Or at the very least, it's a gross overgeneralization based on anecdata.

quote:
The clergy very rarely get real, honest, raw, inclusive. Very rarely give the best sermon; 'Me too'. Very rarely challenge the evil, insane, irrational, superstitious, intolerant, magical beliefs of the hand that feeds them. Worse, they are supine in the face of their almost universal warmongering, homophobic superiors. I find that failure to be infinitely depressingly offensive. And forgivable as it shows how pathetic and weak and frightened and ignorant they are.
Apparently, the clergy you've encountered are quite, quite different from most of the clergy I have encountered.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Well I certainly am trying and have been trying to help you understand my experience. If I'm failing at that perhaps it's because I'm simply flabbergasted that anyone would not see how offensive your suggestion would be.

You've said a bit about your experience, but I think I've said more (and more than enough, you'll say) about mine. I don't quite understand your denominational or demographic context, nor the general church culture you're working with.

Basically, I don't understand how someone's experience can be 'offensive', just different. I should say that I haven't experienced my life in the church as a struggle with inauthentic clergy who lack integrity. The ones I know are indeed people who give a lot of themselves. Perhaps too much, in some ways.

Anyway, you and I have seen eye to eye on a few things in the past, though, and I'm sure we will again.


quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's not offensive in the slightest SvitlanaV2.

You've handled it brilliantly.

The clergy very rarely get real, honest, raw, inclusive. Very rarely give the best sermon; 'Me too'. Very rarely challenge the evil, insane, irrational, superstitious, intolerant, magical beliefs of the hand that feeds them. Worse, they are supine in the face of their almost universal warmongering, homophobic superiors. I find that failure to be infinitely depressingly offensive. And forgivable as it shows how pathetic and weak and frightened and ignorant they are.

I've challenged the insanity of Greg Boyd's demiurgy here and no one took offense. So I don't see how they could possibly take offense at what you say.

I had to look Greg Boyd up. He seems like a very interesting character.

I'm glad you have an idea of where I'm coming from. TBH, I don't think the clergy are any worse than other Christians. We could easily talk about the recurring problems that crop up in lay behaviour, attitudes and expectations in the kinds of churches and contexts I'm talking about.

Nevertheless, I've been blessed by the ministry of lay and ordained Christians for all of my life, even when I've felt critical of one thing or another. And I hope they've had positive feelings about me, for all my failures and missteps.

In general, I'd say I have greater problems with the structure of the church than with any particular group of people within it, or with any particular theology I've encountered (though I realise that other people have had run-ins with some very scary theology). IMO, the possible silver lining in the dreadful scenario mentioned in the OP is that it some cases it might lead to a de-construction of church hierarchies and an attempt to start again with small groups of defiant monotheists! But I wouldn't expect anyone here to bear with me on that idea!

[ 13. February 2016, 01:39: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Well I certainly am trying and have been trying to help you understand my experience. If I'm failing at that perhaps it's because I'm simply flabbergasted that anyone would not see how offensive your suggestion would be.

You've said a bit about your experience, but I think I've said more (and more than enough, you'll say) about mine. I don't quite understand your denominational or demographic context, nor the general church culture you're working with.

Sure, and we could go there, but I'm not really sure how that's relevant.


quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Basically, I don't understand how someone's experience can be 'offensive', just different.

Sure, but I'm not objecting to your experience. I'm objecting to a speculative assessment you've made about the inner life of other people. As I've said a couple times already, that's something neither of us can know for sure. You have no idea what the inner thoughts/beliefs are of the clergy in your community or nation-- and neither do I. My default assumption, is, until proven otherwise (as sadly, sometimes is the case) is that they are people of integrity. Your default suggestion is that they are not. Yes, I know you keep saying you don't think lying to your congregation about your true beliefs would indicate a lack of integrity, but you're wrong about that. But your repeated suggestion that there's a meaningful percentage of clergy doing just that is not your experience, it is your assumption. In fact, apparently your experience is quite the reverse:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

I should say that I haven't experienced my life in the church as a struggle with inauthentic clergy who lack integrity. The ones I know are indeed people who give a lot of themselves. Perhaps too much, in some ways.

Although, again, you seem to be confusing authenticity with being a nice person who is generous and kind. The two are not unrelated, of course, but are not synonymous.

And yes, I too, am sure we will agree on something again some time. But that doesn't make your comments here any less offensive or hurtful.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To respond late to the original topic, the High School I went to was run by Jewish Secular Humanists who for about a hundred years decided that they probably didn't believe in God but like to get together once a week to discuss moral and ethical issues and to do projects together.

I suspect a lot of churches after this revelation would probably keep going as a social organization to do good things together.

Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One at a time.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

I've challenged the insanity of Greg Boyd's demiurgy here and no one took offense. So I don't see how they could possibly take offense at what you say.

Disagreeing with a the theological musings of an academic who himself would acknowledge he's striking out in new and uncharted territory is not at all the same thing as questioning someone's integrity.
What new and uncharted territory? I'm being kind by calling him insane as the alternative to mad is bad. Is lacking in integrity. Which is in fact far more likely. Having gone down a cul-de-sac, down a hole, all he can do is dig deeper, hunker down, justify it and seduce the gullible, rather than admit he was wrong. Bad makes mad.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Next:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's not offensive in the slightest SvitlanaV2.

Yes, it is. Or at the very least, it's a gross overgeneralization based on anecdata.

quote:
The clergy very rarely get real, honest, raw, inclusive. Very rarely give the best sermon; 'Me too'. Very rarely challenge the evil, insane, irrational, superstitious, intolerant, magical beliefs of the hand that feeds them. Worse, they are supine in the face of their almost universal warmongering, homophobic superiors. I find that failure to be infinitely depressingly offensive. And forgivable as it shows how pathetic and weak and frightened and ignorant they are.
Apparently, the clergy you've encountered are quite, quite different from most of the clergy I have encountered.

Yes they are 95% Anglican. The 'non-conformist' are even worse. I met a wonderful post-Baptist last summer though, as well as meeting the peerless Steve Chalke. Of the, oooooooh, 20+ of the Anglican I've encountered in over 10 years, including the egregious Mark Stibbe, they are ALL whipped party men.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What new and uncharted territory? I'm being kind by calling him insane as the alternative to mad is bad. Is lacking in integrity. Which is in fact far more likely. Having gone down a cul-de-sac, down a hole, all he can do is dig deeper, hunker down, justify it and seduce the gullible, rather than admit he was wrong. Bad makes mad.

Martin, I do wish you'd speak less in riddles. I'm interested in your critique of Boyd, but I can't make head-nor-tail of it. In words simple enough for this fool to understand, can you explain to me why you think he is insane?

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807

 - Posted      Profile for Macrina   Email Macrina   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Your penultimate paragraph makes you a very real, most faithful Christian, not an atheist.

I appreciate your sentiment and know what you're trying to say, but I might look like one in practice but I'm not in my inner self where it actually counts.

As for your previous post I'd almost agree with you, I want to go Spinoza on myself but I'm taking all my time getting my head around what he's saying before I claim to completely accept his claims.

Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Posted by Martin:
quote:

The clergy very rarely get real, honest, raw, inclusive. Very rarely give the best sermon; 'Me too'. Very rarely challenge the evil, insane, irrational, superstitious, intolerant, magical beliefs of the hand that feeds them. Worse, they are supine in the face of their almost universal warmongering, homophobic superiors. I find that failure to be infinitely depressingly offensive. And forgivable as it shows how pathetic and weak and frightened and ignorant they are.

As someone who usually hits the mark for me I must confess you've drifted far off it on this one. Threads like this and discussion around subjects like this are always going to descend into silly charicatures and generalisations and stereotypes. It's the way of the ship and an easy way to obfuscate an argument and make it become so tangled that it's intractable. But I honestly thought better of you.

What we get here, instead of something insightful, is what some on this ship like to indulge in - clergy bashing. I know that in saying it there's a strong possibility that I might get thread lynched, but I must be honest and say that I've noticed it here on the ship many times over the years. It runs similar to the politician or the bank manager argument; they're all the same, they're all corrupt and they're all worthy of our contempt. So lets break this down to see what we have here.

'The clergy', talked of in general terms as if they were one homogenous group.

All of them seem to be false; they never 'get real'.

All of them are presented as dishonest.

All of them are presented as self protecting and cocooned, never 'raw'.

They are all poor excuses for a preacher - now granted you might be on to something here......but all of them?

They never challenge evil in the many forms you list. I grew up in Northern Ireland during the so-called 'troubles'. I think it's this that I find the most crass and offensive. I know clergy who were crippled, shot, had their churches burned down, were ostracised from entire communities, had their families threatened and had to leave the country all because they stood up to evil. There are numerous places around the world where things like this continue to today. This statement to me is the most disingenuous and a callous, self-serving deceit.

Clergy are universal in warmongering

[Roll Eyes] Really now; you're just getting over excited here.

All clergy are homophobic and prop up their homophobic superiors. The church does face a crisis over this one, but I haven't seen clergy toeing the line in any great numbers. There is a lot that has made me very angry and in my experience there are a small number of clergy who have what can genuinely be called 'homophobic' opinion. I know the line that all clergy are homophobic is frankly a lie.

All clergy are pathetic, frightened, weak and ignorant. I'd agree with you here, but it hasn't stopped many clergy doing the noble, brave, strong and informed thing.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
starbelly
but you can call me Neil
# 25

 - Posted      Profile for starbelly   Author's homepage   Email starbelly   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Your penultimate paragraph makes you a very real, most faithful Christian, not an atheist.

I appreciate your sentiment and know what you're trying to say, but I might look like one in practice but I'm not in my inner self where it actually counts.

As for your previous post I'd almost agree with you, I want to go Spinoza on myself but I'm taking all my time getting my head around what he's saying before I claim to completely accept his claims.

I have no idea how you could have read that penultimate paragraph as Macrina being a real faithful Christian. Shows that people read what they want to read into things.

(as an aside, many of us have been through a similar journey as you have Macrina, and it is an awesome life changing journey to make!)

Neil

Posts: 6009 | From: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yes they are 95% Anglican. The 'non-conformist' are even worse. I met a wonderful post-Baptist last summer though, as well as meeting the peerless Steve Chalke. Of the, oooooooh, 20+ of the Anglican I've encountered in over 10 years, including the egregious Mark Stibbe, they are ALL whipped party men.

Fair enough. But when you simply say "The clergy very rarely get real, honest, raw, inclusive," the clear implication is that you're talking about the clergy in general, not just the 20+ members of the clergy you have encountered over the last 10 years. That's the problem I had with what you said—taking a very small sample (and what you said may be true of that sample) and extrapolating it "the clergy" as a whole.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm not objecting to your experience. I'm objecting to a speculative assessment you've made about the inner life of other people. As I've said a couple times already, that's something neither of us can know for sure. You have no idea what the inner thoughts/beliefs are of the clergy in your community or nation-- and neither do I. My default assumption, is, until proven otherwise (as sadly, sometimes is the case) is that they are people of integrity. Your default suggestion is that they are not. Yes, I know you keep saying you don't think lying to your congregation about your true beliefs would indicate a lack of integrity, but you're wrong about that. But your repeated suggestion that there's a meaningful percentage of clergy doing just that is not your experience, it is your assumption. In fact, apparently your experience is quite the reverse

[...]
You seem to be confusing authenticity with being a nice person who is generous and kind. The two are not unrelated, of course, but are not synonymous.

It was a theologian and clergyman (a moderately well-known one) who said to me that the clergy don't always feel that they can share their theological perspectives with their congregations. I've heard similar remarks from other clergy.

Some of the links I've posted here and other references I've come across elsewhere suggest that this is not a totally unusual and bizarre experience for ministers. Considering the context in which many of our clergy here work, it makes sense to me. In effect, I do think context matters - it's not irrelevant to ask what sort of denominational culture the ministers in question come from, or what the demographics of their congregations are. I know a theologian who's just switched from his previous inner city, working class church allegiances (across several churches) to a university congregation, because he wants more intellectual engagement and openness in church life. All these things are a part of my 'experience'.

However, in my original comment I also talked about perceptions. I then said that perceptions aren't always reflective of reality. IOW, it's not necessarily the case that vast numbers of clergy are hiding things, but it may be seen as an issue by a number of people in the society. FWIW, over half of British people see the clergy as trustworthy. 'Trustworthy' is a term that could cover a whole range of attitudes and concerns, of course.

I quite agree with you that I haven't looked into the heart of every Christian minister to see how much 'integrity' they have. That wasn't what I was claiming to do. Neither was I engaging in 'clergy bashing', as another poster here has put it. I've tried to be positive about the clergy throughout this thread. I always try to understand the challenges they face, which is why I think talking about a lack of integrity isn't generally relevant. We may have to disagree on that. But I'm not going to say the clergy are perfect. If I say how much I value their ministry and efforts then I have a right to mention potentially problematic issues too. After all, it's not as if I think the congregations are absolutely wonderful! I've had my issues with them too!

Anyway, I'm not sure we're going to get much further on this topic. You have sparked off a deeper interest in me, though. This whole area would probably benefit from more research, particularly in the British and wider European context.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It was a theologian and clergyman (a moderately well-known one) who said to me that the clergy don't always feel that they can share their theological perspectives with their congregations. I've heard similar remarks from other clergy.

Some of the links I've posted here and other references I've come across elsewhere suggest that this is not a totally unusual and bizarre experience for ministers.

However, in my original comment I also talked about perceptions. I then said that perceptions aren't always reflective of reality.

All of which goes to my point that I am not arguing with your
experience but rather your assumptions. None of us can have an "experience" of other people's inner life.


quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

However, in my original comment I also talked about perceptions. I then said that perceptions aren't always reflective of reality.

IOW, it's not necessarily the case that vast numbers of clergy are hiding things, but it may be seen as an issue by a number of people in the society. FWIW, over half of British people see the clergy as trustworthy. 'Trustworthy' is a term that could cover a whole range of attitudes and concerns, of course.

I quite agree with you that I haven't looked into the heart of every Christian minister to see how much 'integrity' they have. That wasn't what I was claiming to do. Neither was I engaging in 'clergy bashing', as another poster here has put it.

Reread what you said above and the link you provided and you'll see precisely why so many of us feel like you are, however unintentionally, "clergy bashing", and why it does, in fact, go to the heart of integrity. When you suggest that clergy in some significant numbers are preaching something that is significantly different from what they actually believe, that IS an issue of integrity. It lends very much to the perception of clergy as "untrustworthy" (of course, other things-- clergy sex scandals, televangelist's misbehavior, are a huge factor as well). In a field where trust and authenticity is everything, that's an issue those of us who are clergy take very, very seriously. For those who are not in this field, it may seem harmless to engage in innuendo & speculation about other people's inner life, but for those of us who have chosen this life it is a violent assault on the foundation of our ministry and purpose.


quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've tried to be positive about the clergy throughout this thread. I always try to understand the challenges they face, which is why I think talking about a lack of integrity isn't generally relevant. We may have to disagree on that.

And I get that you believe that. I get that you think by saying clergy are kind or nice people or hard-working you think you're balancing out your accusation that they have a fundamental lack of integrity. Please reread the above. Think about what you are doing, what you are saying. Because, again, this is not a trivial matter to us. It's not something we can just "agree to disagree". And please, stop saying "integrity" is irrelevant. It is the ESSENCE of what you are saying and could not be more relevant, again, whether you recognize that or not.


quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But I'm not going to say the clergy are perfect. If I say how much I value their ministry and efforts then I have a right to mention potentially problematic issues too.

NO ONE is suggesting that clergy are perfect. NO ONE is suggesting that clergy don't have the same struggles, challenges, temptations, and doubts that everyone else has.

What I and others are suggesting is that clergy have an ethical obligation to be as transparent as possible about those struggles, challenges, temptations and doubts. There are constraints of course, for a number of reasons. But we are called first of all to be authentic and that requires being honest about those things. The failure to do so is an issue of integrity. Which itself is something we all struggle with.

If you value the clergy in your community then yes, you do have a right-- even a high purpose-- in raising problematic issues. However, what you should think twice about doing is undermining the very foundation of their work through reckless speculation about their inner integrity-- which is, again, precisely what you are doing. If you truly value their work, that's something you would avoid as much as is possible.

There is a time when lack of integrity must be spoken, must be said-- again, the clergy sex scandals, the televangelist debacles-- clear examples. But one doesn't recklessly make allegations about someone's integrity without some shred of evidence to suggest there's a possibility that is what's happening.

Again, integrity: not a small matter for me, so not something I liable to just let drop. Sorry.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What new and uncharted territory? I'm being kind by calling him insane as the alternative to mad is bad. Is lacking in integrity. Which is in fact far more likely. Having gone down a cul-de-sac, down a hole, all he can do is dig deeper, hunker down, justify it and seduce the gullible, rather than admit he was wrong. Bad makes mad.

Martin, I do wish you'd speak less in riddles. I'm interested in your critique of Boyd, but I can't make head-nor-tail of it. In words simple enough for this fool to understand, can you explain to me why you think he is insane?
Probably needs to be a separate thread, but when he does, expect a lengthy (and probably pedantic) rebuttal from me.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:

All clergy are pathetic, frightened, weak and ignorant. I'd agree with you here, but it hasn't stopped many clergy doing the noble, brave, strong and informed thing.

One of the most beautiful things I've read on the Ship. A challenge worthy of struggling to live up to.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
The fact that there are many denominations available in one country doesn´t mean all these denominations are present in every region, let alone in every city!

Where I live [in Brazil], there is only one traditional protestant denomination. The other churches are either catholic or pentecostal.

Plus, I don´t think I have to leave the denomination if my beliefs are according to our confessional documents and our constitution. People who do NOT believe this stuff should consider leaving...

The point is, most people who decide to become pastors do that when they are very young and they are very ingenous. They have a sincere faith in God and an honest desire to learn more about him and preach the gospel.

When they enter the seminary, they discover what is taught there is very different from what they expected. To hold orthodox christian views in the seminary is not only unnecessary, but it´s even a reason for a person to be seen as fundamentalist. After a few years of study, most will probably leave their old beliefs behind. However they are trained to conduct liturgy as if they actually believed all the stuff. You have to learn to be hypocritical. If the seminary is not enough to destroy your faith (many will give up on ministry before being ordained), a few more years in the ministry will do. After you have invested everything on becoming a minister and then realizes you don´t actually believe all that religious stuff what do you do? Well, you need your job to pay your bills, so you become a "liberal" or "progressive" christian, in other words: you don´t actually believe any of that christian stuff but you have to "liturgically" talk about God, and you fill the sermon part with lots of talk about gender, ecology, etc, and reject those whose opinions are influenced by the Bible or traditional christian beliefs as being "fundamentalist".

In Britain there are evangelical seminaries that Anglican evangelical ordinands can attend, where their faith is presumably less likely to be compromised. But this is possible because the evangelical constituency in the CofE is longstanding, and is a growing and increasingly strong-minded proportion of churchgoing Anglicans as a whole. Is this the case for your denomination in Brazil? Your country is massive, though, and even if there is a choice of theological colleges perhaps candidates prefer to attend the one closest to where they live, regardless of what kind it is?

Some people might simply blame the seminary system for creating clergy that are out of touch with congregations. Some of my previous comments on this thread have been informed by this concern. Of course, this isn't a challenge for every single church, but I've come across enough comments in various places that suggest it's an issue for many of them.

OTOH, as the experience of your church and the CofE suggests, maybe a bigger problem is that people of different theological persuasions are frequently attracted to historical and prestigious religious institutions. These people don't always have a strong shared purpose other than their regard for the institution. (In fact, a denomination like the RCC sees the veneration of the institution as one of its cornerstones.) This is one reason why I'm not keen on the institutionalisation of Christianity, and the trappings that go with that. I'm not convinced that the 'broad church' solution, with all of its internal frustrations and public disagreements, and a veneration of church as an institution, represents real unity.

However, there's no real solution, is there? The forces at play are unassailable so we just struggle on.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In Britain there are evangelical seminaries that Anglican evangelical ordinands can attend, where their faith is presumably less likely to be compromised. But this is possible because the evangelical constituency in the CofE is longstanding, and is a growing and increasingly strong-minded proportion of churchgoing Anglicans as a whole. Is this the case for your denomination in Brazil? Your country is massive, though, and even if there is a choice of theological colleges perhaps candidates prefer to attend the one closest to where they live, regardless of what kind it is?

Some people might simply blame the seminary system for creating clergy that are out of touch with congregations. Some of my previous comments on this thread have been informed by this concern. Of course, this isn't a challenge for every single church, but I've come across enough comments in various places that suggest it's an issue for many of them.

OTOH, as the experience of your church and the CofE suggests, maybe a bigger problem is that people of different theological persuasions are frequently attracted to historical and prestigious religious institutions.

You seem to be unclear on the purpose of theological education-- or really of education as a whole. The purpose is not to bolster pre-existing beliefs, the purpose is to gain a broader perspective of the diversity of beliefs/ideas within the field as a whole. One doesn't or shouldn't choose a seminary based solely on it's ability to reinforce what you already know or believe.

It's interesting that your link above does not seem to support what you have been claiming here-- in fact it does the exact opposite. Your link shows:

1. That some people (quite a few, actually) think the introduction of "liberal theology" by clergy that is in conflict with the congregation's beliefs is the reason for decline in church attendance. The fact that there is such a perception would seem to be pretty clear evidence that many clergy do NOT shrink back from preaching things that conflict with their congregation's beliefs. If all they did was preach what people want to hear, there would be no such perception.

2. Interestingly, your link suggests that demographic considerations rather than liberal theology are a greater factor in church decline. (This is a much-debated and much-researched topic of which there is far more data to consider-- but that's another thread).

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
NO ONE is suggesting that clergy are perfect. NO ONE is suggesting that clergy don't have the same struggles, challenges, temptations, and doubts that everyone else has.

What I and others are suggesting is that clergy have an ethical obligation to be as transparent as possible about those struggles, challenges, temptations and doubts. There are constraints of course, for a number of reasons. But we are called first of all to be authentic and that requires being honest about those things.

I think my point is that, whether or not this obligation exists, they're not always open about these things, and not always perceived to be open. This lack of openness sometimes contributes towards other problems - clergy stress is a considerable issue, so I understand. But I'd probably have to gather a forest of references and links to give you a sense that this isn't something I'm just making up in my head, and I don't think you want me to do that.

I didn't realise initially that you were a minister, so I understand now why you're taking some of these comments personally. On the plus side, though, as I said, I'm not talking about you personally, nor the churches and clergy you know, if they don't face the kinds of issues I'm referring to here. It's positive to hear that there are very many clergy who are utterly open about their 'struggles, challenges, temptations and doubts.'

Maybe I need to attend different churches and stop hanging out with the kind of ministers who mostly mention these problems in private!

Regarding my most recent post, I know the link says that liberal theology doesn't have to lead to decline. The issue was whether it leads to a gap between clergy and congregations. The gap occurs, IMO, because the clergy in many cases (but not in the cases you're aware of, I accept that) don't necessarily feel able to share their theological insights with their congregations. (If you remember, a theologian I know used to advise his students not to share certain ideas with their congregations.)

I do believe that if the clergy were better able to share their most challenging theological insights with congregations there would be less of a gap. Perhaps this requires better training in communication skills, or a different approach towards human relationships in church.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185

 - Posted      Profile for que sais-je   Email que sais-je   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
... As a baby Atheist ...

To me you sound a very grown up one.

--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)

Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Regarding my most recent post, I know the link says that liberal theology doesn't have to lead to decline. The issue was whether it leads to a gap between clergy and congregations. The gap occurs, IMO, because the clergy in many cases (but not in the cases you're aware of, I accept that) don't necessarily feel able to share their theological insights with their congregations. (If you remember, a theologian I know used to advise his students not to share certain ideas with their congregations.)

OK, I've said this before but you obviously didn't hear it. Please try to listen: your link says the exact opposite of that. Your link says that some people blame the decline in church attendance on the mismatch of clergy beliefs and congregational beliefs. That implies the OPPOSITE of what you are suggesting. If clergy in fact were NOT forthcoming about their beliefs, if indeed they adjusted their preaching to match their congregations beliefs, there would be no perceivable "gap". The gap would be entirely an inner experience of clergy, and therefore could not possibly be even a perceived cause of the decline in attendance. The fact that some people do, in fact, blame the decline on that gap is evidence of precisely the OPPOSITE of what you've suggested-- it suggests that clergy ARE preaching things their congregants don't agree with, that they ARE being, at the very least, honest and forthcoming about their beliefs.


quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think my point is that, whether or not this obligation exists, they're not always open about these things, and not always perceived to be open. This lack of openness sometimes contributes towards other problems - clergy stress is a considerable issue, so I understand. But I'd probably have to gather a forest of references and links to give you a sense that this isn't something I'm just making up in my head, and I don't think you want me to do that.

I would much prefer you do that than that you continue to offer what appear to me to be complete unsubstantiated speculation about the inner life and fundamental integrity of other people. It may be that you are right, and I will have to offer a retraction (won't be my first) as well as deal with my utter disappointment in my colleagues. Or it may be that what you think are references to support your position are things like the link above-- which demonstrate the exact opposite of what you seem to think it shows.


quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's positive to hear that there are very many clergy who are utterly open about their 'struggles, challenges, temptations and doubts.'

Maybe I need to attend different churches and stop hanging out with the kind of ministers who mostly mention these problems in private!

Yes, I would certainly suggest you get a broader sampling before speculating about the inner life and integrity of other people.


quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

I do believe that if the clergy were better able to share their most challenging theological insights with congregations there would be less of a gap. Perhaps this requires better training in communication skills, or a different approach towards human relationships in church.

Possibly. Although our experience on the Ship should demonstrate that simply sharing your theological insights is no guarantee that others will adopt them.

I do believe that good communication, sensitivity, good conflict management skills are key to handling controversial matters and/or difficult theological concepts without causing any harm either to individuals' faith or to the overall congregational health. But all of that is secondary to the issue of integrity. If people cannot first of all trust their clergy then all the good communication skills and conflict management ability will be moot.

[ 13. February 2016, 15:02: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One at a time again:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What new and uncharted territory? I'm being kind by calling him insane as the alternative to mad is bad. Is lacking in integrity. Which is in fact far more likely. Having gone down a cul-de-sac, down a hole, all he can do is dig deeper, hunker down, justify it and seduce the gullible, rather than admit he was wrong. Bad makes mad.

Martin, I do wish you'd speak less in riddles. I'm interested in your critique of Boyd, but I can't make head-nor-tail of it. In words simple enough for this fool to understand, can you explain to me why you think he is insane?
mr cheesy, YOU are no fool. It takes one to know one, and you're not. Here is a kindly take on Boyd. To me he's a HUGE disappointment, because he comes so close, but the cigar he misses is a Cohiba Siglo VIII. I guess I'll have to read God at War: the Bible and Spiritual Conflict, Gregory A. Boyd, (InterVarsity Press, 1997), but everything I've read and discussed, including here with cliffdweller, about Boyd is that he believes in the demiurge, who for him corrupted the entire universe from some mythic, meaningless perfect state at the moment of creation.

To truly believe that is deliberately chosen ignorant madness. A rational, simple cosmos, in [the] sui generis [mind of] God or NOT, i.e. sui generis of itself, is infinite and eternal. Satan ain't that big.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Your penultimate paragraph makes you a very real, most faithful Christian, not an atheist.

I appreciate your sentiment and know what you're trying to say, but I might look like one in practice but I'm not in my inner self where it actually counts.

As for your previous post I'd almost agree with you, I want to go Spinoza on myself but I'm taking all my time getting my head around what he's saying before I claim to completely accept his claims.

I have no idea how you could have read that penultimate paragraph as Macrina being a real faithful Christian. Shows that people read what they want to read into things.

(as an aside, many of us have been through a similar journey as you have Macrina, and it is an awesome life changing journey to make!)

Neil

The paragraph: "As a baby Atheist I feel a very strong commitment to helping others(i) and my community(ii) because I don't think there's any divine force out there that will do it for me(iii). My prayers won't help(iv) but my donation of time(v) or money(vi) or a shoulder to cry on(vii) will. Asking God to divert a hurricane or help earthquake victims will do nothing(viii) but again charitable donations(ix) and organising events to raise money(x) will, behaving in an ecologically sustainable way(xi) benefits future generations etc. I feel MORE socially responsible and morally committed as an Atheist, not less. And my motivations and mental state are healthier (for me) than they were as a Christian."

(i)-(xi) are what being Christian IS. Not some creedal chant. Not some hellfire terrified gibbering grovel. Some two-a-penny 'belief'.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I guess I'll have to read God at War: the Bible and Spiritual Conflict, Gregory A. Boyd, (InterVarsity Press, 1997)

I'll echo that suggestion. The part of Boyd's thesis that Martin is objecting to really is part & parcel with the overall systematic theology Boyd is proposing, it's the pulling one piece out of context that makes it so implausible to Martin (although the way he gets so worked up about it is a bit perplexing). God at War (unfortunately named-- Boyd is a pacifist-- you gotta read it to make sense of the title, which isn't really helpful) is a thick tome, but well worth it IMHO.

But this is all off-topic and best discussed in another thread.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yes they are 95% Anglican. The 'non-conformist' are even worse. I met a wonderful post-Baptist last summer though, as well as meeting the peerless Steve Chalke. Of the, oooooooh, 20+ of the Anglican I've encountered in over 10 years, including the egregious Mark Stibbe, they are ALL whipped party men.

Fair enough. But when you simply say "The clergy very rarely get real, honest, raw, inclusive," the clear implication is that you're talking about the clergy in general, not just the 20+ members of the clergy you have encountered over the last 10 years. That's the problem I had with what you said—taking a very small sample (and what you said may be true of that sample) and extrapolating it "the clergy" as a whole.
Dang Nick Tamen, graciousness is hard to beat. I have NO trouble extrapolating to the clergy as a whole from that sample, which is bigger than most people's. And that does not include the thousands of Christians I have fellowshipped with over nearly 40 years, including 'pillars' of the church, the close circles around the pastor/vicar.

I saw my former charismatic evangelical Anglican Sunday worship assistant vicar in action last night. And despite the former, the latter was EXCELLENT. Inspiring, courageous, hands on, serving the dangerous poor. I learned at her feet.

I AM extrapolating and interpolating 'down' from the failed Christian leadership of Andrew, Justin and George (and old George and the unspeakably vile Kirill). I hear NONE of their acolytes daring to speak out against their warmongering.

You do?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
starbelly
but you can call me Neil
# 25

 - Posted      Profile for starbelly   Author's homepage   Email starbelly   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The paragraph: "As a baby Atheist I feel a very strong commitment to helping others(i) and my community(ii) because I don't think there's any divine force out there that will do it for me(iii). My prayers won't help(iv) but my donation of time(v) or money(vi) or a shoulder to cry on(vii) will. Asking God to divert a hurricane or help earthquake victims will do nothing(viii) but again charitable donations(ix) and organising events to raise money(x) will, behaving in an ecologically sustainable way(xi) benefits future generations etc. I feel MORE socially responsible and morally committed as an Atheist, not less. And my motivations and mental state are healthier (for me) than they were as a Christian."

(i)-(xi) are what being Christian IS. Not some creedal chant. Not some hellfire terrified gibbering grovel. Some two-a-penny 'belief'. [/QB]

Well if we are defining a christian as someone who follows their conscience and does good things in the world then I am a christian to0, as is our old friend Richard Dawkins, but I thought, and call me crazy here, that it had something to do with belief in God and a lot to do with faith in that Jesus guy?

Neil

Posts: 6009 | From: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185

 - Posted      Profile for que sais-je   Email que sais-je   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:
Well if we are defining a christian as someone who follows their conscience and does good things in the world then I am a christian too, as is our old friend Richard Dawkins, but I thought, and call me crazy here, that it had something to do with belief in God and a lot to do with faith in that Jesus guy?

Matthew 25 v37-45?

--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)

Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Matthew 25 v37-45?

Does that passage mention that these sheeple are Christians? It seems clear from context that they're not believers in Christ, which indeed seems the point of the parable. Kinda like the Good Samaritan.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Matthew 25 v37-45?

Does that passage mention that these sheeple are Christians? It seems clear from context that they're not believers in Christ, which indeed seems the point of the parable. Kinda like the Good Samaritan.
I think that was que sais-je's point as well.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Matthew 25 v37-45?

Does that passage mention that these sheeple are Christians? It seems clear from context that they're not believers in Christ, which indeed seems the point of the parable. Kinda like the Good Samaritan.
I think that was que sais-je's point as well.
Then I completely fail to see que sais-je's point. The question was about the definition of Christian, not whether people can be good people without being Christians.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
fletcher Christian.

You are absolutely valid in your rhetorical reaction to mine. Your testimony of Northern Ireland clergy is true, I know, because you say it, but it is NOT of the majority by a long way. We need to hear more. I'm ONLY aware of the superb Roman Catholic priest, Alec Reid, who gave the last rites to the two SAS troopers, David Howes and Derek Wood.

So more please.

I speak for my up close and personal experience of cultic, Anglican and Baptist clergy of forty years. I speak as an observer of Christian clergy through the window of BBC 24, my main aperture on the world.

In which the bravest believer in the news in a quarter of a century is a Muslim: A Good Man in Rwanda.

I speak, barely hyperbolically, barely in caricature, barely in bitterness, about the appalling global vacuum in Christian leadership from the top down.

There are bright lights in America ... but dim by comparison with Dr. King by orders of magnitude. And they're in ... America.

(God bless Bernie Sanders, he's so good he MUST be an atheist.)

The only high profile exception in Britain, after the bitterly disappointing Justin Welby (of whom I've not been in the presence, unlike mr cheesy, and yes I was moved by the latter's description), then the forgivably unhinged Andrew White, the appalling Mark Stibbe and his apologist is the excommunicated (by the Evangelical Alliance) post-Baptist Steve Chalke, all of whom I have been.

The list of other really, really disappointing leaders includes Joel Edwards, John Sentamu, bishopric upon bishopric (Hull? Uganda).

Homophobic warmongers TO A MAN.

By their silence.

So no mate.

No apology. No climb down. Sorry to disappoint you. And I need all the friends I can get, being my own worst enemy.

I like my vicar, the best of the four I've had by a country mile. I feel strong affection for him and the evangelical Anglican men I fellowship with intimately.

But this is here. And I can be even more un-restive than I can be with them. Which is very.

Oscar Romero [Votive]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Those who unconditionally love, love beyond reasonable hate, reasonable despite, reasonable condemnation, reasonable giving up [on], who go the extra mile, who do not reasonably turn away, who defend the weak, who suffer for being kind, who are punished for their good deeds are followers of Christ.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I guess I'll have to read God at War: the Bible and Spiritual Conflict, Gregory A. Boyd, (InterVarsity Press, 1997)

I'll echo that suggestion. The part of Boyd's thesis that Martin is objecting to really is part & parcel with the overall systematic theology Boyd is proposing, it's the pulling one piece out of context that makes it so implausible to Martin (although the way he gets so worked up about it is a bit perplexing). God at War (unfortunately named-- Boyd is a pacifist-- you gotta read it to make sense of the title, which isn't really helpful) is a thick tome, but well worth it IMHO.

But this is all off-topic and best discussed in another thread.

Again cliffdweller, there is no point is there? In my reading it. I've been valid in what I say. And you ask why it exercises me so? I shook my head then. You CANNOT understand. That's OK.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Matthew 25 v37-45?

Does that passage mention that these sheeple are Christians? It seems clear from context that they're not believers in Christ, which indeed seems the point of the parable. Kinda like the Good Samaritan.
I think that was que sais-je's point as well.
Then I completely fail to see que sais-je's point. The question was about the definition of Christian, not whether people can be good people without being Christians.
Matt. 25 appears to be about precisely that-- defining who is a Christian-- or, to put it more directly, who is in (or out) of God's Kingdom. And Matt. 25 at least seems to be defining that entirely in terms of behavior/actions, even at times in opposition to stated belief.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

I speak, barely hyperbolically, barely in caricature, barely in bitterness, about the appalling global vacuum in Christian leadership from the top down.

But... the sort of leadership you're seeking, the sort of leadership I believe God is calling us to-- is not "top down" leadership. It's (to quote a different book by Boyd you might find more appealing) "power under" leadership rather than "power over." That seems to be the sort of leadership fletcher Christian is describing. If you're looking only at the "top down" Christian leadership in the UK or anywhere else (this is incredibly so in the US) you will miss it altogether.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Posted by Martin:
quote:

So more please.

No; no more. This is a modern malaise to see value in the lauded and those whose names should be glorified, who appear regularly on the Twitter posts and have their quotes plastered on the Facebook pages. Those who make us feel good about ourselves when we find we think the same way as them while we sit idly in our armchairs full of self righteousness smugness while tapping in vain criticism on an anonymous internet forum. It suits us in an age of fame a reputation, but I believe there are countless in the heavenly hosts whose names are not remembered by us at all in any shape or form, nor should they be, for they did it not for themselves or for the adulation and admiration of others, but for God.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Matt. 25 appears to be about precisely that-- defining who is a Christian-- or, to put it more directly, who is in (or out) of God's Kingdom.

But those are not the same thing. We're told there will be tares until the end, and there are sheep in other fold(s).

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Matt. 25 appears to be about precisely that-- defining who is a Christian-- or, to put it more directly, who is in (or out) of God's Kingdom.

But those are not the same thing. We're told there will be tares until the end, and there are sheep in other fold(s).
True. But it was that point that was being attempted to be teased out here: What does it mean to be "a Christian"-- i.e. a "little Christ"-- i.e. a follower of Jesus.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185

 - Posted      Profile for que sais-je   Email que sais-je   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Matt. 25 appears to be about precisely that-- defining who is a Christian-- or, to put it more directly, who is in (or out) of God's Kingdom. And Matt. 25 at least seems to be defining that entirely in terms of behavior/actions, even at times in opposition to stated belief.

Thank you, cliffdweller. That was indeed how I understood it.

PS Though I think I've always been an atheist I did 'O' Level Religious Instruction in 1965. In those days it seemed to involve little more than learning most of the synoptic gospels. 50 years later I still remember lots of it. Weird given how much I've forgotten of everything else. I got a Grade 3 by the way.

--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)

Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If you were drawing from memory re Matt. 25, I would say it has served you well!

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Matt. 25 appears to be about precisely that-- defining who is a Christian-- or, to put it more directly, who is in (or out) of God's Kingdom.

But those are not the same thing. We're told there will be tares until the end, and there are sheep in other fold(s).
True. But it was that point that was being attempted to be teased out here: What does it mean to be "a Christian"-- i.e. a "little Christ"-- i.e. a follower of Jesus.
A Christian is a member of the Church. We confuse the Church with the Kingdom. They're not the same thing.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Matt. 25 appears to be about precisely that-- defining who is a Christian-- or, to put it more directly, who is in (or out) of God's Kingdom.

But those are not the same thing. We're told there will be tares until the end, and there are sheep in other fold(s).
True. But it was that point that was being attempted to be teased out here: What does it mean to be "a Christian"-- i.e. a "little Christ"-- i.e. a follower of Jesus.
A Christian is a member of the Church. We confuse the Church with the Kingdom. They're not the same thing.
I would agree they're not the same thing, although I believe they are related. But the definition of "Christian" is what we're debating here. I would say the definition "follower of Christ" and/or "member of God's Kingdom" is every bit as valid as the definition "member of the Church".

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807

 - Posted      Profile for Macrina   Email Macrina   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
... As a baby Atheist ...

To me you sound a very grown up one.
Thankyou [Smile] I don't use the term to mean immature particularly more just new. This time last year I'd have been horrified if someone described me as an Atheist now I see it as more or less accurate.

I also understand and agree with what Starbelly said, both about the journey being life changing and also about the vital difference between belief and action. Again I might 'look' like a Christian in some of my social actions (and very much not like one in others) but that motivation has to be grounded in faith in Christ for it to be authentically Christian and I don't have that.

Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185

 - Posted      Profile for que sais-je   Email que sais-je   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If you were drawing from memory re Matt. 25, I would say it has served you well!

Thanks, it has (though less good now).

I knew it was in Matthew and looked it up. Probably in Luke as well? I recall I always preferred Luke though I remember it in less detail. Must read them again. Because of the exam syllabus we never did John - or indeed anything else in the NT.

--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)

Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
cliffdweller

fletcher Christian

perfect

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185

 - Posted      Profile for que sais-je   Email que sais-je   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
... but that motivation has to be grounded in faith in Christ for it to be authentically Christian and I don't have that.

This seems to interlock with Matthew 25 (see discussion a bit up the thread) as well. Though the technicalities of that discussion have already lost me!

I wonder how precisely Jesus knew what it would mean for others to be "authentically Christian". Or indeed if he cared that much about the details as long as the hungry ate, the thirsty drank etc.

PS In my first post I used 'grown up' to mean an attitude to life rather than maturity as age. I have the latter but often lack the former!

--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)

Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would agree they're not the same thing, although I believe they are related. But the definition of "Christian" is what we're debating here. I would say the definition "follower of Christ" and/or "member of God's Kingdom" is every bit as valid as the definition "member of the Church".

But it's really being redefined here, as in Victorian England, as "a truly decent chap who's good to others." Which robs the word of all specific meaning.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools