Posted                      

quote:

---

Isn't being "Christian" about feeling oneself released to a world free from sin?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Being Christian for me is about living in experiential relationship with God through Christ, who we desire to follow with the help and gifts of the Holy Spirit, the greatest of which is love.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
You've started in the direction that always loses me: "experiential relationship with God...". I don't get experiential things. I get that I follow a routine and a set of principles, and try to follow, and of course, miss the target. I get nothing at all within my present-day experiences, only encouragement from living positively as a follower. Mostly I get the idea that faithfulness because we can do no other (in Luther's phrase) is it, and there is only decoration and hopeful interpretation otherwise.

So I think probably Christianity is in practice in the world: much decoration, much elabouration, much hopeful interpretation. With the core being merely trying to be a follower and letting the rest take care of itself. I have no quarrel with things that move people in positive directions (i.e. forward in faith), but worry about having faith rest there, versus resting on the basic simple parts. Jesus was killed soon after his declaration of his body and blood, and why should we not expect to be similarly killed (and otherwise mistreated*) while God watches and does not intervene? Yet we remain faithful (and are offered examples what not to do via Judas and Peter, God rest both their souls).

*if Jesus had been female I expect he'd have been raped too. Or maybe he was?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Being Christian for me is about living in experiential relationship with God through Christ, who we desire to follow with the help and gifts of the Holy Spirit, the greatest of which is love.

---

You've started in the direction that always loses me: "experiential relationship with God...". I don't get experiential things. I get that I follow a routine and a set of principles, and try to follow, and of course, miss the target. I get nothing at all within my present-day experiences, only encouragement from living positively as a follower. Mostly I get the idea that faithfulness because we can do no other (in Luther's phrase) is it, and there is only decoration and hopeful interpretation otherwise.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I'm as lost with a set of principles and a routine as far as faith is concerned as you and anteater are with experience, but I'd argue that each helps to feed into the other. Unless we occasionally are touched by 'the numinous', a profound sense of peace, or a sense of God being with us when we pray, or worship, or serve God, I think it more likely that our doubts will grow.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I said on the 'Doubting' thread that a lot of Christian rhetoric has little meaning for me now. For example, when people speak of Jesus or Christ, I don't know what they mean. Do they mean that they actually have a flesh and blood Jesus present in their life? Or do they mean the idea of Jesus? Or an image?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I said on the 'Doubting' thread that a lot of Christian rhetoric has little meaning for me now. For example, when people speak of Jesus or Christ, I don't know what they mean. Do they mean that they actually have a flesh and blood Jesus present in their life? Or do they mean the idea of Jesus? Or an image?

---

How can we have a flesh and blood Jesus in our lives now? Have I missed the Second Coming??

Interestingly, I once read somewhere that in the '70s popular attention was focused very much on Jesus, whereas in a later decade the focus was more exclusively on God (i.e. God the Father, I suppose). I suppose Jesus would fit in with hippy culture to a certain extent, but I don't know what would make God the Father more of an appealing figure in the 90s or 00s. In fact, I'd have thought the Holy Spirit would be more the suited to the age, but apparently not. I can see how different aspects of God would appeal in different cultural and social conditions, though.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
The person of the Son has been incarnate since the Nativity, and that is an irreversible change.

This clearly does not mean we have a flesh-and-blood Jesus hanging round here on earth (and where he and heaven might be in the physical universe is one of those mysteries).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I strongly disagree.
[..]

It seems pretty clear from Jesus' teaching in John, for instance, that our relationship (or, walk, if you don't like the idea of relationships) with Christ is through the person of the Holy Spirit.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
We sing songs directly to Jesus; the mediation of the Holy Spirit is referred to less often.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

You've started in the direction that always loses me: "experiential relationship with God...". I don't get experiential things.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwalchmai:

quote:

---

You've started in the direction that always loses me: "experiential relationship with God...". I don't get experiential things.

---

I was brought up in the church from birth (hardly surprising as my father was a clergyman) but I have never had what I would describe as an experience of God or a meeting with Jesus. So for me Christianity has been part of my life, a habit one slips into and occasionally out of. I have difficulty believing the traditional interpretations of Christian mythology as they are preached Sunday by Sunday in so many churches. I have said on other threads that I have trouble with the concept that Jesus's death somehow made God forgive us when he would not otherwise have done so.

But I find the alternative non-religious world view, propounded in its most extreme form by Richard Dawkins, bleak and empty.

So although I tend to describe myself as a Christian agnostic, I am a member of my local church and I am happy to talk with other Christians about their understanding of faith, and to read what others have said on these matters, to help me on my journey through life (call it a pilgrimage if you wish) and search for understanding and meaning.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
But I find the alternative non-religious world view, propounded in its most extreme form by Richard Dawkins, bleak and empty.

So although I tend to describe myself as a Christian agnostic, I am a member of my local church and I am happy to talk with other Christians about their understanding of faith, and to read what others have said on these matters, to help me on my journey through life (call it a pilgrimage if you wish) and search for understanding and meaning.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
What's the church if it's not the ongoing presence of Christ?

---

quote:

---

Is it fallible?

Clearly.

How do we live with that?

---

Yes, as Paul says, we have this treasure in jars of clay. Living with that involves dealing with the axiomatic "now and not yet" aspect of Christianity.

As I understand it, Bethel (of Bill Johnson and Redding, Califorina fame) believe that the present-day church on earth is the incarnate, headless body of Christ and as such its members are supposed to be doing exactly what Christ did, how he did it (e.g. walk on water, not be ill). Once their KPIs are up to speed, the Head will return.

This is an extreme, over-realised eschatological answer to your dilemma. I think it takes the image of the "body" (which, after all, we use in the abstract form in English all the time, e.g. "a government body") far too literally. "Ongoing presence" is much better

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
We sing songs directly to Jesus; the mediation of the Holy Spirit is referred to less often.

---

Don't get me started...

The absence of a trinity in orthodox trinatarianism...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:


I agree that the Spirit does get neglected in some orthodox trinitarian circles, but over-emphasising the Spirit is just as bad, and songs and prayers are a bad example to pick. If our prayers and songs are directed much more at Jesus and the Father I think it's because, unlike the other two persons, you'd be hard-pushed to find prayers and songs directed at the Spirit in Scripture.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Ou sont les neiges d'antan? OK, mods, where are the snows of yesteryear?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What religious tradition do you currently belong to?

---

That's a hard one. Mostly mine, of course, which is precisely at the extremely balanced and orthodox middle, taking the best of all traditions and none of the worst .

(Well, sort of anabpatist non-conformisty neo-Brethren with a sprinkling of the Spirit but defined more in liberal than charismatic terms. One Shipmate I described the church I help lead to on meeting for the first time said "wow, that sounds really Emergent", so I guess we must also be emergent, entirely by accident. Is that clear? )

I think you misunderstand me about hymns. The point I was making was that the vast majority of hymns and songs over the history of the church are addressed to the Father and the Son, or alternatively are a sort of joint exhortation and addressed to each other, precisely because in Scripture there is very little if any occurrence of prayers or hymns addressed to the Spirit - so the songs we sing reflect the tradition that the Spirit is not addressed directly.

(I have of course now found a Methodist exception to this. "Dear Lord and Father of Mankind" includes a verse addressed to the Spirit ("o still small voice of calm") and appears to be United Methodist Hymnal no. 358. But it is the exception not the rule).

Not usually addressing the Spirit, however, is not the same as not mentioning the Spirit, which I think plenty of hymns probably do. In over-realised eschatalogical charismatic circles, not only will you find far more "Jesus is my boyfriend" songs, you will also find many more addressed directly to the Spirit, with I would suggest the off-the-railsness of the likes of Bethel being the result/cause. So I agree with you about the importance of singing more or less orthodox things.

In fact a defining moment in my journey out of over-realised eschatological circles was when I realised that the song, popular in this environment, It is the church, was effectively a song of praise to... well, the people singing it.

[ 19. January 2014, 15:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What religious tradition do you currently belong to?

---

That's a hard one. Mostly mine, of course, which is precisely at the extremely balanced and orthodox middle, taking the best of all traditions and none of the worst .

(Well, sort of anabpatist non-conformisty neo-Brethren with a sprinkling of the Spirit but defined more in liberal than charismatic terms. One Shipmate I described the church I help lead to on meeting for the first time said "wow, that sounds really Emergent", so I guess we must also be emergent, entirely by accident. Is that clear? )

---