Thread: Purgatory: The offence of defining the Church Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001038

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
This One True Church thing is interesting, particularly given some of the Catholic-related threads going on at the moment.

I have difficulty understanding why people get so upset at the suggestion from Catholic or Orthodox quarters that perhaps this person's church isn't fully part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

We all, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) draw boundaries according to some minimum standard of doctrine. Ask yourself how many of this unordered list of groups you would place within the One True Church (aside from questions of which individuals God will save - that's another issue), and answer honestly...

1. Roman Catholics
2. Orthodox
3. Anglicans
4. (Other) Protestants
5. (Other) Trinitarian Christians
6. Unitarians
7. Jehovah's Witnesses
8. Mormons
9. Muslims
10. Jews
11. Hindus
12. Buddhists
13. Gnostics
14. Baal-worshippers
15. Atheists
16. Satanists

Did you have them all in? If you did, you can leave this thought experiment because when I accuse some of hypocrisy in a moment, you're not in the firing line

Now, if you've excluded someone definitionally from the Church on the basis of doctrine, what right have you to whine if the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox or the fire-and-brimstone hyperprotestants do the same thing?

I'd rather have it straight. If the Orthodox think I'm outside the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church by view of the fact that +Tom Wright (my Ordinary, for those who don't pay attention) isn't a canonical Orthodox bishop by their terms, I'd rather know that than receive a pat on the head in public and private prayers for conversion to the One True Faith.

If the Roman Catholics think I'm outside of the Church because +Tom Wright isn't in communion with the bishop of Rome, I'd rather take it between the eyes than be lied to.

If extreme Protestants think I'm a hopeless apostate because I believe in the Real Presence, have been known to ask for the prayers of the Saints, pray for the departed, and think the Pope is an honest bishop and not the anti-Christ, don't beat around the bush - tell me what you think.

You can't make decisions without data. It's not offensive to me if another person tells me I'm not in the Church. It's offensive if he lies about what he thinks, or if he follows up the statement of belief with discrimination or violence.

Why would I rather have the data? Because those making claims, and I suspect we're all making that claim in some way with different boundaries, about where the Church exists might be right. Is this approach I'm trying feebly to challenge, actually Postmodernist Christianity For Dummies - that any belief about the boundaries of the Church is okay as long as it's wide enough to include what everyone believes?

Discuss...

[ 08. January 2006, 22:01: Message edited by: Erin ]
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
I believe that it is possible to find Christians in all of your first five categories, and probably even No. 6 (Unitarians which I am reading as including New Church -see Freddy!). I believe that it is only God who can know who is 'in ' and who is 'out'. In that sense the True Church is 'invisible'.

I believe that in some 'churches' (denominations) it is easier to make a committment to Christ and maintain/develpop it than in others. I would say that (generally) the best way(s) on offer is Trintarian and 'protestant' (but can be Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal, URC, 'house church' or one or two others).
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
I believe that it is possible to find Christians in all of your first five categories, and probably even No. 6 (Unitarians which I am reading as including New Church -see Freddy!).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
I believe that it is possible to find Christians in all of your first five categories, and probably even No. 6 (Unitarians which I am reading as including New Church -see Freddy!).

---

Can I conclude from this that, as organisations, you exclude all the others then - whether or not you believe that individual Jews, Muslims, Mormons etc can be saved?

Would you then get upset if a Roman Catholic said (and I'm aware that not all would, but this seems to me to be RC doctrine) that as a Baptist you're not in the Church, although they hope you'll be saved anyway?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
"One True Church" implies that the rest are false.

---

quote:

---

Oh, and I would call anyone who calls on the name of Jesus a Christian, and thus a member of The Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm fine with that, as long as they don't damn me as a consequence

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
This presumably means you rule out a large portion of my list. Given that you are therefore defining the Church exclusively, why get upset if the RCs or others do so in a way that excludes you? Either you're right, or they are. I presume you wouldn't get excited if a Moslem told you you were an apostate for worshipping a man who is, to him, at the most the second-ranking prophet?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Did you have them all in? If you did, you can leave this thought experiment because when I accuse some of hypocrisy in a moment, you're not in the firing line

Now, if you've excluded someone definitionally from the Church on the basis of doctrine, what right have you to whine if the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox or the fire-and-brimstone hyperprotestants do the same thing?

I'd rather have it straight. If the Orthodox think I'm outside the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church by view of the fact that +Tom Wright (my Ordinary, for those who don't pay attention) isn't a canonical Orthodox bishop by their terms, I'd rather know that than receive a pat on the head in public and private prayers for conversion to the One True Faith.

---

quote:

---

You can't make decisions without data. It's not offensive to me if another person tells me I'm not in the Church. It's offensive if he lies about what he thinks, or if he follows up the statement of belief with discrimination or violence.

Why would I rather have the data? Because those making claims, and I suspect we're all making that claim in some way with different boundaries, about where the Church exists might be right. Is this approach I'm trying feebly to challenge, actually Postmodernist Christianity For Dummies - that any belief about the boundaries of the Church is okay as long as it's wide enough to include what everyone believes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't think they are saying that Anglicanism is not part of the Church, but that the fullness of the Church doesn't reside with us.

---

quote:

---

Offence is caused when they repeat it ad nauseam.

---

quote:

---

Furthermore confusion is caused by the fact that they don't behave as if it were true. Long ecumenical dialogue with both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, as well as a huge amount of networking on the ground, has caused many of us in the past to deceive ourselves and believe that we were closer than we actually were. The Roman Catholic Church in its public statements can sometimes behave as though these conversations were not taking place, in their disdain for others.

---

quote:

---

I speak as someone who is saddened by disunity among Trinitarian churches and as an Evangelical who would ultimately be prepared to accept the Petrine primacy if it would bring Christians into closer unity. But the hurdles we have to jump at the current time are too great and I think the onus is on the Roman Catholic Church to relax what it demands from other churches to be in full communion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan.:
What each of them effectively claim is a monopoly of grace within the framework of an institution.

---

quote:

---

I have difficulty understanding why people get so upset at the suggestion from Catholic or Orthodox quarters that perhaps this person's church isn't fully part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

We all, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) draw boundaries according to some minimum standard of doctrine.

---

quote:

---

"One True Church" implies that the rest are false.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
I presume you wouldn't get excited if a Moslem told you you were an apostate for worshipping a man who is, to him, at the most the second-ranking prophet?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ruudyy:
It has been important for me to acknowledge that those who are in the One True Church and those who are on a path of salvation may be two separately defined sets.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
But just to underscore his excellent points:
The Catholic Church IN NO WAY claims that non-Catholic Christians are not part of the Church. Indeed, in our theology the only way one can be a Christian is by being part of the Church. What we do claim is that the structures of the Roman Catholic Church (e.g. the Petrine office, the episcopacy and priesthood, the sacramental system, the teach office, etc.) are willed by God to be the structure of the Church, and any group of Christians that do not share fully in these structures do not share fully in the life of the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Though many of them would say Jesus was more than a second-ranking prophet

---

quote:

---

Though of course individual non-Christians can be found in the churches, and individual Christians outside them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:

The Catholic Church does not claim such a monopoly of grace....What we do claim is a certainty that God's grace is guaranteed, by Him, to the Catholic Church and her Sacraments. That is not the same as denying it elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Will God find faith at His return? Even in the little flock?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
Elfed, you are confusing two different things.

Baptised Christians have always been held to be part of the Church. But whether an ecclesial community is a "Church" or not depends in the technical language of Catholic theology on a whole different series of factors. It is clear that the Orthodox Churches, who have maintained apostolic succession and the sacraments are indeed "Churches"; it is equally clear that the Churches of the Protestant Reformation, who have not retained the apostolic succession and the sacraments are, in some sense, not "Churches" in the sense that Catholic theology gives to that word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
So do you count the C of E as a church, since we retained both the sacraments and the apostolic succession?

And if you or the Orthodox turn up to the church I go to, you are welcome to receive communion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
And if you or the Orthodox turn up to the church I go to, you are welcome to receive communion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
And if you or the Orthodox turn up to the church I go to, you are welcome to receive communion.

---

This certainly proves that you don't have the same view of communion that we do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
No, because I believe that Anglican's have not retained the Apostolic Succession (see threads passim now in Dead Horses territory) and have not kept to a view of the nature (or, for most Anglicans for most of Anglican history, the number) of the Sacraments that is consistent with Catholic and Orthodox faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
And if you or the Orthodox turn up to the church I go to, you are welcome to receive communion.

---

This certainly proves that you don't have the same view of communion that we do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
We all know what Anglican eucharistic hospitality (since 1980) has been. In many ways it underlies the problem with Anglicanism as a whole for Catholics. If you had retained the Catholic Orders and Sacraments, you would understand the ecclesiological nonsense of inter-communion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
"One True Church" implies that the rest are false.

---

Yes, it does, doesn't it? That's my point. What if they're right? You think they're wrong and therefore take offence at any suggestion that you're wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
And if you or the Orthodox turn up to the church I go to, you are welcome to receive communion.

---

This certainly proves that you don't have the same view of communion that we do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I take offense at the presumption and arrogance inherent in such a position

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I don't think that's true GreyFace. The fact that an Anglican would accept at communion someone baptized outside of that church would tell someone in Orthodoxy immediately that they have a different view of the sacrament.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Now the first of these questions is frankly one I'm not prepared to go into, but I don't see why we can't draw the line as far as the other question goes at the point of the Trinity. It's how Christianity has been defined for many hundreds of years, and frankly if it's good enough for Christians throughout history, why isn't it good enough for us?

---

quote:

---

And all Orthodox converts are baptised, are they? I know for a fact they are not.

---

quote:

---

So we have a difference of ecclesiology, not of eucharistology (if there is such a thing) that can be deduced from Mousethief's welcome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
If you had retained the Catholic Orders and Sacraments, you would understand the ecclesiological nonsense of inter-communion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
I'm surprised that no one has yet pointed out that what groups one to five have in common - namely Nicene, Trinitarian doctrine - actually makes them substantively different from groups 6 and following, given that none of the others hold to the credal basis that has over the last 1700 years come to define what makes a Christian (and what doesn't).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
...
I'd have no problem agreeing with a Buddhist that I'm not part of whatever Buddhist organisation or institution he or she belongs to, which means nothing to me, and they're not part of my church which means nothing to them. Neither of us is claiming to be one-up on the other.

...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
But that's not really the point of the OP. The point is, you've set the bar at Trinitarian belief, or even adherence to the Nicene Creed. You would therefore be a hypocrite (and I should know, I'm an expert) if you found it arrogant for any particular church to set the bar differently. From those of your posts I've read, I doubt you would take offence - you would, rather, disagree and debate the issue.

---

quote:

---

Posted by Mousethief:
Oh, pish posh, that creed didn't come along until 300 years after Christ's death and resurrection -- it can't possibly be as correct as something whipped up 25 years ago but using the original Scriptures as a guideline, can it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Henry Troup:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
...
I'd have no problem agreeing with a Buddhist that I'm not part of whatever Buddhist organisation or institution he or she belongs to, which means nothing to me, and they're not part of my church which means nothing to them. Neither of us is claiming to be one-up on the other.

...

---

There's little incompatibility between Buddhism and Christianity. Many people claim to practice both.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:


Now, if you've excluded someone definitionally from the Church on the basis of doctrine, what right have you to whine if the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox or the fire-and-brimstone hyperprotestants do the same thing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Oh, pish posh, that creed didn't come along until 300 years after Christ's death and resurrection -- it can't possibly be as correct as something whipped up 25 years ago but using the original Scriptures as a guideline, can it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wombat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Now, if you've excluded someone definitionally from the Church on the basis of doctrine, what right have you to whine if the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox or the fire-and-brimstone hyperprotestants do the same thing?

---

This assumes that one definition by doctrine is as good as another, and therefore, if you define at all by doctrine, you must accept the right of others to do so. If one presumes some definitions of the membership of the Church by doctrine have more value than others, then your central thesis collapses.

---

quote:

---

I 'm surprised that no one has yet pointed out that what groups one to five have in common - namely Nicene, Trinitarian doctrine - actually makes them substantively different from groups 6 and following, given that none of the others hold to the credal basis that has over the last 1700 years come to define what makes a Christian (and what doesn't).
<snip>It's how Christianity has been defined for many hundreds of years, and frankly if it's good enough for Christians throughout history, why isn't it good enough for us?

---

quote:

---

Do you exclude from sharing communion those whom Christ has included in his sacrifice of which and in which communion is a participation and remembrance, and who will share with you in the great Wedding Feast of the Lamb?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
I'm arguing against this (to me) strange reaction some people have to being placed outside the boundary by a group whose doctrines they don't agree with anyway,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Being constantly told, in any number of snide references to the One True Church and so on, that I'm essentially a second division Christian who may get the odd thing right but certainly doesn't have the guarantee of divine protection (this last comment has been said on these boards in the last week), is what pisses me off.

---

You've missed the point of the difference in RCC thought between us and the.... ecclesiastical gathering of which we're both members - and our own status as Christians.

But I still don't understand what gets you so upset - even if the RCC said you weren't a proper Christian at all, why would that piss you off so much? The bishops of the English Catholic Church (sorry for the dig, Trisagion, you've been getting off lightly ) say you are, so from an Anglican point of view Rome would be simply mistaken. If the opinion of Roman bishops trumps that, wouldn't it be more reasonable to swim the Tiber?
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ruudyy:
and Custard writes:

quote:

---

Do you exclude from sharing communion those whom Christ has included in his sacrifice of which and in which communion is a participation and remembrance, and who will share with you in the great Wedding Feast of the Lamb?

---

While I'm not able to speak for the Orthodox, I dare say that the statement above reveals a number of presuppositions which I admit I once shared, but with which even many non-Orthodox would take issue by asking:

1) Who can say definitively who will share in the great Wedding Feast of the Lamb? You?

---

quote:

---

2) Why do you assume that an exclusive ecclesiology is the same as an exclusive soteriology? You equate the two unnecessarily.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ruudyy:
A credal ecclesiology emanates from a post-Enlightenment respect for individual human intellect. Orthodox have an ecclesiology that is primarily relational over credal. The creeds are a part of this, but they do not define the Church body.

---

Sorry for the rapid-fire posts but I wanted to pick up on this.

Isn't it the basis for establishing communion between two bishops in Orthodoxy, their orthodoxy and their orthopraxis?
 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
Greyface,


 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Being constantly told, in any number of snide references to the One True Church and so on, that I'm essentially a second division Christian who may get the odd thing right but certainly doesn't have the guarantee of divine protection (this last comment has been said on these boards in the last week), is what pisses me off.

---

MtM, let me assure you that no-one is suggesting that you are a second division Christian. To make the statements about the CofE that have been made (by me, as much as by anybody else) is to say nothing about the state of the relationship between you and God and it is simply unarguable that the CofE (as also other denominations) is a school for the salvation of souls in which lives of exceptional holiness have and continue to be led.

If you think I said that you don't enjoy divine protection, you entirely mis-read what I posted. Your divine protection is guaranteed by God Himself, throughout Sacred Scripture. What is not guaranteed is your capacity to teach the truth indefectibly, infallibly. It is my belief and the belief of my fellow Catholics that God does guarantee that to the Catholic Church.

GreyFace, if the Anglican bishops are the "Bishops of the English Catholic Church", what about those Bishops (Latin and other Rite) who are in communion with the Pope. If you called the Ukrainian Exarch a Roman Catholic, he'd be mighty p!##=d off.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Being constantly told, in any number of snide references to the One True Church and so on, that I'm essentially a second division Christian who may get the odd thing right but certainly doesn't have the guarantee of divine protection (this last comment has been said on these boards in the last week), is what pisses me off.

---

You've missed the point of the difference in RCC thought between us and the.... ecclesiastical gathering of which we're both members - and our own status as Christians.

---

quote:

---

But I still don't understand what gets you so upset - even if the RCC said you weren't a proper Christian at all, why would that piss you off so much? The bishops of the English Catholic Church (sorry for the dig, Trisagion, you've been getting off lightly ) say you are, so from an Anglican point of view Rome would be simply mistaken. If the opinion of Roman bishops trumps that, wouldn't it be more reasonable to swim the Tiber?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
GreyFace, if the Anglican bishops are the "Bishops of the English Catholic Church", what about those Bishops (Latin and other Rite) who are in communion with the Pope.

---

You mean the RCC Bishops in England? A temporary anomaly. I view them as flying bishops for English Catholics that don't accept the autonomy of the English Catholic Church - and when communion is restored we'll only need one set.

Serious answer - a necessary result of the schism and I'd be very happy if I woke up tomorrow and found we didn't need overlapping jurisdictions any more.

quote:

---

If you called the Ukrainian Exarch a Roman Catholic, he'd be mighty p!##=d off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
To be offended that we can't receive Communion in a RC church

---

quote:

---

is the same as being offended that a Japanese person won't shake hands with us, or that in some countries we are expected to go about modestly dressed. For Orthodox and RCs, communion means something different - at least in terms of an expression of unity - than it does for the rest of us. We (frankly) need to get over it, and get on with the ways in which we all can be the Church together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
I've finally understood what you mean MtM. It would all be alright if we all saw it the way you (and the CofE) see it and until we do, it's our fault. You've certainly spelled it out quite clearly, at last.

The problem is, in conscience, the vast majority of Christians in the world, throughout time, have subscribed to an entirely different concept of Church from that which you propose and those of us still living who take that view have at least some justification in Sacred Scripture and Tradition for our opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
To be offended that we can't receive Communion in a RC church is the same as being offended that a Japanese person won't shake hands with us, or that in some countries we are expected to go about modestly dressed. For Orthodox and RCs, communion means something different - at least in terms of an expression of unity - than it does for the rest of us. We (frankly) need to get over it, and get on with the ways in which we all can be the Church together.

---

OK... now I'm confused.

What are these differences in meaning? Is the emphasis on fellowship stronger/weaker or something? Is there more focus on it as a memorial of Christ's sacrifice?

What, in short, is the big stumbling block which I'm apparently falling arse over tit over in my attempts to express my views on this subject?

In simple language that this simple layperson can understand, please...
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
I agree wholeheartedly with Spawn.

I'm off to lie down
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Caz..., this quote

quote:

---

Trisagion, your arrogance and your trampling over our hurt and offence at this takes my breath away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
MtM - I can only describe the impression I have from conversations with Orthodox and RCs, but ...

In Orthodoxy and Catholicism, communion is something that one is admitted to at the end of one's journey to that expression of Christian faith (i.e. Orthodoxy or RCism). In Anglicanism and many other denominations, it is something one may be admitted to on the way to that expression of faith, or (probably more commonly) as a parallel to one's own expression of faith.

In Anglicanism and the rest, communion is one expression of fellowship among many possible expressions; in Orthodoxy and RCism it is the unique expression of total or ultimate fellowship.

Does that help?

---

I think it does, but I'd like to offer an analogy to make sure. The analogy is a marathon race.

If the "race" is to 'that expression of Christian faith', as you put it, then to the RC (and Orthodox) Church communion is effectively the gold medal - you can only get it once you've made it to the end.

Whereas to we others it's the drinks which atheletes use to give them strength and which help them to make it to the finish.

It's not a very good analogy, I know. But is it near the mark?
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I don't think it's just organisational vs mystical unity, Custard.

Imagine this. You are an ardent member of the First Church of Custardism. Now, someone is starting from the position of no previous religious belief, and is gradually, bit by bit, coming to believe, and then to practise, all that Custardism believes and practises. What do you think the last step in their journey towards full Custardism? And if you were guiding and teaching them in their journey, what would be the last think you would teach them as part of that?

If you replace "Custardism" with "Orthodoxy" or "Catholicism", then the answer - maybe with a few t's to cross and i's to dot - is "communion".

[Cross-posted with MtM, whose analogy looks fine to me! (I don't run. It's not natural. ]

[ 25. August 2004, 11:25: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]
 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
Caz, I do understand how hurtful and offensive you find what I have to say, and I also understand why you might want to call that arrogant. I do not take it as a personal attack (pace Tortuf).

I think that the analogy with Japanese handshaking is quite helpful and helps me not feel offended by invitations to open communion made in the presence of Catholics by Anglicans.

Adeodatus' description of Catholic and Orthodox attitudes to communion is pretty good. I would only go further to reflect the "visible organic unity" concept that Spawn talks of. For us, receiving communion is the ultimate expression of our full, organic unity with the Church and with Christ. I don't go to communion when I attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy because the Bishop with whom I am in communion (and that's what it means to me), the Bishop of Clifton, is not in communion with the Orthodox Bishop with whom the celebrating community are in communion. Until those bonds of communion are restored then my receiving communion is, in fact, a lie, a false statement about the Church and my relationship to it (and using the most Holy thing this side of Heaven to make that false statement - one might even call that sacrilegious).

The Catholic Church teaches (and I believe it) that the Mass is the mystical re-presentation of Christ's whole saving work, in sacrifice to God and that within it, bread and wine become the glorified body and blood, humanity and divinity of Christ, physically present. When I receive communion, what I eat is, I believe, nothing less than that and through that communion I am incorporated, mystically but also physically, into the Catholic Church, in which subsists the Church of Christ. How can I share this with someone who does not believe this? How can I invite someone to share this communion with someone who believes that what they eat is still bread and wine, a symbol of the body and blood of Christ, a memorial of the Last Supper?

[ 25. August 2004, 11:43: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
What we're really dealing with is not a wilful exclusion, calculated to cause offence, but a "two cultures" situation, with the RCs and Orthodox on one side and the rest of us on the other...

For Orthodox and RCs, communion means something different - at least in terms of an expression of unity - than it does for the rest of us. We (frankly) need to get over it

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Or is willingness to change to accommodate others an essential part of human relationships ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Suppose, as I suggested, we consider a culture where a handshake is far too intimate a contact between mere acquaintances. Are we offended when a member of that culture declines to shake our hand? Do we feel that they are being deliberately rude or provocatively offensive? Or do we go away and find out more about their culture, and so come to a realisation of why they could not politely do what we wanted them to?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But nothing will ever be sorted out, and a relationship will never grow, as long as we don't understand why they won't shake our hand and they don't know why we can't understand how offensive shaking hands would be. We just end up getting more and more pissed off with each other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
I'm certainly moving to a closer understanding of the closed table position thanks to this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Of course, it doesn't make being excluded from Communion when in an RC Church...any less painful, but that's because broken bodies have pain!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Of course, it doesn't make being excluded from Communion when in an RC Church...any less painful, but that's because broken bodies have pain!

---

This is a terribly important point and one which should be remembered throughout ecumenical dialogue. Please be assured that we feel the pain too and that it is our pain, as well.

The divisions in the Body of Christ are a scandal and against God's will. This pain is a constant reminder of that and should give us the stick (to go with the carrot of our proper intentions) to work tirelessly to heal that same Body. I hope that in some small way the dialogue on this thread over the last few days has made some, allbeit almost insignificant, contribution to that effort.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by wombat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Now, if you've excluded someone definitionally from the Church on the basis of doctrine, what right have you to whine if the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox or the fire-and-brimstone hyperprotestants do the same thing?

---

This assumes that one definition by doctrine is as good as another, and therefore, if you define at all by doctrine, you must accept the right of others to do so. If one presumes some definitions of the membership of the Church by doctrine have more value than others, then your central thesis collapses.

---

No, it doesn't assume that one definition of doctrine is as good as another, at all. The reason you must accept the right of others to define by doctrine is that, as you're doing it yourself without demonstrable certainty, you'd be a hypocrite if you got upset at others doing the same.

The question of the accuracy of the doctrine in question is separate from your emotional response to a competing truth claim. I'm thoroughly modernist in that I believe in the knowability of truth (whether or not my feeble brain is able to grasp it) - I'm not arguing for a pluralist understanding here. I'm arguing against this (to me) strange reaction some people have to being placed outside the boundary by a group whose doctrines they don't agree with anyway, when they (and I) do the same thing - that reaction being to throw around accusations of arrogance.

Who's right is up for grabs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wombat:
think any reasonable person would agree that someone Moslem is not a Christian. I don't think that by holding to that level of definition of Christianity by doctrine, I am necessarily required to accept it as valid when some Baptist tells me Catholics are not Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by wombat:
think any reasonable person would agree that someone Moslem is not a Christian. I don't think that by holding to that level of definition of Christianity by doctrine, I am necessarily required to accept it as valid when some Baptist tells me Catholics are not Christian.

---

But it is perfectly sensible for the Baptist to say that Catholics are not Baptist, is it not?

I would never say that a Baptist is not a Christian. I would say that the Baptist is not Orthodox. Would you accept that as valid?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caz...:
BUT, moving on then to the situation WITHIN The Church, to be denied communion is, to me, a denial of my place within that family. It says to me that I am not really, in their eyes, a member of The Church after all.

Which, by my definition of The Church, is extremely offensive and hurtful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
I can't speak for the RCC but an Orthodox definition of "The Church" might run something like this: "That ecclesial body founded by Jesus Christ and his immediate Apostles, which has come down through history and culminates in what is today known as the Eastern Orthodox Church." that is to say, our idea of Church is not of an invisible body of like-minded (or like-watered) people, but rather of a visible, structured body identifiable primarily in the person of the bishops of the ancient episcopal Sees (Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem) which have remained in communion with one another.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wombat:
However, by Grayface's original postulate, giving any doctrinal definiton of a group automatically forfeits all right to be offended by someone else's definition. I could not, in fact, say a Baptist is not a Catholic without having to accept people saying I am not Christian without offense.

---

Correct. However you do not forfeit your right to argue vigorously that the definition is wrong. You just lose your right to take offence without hypocrisy.

And furthermore, defining a Baptist as not-Catholic might be offensive to a Baptist saying the Nicene Creed.

[ 26. August 2004, 07:58: Message edited by: GreyFace ]
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
So what would you call the set of all Christians?

---

quote:

---

Which do you think will be the Bride of Christ? (as in Eph 5)

---

Maybe they all are (or none are )?

I presume that in the next world there won't be any divisions between us. Perhaps it's the Church in that world which is the "Bride of Christ", and we down here are just all doing our best to emulate it.

We could simply be emulating different aspects of it, depending on which denomination we are part of. Kinda like blind men fighting over what an elephant looks like...
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
[waves hand in front of face]

Odd. Could have sworn I was invisible.

Still, I agree with Mousethief's analogy about Italians and Americans and stuff.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
And furthermore, defining a Baptist as not-Catholic might be offensive to a Baptist saying the Nicene Creed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
[waves hand in front of face]
Odd. Could have sworn I was invisible.

---

quote:

---

The "c" word is, as we've doubtless established many, many times, a loaded term, and you'd be hard pressed to find a Baptist, even one who knows where the Nicene Creed comes from, who would ever call himself "catholic".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:


Do you (the generic Baptist you, I don't mean the Wood you) drop the C word from the Creed? I presume you're happy with the belief that you're in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? So wouldn't you argue strongly that the Baptist faith was catholic, small "c" ?

---

Baptists? Saying the creed?

I think not. And will be most disappointed if hear otherwise.
 

---

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :
 
Dear Goldenkey

quote:

---

My view:

The Church = The Body of Christ = All Christians

No institution is The One True Church. Those making that claim may well not mean it in an arrogant way, but IMHO it is an arrogant claim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Baptists? Saying the creed?

I think not. And will be most disappointed if hear otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Ask yourself how many of this unordered list of groups you would place within the One True Church (aside from questions of which individuals God will save - that's another issue), and answer honestly...

1. Roman Catholics
2. Orthodox
3. Anglicans
4. (Other) Protestants
5. (Other) Trinitarian Christians
6. Unitarians
7. Jehovah's Witnesses
8. Mormons
9. Muslims
10. Jews
11. Hindus
12. Buddhists
13. Gnostics
14. Baal-worshippers
15. Atheists
16. Satanists

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm not sure your analogy works. It's based on a matter of fact, not a matter of belief, and on what the Ruritanian, were s/he properly informed, would immediately perceive to be a mistake.

By your analogy, then, either the RCs and Orthodox (one the one hand) or everyone else (on the other) are misinformed about what the eucharist "really" is.

I don't think that's the case at all. Or am I reading your analogy wrongly?

---

quote:

---

I know this is offensive and I really am sorry that it must be so, but that's the definition we have been handed down, and like the badgers in Prince Caspian, we tend to hang on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:


Do you (the generic Baptist you, I don't mean the Wood you) drop the C word from the Creed? I presume you're happy with the belief that you're in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? So wouldn't you argue strongly that the Baptist faith was catholic, small "c" ?

---

Baptists? Saying the creed?

I think not. And will be most disappointed if hear otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Unordered ? Really ? Would you care to reconsider that statement?

---

quote:

---

I understand the word "Church" with a capital C to mean something like "the set of all Christians". My understanding is that 1-8 claim to follow Christ and 9-16 don't, so I'd draw the boundary of the Church there.

---

Have a look at number 13 and see if you're happy to define them as Christians. Number 9 should also get in by your criterion, since they claim to follow him as a renowned prophet. My limited understanding of Judaism is that some groups of them are still expecting the Messiah, so they're in since they're following Christ/Messiah as best they can under their understanding of how things are.

So you appear to have drawn the boundaries of the Church Visible quite effectively, whilst appearing to say there's no such thing and only a Church Invisible.

The prosecution rests

quote:

---

I wouldn't use the construction "True Church", because that would mean something like "the set of all True Christians" which is passing a judgement on other people and how well they are following Christ. It implies that there is a False Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seasick:
Ultimately though, one's definition of catholic will stem from, and feed back into, one's definition of 'The Church'.

---

quote:

---

Please do not infer from this that I don't think any given person who isn't Orthodox isn't a Christian, isn't saved, isn't going to go to heaven, or anything of the sort. First off, it's not my call, it's God's, and second, that's now how we use the term "The Church." That would be to confuse our demarcation of "The Church" with somebody else's explicit definition of "The Church".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan.:
Serious question. In what meaningful sense is it possible to be a Christian without being a member of The Church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
Dear Goldenkey

quote:

---

My view:

The Church = The Body of Christ = All Christians

No institution is The One True Church. Those making that claim may well not mean it in an arrogant way, but IMHO it is an arrogant claim.

---

Which leaves you open to the charge of hypocrisy, since you're saying what nearly everybody else seems to be saying: My/our definition of the Church is the only true one.

---

quote:

---

Small difference: this definition of "The Church" includes all Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Cathedra:
Hardly helps, though, since now we have to define what we mean by 'Christian'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Cathedra:
Originally posted by GoldenKey:

quote:

---

Small difference: this definition of "The Church" includes all Christians.

---

Hardly helps, though, since now we have to define what we mean by 'Christian'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
The judgements you are assuming, that the Trinity is a true representation of God, and that commitment to this representation infers some God-access status that should be denied to others...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
It's largely lingustics this isn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If communion is essentially something like 'approaching God'...

---

That's a mighty big "if" though.

What if communion is also about being a member of a body of believers, or a means of expressing (for want of a better word) "oneness" with them?

While on one level I would consider myself "one" with all Christians, on other levels I am very different, because I believe different things (transubstantiation for example).

Therefore I wouldn't describe myself as fully "one" with those who believe differently, and thus wouldn't want to participate in an act which explicity says I am (namely communion).

Of course, another of the things I believe differently is that view of taking communion. But now that I realise that's how others see it (took me long enough, didn't it ), I have ceased having a problem with their refusal to let me join in with them.

I'd still appreciate it if one or two of them would phrase their objections less (again for want of a better word) arrogantly, but that's an argument about vocabulary, not theology.
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
But it's not my judgement. It's the historical definition of what makes one an Orthodox Christian (and by extension of what doesn't). It has been for an awfully long time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
I would go further than Mousethief and say that 'inclusiveness' and its misbegotten sibling 'tolerance' are distortions of the Gospel.

No Christian, Orthodox or otherwise, should exclude any other human being (indeed, any other created being) from God's love. I would be failing as a Christian if I treated somebody differently because they were of a different sex, age, race, religion, sexuality, lifestyle or whatever. I should welcome such people as if they were Christ Himself.

But, the Gospel makes demands on us. Some people are excluded from the Kingdom of God on various grounds. They exclude themselves by their failure to turn away from their particular sins, their unbelief. Even if communion is only personal and private communion with God, there are some people who should not receive it, lest they bring condemnation upon themselves. The Orthodox (and RC) view of communion is higher than this. Nobody has a right to communion, not even I, but there are conditions to reception which are as much for my protection as anything else. Communion is the Body and Blood of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Did not Uzzah perish because he touched the Ark of the Covenant (2 Sam 6:6-7)? Did not St Paul warn that this could happen with those who commune unworthily (1 Cor 11:27-30)?

If you disagree, perhaps we should start a new thread on 'inclusiveness' and give it a good going over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
But it's not my judgement. It's the historical definition of what makes one an Orthodox Christian (and by extension of what doesn't). It has been for an awfully long time.

---

Well, yes if you believe the historical definition is incontrovertibly right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If there is God-ness in all of us, and church celebrates communion at which some who are appropriately respectful are deemed not worthy, that to me is how religion gives God a bad name.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
I think we're pretty firmly in DH territory here...

---

quote:

---

If non-Catholic can attend a Roman Catholic Mass and, after listening carefully to the Eucharistic Prayer (including the part where we pray for John Paul, our Pope), can honestly say "Amen," and are not conscious of being in a state of mortal sin, then they should feel free to receive communion.
But this then would raise a further question. Since the Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Rite embody the Catholic understanding of the Church, if you can say Amen to that, then it would seem that one ought to become a Roman Catholic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
It's largely lingustics this isn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The word inclusive sounds morally superior.

---

quote:

---

I totally agree Isaac, but don't see how that affects my point above.

---

quote:

---

Nobody has a right to communion, not even I, but there are conditions to reception which are as much for my protection as anything else. Communion is the Body and Blood of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Did not Uzzah perish because he touched the Ark of the Covenant (2 Sam 6:6-7)? Did not St Paul warn that this could happen with those who commune unworthily (1 Cor 11:27-30)?

---

quote:

---

To be prepared, you have to have been baptized and chrismated in the Orthodox Church, you have to have fasted from meat, dairy, fish, oil and wine on Wednesday and Friday in the week preceding your reception, you have to have fasted from everything from midnight before your reception, you have to have received the sacrament of confession recently (how recently being worked out between you and your priest), and you have to be in a spiritual state appropriate for taking it. I know plenty of people who won't receive if they've yelled at their kids that morning as they're getting ready for Church. For them, that's an indicator, not that they're not worthy (again, none of us are), but that they're not prepared. Others have other indicators, again, usually worked out between themselves and their priest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eanswyth:
So before you can take the Body and Blood of the Most Holy God into your body, it is necessary that you be prepared, spiritually, mentally, and emotionally, to receive that powerful Gift. Have I got that right?

---

Yes, absolutely.
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
Wood,

I've no disagreement about what defines orthodox Christianity, only about whether the Trinity is a true representation of God. If this is not incontrovertibly true (I no longer believe it), and a church's view of communion can be reasonably approximated to 'approaching God', I'm suggesting that by not welcoming all who respectfully come forward for communion, that church is saying to outsiders something that does not reflect what God is like.

Mousethief / Isaac David,

Orthodoxy has a different understanding of Church and Communion to that in my old tradition. I understand that. I just don't share it. For me God's approach to creation relies on the principle of us opting in to what he's about, growing into his image in an organic way that adapts perfectly to what's best for each us. I can't think of anything less cultural, less distorting, or more inclusive.

josephine,

I don't feel insulted or excluded by Orthodoxy - honest.

I do not comprehend why you have chosen to commit to God in this way, but we're all different. I find it hard to recognise my understanding of God in your church, I see rocks and hard places that for me would be an obstacle course, but that for you I guess is a framework.

My bottom line in terms of how I see obligations to God (although he never seems to present them as such) would be along the lines of loving truth, doing what's right, and walking humbly where he leads. Is that so far from where you are?
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Wood,

I've no disagreement about what defines orthodox Christianity, only about whether the Trinity is a true representation of God. If this is not incontrovertibly true (I no longer believe it), and a church's view of communion can be reasonably approximated to 'approaching God', I'm suggesting that by not welcoming all who respectfully come forward for communion, that church is saying to outsiders something that does not reflect what God is like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Whether you can take communion or not does NOT depend on whether you are worthy or not. It might in your tradition, in your culture, in your mind. Not in ours. In our tradition, absolutely no one is worthy to partake of the Holy Mysteries. Period. End of story.

---

quote:

---

You don't partake because you are worthy. You partake because you have prepared yourself. It's not something that every Orthodox Christian does every time we attend Divine Liturgy. It's just not that way for us. We have to prepare for it.

There are lots of reasons we have to prepare, and we could go into them if you want to. But the bottom line is, wanting to receive, and being reverent in your reception, isn't the same thing as being prepared.

To be prepared, you have to have been baptized and chrismated in the Orthodox Church, you have to have fasted from meat, dairy, fish, oil and wine on Wednesday and Friday in the week preceding your reception, you have to have fasted from everything from midnight before your reception, you have to have received the sacrament of confession recently (how recently being worked out between you and your priest), and you have to be in a spiritual state appropriate for taking it. I know plenty of people who won't receive if they've yelled at their kids that morning as they're getting ready for Church. For them, that's an indicator, not that they're not worthy (again, none of us are), but that they're not prepared. Others have other indicators, again, usually worked out between themselves and their priest.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Wood:
you seem to be imposing your idea of what Communion is onto a Church whose take on it is foreign to you. Can I ask you this: would you walk into the middle of a mosque with your shoes on?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

originally posted by Wood:
you seem to be imposing your idea of what Communion is onto a Church whose take on it is foreign to you. Can I ask you this: would you walk into the middle of a mosque with your shoes on?

---

That's not what I'm doing (intentionally anyway), or what I would want to do.

---

quote:

---

As an outsider that's none of my business. But you implied that GoldenKey's preference for an inclusive communion was based on a false claim that 'inclusive' was morally superior in this context. I don't think it is a false claim (if in fact one was being made) and I'm trying to explain why.

---

quote:

---

If morality is about values not derived from religious belief, and if by God we mean the creator of the universe, then if church defines a ritual it claims provides some kind of 'access to God' available only to those with certain beliefs, the implication that 'exclusive' is justified seems to me to score lower on some morality scale than a similar 'open access' ritual.

---

quote:

---

The 'open access' (inclusive) version allows for the possibility that a different representation of God (which may be closer to the truth, we cannot objectively know) might show the church's conditions for access to be nonsense. 'Inclusive' will therefore acknowledge the distinction between 'fact' (God the creator) and 'belief' (say, orthodox Christianity) and would in my view be morally 'better'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
My problem with Golden Key's (and your) apparent belief that "inclusive" is morally superior came from the way you've posted - you each gave the distinct impression that it's morally superior simply because, well it just is. Because it obviously is. Because you say so. End of story.

---

quote:

---

This last post of yours is the first indication you've given that there's actually more to what you think than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
John Howard Yoder once observed that liberals are willing to tolerate anyone, so long as they share the liberal ideal of tolerance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
My problem with Golden Key's (and your) apparent belief that "inclusive" is morally superior came from the way you've posted - you each gave the distinct impression that it's morally superior simply because, well it just is. Because it obviously is. Because you say so. End of story.

---

Er, not quite. I gave what I thought was a reasonable explanation. You even go so far as to acknowledge it indicates there's actually more to what I think than that:

quote:

---

This last post of yours is the first indication you've given that there's actually more to what you think than that.

---

---

quote:

---

You've latched on to this communion thing, but that was only ever a context. Now you're picking up on communion again as if I've not made clear I'm not disagreeing with you about that.

---

quote:

---

It's only your implication that in the context of communion (or something similar), inclusive and exclusive are morally equivalent from a non-Christian's point of view that I'm picking up. I disagree. I've had a go at saying why. You've agreed my explanation is more than 'just because I say so'. Not sure what more I can say really.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Wood:
if it's not about communion, then I really am finding it hard to see what your problem is...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Church is organising a get together to which God is invited. Church thinks, "Ah, God's coming, who do we send invites to?".

---

Dave, if I were the Empress of Mousylvania, and I said, "anyone who wants to be a citizen of Mousylvania can be so -- all you have to do is move here, take an oath of citizenship, and vote regularly." If you said, "I don't want to move, I don't want to take an oath of citizenship, and I don't want to vote. You are so exclusive." Would that make sense?

And if I said, "You're welcome to visit Mousylvania whenever you please. But only citizens may vote," if you responded by saying, "But I want to visit and I want to vote. How dare you not let me vote! You're being exclusive!" would that make sense?

I understand that there are countries that decide that tourists, who have not chosen to be citizens, and didn't know that they might be considered citizens, are citizens after all, and conscript them into the military and such as that. As Empress of Mousylvania, I've decided that such a policy would be an offense against others. Is that really exclusivist?

If you want to be a member of the Orthodox Church, you are more than welcome to become a member. If you have no interest in being a member, but want to be a visitor, you are more than welcome to visit.

What you can't do is be a visitor and do those things that are reserved to members. It's like a tourist wanting to exercise the rights of citizens.

I'm really not sure what your difficulty is. I'm serious -- I really don't understand it. You don't want to be an Orthodox Christian. Why should we act like you are one, when you've chosen not to be one? We're not keeping you out. We are not excluding you. We're respecting your choice. What's wrong with that?

(P.S. to Wood -- I have indeed noticed your posts; haven't responded to you because you've been explaining the OC POV so accurately and eloquently. Thank you!)

[ 28. August 2004, 18:53: Message edited by: josephine ]
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Josephine - exceptionally well put
 

---

Posted by GoldenKey (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
GK: I think that you're holding the assumption that including all Christians is somehow morally superior to not including all Christians, and that it's better because it's inclusive.

Now while I'm of the school that defines the Church as including all Christians (although by Christians I mean Trinitarians), I can't help thinking that assuming that people are necessarily going to see the light because the word "includes" makes the idea automatically better.

---

quote:

---

We all, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) draw boundaries according to some minimum standard of doctrine. Ask yourself how many of this unordered list of groups you would place within the One True Church (aside from questions of which individuals God will save - that's another issue), and answer honestly...

[snip]

Did you have them all in? If you did, you can leave this thought experiment because when I accuse some of hypocrisy in a moment, you're not in the firing line

Now, if you've excluded someone definitionally from the Church on the basis of doctrine, what right have you to whine if the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox or the fire-and-brimstone hyperprotestants do the same thing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Dave, I really do have no idea whatsoever what you're banging on about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Dave, if I were the Empress of Mousylvania, and I said, "anyone who wants to be a citizen of Mousylvania can be so...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
[cross-post with Wood]

But this discussion isn't about God, Dave, it's about Churches. Which are equivalent to Mousylvania.

But speaking of God: while I quite agree that He probably popped over to the pub and had a laugh with the barkeep, wasn't He also equally there with Mr Exclusive and Mr Inclusive? Fully feeling their distress?

Your ending to the story isn't the only possible one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
As for the ending, if God had in fact been one to not turn up unless only God's people were present, church's choice would have been the correct one. So, as you say, with a different God my story would have been totally meaningless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
As for the ending, if God had in fact been one to not turn up unless only God's people were present, church's choice would have been the correct one. So, as you say, with a different God my story would have been totally meaningless.

---

[...] I don't see your point at all. Yes, of course God shows up, no matter who is present. What does that have to do with how one defines church?

---

quote:

---

GK: I think that you're holding the assumption that including all Christians is somehow morally superior to not including all Christians, and that it's better because it's inclusive.

---

quote:

---

The owls (who make my point in the story) are disinterested observers commenting on whether Mr Exclusive or Mr Inclusive were closer to God's preference.

---

1. Morality is about values not derived from religious belief
2. God is the creator of the universe
3. Church defines a ritual which provides 'access to God'
4. This ritual is available only to those with certain beliefs

quote:

---

The nearest you get to arguing your corner can be summarised thus:

1. Morality is about values not derived from religious belief
2. God is the creator of the universe
3. Church defines a ritual which provides 'access to God'
4. This ritual is available only to those with certain beliefs

Point 2 is uncontroversial. Wood has, I think, demonstrated that point 3 is untrue where 'communion' is concerned, so point 4 falls.

---

quote:

---

Actually, point 1 is the more important assertion, but it is also more difficult. The question of whether morality can be derived independently of religous values is a matter of controversy - some say it can, other that it cannot - you would have to justify this statement.

---

quote:

---

However, if we accept point 1 at face value, how can a moral proposition based on non-religious values be compared with a moral proposition based on religious values? If a proposition from one system stands in direct contradiction to that of the other system, how can we possibly adjudicate which is to be preferred? We would need a morality based on some system of values which transcends both religious and non-religious beliefs.

---

quote:

---

I think your argument is actually a version of the modern fallacy espoused by people like Richard Dawkins who believe that non-religious beliefs are inherently morally superior to religious ones.

---

quote:

---

1. Morality is about values not derived from religious belief
2. God is the creator of the universe
3. Church defines a ritual which provides 'access to God'
4. This ritual is available only to those with certain beliefs

---

quote:

---

If morality is about values not derived from religious belief, and if by God we mean the creator of the universe, then if church defines a ritual it claims provides some kind of 'access to God' available only to those with certain beliefs, the implication that 'exclusive' is justified seems to me to score lower on some morality scale than a similar 'open access' ritual.

---

quote:

---

I understand morality as based on societal values. For a society to function, laws with majority assent are required to limit freedom tos in return for freedom froms. Decisions about what laws to make will be based on shared values that need have no religious justification.

---

quote:

---

You are relying on 'religious' and 'non-religious' being identifiable and mutually exclusive domains for the consideration of morality.

---

quote:

---

I would not be surprised ... if I shared [Richard Dawkins'] views regarding the limitations that religions place on their adherents in terms of researching truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:

quote:

---

If morality is about values not derived from religious belief, and if by God we mean the creator of the universe, then if church defines a ritual it claims provides some kind of 'access to God' available only to those with certain beliefs, the implication that 'exclusive' is justified seems to me to score lower on some morality scale than a similar 'open access' ritual.

---

which you wrote, did you not?

quote:

---

I understand morality as based on societal values. For a society to function, laws with majority assent are required to limit freedom tos in return for freedom froms. Decisions about what laws to make will be based on shared values that need have no religious justification.

---

So you have no fixed moral values? Is there never an occasion when society is wrong? And what happens when a society is religious?

quote:

---

You are relying on 'religious' and 'non-religious' being identifiable and mutually exclusive domains for the consideration of morality.

---

No. I'd agree that they are not always identifiable or mutually exclusive, but sometimes they are. Bioethics is one area where religious and non-religious values can lead to different moral choices.

quote:

---

I would not be surprised ... if I shared [Richard Dawkins'] views regarding the limitations that religions place on their adherents in terms of researching truth.

---

Which implies that religious belief and 'truth' are somehow opposed - not something you can take for granted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If morality is about values not derived from religious belief, and if by God we mean the creator of the universe, then if church defines a ritual it claims provides some kind of 'access to God' available only to those with certain beliefs, the implication that 'exclusive' is justified seems to me to score lower on some morality scale than a similar 'open access' ritual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
So you have no fixed moral values? Is there never an occasion when society is wrong? And what happens when a society is religious?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I would not be surprised ... if I shared [Richard Dawkins'] views regarding the limitations that religions place on their adherents in terms of researching truth.

---

Which implies that religious belief and 'truth' are somehow opposed - not something you can take for granted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Like I said - cultural and spiritual imperialism

---

quote:

---

Fixed to what? Is religion a fixed point?

---

quote:

---

Religious commitment implies certain beliefs. If a religion is defined by those beliefs, it is unlikely to entertain the possibility that they may be wrong. It therefore discourages consideration of certain areas of truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
Dear Dave Marshall

quote:

---

Fixed to what? Is religion a fixed point?

---

I can't speak for all religions, but many religions teach that moral values are permanent because they are derived from a transcendent source.
<snip>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
Religions teach that moral values are permanent, but the real-life application of those values shifts as much as socially-derived values, at least in my 50-odd years of watching people and institutions in action.

---

quote:

---

I can't speak for all religions, but many religions teach that moral values are permanent because they are derived from a transcendent source. Society changes and its values change, so any moral system based on the values of society will change too. If all your moral values are socially derived, you may have no standpoint from which to criticise society; are there any moral values which transcend society according to your model? If there are none, talk of 'morality' may actually be meaningless, and if there are, how are they derived?

---

quote:

---

What is this 'truth' which you think religion is discouraging consideration of?

---

quote:

---

Ah yes, 'what is truth'. You probably need to refer to a higher authority on that one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
Dear Dave Marshall

quote:

---

Ah yes, 'what is truth'. You probably need to refer to a higher authority on that one.

---

No, I'm asking you.

---

quote:

---

My answer would be that God has already revealed this and neither I nor the Church has any need to ask again. Why do you think we would get a different answer this time round?

---

quote:

---

Do you think we got it wrong?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Changes in culture mean every generation brings a different context to any question. Assuming previous generations added only ultimately right contributions to church understanding seems to me at best open to question. Precluding any belief from complete revaluation, based only on an earlier human (and therefore potentially flawed) decision, sounds very unwise. That anything is 'revelation from God' is a human claim, and so in my opinion can never be relied on as 'final truth'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
I simply find it difficult to believe we -- the church -- are meant to reinvent the wheel every --what? 20 years? 10? 5?

---

quote:

---

That anything is 'revelation from God' is a human claim, and so in my opinion can never be relied on as 'final truth'.

---

quote:

---

You are free to believe that we are wrong, based on your own experience and reasoning.

---

quote:

---

I am compelled by my own experience and the experience of countless others throughout history to believe and trust that the Church's witness is unchanging and true.

---

quote:

---

I cannot ignore the evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

Would you then get upset if a Roman Catholic said (and I'm aware that not all would, but this seems to me to be RC doctrine) that as a Baptist you're not in the Church, although they hope you'll be saved anyway?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I would call anyone who calls on the name of Jesus a Christian, and thus a member of The Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Like I said - cultural and spiritual imperialism

---

Yes, you've said it twice now. What do you mean exactly?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
You remember when I asked if you'd walk through prayers in a mosque with your shoes on and you didn't actually say whether you would or not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
this seems to me to be RC doctrine

---

Sorry, I have should have withdrawn this when corrected earlier. It no longer seems to me... etc.
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
And while I'm apologising, you're very definitely not invisible, Wood. That last was spot on. Have a just for the irritation value

I think the reason I like Purgatory so much is that I can air a half-formed argument, then sit back and watch as several people run with it in the direction I'd have gone myself if my feeble writing, debating and thinking skills were up to the job.
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
if church defines a ritual it claims provides some kind of 'access to God' available only to those with certain beliefs, the implication that 'exclusive' is justified seems to me to score lower on some morality scale than a similar 'open access' ritual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood
I'm still not sure where you're getting this "access to God" thing from. It does no such thing. In a Protestant Church, the Communion is a symbolic affirmation of our brotherhood as believers and friends with each other and a corporate symbolic re-enactment of Christ's death and resurrection. For us, it's not about any extra "access" to God;

---

• their friends, or
• white people, or
• those able to afford £000s for subscription to membership, or
• Latin speakers, or
• those holding a Thomist philosophy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
I define "Christian"... ...as Trinitarian

---

But would you be unhappy at any suggestion that you should therefore forgo all use of the term "Christian" and call yourself a Trinitarian instead ? In the interests of accuracy...

Why would you so object ? Well, you're probably quite attached to the label "Christian". You might even feel that following Christ is at the heart of your religion - more important than whether or not you profess the doctrine of the Trinity (which no-one really understands anyway).

But perhaps the Unitarians feel the same way.

So what makes you feel that it is right to take their preferred label away from them and restrict it to you and your bunch of Trinitarians ? Grandfather rights ?

Russ
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
If the Little Snoring Village Darts Club want to have a monthly dinner for members only, and want to expel any member who doesn't stand for the loyal toast, that's fine. It's their club; it's no skin off anyone else's nose.

If, on the other hand, the award of some public post (Lord Mayor of Little Snoring ?), which a priori should be open to all, were - by historical quirk - to be dependent on the criterion of whether or not one had been seen at the darts club dinner, then the club would lose its "purely private" status, and might be morally obliged to admit those unable (perhaps through age or infirmity) to stand for the loyal toast but who otherwise might make an excellent Lord Mayor.

Do you see the distinction, the principle I'm struggling to express ?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
I define "Christian"... ...as Trinitarian

---

But would you be unhappy at any suggestion that you should therefore forgo all use of the term "Christian" and call yourself a Trinitarian instead ? In the interests of accuracy...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
We all have need of God. Being the "one true Church" carries an obligation of being the Church for everybody,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Well actually, it is so utterly not beside the point...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
GK: I think that you're holding the assumption that including all Christians is somehow morally superior to not including all Christians, and that it's better because it's inclusive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I think we're missing each other's meaning here because you are treating my beliefs as another religion. Unless you call a personal theology a religion, that means you're not comparing like with like. You imply I call myself a Christian. On this thread I may have only said I'm not an orthodox Christian, but in the context I did not want exclude the possibility that I might have similar views to people like Borg and Spong. They are attempting to redefine Christianity; I am not. On other threads, including one in The Styx, I have made clear I no longer consider or call myself a Christian.

---

quote:

---

And just for the record, I have no more sympathy than you with George W Bush's scary take on liberty or with an outsider attempting to impose their views on any Christian or Muslim tradition's internal affairs.

---

quote:

---

Going back to where I came in:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
GK: I think that you're holding the assumption that including all Christians is somehow morally superior to not including all Christians, and that it's better because it's inclusive.

---

My understanding is that morality is not contained by religion. It is an area where my contributions are not excluded on 'outsider' grounds. God the creator is, I think, also in the public domain and does not exclude anyone, Christian or not, from relating to him.

---

quote:

---

So the logic of my point was along the lines:

1) God the creator relates to us inclusively.

---

quote:

---

2) Christian belief incorporates God as creator.

---

quote:

---

3) Comparing a Christian practice to how God the creator does something similar is legitimate for a non-Christian.

---

quote:

---

4) Inclusive communion is closer to how God does something similar than exclusive communion.

---

quote:

---

5) 'Closer' in this context is morally superior because it is closer to truth.

---

quote:

---

6) Your statement implies this is not so.

---

quote:

---

7) I disagree.

---

quote:

---

The owls, of course, had made these connections and felt no qualms about taking a view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
OK, well, I've missed that. I had no idea. In fact, before this thread, I don't think you registered on my radar.

That's not an insult, by the way. I just haven't noticed you before.

Thank you for the clarification.

---

quote:

---

why try it on with the Orthodox, then?

---

quote:

---

Your smug little owls may have the intellectual ability to "make the conection" and somehow "get it" but please forgive me if I find the connections difficult to connect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
1) God the creator relates to us inclusively.

---

quote:

---

2) Christian belief incorporates God as creator.

---

quote:

---

3) Comparing a Christian practice to how God the creator does something similar is legitimate for a non-Christian.

---

quote:

---

4) Inclusive communion is closer to how God does something similar than exclusive communion.

---

quote:

---

5) 'Closer' in this context is morally superior because it is closer to truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

My understanding is that morality is not contained by religion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

It is an area where my contributions are not excluded on 'outsider' grounds. God the creator is, I think, also in the public domain and does not exclude anyone, Christian or not, from relating to him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
But I believe quite firmly that you do actually have to have something to decide. Each religion has stuff it believes and does. You can't say "I'm a Christian", and then create a new religion, calling it Christianity. That's insane.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
But I believe quite firmly that you do actually have to have something to decide. Each religion has stuff it believes and does. You can't say "I'm a Christian", and then create a new religion, calling it Christianity. That's insane.

---

Wood,

Couldn't this be said about Luther, Calvin, Menno Simons, Count von Zinzendorf, General Booth, etc?

They all changed what Christianity means, or they appeared to do so.

Christina

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
OK, well, I've missed that. I had no idea. In fact, before this thread, I don't think you registered on my radar.

That's not an insult, by the way. I just haven't noticed you before.

Thank you for the clarification.

---

Well, this is about on a par with your little outburst earlier about 'not making you well-disposed towards me' and 'not improving your mood'. You apologise after the fact but by then it's out there. I take this effort as a clearly intended put-down, and your 'not an insult' an insult to my intelligence.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

why try it on with the Orthodox, then?

---

You will need to say where this comes from. It certainly wasn't anything I intended or thought my posts contained.

---

quote:

---

I don't see any point in trying to make sense of your other responses separately. My items 1) to 7) were an honest attempt to explain my original point. I don't detect an honest attempt to understand from you.

---

quote:

---

You seem to assume your understanding is superior, that I cannot possibly have a valid point to make, so you're rattling off quotes and dismissive replies.

---

quote:

---

You don't appear to be considering my post as whole, or the progression of thought and links between points on which I understand logic depends.

---

quote:

---

I'd like to think more about point 1) because if that doesn't hold water neither does the rest.

---

quote:

---

But if your primary concern is to not be wrong,

---

quote:

---

rather than consider an issue on which it appears your opinion is not universaly shared, I don't see it's a good use of my time.

---

quote:

---

But are you really interested in what I think?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
If you'd be a bit more specific, it would be much easier to discuss your take on this. As it is, I'm trying to understand your POV, but it doesn't seem that I have enough information.

---

quote:

---

1) God the creator relates to us inclusively.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Are you saying that is a morale absolute outside of religion or do you think that religion does not affect a particular view of morality?

---

quote:

---

Do you believe in some of Deism that includes all faiths?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Right. Now you see, I thought that this was the whole root of the discussion.

I suspect there may have been a huge misunderstanding somewhere

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I don't see any point in trying to make sense of your other responses separately. My items 1) to 7) were an honest attempt to explain my original point. I don't detect an honest attempt to understand from you.

---

Now that isn't fair. I really am trying very hard to make sense of what you're saying, and I thought that your seven points were a good start to getting there. However, I still honestly don't see how one follows the other. I really would like to know why.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
But if your primary concern is to not be wrong,

---

I'm not moderating this thread, because I'm involved in the discussion. As a result, I can't call you on that. But that really isn't a fair comment.

---

quote:

---

All I said was that Christians have always been Trinitarian, right or wrong (not an opinion of mine), and that I don't consider "inclusive" to be morally superior at all (on which point I may be wrong). One is uncontroversial, but is an important fact to get across, since it is one fact on which my opinion is founded.

---

quote:

---

Of course I'm bloody interested in what you think. If I wasn't, I wouldn't be here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
About morality: inasmuch as if you are a member of a religion, your morality is defined by your religious belief.

If you aren't, it isn't. Morality isn't fixed. You have to get it from somewhere. Things which are OK now were horrendous crimes hundred of years ago; things which were OK hundreds of years ago are horrendous crimes now.

I believe (and this is probably where Josephine will disown me) that morality depends upon something external, and is pretty damn relative, actually. Religion is one of those things it depends on. How can we know if something is objectively right? Objectively? We can't. We just have to muddle through, and in the words of Augustine, love and therefore do as we will. And hope that it works out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
As the later points depend on point 1) I'll have a go at that on its own first.

quote:

---

1) God the creator relates to us inclusively.

---

I see God (the knowable creator who is Love and Truth) as creating every person 'in his image' alongside everything else that is.

---

quote:

---

We are all in some sense the 'same kind of being' as God,

---

quote:

---

so we can know him like we can know each other, but we are still in a growing state, with an additional temporary freedom to choose, to grow into his nature or into something else.

---

quote:

---

I see no reason to think God makes any distinction between us in terms of our accessibility to him and his availability to us. There is no exclusion on his part (although we can exclude ourselves), so it seems reasonable to say he relates to us inclusively.

---

quote:

---

2) Christian belief incorporates God as creator.

---

quote:

---

3) Comparing a Christian practice to how God the creator does something similar is legitimate for a non-Christian.

---

quote:

---

4) Inclusive communion is closer to how God does something similar than exclusive communion.

---

quote:

---

5) 'Closer' in this context is morally superior because it is closer to truth.

---

quote:

---

6) Your statement implies this is not so.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Right. Now you see, I thought that this was the whole root of the discussion.

I suspect there may have been a huge misunderstanding somewhere.

---

Yes.

---

quote:

---

To point 1) you reply 'Nice phrase. What does it mean?'. Fair enough. You then go on to the points that follow, that I've introduced as the logic of my point, and treat them as if I'd written each to make sense in isolation. If the first one doesn't, how can anything that links to it/depends on it make sense? Not fair, I think.

---

quote:

---

It was only the '"inclusive" is not morally superior' that I was taking issue with. I wasn't sure about it. Everything else was trying to point that out that's all I was taking issue with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
We are all in some sense the 'same kind of being' as God, so we can know him like we can know each other, but we are still in a growing state, with an additional temporary freedom to choose, to grow into his nature or into something else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
But then I'm a Thomist (of a sort), so I would think that, wouldn't I.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
if.. ..you want to follow a different religion that in your opinion follows Jesus in a way you consider to be closer to what He said and did, well, you're going to have to call it by a different name. "Christian" is taken.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
we are the Church for everybody who cares to be join. How is that not inclusive enough?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

quote:

---

It was only the '"inclusive" is not morally superior' that I was taking issue with. I wasn't sure about it. Everything else was trying to point that out that's all I was taking issue with.

---

OK. Let's stick with that, then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GoldenKey:
IMHO, ['Christian'] only has to be defined for purpose of having communion open to all Christians. I'd say define it as "anyone who considers themself to be a Christian".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
GK: I think that you're holding the assumption that including all Christians is somehow morally superior to not including all Christians, and that it's better because it's inclusive.

---

quote:

---

it seems to me that the "high" view of the Church belongs to the Church Invisible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I'm perfectly happy for you to be an exclusive private club of people who worship the one true God in particular ways. <snip> Where I object is when/if you tell those whose preference is for plain and simple worship in the vernacular, or Enlightenment philosophy, or radical attitudes, that you're part of the One True Church and they're not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
I don't think we are all "the same kind of being" as God, not even "in some sense."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
if.. ..you want to follow a different religion that in your opinion follows Jesus in a way you consider to be closer to what He said and did, well, you're going to have to call it by a different name. "Christian" is taken.

---

Sounds like you're saying "it's our word and we won't share it !".

---

quote:

---

But the "us" that you refer to and claim to speak for is a group of individuals down the ages that you have selected according to the criterion of whether they are prepared to sign up to the idea of the Trinity as an accurate description of God.

Am I right in thinking that the doctrine of the Trinity as such was not formulated until after the time of the NT church - the period in which St Paul wrote his Epistles ? So that the Apostles themselves gave no assent or denial to such an idea ? But presumably you count them as committed Trinitarians anyway ?

---

quote:

---

I suppose the question is - if you meet someone who tries to take Christ's teaching with ultimate seriousness, who feels reassured at being one of the company of those who have done this down the ages, but who doesn't see the doctrine of the Trinity as being an accurate or helpful description, preferring some other interpretation of the words of Jesus that "He who has seen me has seen the Father" [add other Bible verses to taste], do you say to him:
"Piss off, you're not one of us, don't you dare call yourself 'Christian' - however semantically accurate that might be - because we bagsed that word long before you came along"
or do you say "Welcome brother, I'd be interested to chat with you about our different ideas of God over a pint in the local hostelry" ?

Why do you think the former is a better attitude to take ? (for people like you and I today, I mean).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'm suggesting, now that morality has been brought into the equation,

---

quote:

---

that in fact including all Christians is somehow morally superior to not including all Christians.

---

quote:

---

From another post, my understanding is that 'morality' is [based on] a set of values shared by society. Since members of a religion are (usually?) also members of society, values they bring from their religion can be put up for consideration in society's value-choosing process. But as far as I can tell that's the limit of the connection.

---

quote:

---

Also from the other post, I see God (the knowable creator who is Love and Truth) as creating every person 'in his image' alongside everything else that is. [..] We can know him like we can know each other, but we are still in a growing state, with an additional temporary freedom to choose, to grow into his nature or into something else.

---

quote:

---

So it seems to me that a comparison of issues in terms of 'morality' that relate to 'what God is like', even if the issues themselves are internal church affairs, is something that I as a non-Christian can legitimately comment on.

---

quote:

---

Religion has no exclusive claim on either 'morality' or 'what God is like'.

---

quote:

---

On the question of taking communion, there are differences of understanding between churches. But I think it's fair to say that all see it as in some way drawing nearer to God than when not taking communion, and that how they view access to communion is related to their understanding of what God is like.

---

quote:

---

Again from the earlier post, I see no reason to think God makes any distinction between [people] in terms of our accessibility to him and his availability to us.

---

quote:

---

So it seems to me that while God places no restrictions on access to him, churches that exclude some people from taking communion are imposing a restriction where God does not.

---

quote:

---

In moral terms, assuming that consistency is 'better', inclusive communion therefore seems preferable to exclusive communion and could be said to be 'morally superior'.

---

quote:

---

Having said that, I don't see any value whatsoever in looking at this issue in a moral context.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Again from the earlier post, I see no reason to think God makes any distinction between [people] in terms of our accessibility to him and his availability to us. So it seems to me that while God places no restrictions on access to him, churches that exclude some people from taking communion are imposing a restriction where God does not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
God places no restrictions on who can 'access' Him. That doesn't mean there are no restrictions on what they must do to 'access' Him. Various denominations may differ about what those things are, but I'm not aware of any that attach no obligation whatsoever to their members.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
OK. Now you've tied it together somewhat, I have to say that I find the totality of the argument flawed in several places, namely: society's morality is not more important that that of faith. Equal, perhaps, co-operative, probably, but not more important.

---

quote:

---

Second, I think that issues of faith are best dealt with by those who understand and who share those beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Not that people who are on the outside have no legitimate right to make comment and be heard. Because they certainly do. But rather that in the end, they have no right to dictate. This is not a hard-and-fast rule. In the sphere of faith and morality, it's impossible to make hard and fast rules, as Alogon's already demonstrated. In the end, we have to find a middle way.

But then, if you want to choose between sacrificing virgins and having rather strict rules about who can participate in some rituals - one is rather easier to condemn than the other...

---

quote:

---

Third, the nature of Communion does not depend upon who we think God is. It depends on what we think God does. I think that this is a more important distinction than it might seem.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Having said that, I don't see any value whatsoever in looking at this issue in a moral context.

---

[..] But I don't think it's possible to divorce it from a question of morality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
God places no restrictions on who can 'access' Him. That doesn't mean there are no restrictions on what they must do to 'access' Him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

For myself, I don't believe in some form of anything. Only what seems to stand up and hold together as true and consistent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
God places no restrictions on who can 'access' Him. That doesn't mean there are no restrictions on what they must do to 'access' Him.

---

I thought I might hit this with Wood. We ended up somewhere near your home planet instead, but never mind.

Where do you get the idea God has any access restrictions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
What criteria makes you consider something as true and consistent?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Are you proposing a god who doesn't ask us to live more holy lives in order to be fully with him? Who doesn't place us under certain obligations as his believers? Who didn't give us those commandments, or the sermon on the mount, or so many parables about wheat and tares/sheep and goats/etc?

---

quote:

---

And if you are, why are you getting so annoyed when the rest of us point out that that's not the Christian God, and don't let you participate in that ritual which most signifies our fellowship and similarity of belief?

---

quote:

---

Would you demand to be allowed to fully join in a Muslim/Hindu/Jewish/Zoroastrian service without believing the same things they believe?

---

quote:

---

If you want a religion which lets you carry on with your life exactly as if there was no God, then keep looking coz it ain't Christianity.

---

quote:

---

None of which invalidates God's right to let whomever He wants into heaven, of course. Just don't demand that His Church stops requiring certain things of it's members while they yet live.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'm not, but you know that. You just felt like a rant, in a fun bastard kind of way.

Hope you feel better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

And if you are, why are you getting so annoyed when the rest of us point out that that's not the Christian God, and don't let you participate in that ritual which most signifies our fellowship and similarity of belief?

---

I'm not. And who would 'the rest of us' be?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

None of which invalidates God's right to let whomever He wants into heaven, of course. Just don't demand that His Church stops requiring certain things of it's members while they yet live.

---

I'm not, but you know that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
OK. Now you've tied it together somewhat, I have to say that I find the totality of the argument flawed in several places, namely: society's morality is not more important that that of faith. Equal, perhaps, co-operative, probably, but not more important.

---

So it seems we have different understandings of morality. I don't know what you mean by a 'morality of faith'. I think morality has to be a shared thing. I'm not sure, but I don't think a personal morality makes sense. Personal values, yes, but I think moral values are those shared by (the majority in) society.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Not that people who are on the outside have no legitimate right to make comment and be heard. Because they certainly do. But rather that in the end, they have no right to dictate. This is not a hard-and-fast rule...

---

Fair enough, but I don't see how this relates to my argument.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Third, the nature of Communion does not depend upon who we think God is. It depends on what we think God does. I think that this is a more important distinction than it might seem.

---

What you think God does in/through taking communion is definitely a faith thing for each church. My argument only depends on whether whatever that is can be compared to 'accessing God' above and beyond 'normal access' (prayer for example).

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Having said that, I don't see any value whatsoever in looking at this issue in a moral context.

---

[..] But I don't think it's possible to divorce it from a question of morality.

---

That may be so, but so far you have not substantiated your claim. My argument stands.

---

quote:

---

Where do you get the idea God has any access restrictions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'm not, but you know that. You just felt like a rant, in a fun bastard kind of way.

Hope you feel better.

---

Hosting

Dave Marshall - Hell's the place for remarks like that. Purgatory isn't. Please check the Purgatory guidelines.

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host

---

quote:

---

Yet you are (or at least seem to be) railing against those churches which have a "closed table" approach to communion, and you also seem to have the opinion that God requires nothing of His followers. Or have I misunderstood your postings on this thread?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
What we've been talking about since Wood realised this is what I mean...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Marvin - sorry about the comments on the end of my last post. They were out of order.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yet you are (or at least seem to be) railing against those churches which have a "closed table" approach to communion, and you also seem to have the opinion that God requires nothing of His followers. Or have I misunderstood your postings on this thread?

---

You have. Wood has implied that inclusive and exclusive approaches to communion are morally equivalent. I think that in terms of morality, based on my understanding of God, morality, and communion, that is not correct.

---

quote:

---

But I've also said I see no value whatsoever in talking about this in terms of morality, not least because saying one tradition is morally superior to another seems bound to be offensive.

---

quote:

---

What we've been talking about since Wood realised this is what I mean, is whether my point is right. It's not my concern what churches do or think about communion. But on both God and morality, I am fully involved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
What criteria makes you consider something as true and consistent?

---

I think it depends on the context. Truth and consistency are just abstract ideas in isolation. Do you have something specific in mind?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
Josephine is right, God is not any kind of being according to Orthodox doctrine - read St John Damascene.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Dave, I have the distinct feeling that we've reached that Point Of No Agreement, beyond which, if we went any further, we will just go in tortuous and jerky circles down into that black Vortex Of Circuitous Discussion that makes one lose the will to live.

---

quote:

---

So what I'm going to do, right, is I'm going to post one more statement, and then, since it was me what started this, you can have the last word. But as far as I'm concerned, that's it for me.

---

quote:

---

Right. Here's the first sticking point. I don't see why a personal morality doesn't make sense... more importantly, why is a morality of faith (ie. a morality that comes from a religious faith) necessarily cognate with one that is "personal" (which I understand as one which you made up yourself and which isn't shared with anyone)?

---

quote:

---

It relates inasmuch as I didn't want to come off as some sort of bigot.

You must understand that a lot of the theings I'm defending here are things I don't necessarily agree with (this being an intellectual exercise and all). What I want to do is defend the right of people to believe this stuff I don't agree with.

---

I do understand this.

Your approach is to say it's morally wrong to make this comparison. Mine would be to say it's inappropriate and likely to give offence because (and this has only just occurred to me) each church is morally entitled to organise their own affairs, but that the comparison itself is not morally wrong.

quote:

---

You get the last word... after this message.

quote:

---

Where do you get the idea God has any access restrictions?

---

He doesn't. People who believe in the Orthodox Communion do, because if you believe in their view of communion, any other way of doing it is madness. You're not asking simply for the Catholics and the Orthodox to say "it's for everyone" and throw open their doors. You're asking them to fundamentally deny huge swathes of their theology and what they understand about themselves. Maybe they need to do that. Maybe they don't.

Why would you ask that of an Orthodox Christian and not of a Sikh or Muslim?

---

quote:

---

In Wood's signature (2 Sep 04 @ 14:45 BST):
And yes, I am also more intelligent than you. Don't let that make you feel inadequate, though.

---

Point of order.

Clearly calculated to give offence, contrary to Purgatory guidelines.
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
What criteria makes you consider something as true and consistent?

---

I think it depends on the context. Truth and consistency are just abstract ideas in isolation. Do you have something specific in mind?

---

The context in which you used that phrase earlier in the discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
We all define the Church, one way or another. And it's possible that one of those definitions may turn out to be right, and another definition wrong.

---

quote:

---

Why should you object to my stating what I believe about the Church?

---

quote:

---

One criterion for good use of words is accuracy. The yardstick against which we assess accuracy is common usage, as documented in dictionaries.

My pocket English dictionary defines "church" as "body of Christians" (or "place of worship" which sense is clearly not the one we're discussing here). In terms of semantics, I don't believe that my use of English is inaccurate, but feel free to make the case if you disagree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
If my experience is such that this is the way things strike me, then believing it may not be something I have a choice about.

But I can and should refrain from being so ill-mannered and so thoughtless of your feelings as to say it.

---

It's this kind of argument that led to the OP.

I'll throw a different story your way to demonstrate. You're crossing the Atlantic, on a surfboard. The aircraft carrier HMS Orthodox cruises past and offers you a lift. You tell them you're quite happy on your surfboard thanks, and stop being so ill-mannered and thoughtless of my feelings about my mode of transport, which is as good as theirs.

Of course, if you're not Orthodox you're likely to either believe that the HMS Anglican or HMS Catholic or whatever is more seaworthy than the HMS Orthodox, or you believe that the Orthodox are actually just occupying one deck of the HMS Church and confused about the fact that you're surfing in Deck 7's swimming pool, but if they're right, it would be far worse than rude and thoughtless of them not to point out your imminent danger of drowning if you really were surfing the Atlantic on your own. Likewise, the frigate HMS Jack Chick might think that all the aforementioned ships were sailing backwards, and would be remiss in not commenting on this navigational error.

The time to take offence, would be when one aircraft carrier scrambles its warplanes, not when it offers you a lift.

Me? I think we're in a fleet. I think we should tie ourselves together so the fast ships can tow the slow ones, or maybe build a floating dock and copy the best ship design, once we finish arguing over which one it is. I'm not putting money on the frigate or the surfboard
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
One criterion for good use of words is accuracy. The yardstick against which we assess accuracy is common usage, as documented in dictionaries. My pocket English dictionary

---

quote:

---

If you use the term "Orthodox Church" to refer to the body of Orthodox Christians, people know what you mean.

---

quote:

---

When you talk about your definition being "right", do you mean that you are using the English words accurately ?

Or are you really saying "when you're roasting in eternal torment you'll find out that you were WRONG and we were wonderfully gloriously RIGHT all along ?". Are you talking salvation despite all disclaimers to the contrary ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
If my experience is such that this is the way things strike me, then believing it may not be something I have a choice about.

But I can and should refrain from being so ill-mannered and so thoughtless of your feelings as to say it.

---

It's this kind of argument that led to the OP.

I'll throw a different story your way to demonstrate. You're crossing the Atlantic, on a surfboard. The aircraft carrier HMS Orthodox cruises past and offers you a lift. You tell them you're quite happy on your surfboard thanks, and stop being so ill-mannered and thoughtless of my feelings about my mode of transport, which is as good as theirs.

Of course, if you're not Orthodox you're likely to either believe that the HMS Anglican or HMS Catholic or whatever is more seaworthy than the HMS Orthodox, or you believe that the Orthodox are actually just occupying one deck of the HMS Church and confused about the fact that you're surfing in Deck 7's swimming pool, but if they're right, it would be far worse than rude and thoughtless of them not to point out your imminent danger of drowning if you really were surfing the Atlantic on your own. Likewise, the frigate HMS Jack Chick might think that all the aforementioned ships were sailing backwards, and would be remiss in not commenting on this navigational error.

The time to take offence, would be when one aircraft carrier scrambles its warplanes, not when it offers you a lift.

Me? I think we're in a fleet. I think we should tie ourselves together so the fast ships can tow the slow ones, or maybe build a floating dock and copy the best ship design, once we finish arguing over which one it is. I'm not putting money on the frigate or the surfboard

---

I love analogies and I can't resist the idea of a fleet with which I broadly agree.

In a fleet the roles and the sizes of the vessels vary. Some stick close to the main units, others go off looking for ships and other things that are nothing to do with the fleet and some operate completely independently. I wouldn't put a tow on unless it is vital. In choppy seas, tows get parted and that is bad for everyone.

As for troublesome ships, real fleets have those, often commanded by troublesome captains assisted (or not) by a truly rum crew. They can still have a role, if only as an example to the rest of the fleet.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Hey, that's my metaphor and I demand royalty payment.
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Me? I think we're in a fleet. I think we should tie ourselves together so the fast ships can tow the slow ones, or maybe build a floating dock and copy the best ship design, once we finish arguing over which one it is. I'm not putting money on the frigate or the surfboard.

---

Some of us, on the other hand, prefer to fly the Atlantic and avoid the naval complications altogether.
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Hey, that's my metaphor and I demand royalty payment.

---

quote:

---

If you wanted to cite the OED, maybe we could talk

---

quote:

---

Those who believe that believing in Jesus and saying the sinners prayer makes you a part of the Church without any further action on anyone's part clearly have a different definition of Church

---

quote:

---

For now, the wheat and the tares are growing together in the wheatfields. And some of the wheat is growing along the road outside the wheatfield. At the last judgment, God will be able to sort the wheat from the tares, no matter where they're growing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Can I suggest that if there are enough weeds in the field, and enough grain outside it, that the concept of "wheatfield" ceases to be a meaningful one ?

---

Try telling that to HM Land Registry.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Hey, that's my metaphor and I demand royalty payment.

---

You can have 90% of any money I make from it (total so far, $0.00) and didn't you know plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery?

My apologies for stealing it.

---

I accept your gracious offer. But am not so sure about the plagiarism thing.
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
I'm trying to conceive of stealing an idea that I didn't think was better than anything I can come up with. It seems a bit like attempting to get a gang together to rob a museum by telling them it's full of worthless artifacts.

The company bank account isn't growing very quickly here - I don't think you need to warn the IRS about the royalty payments just yet.
 

---

Posted by Elfed Presley (# 15) on :
 
To develop the analogy further (and if either party in the patent dispute require expensive legal advice on the matter, I am only too willing to help divest them of their money), I suppose the issue for someone who is neither Roman Catholic or Orthodox nor accepts the traditional "Anglo-Catholic" analysis of the Church, is whether the surfboard/pedalo/bath she's on is part of the fleet or not. I would say "yes".

I would say that taking a stance that Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy (or indeed any form of Restorationist pentecostalism) as being the only "full" or true manisfestation of the Church which Christ builds is not really a question of arrogance (it is defensible by reasoned argument) or of morality (it's not actually wrong to want to know where God's people are) or even of bad manners (stating one's case need not be impolite) - it is simply, from the perpective of many faithful Christians, particularly in the English-speaking world, factually incorrect.
 

---

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :
 
Dear Elfred Presley

For a statement to be to be factually incorrect, it must be, well, factually incorrect. What anybody believes about its factual correctness won't change that. Ever.

(Unless it happens to be a statement in the form 'X% of the population believe in Y' which will be factually correct when X% do believe in Y, but factually incorrect the rest of the time.)

So we're back where we started.
 

---

Posted by Elfed Presley (# 15) on :
 
Indeed we are, Isaac. I was not offering a solution, merely an analysis of where we are.

Of course. if Constantinople and Rome found a way to recognise that Christ's Church exists, fully and without the need for anything else, in Angilcanism, Methodism and the various Reformed Churches without having to be structurally or ritually identical, then this impasse would be resolved quite amicably. Unity in diversity, anyone?
 

---

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :
 
Dear Elfred Presley

Even if 'Constantinople' did find 'a way to recognise that Christ's Church exists ... in Anglicanism,' etc, that wouldn't necessarily change much, since the Patriarch doesn't have that kind of power. Indeed, our way of doing theology makes it unlikely that we could find such a way.
 

---

Posted by JimmyT (# 142) on :
 
I lurked with interest and some degree of sadness on this thread, probably because I identify too closely with Dave Marshall's situation, which I would describe as "The Prodigal Son Returns With an Attitude."

"The Prodigal Son Returns With an Attitude" goes something like this: a mother has an older son Should and a younger son Would. "Should" sees his mother as unrighteous toward non-family members, cannot reconcile with her, and leaves, disinherited by a father who backs up the mother's decision. The father continues to love his son, expresses this, and leaves for an extended absence. In the absence, Should desires another chance at reconciling his difference with his mother, announces his intention to reconcile, and sets off for his mother's house. He is intercepted by Would, who says that he has been sent by their mother to say that she will not receive him unless he first recognizes her authority over him as his mother, and that she has his father's backing. Should does not believe this and says that he is certain his father will accept him as an adult on equal footing in the household with his mother, whom he still sees as overly uncharitable to non-family members. Would will not challenge his mother's authority on any condition and is prepared to keep Should from communion with his mother unless the issue of recognition of authority is resolved. The Father cannot be reached because he has left for an extended stay in a foreign land, having left instructions to all on how to behave in his absence.

In the meantime, the Mother and Would have invented the term "Bastard" for legitimate children who disinherit their parents. They assure Should that although he is a Bastard, he is not second-rate in their eyes and will always be their blood kin. They are all under the authority of the Father who loves and provides for them all. But some word is needed to discriminate the separate conditions of Should and Would and "Bastard" has been chosen. It is more of a clinical description of a situation and is to be construed as neither a statement of inferior morality nor made in order to offend and shame. It does however reflect the reality of an impaired relationship.

Dave Marshall, like me, is either Heretic or Apostate in the eyes of the most widely-recognized authorities and traditions within the visible churches purporting to represent God's idea of "Christianity." Start liking it, Dave. If you cannot with honestly say that Jesus was fully God in human flesh; if you cannot honestly say that God took on human flesh in the form of Christ in order to reconcile us to God and provide us with hope of conscious life after death, you may be an Apostate from Christianity or an Heretical Christian. The visible churches of Christianity, which spawned both you and me, have declared this for a certainty, and with near unanimity. The Quakers and Unitarians will take us with open arms. The others will not. It should feel like Home at Last, but somehow it doesn't.

So it appears that Dave Marshall and I live in the kind of self-imposed exhile from the visible Christian church described so eloquently by Jack Spong. It was once our home, our sanctuary, and our refuge. But no longer. It has disinherited us and we have disinherited it. Like the visible church, we long for reconciliation, but cannot in conscience reconcile under the terms proposed, nor can the visible church. One of the primary reasons for leaving our home church appears to be the primary reason Borg finds in his students who no longer describe themselves as Christian: none of us could believe our churches teaching that members of other Christian denominations are not really Christian and not fully in communion with God, much less those who follow other religious traditions. One of the primary reasons for our not returning to any Christian church is a perpetuation of this same doctrine, with one more in addition: to return in good stead, we must accept the labels of Apostate and Heretic to describe our former impaired relationship, we must not fault the visible church in any way for causing this impairment, and we must accept the authority of the visible church to define what will be called "Christian" and to state with authority who is and is not in communion with her and with God.

We note that Christ never did this. His initial instructions were always the same, and never began with a grounding in doctrine or definitions: he said, "Follow me." Thus it was that those who did so were called "Follwers of The Way" instead of Christians. If Christians insist on labelling us "Apostate" and "Heretic," refusing to grant us status as "Christian" we are well within our rights to call ourselves "Followers of The Way." We are also within our rights to say that although they may be "True Christians" they are not "True Followers of the Way" because they place doctrinal stumbling blocks in the path of those who truly do follow in The Way.

With respect to Ships and Fleets and Churches, it seems clear to me that both Christians and Followers of The Way are dedicated to the metaphysical recreation of the metaphysical presence of Jesus of Nazareth in this world. Those who lend their metaphysical Selves to the recreation or continuing Resurrection of this mystical Self should be thought of a members of the one Body of Christ, which is the church.

But no. People want labels, with delicate shades of goodness, badness, closeness, and distance. They can have them. Spong may be wrong that Christianity Must Change or Die, but it appears to have reached a steady state where for every convert to "traditional" Christianity, one more "non-traditional" adherent is lost.
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
So why can't we call one the Church Invisible (or other term) and one the Orthodox Church and then we all know what we mean and no-one's offended ?

If it's only use of words, where's the merit in upsetting people unnecessarily ?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you use the term "Orthodox Church" to refer to the body of Orthodox Christians, people know what you mean.

---

And in fact, in ordinary usage, that's exactly what we say, both for reasons of clarity and for reasons of charity. But if the discussion is "how do different groups of Christians understand the word Church" or "why do you exclude non-Orthodox Christians from Communion," then what would you have us do? Stay out of the discussion so as not to hurt feelings? Lie? What?

---

quote:

---

Or are you trying to say that, even though there may be one or two odd stalks of wheat outside, and one or two weeds inside, that the original division of land still means pretty much what it used to ? Are you only moderating your position from the traditional "all the wheat is in the wheatfield" (which you personally may never have said or believed, but which some of us have heard all too often) to "99% of the wheat is in the wheatfield and 99% of the plants in the wheatfield are wheat" ?

---

quote:

---

Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'

---

quote:

---

I believe there is only one Church. The Church is not strictly a spiritual body, but it carries a particular physical and organizational expression. That expression is what is currently widely known as the Eastern Orthodox Church. In the context of this thread, that is the definition of Church that I consider to be "accurate" -- which is to say, that is what I believe the Church is in fact.

---

quote:

---

And in fact, in ordinary usage, that's exactly what we say, both for reasons of clarity and for reasons of charity.

---

quote:

---

I acknowledge that it is possible to.. ..choose not to be saved, because God will not save us against our will. But the fact that it is possible doesn't mean it will happen.

---

because that sounds far more like a loving Father than do some people's views on the matter of salvation.

But you see, when the Jehovahs Witnesses or anyone else tell me that it is essential for my salvation that I join their church, the only true one, then I can recognise the goodwill, the genuine inter-personal concern, and the logic, even though I totally dispute their premise. They're willing to commit the rudeness of saying that other churches won't do because they believe that it is of soul-saving significance.

You've now (loud and clear ) said that you don't.

So I have trouble in thinking of a good excuse for your usage of words, given that your preferred excuse (that it is objectively correct) doesn't seem to hold water...

Russ

(Bother! Used up my lunch hour again. No time to reply to everyone else...)
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
The point I've been trying to make is that you use words like "accurate" and "fact". As if what you were talking about was some empirical proposition that could be tested and found to be either correct or incorrect.

---

quote:

---

Whereas I'm suggesting to you that there is no such test. That what you are talking about is not a matter of fact, but a matter of how we choose to use words.

By "that is what the Church is" you don't seem to mean that you're using the word with semantic correctness, accurately reflecting its common-use and dictionary meaning.

---

quote:

---

And you now seem to be saying that you don't mean it in the sense which some Christians use ...

---

quote:

---

But I don't understand in what sense you believe that your usage is objectively right.

---

quote:

---

In an attempt to answer your question, when the topic of "the Church" comes up I would not have you lie, nor wish you to feel morally obliged to keep silent for fear of giving offence.

---

quote:

---

If the bottom line is that your belief has no practical consequences, and you can't express it without doing down someone else, then is it unreasonable to suggest to you to that perhaps it's not worth arguing for ?

---

quote:

---

I would hope you'd be able to say something like "When, amongst ourselves, we talk of 'the Church' we always mean the Orthodox Church. But we recognise that other churches do the same. It's a convenience - we don't thereby intend to imply any individual or collective superiority."

---

quote:

---

So I have trouble in thinking of a good excuse for your usage of words, given that your preferred excuse (that it is objectively correct) doesn't seem to hold water...

---

quote:

---

I don't understand in what sense you believe that your usage is objectively right

---

quote:

---

I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

---

1. As a visible, recognisable body
2. As an invisible body to which certain people belong who may or may not belong to any visible body calling itself a church

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Because the Orthodox Church is The Church, if you're wanting to be saved, that's the best place to be. To go back to the fleet analogy, it's the vessel designed and built by God, launched by the Holy Spirit, fully equipped to bring you to theosis.

Of course I believe that the Orthodox Church, being the Church, is superior to the other groups that consider themselves churches. But I don't usually say it in that bald a manner, because it's really not necessary to do so.

---

quote:

---

As I understand the scriptures, the only fellowship that is created is the one between all believers following true repentance and acceptance of Christ as saviour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
Dear Priest

quote:

---

As I understand the scriptures, the only fellowship that is created is the one between all believers following true repentance and acceptance of Christ as saviour.

---

And as the Orthodox Church understands the Scriptures there can only be one Church, which has to guard the faith once for all delivered to it. That other individuals and organisations have emerged who have deviated from this faith is shameful, but we cannot change our understanding to accomodate such a deviation any more than we can accept sin as part of the normal human condition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
I lurked with interest and some degree of sadness on this thread, probably because I identify too closely with Dave Marshall's situation, which I would describe as "The Prodigal Son Returns With an Attitude."
[...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Priest:
As I understand the scriptures, the only fellowship that is created is the one between all believers following true repentance and acceptance of Christ as saviour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Priest:
As I understand the scriptures, the only fellowship that is created is the one between all believers following true repentance and acceptance of Christ as saviour.

---

Clearly you understand the scriptures differently than we.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
Dear Priest

Trisagion is right: I'm not joking.

---

Isaac,

In that case your post is one of a man with a closed mind and anything I may care to say will be ignored, I'm happy for you in that you have found what you believe to be an absolute, I am keeping an open mind.
 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
There is nothing closed in the mind that believes that God is Truth and that he has, in his infinite goodness to us, given us a sure guide to Him through the Church He established, guarantees, preserves and guides into that Truth.

Rather, the mind that accepts these things is free and open to all, knowing that it is God's own guarantee that will, in His good time, allow the truth, goodness and beauty to be revealed with authority and certainty.

Incidentally, Priest, I don't know which ancient commentaries on Sacred Scripture tell you to make up your own mind. The Fathers (and I am not aware of any other ancient commentaries) almost all counsel thinking with the Church (Augustine says, "consentire cum Ecclesia") and reading Scripture wityhin the Tradition and authority of the Church. The "one man and his Bible" school doesn't seem to have the blessing of the Fathers and its fruit (32,000 protestant denominations and growing) doesn't seem to accord with the mind of Him who prayed that His followers might be one, even as He and the Father are One.
 

---

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :
 
Right again Trisagion! If it happens a third time, will bells ring in heaven?
 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
Right again Trisagion! If it happens a third time, will bells ring in heaven?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
*ahem*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
OK. Last time: drop it.

---

Yes Miss.
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
The Nicene Creed says

quote:

---

I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

---

There are really only two ways to interpret the phrase One Church

---

Dear Isaac,

You seem to be asserting that you believe this credal statement is true before considering its meaning, which strikes me as a rather curious approach. I would have thought one had to understand the meaning of a statement before one could consider whether it is true or not.

But then, I tend to use the word "believe" to mean something like "consider true". Which is, I suspect, the common usage outside a religious context. [resists temptation to quote from pocket dictionary ]. This might be similar to the "give our mental assent" which you seem to say you don't mean...

If when the Orthodox say "believe" they don't mean "believe", that might explain some of the crossed wires we're getting.

Is your meaning more along the lines of "swear allegiance to" ?

Would one of the Catholics care to comment on what they mean by "believe" ?

quote:

---

You ask what difference it makes; it is a fact that the non-Orthodox differ with us over doctrine, both what that doctrine is and how it is derived. Insomuch as non-Orthodox doctrine deviates from Orthodox doctrine, we believe it puts at risk the salvation of those who believe in it.

---

quote:

---

I think this distinction is much more subtle than the simple 'inside the Church=salvation, outside the Church=damnation' which we are accused of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
You seem to be asserting that you believe this credal statement is true before considering its meaning, which strikes me as a rather curious approach.

---

quote:

---

So you consider that the practical import of your definition of "Church" is a matter of salvation. I thought Josephine had denied that, but maybe she only meant to deny the stronger form which you also deny.

---

quote:

---

I am not saying that the belief has no practical consequences. I think it does. Because the Orthodox Church is The Church, if you're wanting to be saved, that's the best place to be. To go back to the fleet analogy, it's the vessel designed and built by God, launched by the Holy Spirit, fully equipped to bring you to theosis.

Which is not to say that your surfboard won't get you there. But you're better off in the vessel that God made.

---

quote:

---

1) You seem to assert that visible membership of the Orthodox Church is sufficient for salvation but is not necessary.

What about interior disposition ? I would have thought that your "healing of the soul" might require "a humble and contrite heart" or other right intention.

---

quote:

---

But you seem to be saying that nothing like that is necessary, because membership of the visible body itself guarantees salvation...

---

quote:

---

2) Is every element of the Orthodox Church absolutely necessary in order for that guarantee of salvation to hold ? The beards, the Greek, the conservatism, the icons, whatever ? Are there or are there not any accidents of Orthodox culture which could have been different or could be changed without invalidating that guarantee ? Do you have no culture for its own sake ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
What if someone said, "You seem to be saying that someone who has been in a terrible car accident needs to be admitted to the hospital in order to get better. But what about surgery? and medication? Aren't those needed, too?" Well, of course. But the hospital is where you go to get those.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Priest:
Can I ask a question here Josephine, are you then saying that attendance and membership will not get you saved? Just as someone who refuses or avoids treatment in hospital may not get well.

If so, what other things need to occur for salvation within the Orthodox movement?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Hosting

Priest, Trisagion: this is an emotive subject, and it's perhaps likely that hackles are going to be raised.

However, discussion is nearing the edge of that metaphorical precipice we tend to want to avoid.

You want to describe someone as a "man with a closed mind" (or you want to counterattack) you do that in Hell.

Not here. Hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
You seem to be asserting that you believe this credal statement is true before considering its meaning, which strikes me as a rather curious approach.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
I thought the position of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches was that they can say where the Church is, but they cannot say where the Church is not. Am I wrong?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
And then I'd have to tell you it's none of my business; it's between them, their spiritual father, and God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
Admin Warning

Priest,

You need to reacquaint yourself with Ship's Commandment 6, which reads, "Respect the Hosts." Your posts were inappropriate for this board. Wood was doing his job by pointing it out. If you disagree, you can bring it up in the Styx (also covered in Commandment 6) but you cannot argue with him here.

If you need some time ashore to meditate on the meaning of the original text of the Commandments, it can be arranged. Just keep on as you have been with Wood.

Scot
Member Admin

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
I thought the position of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches was that they can say where the Church is, but they cannot say where the Church is not. Am I wrong?

---

No, you're not wrong. That is correct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elfed Presley:
and that of Cardinal Ratzinger's talk of "ecclesial communities".

---

quote:

---

I believe the Roman Catholic Church has articulated different stances to Reformed Christianity, both official and unofficially, ranging from the Pope who says Anglican orders are invalid to the French bishop who allowed an Anglican Canon to concelebrate whilst the latter was on holiday in his cathedral city.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Protestant churches believe in the Invisible Church, to which all Christians belong. All the wheat. Would I be right in saying that the Orthodox don't believe in an Invisible Church as a belief, but don't rule it out entirely? Is that too far?

---

quote:

---

The original meaning of ekklesia, is congregation, assembly, community. Can the Orthodox hope that all the wheat, inc those outside Orthodoxy, are in some kind of Mystical Community?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elfed Presley:
I hazare that Josephine's admirable position may not be the view of all Orthodox Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elfed Presley:
However charitable one is trying to be (and I have no doubt that the Orthodox and Roman Catholic contributiors are being charitable), we cannot escape the fact that saying "This is Church" about X automatically says of not-X, "This is not-Church".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
We're willing to say that there is wheat outside the wheatfield, that you can get treatment outside the hospital, that God has mercy on whom he has mercy. But we wouldn't be willing to call those things that go on outside the Church as being also the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
"Right," he said. "I'm thirsty. Which way to Ward 3 ?"

---

At the end of the day, as long as there's Ward 3...
 

---

Posted by Elfed Presley (# 15) on :
 
The policy on the poultice was, however, a relatively recent development (discussed in a report by the Town Council of Hospitals entitled "Bedpans, Enemas and Matrons") and arose out of the generally accepted belief that, in extremis, the administration of poultice does not require a doctor.
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Can the Orthodox hope that all the wheat, inc those outside Orthodoxy, are in some kind of Mystical Community?

---

We would tend to say, I think, that we hope (and some of us believe) that all the wheat will be gathered in, no matter where it finds itself growing. But, to us, the Mystical Community is the Church.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0