Most comment policies for the blog are in effect on this page as well. However, we will not monitor the length of comments (unless some wise guy plays a game), the direction of the discussions or the relevance of the discussions. The Deebs may or may not participate in the discussion, depending on busyness of the current posts. In other words, go for it. This page is subject to change as we work out the inevitable issues.
Please note that the usual restrictions on personal attacks and other rude behavior still apply here.
Update: 660 comments in 3 weeks. Not bad. Since infinite is a bad idea in how big a page can be on a web site I’m changing things so comments are split into pages of 500 per page. Nothing is gone. Just click on the link for older comments. (GBTC)
I figure I'll try to launch this discussion by asking a question that follows from my own unpleasant experiences: have any of you or your relatives ever been physically assaulted by a well-meaning but misguided clergyman?
When my grandfather died, a pastor who was in attendance grabbed my mother to try to console her but wound up bruising her. My mother never reported this to the police and the pastor in question is still working for the United Methodist Church, but this incident did significantly contribute to my eventual departure from that denomination. Which may have been unfair on my part; I doubt there are more than 5 or 6 Methodist pastors who would do that, but it left a horrible taste in my mouth.
Now, was this abuse or just an error? I was 16 at the time and was too much in mourning to react to it; my beloved grandfather was dead and that horrible fact obscured all other scenarios however tragic. This was in 2002 and it seems to me that doing anything about it today would just be petty, especially since my mother and myself are happy where we wound up churchwise. At the time though coming on the heels of 9/11 it contributed to an apocalyptic gloom that surrounded my life. What do you think?
My topic: What is your definition of Hell on Earth? For many years I feared being at a cocktail party where I knew absolutely no one and everyone else was in fancy dress and beautiful and witty etc. I realized today that that is no longer my definition.
@William, I’ll give a personal perspective if you like. I have never (ever) heard of a situation like this. I think some of the gloom you felt afterwards may have been because you feel like you didn’t/couldn’t protect your mother at the time. It reads as a very difficult one, because of the ambiguity – was it an accident or deliberate? I used to drop a guy in his 70’s home from church and on more than one occasion when I gave him a short hug goodbye in the car my breast was grabbed. I could never work out if it was a clumsy hug or deliberate, as it seemingly didn’t fit his character. But two strikes and he was ‘out’ (ie I put in strong boundaries). Recently I was in a hospital lift, and a doctor got in and “shepherded” me with his hand on my hip to move me in the direction he wanted me to go. My anger afterwards was about how slow I was to act and say something, because being assertive isn’t my first response – I’ll either blow up inappropriately, or be passive (but mad). Afterwards I played through different scenes in my head about what I could have said later, but of course it was too late then. It made me realise how much more quickly I need to respond, and I think I learn best from others as to how they assertively handled situations, eg actual turn of phrases that they used, and how. So apologies, I couldn’t answer your question as to any action that you could take, but I’m sure others here can advise…
@ William G.:
William, I’m sorry you’re still experiencing pain from the events surrounding your grandfather’s death. It must have seemed like your life was spinning out of control. Memories formed in that way can be so painful and persistent and sometimes the smallest things loom very large–larger than they really are. I know whereof I speak, so I’m not trying to minimize this at all. I truly have experienced this kind of thing.
Do you think that the pastor intended to harm your mother? I ask because my dad had a very, very strong grip, and he did not realize how strong he was. He was a gentle man and would not hurt anyone–he was a giver and servant. But in his era, men were taught to have a firm grip. I wonder if that pastor was just not thinking about how his strength might hurt your mother.
The abusive pastors I’ve known were aggressive with their words or their social power, not their physical strength. I’m sure it had nothing to do with being Methodist, but he has become the face of Methodism for you, and that incident has become what being Methodist means. I understand that, too.
Have you talked to your mother about how this continues to affect you? I hope you find some peace from this.
@ nmgirl:
Hell on earth for me was grief occurring in multiple ways from multiple sources coming one after the other that I thought will never relent. The grief came with a sense of being abandoned by God, even discarded by him, and an inability to find meaning in any of it…
I stumbled onto the site on my phone, read a bit, and looked around for a statement as to who Wartburg is and what the goal of this website is. (I’m not from the Mars Hill community.) Didn’t find any answers. I do know that Paul told Timothy that the goal of our commandment is ‘love from a pure heart’. I didn’t find much “speaking the truth in love” by Wartburg, but instead alot of arrogance as evinced by his highly contemptuous comments about others. For those looking for healing from wounds from church leaders or communities, or those looking to promote change and redress of wrongs, you would be wise to find another venue, with wiser methods and better attitudes. The attitudes here are dangerously contagious, such that that even non-Christians are commenting on this site that it is confirming their already low opinion of Christians and Christendom.
chris knickerbocker wrote:
Welcome to TWW. How are things in the state of Washington? Any thoughts on the incubation period of the contagion found here?
chris knickerbocker wrote:
What is your suggestion for another venue with wiser methods and better attitudes? Things may look a little different to you if you had been through what some of us have at the hands of “pastors” and “elders.”
The attitudes spoken against here–lust for power and fame and money–are “dangerously contagious” in today’s evangelical church. I think, if you ask the average non-believer what turns them off to Christianity, you might just find that it is not what they read at TWW. I suspect it is more due to arrogant attitudes like the one you display, IMO. I’m a believer, but I’m not in church. The “leaders” in too many churches do not look a bit like Jesus.
If you would like to point to a particular example of what you find so objectionable, then perhaps we can talk about that. If you are somewhat dismissed by commenters here, it is not personal. It’s just that we’ve heard it all before.
As a member of the Orthodox Church aspiring to be a priest someday I welcome this site. Pastoral abuse is a major problem, probably the biggest problem fading Christianity right now. When the Episcopal Church kicks elderly congregants out of their parish for wanting to adhere to the morality they were taught in their youth, or when a megachurch pastor bounces a member for asking questions about the books, or a Baptist pastor rapes a boy, or a Russian Orthodox lay leader calls the police and tells them you’re suicidal because she resents your view of the situation in the Ukraine, that tends to incline people towards atheism. I’ve survived three abusive pastors, one moderate, one conservative, one liberal, and remain a Christian on the basis of my faith and the holy experiences I’ve has with the other 30 or so in my life. However, the demonic activity in the church is alienating people from it. Abusive leaders must be identified and isolated, calmly, without anger, and with a view towards bringing them to repentance, which may lamentably require them to be interdicted or even deposed, before they can cause further damage. If we turn a blind eye to it, like the Catholic bishops who, doubtless thinking they were acting in the merciful spirit of Vatican II tried to cover up sex abuse in their dioceses, the result will be the further erosion of Christianity in this country. Morally weakened, we will find ourselves unable to deal with the threat posed by militant Islam and militant atheism. The survival of human civilization requires the survival of the Christian religion, which I am convinced is the main thing that has prevented us from annihilating ourselves in the past century, and for Christianity to survive, abusive predators in the leadership of our churches must be removed.
I can name about half a dozen Orthodox bishops who have made anti Semitic remarks or who are believed to have violated their oath of celibacy or committed financial transgressions, who are still in their sees, including the primate of one of the larger jurisdictions. That’s just in my denomination. In the Roman church, the monastics of the Franciscans of the Immaculate have been the victim of a sustained persecution from allies of Pope Francis apparently due to a grudge regarding their operation of a Latin mass chapel, licititly under Summorum Pontificum, but against his wishes, when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires. This problem is so widespread that even those figures we associate with the greatest amount of public piety and mercy are tainted by allegations of clerical abuse. For the monks it’s especially hard as they give all their money to the church when they make their solemn vows; a fired monk is a homeless man with a short life expectancy. Within the megachurches, people are being given the Scientology disconnection treatment for questioning the compensation of their pastors, which is the worst deal of all.
Thus, this is a systemic problem that is simultaneously attacking every denomination at a time when our increasingly degenerate and depraved culture requires moral leadership. We can give corrupt leaders a free pass, or alternatively, take proactive measures to clean up the church; most of the traditional denominations have systems of canon law and internal justice, and caring members who will work for reform; those that don’t must be dismissed as heretical cults, and every legitimate effort made to discourage people from joining them. As a practical measure, I am of the opinion that a campaign to generate internal opposition to 9Marks from within the traditional denominations that have been infected by it, such as the SBC and the PCA, would be a good starting point for reform. There is also an urgent need for a truce between left leaning and right leaning members of certain denominations such as the Episcopal Church, so that individual congregations aren’t coerced into accepting theology foreign to them. Senior hierarchs in the ECUSA and the PCUSA have been exposed as being in many cases after the real estate value of parishes comprised of disaffected members; selling these off helps to plug the budget hole they’re facing, but the emotional anguish it causes is unjustifiable. I am convinced that individual congregations should hold the title to buildings they financed as a congregation; the diocese or presbytery should own only what it has paid for directly. Within the Orthodox Church there was a similar landgrab which failed only because the lawyers of the diocese failed to file paperwork on time. Campaigning for congregational ownership of parish churches as a check on corrupt hierarchs seems a practical measure.
By campaigning for such safeguards, we will weaken atheism, by showing people that Christians are morally responsible and will not tolerate hypocrisy, nor will we allow our leaders to remake God in their own image, and set themselves above us as a caste of Brahmins. The dynasties of megachurch pastors that are beginning to form really trouble me, because the last thing the church needs is a hereditary priesthood. Such persons would probably try to justify it Biblically using the example of the Levites. Wartburg Watch represents one of several entities present in the world right now campaigning against such iniquity, and in so doing, they are helping to secure the future of the Christian faith.
chris knickerbocker wrote:
Snort. Dear Mr Wartburg, this reads very botlike.
chris knickerbocker wrote:
Is that your major problem, that non-christians are welcome to comment? You want a little closed system where only certain ideas are tolerated and certain people deemed “worthy” to associate with others? If so, then you pegged it correctly in saying that some of us don’t play that game; don’t even respect that game.
William G
numo wrote:
@ numo: Yikes – just realized that i inadvertantly slammed ghe veneration of icons. I had no intention of doing so, and have a real fondness for icons myself, albeit i canmot imagine kissing one. But i *do* get the reason for it, and could perhaps wish that my beliefs had room for such things.
I kiss my icons frequently; one common mistake some first time icon kissers make of the opposite gender is forgetting to remove any lipstick you may be wearing. Having St. Basil with a bright red lip stain on his face comes across as a bit unseemly. Some icons and relics stream myrrh by the way, particularly those of St. Nicholas. I have some of this and it’s quite miraculous stuff; there is a dying priest in Las Vegas who owns a myrrh streaming icon he collected from the rejects pile at a monastery free of charge. Occasionally fraudsters will rig icons by injecting them with rose water; a few years ago ROCOR worked with police in Texas to bust a ring of icon fraudsters who were selling fake myrrh streaming icons; one should never pay for an icon alleged to have miraculous properties because the few people so blessed with actual wonderworking icons are not inclined to sell them at any price.
numo wrote:
@ William G.:
Please forgive my lack of belief in “ethereal bears,” but frankly, it sounds as if either someone attacked him or he somehow had an accident on his own.
William, you seem very trusting, but as someone who’s been around long enough to be your grandma, i will take the liberty of saying this: don’t believe everything you hear or read, even when the person making such claims is supposed to be credible (priest or not). His “explanation” sounds like it belongs in Ripley’s Believe it or Not.
Might i kindly suggest that someone needs to start an Orthodox version of Snopes.com? (Really – seems to me like a whole lot of religious equivalents of urban legends are floating around.)
If we had that we wouldn’t be Orthodox. Many things do occur within the Orthodox faith that we consider good and bad that would seem wildly implausible to most Protestants: the holy fire in Jerusalem, the myrrh streaming icons, bleeding icons, myrrh streaming relics, apparitions during the liturgy and so on. I have encountered this first hand, although it really is not as spooky as it sounds, and is quite a bit less dramatic than what one will find in a typical Pentecostal parish. When you worship at vigils on Saturday night in a dark church surrounded by icons dimly lit by oil lamps, with a thick lingering fog of incense smoke, the atmosphere will be different than singing praise songs in a crowded auditorium on Sunday morning. It should also be stressed that the reports of supernatural experiences in the church have been consistent over the centuries, and also that we are catechize not to seek them out; if you go in search of one that is an easy way to fall into prelest.
Continuing to develop my role as resident troll-hunter, permit me to urge resistance to the temptation to feed Mr/Ms Knickerbocker. (Christopher? Christina? Other? Don’t know.)
Our phone-surfing friend managed to stumble in here long enough to dig out some comments from non-Christians and half-read them, but apparently not long enough to notice that TWW has a menu bar, at the top of each page exactly where you’d normally find it, with an obviously-labelled tab entitled “The Basics”.
Frivolity aside, anybody web-literate enough to be surfing on their phone would normally be web-literate enough to know the traditional site layout common to 99.999% of the interweb. However accidentally (s)he landed here, that is fairly strong evidence of what (s)he decided to look for once here. On the other hand, the construction of the paragraph is not typical of a chatbot.
Provisional identification: part-troll (effort focused on finding a basis for making an accusation), part bungee-bomber. I doubt whether (s)he has read any of the replies.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
You are well on the way to making a name for yourself in this line of work.
Where my son works they just hired a new intelligence officer, sort of, and I just got a ear full of how difficult that line of work is and how long it takes to train someone and such. So, anyhow, you seem to have a natural bent in some sort of direction like that and I just want to encourage you along this line. I am speaking from the viewpoint of the totally clueless when it comes to internet stuff. We need the more talented among us to keep us posted.
William G and numo
Back when I was in RCIA I attended a Good Friday service in which part of what they asked us to do was kiss a crucifix. They did say that you could just touch it as an alternative option. I touched it, but at the same time I realized that it would have taken the threat of dire consequences to make me kiss it. Until that moment I had no idea that I would feel that way. Hmmmm. The whole area of images and icons and crucifixes and holy water and such is worth exploring. My life has been so far removed from that as to render me totally clueless about the reasonings behind various conclusions and doctrines along that line.
@ dee:
Or maybe you still would be. I’m not qualified to speak to all of this, but you know how i feel.
Please keep an open mind to other explanation, though. Sometimes things are more prosaic than miraculous, but again, i am not able to judge.
Nancy wrote:
Chris is a real person and is neither a chatbot, troll nor bungee bomber.
Haitch wrote:
A friend had this experience with her doctor. She kneed him in the, ahem, the family jewels. That solved that….
Please note that I don’t *recommend* physically assaulting people. But it did work!
Gram3 wrote:
Your definitions page is a good example of the sarcastic tone of this website. For example, I don’t believe in a young earth but wouldn’t ridicule these people as you do in your Definitions page under ‘The Flintstone Doctrine’. This is not civil discourse.
Similarly, you come across as contemptuous towards certain stereotypes you have defined. (Merriam-Webster: Contemptuous” – a feeling that someone or something is not worthy of any respect or approval”. Are all rich pastors to be mistrusted and painted with the same broad brush as being phonies? Another example, perhaps not of arrogance but maybe bitterness is the way you added quotes around your reference to “leaders” in your first reply to me.
Reading some replies I see that I have come under attack/ridicule. This is an example where these people are not speaking the truth in love. If I have written incorrectly, inaccurately or meanly, show me my error. I will ponder the counter-accusation that I am arrogant. Of course we are all guilty of that on a semi-regular basis, but of course like our nose, it is much more obvious to others than ourselves. If I can find an isolatable root of arrogance within I will do my best to excise it and move further into true humility.
As much as I would like to, I will not be able to continue this discussion, however, since I am struggling to meet my own challenges and really can’t afford the time and emotional drain. My daughter is a single struggling mom so she needs transportation help and finances from me. I am struggling with a progressive incurable neurological disorder which is making it harder to do my job.
I’m not usually a ‘bungee jumper’ but probably I was motivated this time because this site wounded me personally. I have been a patient of Dr. John Catanzaro for many years and he got me back to health and work when the M.D.s were baffled. He is an exceptionally skilled doctor and wonderful man. I don’t know what ties he specifically claimed to other cancer institutions, but I know that his main heart and goal is to help people and be on the cutting edge and it was very painful to see him attacked and motives and character vilified here, vigilante style. Have the victims become the victimizers?
I too have been hurt by church leaders, but have no assumptions that I know the pain of many who have been severely abused in different ways. Jesus however has ‘been there, done that’. He used his last breath to pray for God to forgive those killing him. He has the authority to command us to likewise forgive. The second step is to pray for our enemy and do good to them.. When we get to the point when we can see them and not feel pain we can know we are healing.
Corrie ten Boom recounts a moment in Germany when she came face to face with one of her former captors. He held out his hand to shake hers. Corrie’s hand froze to her side as she hung in a moment of truth. How to let this vicious person simply off the hook and forgive? She did of course,finally extend her had of friendship.
Regarding the church and church leaders, we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. To reach the world with the news of Jesus’ love, we need big and small churches. Churches cannot function without authorities but this will happen less as biblical authority patterns are followed. We know that we are all ‘planted in the house of the Lord’ by the Spirit and we cannot allow hurt to keep us out of community and a local church. We cannot get around that it is an authority relationship (within the appropriate scope of pastoral authority):
“Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. Hebrews 13:17 NIV
If you have been hurt by a leader, get get up, get out, get healed and go find a new church with a REAL leader you can trust and support.
@ zooey111:
I’ve had problem like this, too, with doctors. At the time, i was young and too stunned to react, but now… that’s a different story!
__
“WartBurg ‘Kooler Qweens’ : Dedicated To Da ‘Many’ Victims Of Spiritual Abuse…”
Intro:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGLsTFjG44U
smack! Smack!
zend zoze blogger(s) to za ‘church’ kooler…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdC1FHi5Xak
(grin)
hahahahahaha
Sopy
🙂
—
@ dee:
Many years ago after a pilgrimage to Panagia Evangelistria on the island of Tinos, my Greek friends and I drove into the mountains where I was received (exceptionally) into a nunnery. I was given an apple, blessed by the nuns, who breathed the Holy Ghost into my face and “blew my sins away”. I remember it as if it were only yesterday.
Not bad for a Calvinist! Too much is made of labels.
Here is a brief history of the lace.
In June of 1822 at the nunnery of Kechrovounion, a nun by the name of Pelagia had a series of visions of the Holy Virgin. Mary instructed Pelagia to inform the elders of Tinos village that they were to begin excavations in an uncultivated field, where they would find a sacred icon. Excavations began and on January 30, 1823, a worker digging in the soil discovered the icon. Subsequent archaeological excavations have determined the area of the icon’s discovery to have been the site of the ancient Byzantine church and, before that, the temple of Dionysos.
The icon, called Panagia Evangelistria, meaning Our Lady of Good Tidings, is a beautiful portrayal of Mary kneeling with her head bent in prayer. Regarded by scholars as being older than the Byzantine period, it may perhaps be the work of the Apostle and Evangelist St. Luke. It is assumed that the icon was a sacred object in the Byzantine church and was hidden or lost around the time of the Moslem invasions. After the discovery of the icon, the construction of a new church was begun. Before the church was completed in 1830, large numbers of pilgrims had begun to come to the island from throughout Greece. Numerous reports of miracles of healing rapidly increased the fame of the Church of the Megolohari, with the result that today the sacred icon is the most venerated pilgrimage item of the Greek nation. Four major festival days are celebrated at the shrine: January 30, the anniversary of the finding of the icon; March 25, the Annunciation of Mary; July 23, the anniversary of the vision of the nun Pelagia; and August 15, the Assumption of Mary.
*lace = place!
And you crawl on your knees up the marble stairs!
Chris Knickerbockerf wrote:
I knew from your first comment that we had stepped on the toes of one of your men. The State of Washington suspended Catanzaro’s license prior to our expose. In other words, the very authorities that God has put over Catanzaro in Washington State said he was practicing outside of legal boundaries.
I personally called Dana Farber Cancer Institute and spoke with the head of the PR department. Dr C has NEVER had a relationship with the institution. They have NOT put together vaccines for him. He was not telling the truth. He collected money from people ostensibly to have DFCI put together those vaccines and they claim they did not.
I don’t care about your assessment of his *heart* whatever that is. Only God knowns the heart. I can tell you that, whatever is in his heart, it does not make it to his tongue since it appears he has told some whoppers. I also spoke with the NIH and I am sorry to tell you that he is NOT, and appears to have never has been, an NIH investigator according to the NIH records
If you have a problem with him being vilified, take it up with the State of Washington which has removed his license and may do so permanently in November. Take it up with the world famous DFCI which told him to stop using their name. Take it up with the NIH who does not have him listed an an investigator and has never had him listed.
Do not vilify me for telling the truth of the matter. This man is not cutting edge. He is weaving a tale which has caused him to be investigated. I called the institutions along with Dr Throckmorton. I sought the truth. I would suggest that you do the same if you think this is some conspiracy to take down Catanzaro.
And i will continue to report the truth even if it steps on the toes of those who might not believe that their chosen idols are not who they think they are.
Do your research instead of pretending to know anyone’s heart, You don’t, nor do I. I base my judgments on actions and Catanzaro appears to have been telling tall tales. You should do the same.
numo wrote:
Now you’ve made me remember the orthodontist who used my chest as his instrument tray table. Same – I was young and too stunned to react, but my word, if that situation ever happened again sharp things would start being thrown around the room…
@ Chris Knickerbockerf:
Thanks for being specific. This isn’t my site, so I can speak only for myself.
I do indeed have contempt for people who claim to be leaders in the church who themselves show contempt for the Scriptures they claim to uphold. A pastor who takes an enormous salary that is out of line for his congregation looks like the ones Paul spoke of who preach for love of money.
Possibly it is a generational thing, by in my generation leadership was not merely a position but a character set. Leadership means demonstrating character traits which used to be considered virtuous. You might read Mortimer Adler on virtues. Now, it seems to me, that “leadership” means you have a lot of fans, pageviews, etc. When the “leaders” in T4g, for example, defend C.J. Mahaney while accusing those who wish to hold him to the higher standards which Scripture prescribes, then I say that man is no true leader, but he remains a “leader” in the sense of having a lot of followers.
I am very, very sorry about your physical and personal challenges. Believe me, I can understand what a disability and family challenges mean. I understand suffering and physical conditions, including neurological ones, that are not well-understood. I have no knowledge of Dr. Catanzaro, and I do understand very personally the desire to obtain relief wherever it can be found. I mean that I truly understand this in the greatest personal way.
However, with physicians in our family, I also know that there are alternative medicine practitioners who harm their patients and which these family members have had to help.
You are right that we are to forgive those who have harmed us. We are also to defend the weak and the vulnerable from the powerful and fraudulent. I hope that you agree with that. We are to be as gentle as doves *and* as wise as serpents.
You have misquoted Hebrews. The actual instruction is that we are to allow ourselves to be persuaded by our teachers as they teach us from God’s word. This exhortation is balanced by Paul’s commendation of the Bereans for testing what he said against the Scriptures. We must do both. I do not oppose Biblical authority structures. I do oppose men or women who take authority that is not given to them. They take the authority which God reserves to the Holy Spirit for themselves. For them, I do have contempt. No one stands in the place of God. No one.
I pray you will receive healing for your body and the strength to minister to your family as well. Thank you for your extended remarks, and I hope that mine have made some things more clear.
@ nmgirl:
My idea of hell on earth is simply to live without that presence of God with me. This life is difficult enough – I don’t know how I would keep my sanity without that.
On another tack, I am currently facing another version of what feels hellish to me…a fear that no matter how hard I try to get things right, the ‘authorities’ come demanding something that I do not have and that will destroy me if they force me to give it. A personal twist on the ‘too many creditors, not enough income’ thing.
I found this page shortly after posting that I could not find but discovered that my bossy kindle changed the – – -‘s in the URL to quotes. Early this morning I had a bunch of thoughts about how rotten I am and probably lack love. I was a follower of Francis Schaeffer and always quoted his “speaking truth in love” message. It took me years to realize that I did not do that, and probably (when angry) don’t do it now. I have some recent interactions with friends and relatives causing me to reflect on this. And this morning just reading this blog some posted about it. Where does this love come from? The Holy Spirit? Do I have it and don’ t know it? I am an understanding person and generally uncritical but seem to be unloving in critical situations.
@ Hanni:
Some people do not speak the truth at all until they get pushed beyond endurance by something and then when they do speak the truth it does not sound loving. So, was it “loving” to grit teeth and keep silent in a situation where truth needed spoken? Was it “loving” to eventually say the truth regardless of how it sounded when it finally got said? Would it have been “loving” to just continue with the gritting of the teeth and never saying anything? Or is it necessary to speak up early on and not let things get to that state?
All I know is that whichever way I play that song it does not turn out too well sometimes.
Prayer Request:
I am dreading Sunday. We will be having a business meeting at our church where resignation letters will be read, along with the official responses to those resignation letters. I am named in one of the letters as part of the reason for one of the persons to resign. So my name will be read out loud and linked to the leaving of these people.
Our church has been under attack by some Neo-Cals from before we were even members. I was just the latest one caught in their sights. Thankfully they left, but I think many believe I was the cause and actively tried to push them out. There is a stigma hanging over my head as a result of this episode. My walk has been negatively impacted by it all, and so I am asking for prayer.
For the church to heal, for the broken ones to find faith, and for the leaders to remain strong. I pray it does not get ugly. Our meeting never are, so I am hopeful. But there is still a concern, and I do not like being in the spotlight. So I would appreciate your prayers Sunday afternoon, CST. Thanks!
Doug
Your prayer request is at the top of the home page. Please let us know how it goes.
In other news, you may or may not be aware of the significance of the following:
It was the Queen’s first ever tweet. And, incidentally, if you’re ever in London then the @ScienceMuseum is well worth a visit.
@ Doug:
Frivolity aside, I will gladly add my prayers to yours.
@ Doug:
So sorry you and your church is going through this, Doug. I’ll be praying for you. Please let us know how the meeting goes.
dee wrote:
Wow. I didn’t know you did that. It brings tears to my eyes just thinking about people praying for me whom I have never met. Thank you. Really. And to all who said they will be praying. I appreciate it, and will let you all know how it turns out.
William G. wrote:
In my catechism, I was told that was one of the practical reasons the RCC made celibacy mandatory for all clergy. In a time when political power (including entire nations, governments, and populations) were inherited father-to-son like any other personal property, the last thing the Church wanted was to establish the same for “Spiritual Property”. No legitimate heirs, no dynasties, no Egyptian Pharoah/Spanish Hapsburg inbreeding to keep the property and power in the dynasty, no I, Claudius/Game of Thrones between the potential heirs.
Remember Jesus’s response when asked “Rabbi, how shall my brother and I divide our inheritance?” Not even Jesus would step into the middle of an inheritance fight.
In the history of Islam, the Sunni-vs-Shia blood feud is a 1300-year-old inheritance feud over which like was the true heir of Mohammed (and his position as Prophet and Caliph). And the Arab-Israeli wars can be argued to be a 4000-year-old inheritance feud over who is the true heir of God’s Promises to Abraham — Isaac or Ishmael?
dee wrote:
Not sure what “prelest” means, but the rest of this says “Don’t go chasing after miracles and/or paranormal stuff, but if one happens on your watch, appreciate it.”
@ Doug:
Except I can’t spell! It’s fixed.
chris knickerbocker wrote:
On the other hand, I’m a non-Christian whose opinion of Christians as thoughtful evaluators of their own beliefs and their leaders has risen considerably since I started reading here. Do you think that we wouldn’t have noticed the excesses and abuses of many churches if they weren’t pointed out here? That news gets out. What is harder to find without a site like this one is the people who are comforting the afflicted and holding con-artists’ feet to the fire.
@ Doug: YOu are in my prayers.
@ lanester:
Amen, lanester!
I am not an Muslim but I don’t hang out at forums dedicated to those questioning Islam teachers and leaders.
Must be a reason why “non-Christians” hang out here.
THC wrote:
Just because you are not interested in Islam does not mean that others should share your lack of interest. Perhaps those who are not Christians are curious about Christians or Christianity. Maybe they are recovering from abuse in or by churches, and sites like this give them hope that someone notices and cares. Why does that matter to you?
Do you think that teachers of what the teachers claim is Christianity are not to be questioned? Speaking only for myself, I think that Christians need to clean their own houses. We have teachers who look nothing like Jesus or Paul or any of the apostles. We have churches that look nothing like spiritual houses. We have teachers that are saying they are teaching the Bible but they are teaching their own imaginary but clever doctrines that are not in the Bible. That’s why I’m here.
@ Gram3:
Gram3, you get ‘it’ and explain well. I could add more but… For those who have left the faith, I’ve never seen condemnation from Christians as an attractant that drew them back. Perhaps Eagle can speak to that…
If a Christian condemns someone because they are struggling with God or with their faith, then there is a problem with the Christian’s Christianity, I think. Maybe I understand a bit better because I’ve struggled, too. As a Christian, it seems to me that we can forget that Christianity is not a faith that puts people down for being human but is a living faith in the Christ who is available to be there with them in their struggle. I understand that, too, because I’ve been a putter downer when I should have been a lifter upper.
@ Gram3:
Gram3
I agree and relate to your comment. Much of this last year has been terrible grief coming from many different sources. Its terrible. My heart goes out to you.
First, let me say thanks to all who prayed for me on Sunday, and for the church. I would like to think that this will be the last episode in the drama,
but I am sure it will not be.
Back-story: Over the last three years or so our small Bible church has
been under attack from Neo-Calvinists. These men are followers of Piper, Platt,
MacArthur, Washer, Chan, Mohler, Sproul, etc. Since joining the church, my stance has always been to call the leaders to be faithful to the Bible and to our founding documents; our church constitution and doctrinal statement.
The 1st attack came before I was a member and required to use of a mediator to “resolve”. It was not really resolved tho, as most of the people who perpetrated the attack remained, “agreeing to disagree”. The leaders were too inexperienced to handle the situation, and did everything they could to make peace. Basically, they swept it under the rug.
The 2nd attack came 18 months ago. I was asked to lead a class where my definition of the word “believe” was attacked by two of these men. (Believe: to accept something as true. To be fully persuaded.) I was accused of teaching heresy. One of the accusers left, and one stayed but shunned me. The leaders were less than supportive, but starting to see a pattern. We had many discussions on the issue of clarity.
The 3rd attack came earlier this spring where my definition of “believe” was once again attacked in an adult Sunday School. The Matthew 18 protocol was done on me by the attacker. This time I was “brought up on charges” before the elders. By now the leaders have matured in their views and saw the pattern. To their credit, they were more supportive, but only because they were now the ones who were being attacked. Since my teaching was consistent with our doctrinal statement, they had no choice but to defend themselves.
I stepped away from all ministry activities that involved teaching, and temporarily resigned as a deacon until the matter was resolved. There was only one couple in the church who offered any kind of support. (They were victims of attack #1) There was some verbal support from the leaders, but they were busy doing damage control and there was tension in our relationship because my resignation and withdrawn served to force the issue. There was a meeting with the board, the attacker, and me. It ended with the attacker resigning his membership.
Results: 4 members in total resigned. Two letters were written, one of which named me specifically, charged me with teaching heresy, and being disqualified for service as a deacon. (In our church, deacons are servants who fix things. Period. We have no authority.) I was asked to teach because I was told that I have that spiritual gift, and teaching was part of the process to find out if that was true. So the charges attacked me directly on this point.
The interim between “my trial” and the congregational meeting has been difficult. A cloud of suspicion has been hanging over me, and there has been much gossip. I have been received back into fellowship, but can not help but feel as if I did something wrong and have been (and am still being) punished. The person who perpetrated the attack was a favorite son of the church, and there has been public sorrow expressed at his departure.
Sunday the resignation letters were read out loud to the members, along with the response from the leaders. My name was mentioned at least a dozen times. Each mention felt like a punch in the gut. In retrospect, I probably should have not attended the meeting. Thanks again for your prayers.
Lessons Learned: (no particular order)
1. If you stand up to Neo-Cals (NC) you will go it alone. Be prepared for it. It will be painful. Everyone basically looks out for their own interests.
2. Leadership is not an exact science. I have remained in fellowship with the pastor & elders, and am thankful for their counsel during this difficult time. Seeing this play out tho leads me to believe that I am not cut out for church leadership.
3. Churches are messy places. Look for the hurting ones and try to help them in some way. Don’t be afraid to ask how they are feeling. Be ready to listen.
4. Churches have favorite sons and daughters. If you cross them, be ready to be
vilified and shunned. Some people shun because they just don’t know what to do. Others shun because they are mean. You might be able to tell which ones are which, but only after the shunning is over. Assuming you don’t leave of course.
5. Words mean things, but not everyone is speaking the same language. Defining terms can be dangerous business. Fluid definitions help to maintain the status quo. They provide cover for those who would rather please men than listen to God. We are all, I think, guilty of that at certain points in time, but definitions are essential to understanding one another. Without it, the cause is lost.
6. If you challenge an NC, don’t expect people to thank you or cry over your pain. Expect more tears to be shed for the one who leaves than for you. Don’t expect people to support you, even if they agree with you. We are all far to insulated from one another.
7. If you call men to be faithful, make sure it is to God and His Word. Be prepared to defend yourself even to those who say they agree with you. Be prepared to prove yourself true.
8. You will find yourself alone at some point in your faith walk. Build up a cache of resources to help you weather the storm. Assemble a team of trusted advisers outside of your local church. Rely on them when the trouble starts.
9. Don’t expect people to have a clue about what to do. Many mistakes will be made. Give your brothers & sisters the benefit of the doubt.
10. In spite of the turmoil & pain, I am not ready to give up on our church. I understand those who have, and those who have just given up on our particular form of the church. My past says that I should have given up on it a long time ago. But I think there is still value there, for both me and them, so I stayed.
Thanks for listening!
P.S. I realize that this little drama is not the most important or pressing crisis the world faces today. I also realize that there are those who have suffered with their lives. Perhaps that perspective has been of some help in weathering this storm. In the grand scheme of things, all that really happened is some folks got their undies in a bundle and their feelings hurt. I get that. But if this little operetta can serve as a help to someone else, then I think God will use it. And I know that God will use it in me and those involved. He already has. Peace.
@ Nancy:
Nancy,
I loved your writing. I struggle with this too.
@ Doug:
What was the definition of believe that the opposition wanted? In other words, what are you saying, exactly?
@ Doug:
Doug, I’m so sorry for this suffering you have endured. The fact that you suffered so God’s word remains the standard at your church and not neo-cal teachings is beautiful ! You are right churches are messy. You protected the sheep you are cut out for church leadership. Thankful for you sharing your experience. Praying you know that what you did blesses so many. I admire your courage and endurance!
Nancy wrote:
Hi Nancy, Their definition of “believe” means:
1. Broken over sin – really broken – really really broken.
2. Promise to not sin
3. “Repentance” from all past sins
4. Acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord
5. Measured performance to an undefined standard as proof of faith (belief)
6. Perseverance to the end of life as proof of belief
Ironically, when asked what the word meant the response was “I don’t know…” All of the above was revealed during subsequent conversation during my initial inquisition and my trial. Does this clarify?
Something Else:
No matter where you come down on the issue theologically, it is important to understand that in our town there are about 17 churches to choose from. The NC had other choices that more closely aligned with their doctrine. We were chosen for a reason. I believe that we were targeted for a takeover. It does not make sense that someone would flock together with birds that are so different. Like a sparrow hanging out with hawks. Unless you are the hawk….
All of the other churches in town and the surrounding areas, except ours, have adopted some flavor of Reformed Theology.
And in small churches, there are many similarities in how these things go down with the big churches. Seems so to me anyway.
@ Doug:
If I understand what you are saying, you were accused of heresy because you defined the word believe differently than those accusing you of heresy? This sounds ridiculous to me at this point. May I ask what scripture verses were being studied/discussed when the definition of the word “believe” came into question? As for me, I never heard of so many meanings for the word believe as you listed above regarding their definitions. They conveniently included definitions where a human can be the arbitrator. The believer seems to be left questioning his/her salvation for their entire life.
On another note, redefining words is an issue in the New/Neo Cal movement. They use words that had clear meanings for decades. They have an entirely different meaning for the word and you may not have a clue when they use a word that they mean something entirely different than what you are thinking. Then they can claim you are wrong and they are correct. You can be blindsided.
@ Ali:
Thanks for your kind words…
Has anyone seen this post by Larry Tomczak at Charisma News regarding spanking children? In the early paragraphs he mentions being named in a lawsuit that was dismissed,and he described the charges as “blatantly false accusations.” Was there another lawsuit naming Tomczak as a defendant besides the suit also naming SGM, Covenant Life Church and C.J. Mahaney, among others?
http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/heres-the-deal/45901-should-children-be-spanked
Bridget wrote:
Yes. You understand correctly. Weird, isn’t it?
@ singleman:
A very long time ago, mid 80’s, Tomcsak was being sued iirc because he had claimed, it was alleged, that someone had died who in fact hadn’t. I never did know what happened in the end, as I left that scene. This might be what he was referring to.
@ Doug:
Doug,
I find it interesting and disturbing how complicated the Neo-Cal group can make any one word. Since when did the word “believe” become 6 steps to perfect performance in a believers life!?!
@ Doug:
Thanks for sharing your story. I wish I could say I’m surprised by this, but it’s something many of us have seen. Your example of standing for God’s word against the teachings of men while being vilified by those who claim to speak for him is inspiring to me. Thank you, and I’ll continue praying for you. I don’t understand the zeal these men have to take over churches and convert others to their “gospel.”
Bridget wrote:
The issue always flared up at Ephesians 1:13-14:
When you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and when you believed in Him, you were also sealed with the promised Holy Spirit. He is the down payment a of our inheritance, for the redemption of the possession, to the praise of His glory. (HCSB)
@ Ali:
Thanks, Ali. I’ll pray that you see God’s hand during your trials and that you feel his love and the strength and grace to endure which is only found in Jesus.
@ Ali:
Yeah, it was interesting. Actually, in Ephesians 1 I expected there to be more controversy over election or predestination than over the definition of “believe”. I was a bit blindsided to say the least.
@ Gram3:
Thank you for your kind words and your prayers. I appreciate you very much!
@ Gram3:
Thank you Gram3 for the prayer!
@ Doug:
In the seven instances in the NT where this precise formulation is used, it always means more than intellectual assent. It has the force of “having faith in” as an integral part of salvation. At least, that is how I see the following from the Englishman’s Concordance
πιστεύσαντες (pisteusantes) — 7 Occurrences
Luke 8:12 V-APA-NMP
GRK: ἵνα μὴ πιστεύσαντες σωθῶσιν
NAS: so that they will not believe and be saved.
KJV: lest they should believe and be saved.
INT: that not having believed they should be saved
John 7:39 V-APA-NMP
GRK: λαμβάνειν οἱ πιστεύσαντες εἰς αὐτόν
NAS: those who believed in Him were to receive;
KJV: which they that believe on
INT: to receive those having believed on him
John 20:29 V-APA-NMP
GRK: ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες
NAS: [are] they who did not see, and [yet] believed.
KJV: seen, and [yet] have believed.
INT: having seen yet having believed
Acts 19:2 V-APA-NMP
GRK: ἅγιον ἐλάβετε πιστεύσαντες οἱ δὲ
NAS: Spirit when you believed? And they [said] to him, No, we have not even
KJV: Ghost since ye believed? And
INT: Holy did you receive having believed moreover
Ephesians 1:13 V-APA-NMP
GRK: ᾧ καὶ πιστεύσαντες ἐσφραγίσθητε τῷ
NAS: having also believed, you were sealed
KJV: also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with
INT: whom also having believed you were sealed with the
2 Thessalonians 2:12 V-APA-NMP
GRK: οἱ μὴ πιστεύσαντες τῇ ἀληθείᾳ
NAS: may be judged who did not believe the truth,
KJV: who believed not
INT: not having believed the truth
Hebrews 4:3 V-APA-NMP
GRK: κατάπαυσιν οἱ πιστεύσαντες καθὼς εἴρηκεν
NAS: For we who have believed enter
KJV: we which have believed do enter
INT: rest the [ones] having believed as he has said
Interlinear Greek • Interlinear Hebrew • Strong’s Numbers • Englishman’s Greek Concordance • Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance • Parallel Texts
Doug wrote:
I’ve described the takeover elsewhere, one occurred at a church in my state that took a trip to the state court of appeals to put down. takeovers are apparently commonplace amongst NCs. The people who perpetrate them typically seem to be young, beautiful, eager, passionate, misguided, blinded to their own motives, and arrogant to the last degree. Some of them, I believe, are truly Christian, just benighted; others are passionate primarily for their own passions and pursue their faith like some pursue their political leanings, and they don’t know the Lord. Either way, they are extremely dangerous and live to destroy.
Bridget wrote:
That is the primary modus operandi of a cult.
Gavin White wrote:
I wouldn’t take his definition (“To accept something as true, to be fully persuaded”) to be mere “intellectual assent”, particularly part B.
Law Prof wrote:
Thank you. But that is always the charge, and quickly morphs into “if you just say you believe…”
Age old argument. Yawn….
Besides, it misses the point.
@ Gavin White:
Missed it.
singleman wrote:
Well, I’ve seen it now! I’m sure it’s the same lawsuit. I think this section is Tomczak’s main point:
“Have you ever disciplined a child by confining them to their room until they changed their attitude (“imprisonment”)? Did you ever instruct a child there would be no lunch until they completed all their chores (“food deprivation”)? How about spankings to correct ongoing, defiant behavior (“beatings and abuse”)?
Thankfully the judge dismissed the charges. They were blatantly false accusations. But episodes like this and current news reporting causes confusion among parents who are trying to be faithful in raising their children according to biblical standards.”
His quoted “imprisonment, food deprivation, beatings and abuse” are straight from the charges against him. So he’s saying these were/are an overreaction to common parental discipline attempts. What he fails to clarify is that the stripping and spanking of a grown woman MIGHT have been just a TAD inappropriate, were it not blatantly false as he says.
I notice also that his only compassion for all the other SGM victims and alleged victims is to call it “abuse” (scare quotes Tomczak’s).
Doug wrote:
It sounds like the John MacArthur Lordship salvation fight with Zane Hodges 30-40 years ago.
I share your yawn. Seen all this before. And I agree with Law Prof’s response to Gavin’s straw man.
@ Law Prof:
I think you are exactly right. At the root, I think it is something like a political cause with a take-no-prisoners approach. Not at all what church leaders should be like. But they are pursuing the agendas of their heroes. I think Paul had something to say about partisan spirits in the church, and it was not something good.
They think their cause is righteous and that they know more than anyone else. The irony is that one of their main charges is that others are “man-centered” whereas they are “God-centered.” I’ve seen a lot of man-centeredness in the gospelly-centered movement.
Gram3 wrote:
And yet they will swear up and down that they are only teaching what the Bible ‘teaches’. One of the favorite retorts I’ve been beat over the head with is:
“…Your problem then is not with me, your problem is with the LORD, God has spoken once and for all in His Holy Word…”
Gram3 wrote:
Nailed it! But now with the next gen, the requirements are higher and more arduous. Brokenness now = crushed, continually, to the point of death.
I kid you not, I once heard one of these guys say, from the pulpit at a local church, that a woman should be willing to be killed by her husband as her “radical act of obedience”. That is how far it can go if not checked.
So these ideas get ramped up with each passing generation. JM wanted committment, but now that’s not enough.
Reminds me of the story about involvement regarding breakfast; the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed…
Doug wrote:
I should clarify. They liked to tell this joke. A lot.
Muff Potter wrote:
I started to agree with you in strong terms, but ended up using words that would land me in moderation. I can’t think of anything strong enough to adequately say how negatively I feel about that without using forbidden words. So just believe it. Arrrrrrgh !
Doug wrote:
Well I suppose the real point was to find some point of contention to
(continued from previous aborted post)
…use as a vehicle to pry you away from your church because the takeover team saw you as a threat to their hostile takeover bid. It could have been anything, you’re right, the main point was to find something that could be used as leverage against you. In my opinion, a biblical dictionary’s definition of the word “divisive” should say “see (people like the ones who tried to oust you).”
Gram3 wrote:
That is the one thing that I think defines them very well: almost completely man-centered, bordering on idolatry. They love to pump up youtube heros: Driscoll, Pratt, Washer, Piper. They squirm with pleasure at the mere mention of those Holy Names. Some are just immature and will learn in time, but others are committed to nothing but man. These are among the ones the Lord warned us about in Romans 1. We should have nothing to do with them.
Correction: “Platt”, my apologies to “Pratt”, though then again, maybe he’s one of the youtube heros as well, I know not.
Doug wrote:
XianJaneway wrote:
Sadly they are the next generation who take the teaching to its logical conclusion. When I confronted a friend who sat under that mans teaching all I got were excuses and “you just don’t understand…”
Dave A A wrote:
I believe that the lawsuit mentioned was probably in reference to a book he wrote, “God, the Rod, and Your Child’s Bod” a long time ago.
Oh, this is too good.
“The Big Bang and evolution ARE real but they were carried out by God, says the Pope as he embraces modern science”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2809915/The-Big-Bang-evolution-real-carried-God-says-Pope-embraces-modern-science.html
The article goes on to state: “The Catholic Church no longer teaches creationism – the belief that God created the world in six days – and says that the account in the book of Genesis is an allegory for the way God created the world.”
I’m not Catholic, but I really like this new Pope. 🙂
@ Law Prof:
I don’t think it is coincidental that there are D.C. connections. Power and politics becomes the model rather than the kingdom values which are the opposite of that. Networks of cronies and clones of the stars who all seem to have their own farm system, to use a baseball analogy which I hope is somewhat apt. Propaganda techniques employed liberally. Power brokers and their groupies. It’s as if we are seeing Laodicea rising around us.
Doug wrote:
I’ve heard that one, too. And they’re right. I don’t understand, and I pray that I never ever get to the point where a docrinal system or a particular interpretation becomes the standard rather than the Lord and his word.
Did your church takeover attempt happen incrementally or were there instances where the zealots were bolder and more brazen?
I attended an Anglican church in England (where else?) throughout my teenage years. Mainly as part of the choir, it’s true, but equally, I was strongly drawn to the Christian faith as well. But during my first term at Cambridge University, I first properly began to understand that entry to God’s own circles is free. The other thing that happened was that I discovered that the_Bible_is_the_Word_of_God.
The effect this discovery had on me, I have later discovered, was far from unique, and I suspect it may be very common indeed. It certainly seems to be mirrored in the youthful zealotry of Neo-Cal guerrilla warfare *.
It goes something like this.
A young man, seeking adventure, joins a movement that teaches the_Bible_is_the_Word_of_God
The young man thus discovers for himself that the_Bible_is_the_Word_of_God
Our young man, being young, naïve and prone to pride, feels at some level as though he is unique in believing that the_Bible_is_the_Word_of_God; as though he alone knows this, long before he’s even read the whole bible for himself
Accordingly, he falls for the deception that his new cause is superior to all others. Continuing to seek adventure, he makes it his business to convert all other second-class, deceived, half-hearted “Christians” to his cause
In other words, he falls for the deception that he’s following_Jesus because he loves_Jesus and wants to please_Jesus and serve_Jesus when what he has really done is try to seize Jesus and use Jesus as a figurehead to achieve his own ambitions and meet his own needs.
Rather like the crowd in John 6 who followed Jesus and hung on his teaching, but then wanted to make him King by force. Jesus withdrew from them.
As Paul put it: we all possess knowledge, and knowledge puffs us up. And Bible-knowledge puffs us up like nothing else – because this fragment of knowledge I’ve just acquired is God’s_Holy_Word!!!!
I think that’s why the common factor in much of this “church-takeover culture” is a woodenly literal interpretation of a few isolated scribshers and a belief that, to all intents and purposes, God only exists through the scribshers. It’s because that’s the first route through which they became fully committed to God as a cause. But, on its own, it’s a very immature and carnal Christian life, which is why you see un-Christlike traits like deceitful hidden agendas and the desire to find a basis to accuse and attack, that Doug has described.
Doug wrote:
Funny how her obedience is always more important than his love. Where oh where are the heartfelt sermons on how a man is to love his wife, to the point of laying down his dominance & violence towards her?
Gram3 wrote:
Well, we have a lot of free wheeling discussions at our church. So the pattern I was able to discern was this:
1. Join the church as a member & get involved in ministry
2. Attend the Adult Sunday School group & mens group
3. Interject commentary until you become one of the inner circle of talking heads
4. Repeat for every group where there is discussion – do as much as you can to be “seen” doing good works
4b. Win the hearts of the unsuspecting with your “zeal”, accusing those outside of the church with heresy, thereby priming the pump for future accusations against those inside the church
5. Wait until a guest teacher (layman member) presents you with an opportunity to attack their teaching, and the teaching of the church, linking them with those previously mentioned outside heresies (See? What did I tell you, now they are here in our midst!”
6a. Get unsuspecting members to join your gang if possible
6b. Bring the offending member up on charges before the elders
7. Create as much conflict and turmoil as possible
It seems like it built to a crescendo, then subsided when the attackers left. In every case so far, the attacker has left leaving one “mole” behind. That is the current situation. There are a few people who hold their views, but are laying low.
So, as the bad guy says in every western, “This ain’t over…”
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Very Insightful.
Beakerj wrote:
Thanksfully the man is no longer in ministry. He was an author and speaker in their little circle of influence, but left and I have lost track of him. I hope he never preaches again.
@ Nancy:
It really is too bad and it doesn’t have to be this way. In my opinion the Bible defies systematization. Just when you think you’ve got it all figured out and all the dots connected, it will throw you a curve which if you’re honest with yourself, you’ll realize cannot be straightened out by the usual tap dances and circular reasons.
@ Doug:
Very sad. Years ago you could have open discussions about various issues and really dig into the text using standard tools. Now it seems like churches have become Balkanized by True Believers who have been indoctrinated deeply in various systems. If you question any aspect of the system it is perceived as a personal threat because they have identified so closely with a system or a personality.
Gram3 wrote:
I like that word, it is accurate. I have also learned to be careful when asking questions, as some people get kind of upset.
@ Doug
@Gram3
So what can be done? One can walk away or stay and fight. There is always the never ending search for a different church as a possibility. One can drop out completely or just marginalize oneself. And there is always just go along to get along.
This is a serious question since I don’t like any of the possibilities.
Here’s a link to a some Ken Ham activity in the state of Kentucky: http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/10/28/2038217/ken-hams-ark-torpedoed-with-charges-of-religious-discrimination
Since there is no current post on creationism related topics perhaps the open discussion page is appropriate.
Caution about the comments. The language is often not as gentle and refined as we are used on TWW.
@ Nancy:
It depends, I think. We have a resposibility as a member to address issues if and when they arise, but ultimately it becomes a matter of conscience whether to leave or to stay and do what one can. I’ve seen every combination and permutation of these, and we have to do what we think will do the most good or the least damage to ourselves and others. Unfortunately those who are determined to impose their will on others are usually not concerned with maximizing the benefits for all. That’s the way they roll. Over everyone.
@ oldJohnJ:
Hey, oldjohnj, been missing you. About this ark thing. Are they planning to float it on the river or just plant it on land? The river would be a nice touch. Or maybe two arks, one on land and a smaller replica on the river. And is the ark park going to be a zoo also? Cincinnati used to have a great zoo; maybe they could work something out. But I am thinking that a re-enactment of the sorry state of humanity at the time of the flood might really sell well. After all people pay to see that sort of stuff all the time, so I hear. They could hire lots of “heathen” for the re-enactment and that would solve the discrimination issue.
@ Gram3:
You are right, of course, but what I do is fold my tent and move on and then feel guilty about it. That approach is a bummer. It also requires a lot of adjusting, and my adjuster is about worn out–long since out from under warranty.
Nancy wrote:
I don’t thnk you should feel guilty necessarily. You need to consider the totality of the circumstances. Maybe staying is futile and you would harm your family by staying and fighting. Or people in the church might be harmed by taking it “public.” Maybe God was calling someone else to step up and take the heat. As Doug and others have discovered, and as I can testify, no one is going to call you up to the podium and put a gold medal around your neck and a laurel wreath on your head and say, “Thanks so much for helping us to see where we were wrong.” Human nature just isn’t wired that way, though we might hope that would be different in the church.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
You kind of miss the point. Is the Bible the Word of God ? Or is it what Old Nick thinks it is?
@ oldJohnJ:
It seems to me this project should have sunk well before the employment application was scrutinized. Sometimes I just don’t understand what our civil overlords are thinking. If I were a citizen of KY I would want to see the investiment justification for a bond issue, especially if they are general obligation bonds. No doubt they are floating rate bonds…brief pause for pun…but, really, hasn’t this been tried before at the Holy Land Experience?
I’m certainly not a fan of either Nye or Ham, but really this is ridiculous. I suppose they could put a casino onboard if is totally on the river, and that might generate a revenue stream sufficient to support the bonds. Or maybe they could sell some high-quality locally produced adult beverages to generate revenue.
@ Gram3:
Perhaps, Ham et al should consider making it more biblically accurate. How about no utilities, air conditioning and just a staff of 6 changed annually. Actually I am not familiar with the detailed plans for the Ham arc.
I agree that KY should have been aware of the religious implications of this project and simply denied even partial funding. More chasing of the almighty $ by both secular and religious(?) officials. There is a lot of money in tourism.
Nancy wrote:
I’m a constant lurker even when not commenting and do enjoy your and Gram3’s comments.
@ Beakerj:
Or, y’know, his life, like Paul says in Ephesians. Seems these people never actually *read all the text,* just the proof texts they like.
We were active in a church, with occasional assignments to teach or be on a committee, and we served as deacons (ministry not overseeing church business). When there was a serious issue regarding baptism in the church, the pastor suggested creating a discernment team to study the issue and make recommendations to the church. The team seemed to be always everyone but one, and the one was always the same person in opposition. That person was close to the pastor and several others, and was in a visible leadership position. That person was also a known serial adulterer!
The staff of the church attempted to frustrate all of the efforts of the discernment team to build community spirit in preparation of a difficult discussion (relating, in a Baptist church, whether to accept infant baptism for membership), as some people felt that not accepting it would hurt some people. But the all-but-one unanimous decision of the discernment team, opposed by the staff, was adopted by the church after extended discussion and minor modification. The pastor and several other staff left in the year following. Several members of the discernment team have been attacked, denied opportunity to serve as teachers or in other leadership, and have been blamed for the departures of the staff and the difficulty in getting a new pastor, who seems to side with those who did the attacking rather than with the members of the discernment team. BTW the remaining staff and ex-staff seem to have controlled the pastor search process and have buddied up to the new pastor.
Needless to say, we have left as well. It is a church that will require a lot of healing and that seems not to be happening in the present environment, except that good people are giving up and leaving.
Gavin
I believe that the Bible is the word of God. But, and this is a big but, men have always imposed their interpretation onto the text. I am not a Calvinist . This, I do not look at same passages they way that those who are Reformed look at them. Segregation was fuled by theologians interpreting the Bible as they wished. Look at the fights over eschatology, communion, etc.
So, you could make the same comment towards me.If I don’t see it in the same light as some of your preferred theologians, am I interpreting it to suite Dee?
Every last one of us interpret Scripture with bias.
Nancy wrote:
I firmly believe that a Christian’s first responsibility is to the Lord. Then family, then friends, employment relationships, and lastly – church. And in each of those contexts, the relationship is the “thing”. One can function in a dysfunctional church by focusing on the relationships. Building a strong base through private devotional activities can provide aid and comfort during stressful times, which happen in all relationships.
Leaving a church family is never easy, but it is necessary when you are being abused. Sometimes we don’t see it soon enough. That is why places like TWW are important. They (we) serve as a sounding board. But you already know that.
Guilt is only valid, imo, if the motive behind the action is to harm.
False guilt is a real thing, which I have felt plenty of during this latest episode. People told me not to feel guilty, but I could not help it. Knowing my actions played a part in the turmoil was difficult to overcome. It would have been easier, and I would have felt less guilt, if I had just kept my mouth shut and left. But then the cycle of abuse would have continued and the abusers would have grown stronger. And the people who do not understand the issues would have been under more and more stress and pain.
So sometimes we are “called” to sacrifice personal comfort and peace for a “season” for the benefit of others who just don’t know, and will probably never know what we went through. It is the reality of “Greater love has no one than this, that they lay down their life for their friends.”
There is a love choice to be made. The actions of those who feign love, but are really wolves, must be met with genuine love that acts for those who cannot act for themselves.
Until the Lord returns, there will always be another church down the road. Or there may be a “season” without a church home. But we know that we were not designed to be alone in the world, so we will naturally, organically, be drawn to one another. As the Body of Christ, we will always be seeking those who share the same heartbeat. That will look different in various times and places, but it will always have the same love “DNA” that we have been infused with when Christ came into our lives.
For me, I choose to err on the side of love and grace, regardless of the personal cost. Not that I am anything, but I have lived enough of my life without real love to know that there must be others who need what I need. If loving one another and exercising grace offends the ecclesiastical authorities, or the keepers of the doctrine and “The Book”, then I guess they were not worth worrying about anyway.
I am convinced that the Lord will lead, and He is the only one worth following anyway.
dee wrote:
True. And even when people say they do not, that they believe what their denomination or some theologian or some current popular preacher says, it is still that the individual has chosen whom to believe (denom, theol..,etc). There is no getting around the fact that at some level the individual always makes a choice based on some degree of bias either rightly or wrongly.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I don’t know what your story is, but it does sound like you are a man with a story to tell. I trust you do not have a history with a bible and a bathtub, but apparently something happened along the way based on a number of comments you have made, if I understand you correctly.
I was started on “the bible says and what that means is” as all one sentence about the same time they started me on pablum. Eventually I came to realize that a lot of what I had been told was not true. It took a long time and a heap of living to untangle “the bible says” from “what that means is.” But the bathtub incident…well that went too far, but it was consistent with how betrayed I felt and how angry I was about it.
So whatever your story is…well…what can I say. Hang in there. I do so benefit from your comments here.
dee wrote:
I think this is a kind of half truth. Men do impose an interpretation when they look into the bible to find support for a pre-existing belief or agenda they wish to justify or get others to join in with. Your example of segregation would be an example of this. It is something to guard against. People saying what God has said when he hasn’t.
The other angle on this is we all have a limited understanding of what the bible itself says, but this should change and develop over time, individually and corporately. I don’t believe everything I used to believe 25 years ago, a few things I might have changed my mind on completely, more often other things have been enhanced or amended, frequently building on what I have learned before.
It is best to avoid being dognatic on issues where faithful Christains who have spent years studying the bible differ. This is probably an indication we are seeking certainty where the bible itself doesn’t intend us to have this e.g. exact details of the second coming.
But I do believe in the plain sense approach, that we can gain a reasonable understanding for ourselves, that the atheist approach that everyone who reads the bible only ever gives their own subjective interpretation, it is never clear enough to do otherwise, is actually false.
The good thing about this also is that the more knowledge of the bible you get, the less likely you are to fall for the agenda of those who misuse it for their own ends or are in fact just plain ignorant. The truth really will set you free from this.
@ Ken:
You make a good point about the need to seek objectivity in our interpretations. The best way to do that is to apply sound logical and hermeneutical principles. And to do it consistently, as we have discussed in our Other Discussion.
Failure to do that consistently leads us inevitably into subjectivity, to which I think that humans are prone. At the risk of being accused by some of being a product of the Enlightenment, I do think that there are sound rules of interpretation for those of us who consider the Bible to be both inspired and authoritative. Because we are subject to our own subjectiity, we need one another to help us to see what we have misssed or are missing. Aren’t you glad I came along to help you? 🙂
This thread is probably a better fit for a disussion of hermeneutics, both theoretical and practical. I do think we need to use Cooper’s rule wisely and well. That’s where we left our disagreement about consulting extra-biblical sources to understand historical and cultural context and the particular literary genre employed by the human and divine authors of the Bible.
I don’t think we can pick and choose our data set or our methodology to get to the “right” answer if we want to get to authorial intent–I’m assuming you share my view of where meaning primarily resides. Others have different views, of course.
I’m not stalking you, but the fact is that you are the only man from the opposing view to engage. I think the others believe it is beneath them or just don’t want to be challenged by other views. I think if you knew me and my story you might be surprised, at the very least, at how much we have in common and how well I understand your POV..
Very impressive, Gram.
Of course, common sense and the plain sense of something may look like one thing to one person and something else to another person, because common sense/plain sense determination is itself subjective. I am not very comfortable with Cooper’s golden rule because of that. Common sense says that Isaiah was not talking about a sexually inexperienced female but rather just a young woman, based on the frequency with which that word means what. Hence if somebody says that that particular statement in Isaiah was not a messianic prophetic statement of virgin birth, that is what makes the most sense. Traditionally christianity has not said that, however. Another example: it just makes plain sense to me that the word kephale is used to indicate authority, but that is not the plain sense of it to some people. I think that “that just makes sense” is unreliable as a way to understand things.
What I find helpful is to read lots of different understandings of various passages and/or doctrines from various and varied positions by people qualified to speak for their particular viewpoint. Then a lot of the time I do not end up with a solid conviction as to which understanding is “correct” but rather try to have a broader view of some things, certainly unless and until more information or a better argument comes along.
So I agree with Ken on the need to avoid being dogmatic in some cases.
Of course, common sense and the plain sense of something may look like one thing to one person and something else to another person, because common sense/plain sense determination is itself subjective. I am not very comfortable with Cooper’s golden rule because of that. Common sense says that Isaiah was not talking about a sexually inexperienced female but rather just a young woman, based on the frequency with which that word means what and the lack of indication otherwise in the OT passage. Hence if somebody says that that particular statement in Isaiah was not a messianic prophetic statement of virgin birth, that is what makes the most sense. Traditionally christianity has not said that, however. Another example: it just makes sense to me from a plain reading that the word kephale is used to indicate authority, but that is not the plain sense of it to some people. I think that “that just makes sense” is unreliable as a way to understand things.
What I find helpful is to read lots of different understandings of various passages and/or doctrines from various and varied positions by people qualified to speak for their particular viewpoint. Then a lot of the time I do not end up with a solid conviction as to which understanding is “correct” but rather try to have a broader view of some things, certainly unless and until more information or a better argument comes along.
So I agree with Ken on the need to avoid being dogmatic in some cases.
I don’t know how that happened. But the Pope has recently commented on increased demonic activity, so let’s blame it on the devil or something.
Sorry, folks.
dee wrote:
You betcha we do. At present I’m putting the finishing touches on:
Muff’s First Epistle to the Wartburgers
@ Ken:
But, even our translations are works that include the predispositions of the translators as to what the Greek or ancient Hebrew text means and thus should be translated into English. My favorite axe is that Strongs gets cited for meanings, but it is basically merely a compendium of what English words the translators have substituted for a Greek word. And, keep in mind that there is no punctuation in the OT text, and little in the NT text. And then there is Paul, who some believe was actually quoting controversies in some churches and poking fun at the extremity of some of those positions. Proof text at your own risk, perhaps of a soul, yours or another’s.
Arce wrote:
I love that. Yes and yes.
A proof text is not proof of anything, and it may not even reflect the meaning of the Text.
@ Gram3:
Any Text Without A Context is Pretext for a Prooftext
Muff Potter wrote:
And we will post it once completed!
@ oldJohnJ:
Well, well well….I saw the story and a few others. That is quite a list for requirements in order to be allowed to dig a ditch. I have put it into the queue and will try to squeeze it in next week. I had a good, long laugh over that one.
One of the best comments I read is that few Christians appear to be coming to Ken Ham’s defense on this one. Even ardent young earthers have limits.
@ Nancy:
Gavin White wrote:
Not sure which point you think I’ve missed there – if you could clarify, I’ll endeavour to respond, but my time in the blogsphere has taught me not to second-guess. It’s equally possible you’ve missed mine.
As regards your specific questions, the bible is what it is, regardless of who things what about it (whether Old Nick was meant to be me or satan in this context I’m not entirely sure). But given that we see as in a mirror poorly – and mirrors weren’t very good in those days, as they didn’t have the float glass process – a man must decide his articles of faith and take responsibility for them. And one thing I will personally declare as an article of faith is: no way is the Bible the Word of God. Jesus alone is the Word (capital W) of God. The bible is inferior to him in every sense that a created thing is inferior to the Creator. The Bible is merely inspired by God – it is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, but it can never replace Jesus, the true Word of God. Nor can it replace the Holy Spirit. Nor is it the Father. I don’t believe that, following the resurrection of the dead and the final judgement, we will be studying the Bible for all eternity. Like all other temporary and partial things, the Bible will vanish. We will see, face to face, the true, eternal, Living Word of God in all his glory, and nothing written will be necessary. Seeing him, we will see the Father. (And, as a small by-product, I will no longer be redundant or unemployed. Of course, many better men and women than I will have their own hopes fulfilled.)
Now, of course I can hear the cries of Heretic! He called the bible imperfect!, but they aren’t my judges. My belief is that it is for them to explain why they worship the bible, not for me to explain why I don’t.
Gram3 wrote:
How true!
You should sell coffee mugs with that printed on them.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Incidentally – I didn’t mean to shout, although I can’t overstate anything I wrote there. But I missed a (/b) hashtag early on…
Gram3 wrote:
Well at the risk of starting an argument, I don’t think I would be surprised at how much we have in common! From our Other Discussion, I’ve noticed more agreement than disagreement overall.
The trouble with labels, and it is difficult to avoid them, is that they usually cover a wide range of views, some of which veer into an extreme. Even ‘Evangelical’ is one, charismatic is a better example, Calvinist, and the E and C words as well. If someone says, for example, they are charismatic, this can have a wide range of meaning from mild continuationist (usually cautious)to Pentecostal second blessing to off the wall Benny Hinnism.
Think of the range of views contained with the ranks of the main political parties both in the States and the UK. Similar thing.
Even in the famous Other Discussion, I suspect I might have more in common with you in general than with the very extreme views or practices of those way to the right of me on the continuum of views.
As a way of describing where you are coming from in general labels are necessary shorthand, but they can be misleading if they lead to misunderstanding made on assumptions that every one who is not cessationalist is a Benny Hinn devotee. Unfortunately, I speak from some experience on this one!
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Um, Nick. I clicked on @nancy at the top there and you referenced a joke of mine where I tried to blame it on the devil that I had somehow posted an identical post twice. I just want to clarify something for the reading audience. I did not chime in and agree with Gavin White, and I thought that was perfectly clear. That said, I want to proceed from the standpoint of thinking that Nick just clicked on the wrong button in error.
So let me say:
Nick, preach it brother! I hear what you are saying and agree. I do not personally think that such a stand means that the scriptures are false guides or untrustworthy for their intended purposes. It does mean to me (Nick speaks for himself of course) that indeed the scriptures are inferior to God himself if for no other reason than that they do not contain and make no pretense of containing the entirety of all truth, which thing Jesus claimed for himself as the Truth. We can get glimpses of truth through scripture but we can only worship Truth as know to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit–no more and no less.
@ Nancy:
as known to us
I am tired and need to get some sleep. Being always right can wear you out.
Ken wrote:
You are truly a glutton for punishment, aren’t you! 🙂
Actually, I would like to explore the issue of cessationism and continuationism with you. I can’t see a hard cessation position in the text, but I also got scared out of my pre-school wits at my grandmother’s Pentecostal church a long, long time ago. I believe that the Bible is a living book, but honestly the Gift of Prophecy (Grudem-style) seems sketchy unless it is subject to the same OT constraints. Lots of questions there, so, please share your thoughts. I’ve had issues with friends going all the way off the deep end and over the cliff with a charismatic group, and, like your experiences with female pastors, has colored my thinking.
Be advised that Grudem and Piper’s view is not about being complementary. It is about hierarchy and power, so if you don’t think there is a hierarchy of men over women, you’re going to have to find another word. Because they’ve stolen that one. They are not reliable witnesses to what God has said, and that makes me more irritated than an entire carton of Godiva dark can fix.
I don’t think that Benny Hinn is charismatic. I think he is a fraudulent huckster posing as a charismatic and tarnishing that label the way Grudem and Piper have tarnished the idea of complementarity. They have different audiences, but the fact is it’s all about the cashflow.
Tell me again. Where are the gender roles prescribed by God? 😉
Nancy wrote:
Don’t I know it!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I’m too busy getting my new line of designer chocolates to market. Would you be interested in purchasing a distributorship?
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I’m about as conservative as one can get, and I don’t think you are a heretic. What you have described is perfectly orthodox. If you divorce the text which the Holy Spirit has inspired from the Holy Spirit, then you have merely an interesting ancient text. It is God’s written revelation, not his Incarnate Word. So, I think you have drawn an important distinction.
@ Gram3:
If you can find a way of writing small enough to make the phrase legible on a designer chocolate, then giz a shout.
Nancy wrote:
… quite so – I just clicked “Reply w/Quote” and didn’t really register the fact that there were two links in said Quote. Sorry for the confusion.
Gram3 wrote:
… and I’m going to gatecrash the expedition.
Consider: at least as far as the vast majority of professing Christians are concerned, we are both cessationist and continuationist. I don’t know any Christian, for instance, who believes that Jesus secretly returns to Jerusalem every year at Passover to repeat/renew his death on the cross for our sins. We believe, in other words, that the act of going to the cross is finished and will never be repeated. At the same time, I don’t know of any Christian who believes that the result of the Cross has ceased – that forgiveness of sins was just a temporary measure to enable a special generation to be cleansed and holy so that they could write the scriptures. But we don’t need to be holy because we can’t write scripture, so forgiveness of sins is no longer in operation.
I’ve also not met many Christians who think the great commission (to go and make disciples of all nations) is not for today. So one way of framing the question is: has God given us everything we need for life and godliness like he did the early church? If not, what does that imply; and if so, what does that look like? What has he given us that he withheld from the early church, and vice versa?
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Agreed to that, and I don’t think you can crash an open thread. How should I think about prophecy, tongues, and healing which the whackadoodles exploit for their gain? I don’t mean that the exploitation of a gift invalidates it, but seeing abuses affects how I think about them, so I’m asking for perspective on that.
My view of tongues, for example, is shaped by my reading of the Pentecost narrative in Acts where the audience in Jerusalem at Pentecost would have consisted in large part of diaspora Jews making the Pentecost pilgrimage to Jerusalem who spoke who knows how many languages along with their servants from those lands. Proclaiming the Gospel and having it heard simultaneously by people in their own languages would have been a powerful sign of its truth. Also, it would have been a sign to the Jews that Gentiles were being welcomed into the Kingdom on an equal footing.
And in a culture that was mostly oral rather than written, to spread the gospel and the teachings of Jesus would seem to require something like Pentecost tongues in order to enculturate diverse people groups with such a radically new worldview. And it does seem to me that tongues was used that way (or should have done) in the church at Corinth.
In written cultures today, it seems reasonable that it is not necessary, though it would no doubt be helpful. I don’t personally see a purpose for a private prayer language, but OTOH it does seem that Paul prayed in tongues. That leads to the question of whether Paul’s practice is prescriptive and normative for Christians universally.
I’m happy to consider it a matter of conscience or personal gifting as long as it does not become either prescribed formally or recognized informally as a mark of spiritual status. One way that tongues has been abused here is that people who did not receive “the blessing” and manifest it properly were considered lesser Christians, and the second wave split many churches here. And, of course, there are the charlatans who promise the blessing to those who contribute generously, though abuse does not invalidate proper use.
It’s one of those issues that I have not thought all the way through just because it has not become an issue for me. So, I would appreciate any thoughts from anyone regarding what I may have misread or misunderstood or been misinformed.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
That is amazing that I never heard that said before nor did I think of it that way. Decades upon decades of reading, listening, studying, living and this particular way of looking at this topic is new to me. I am, of course, saying this for a reason. Not too long ago I tried to wade into the issue that we need to listen to other people (we were taking about opinions at the time) but I want to add this comment of yours as an example of why I believe that diversity of insight is one of the things we need and need to value. The constant battle of I am right but you have nothing to say that I want to hear is “not helpful” to play off your hallmark identifier there.
Gram3 wrote:
Does it have to be? Paul was single and presumably celibate and apparently valued it highly, but singleness is neither prescriptive nor normative, even while being a valid option.
Gram3 wrote:
There is no evidence that it was necessary then. From what I gather lots of people in cultures like that speak multiple languages, at least to some extent. Philip and the ethiopian eunuch being one example it seems. It looks rather that the tongues of the day of pentecost served as a sign of some sort of miraculous reality. Peter was, after all, telling those people about the resurrection as a sign of God’s validation of Jesus, and here they were with something that perhaps was a validation from God that the apostles might, just might, be telling the truth. One reason I say this is that the hearers of what Peter had to say had come to Jerusalem, and they surely had some at least rudimentary means of communication (without miracles) in order to make their way while in Jerusalem.
@ Nancy:
But most of what i just said is what you just said, with only minimal viewpoint variation. Oh well, sometimes always being right does not kick into motion in my brain. You go, girl.
@ Nancy:
Presumably most of the people at Pentecost had at least enough knowledge of Koine Greek to function in Jerusalem and elsewhere in the former Greek empire, but it would not necessarily be their heart language. I am assuming that Peter’s heart language was Aramaic, and others might include Egyptian or whatever Amharic was at the time, for example. But,for the sake of precision and the understanding necessary for accurate oral transmission/translation upon their return to their countries, it seems to me that it would have been helpful if they heard in their native tongue what Peter spoke in his native tongue, especially given the fact that he wasn’t delivering his sermon in an acoustically controlled environment. I’m pretty sure Jerusalem, a geographically small place, was pretty busy and noisy during the pilgrimage feasts. Maybe like New Orleans at Mardi Gras.
I do think that the Pentecost phenomenon was primarily a sign to the Jews that the gospel was open to the Gentiles as well. But I cannot dismiss the practical usefulness of tongues in that setting.
@ Nancy:
Forgot to say that I don’t think that the Pentecost phenomenon or Paul’s practice is necessarily normative, but I don’t know if I’ve overlooked some textual evidence that it might be.
@ Gram3:
I don’t think that just because something is described in scripture it then becomes a requirement for people today, even if it remains an option. There are things that are requirements, of course. Just not everything that is described as having happened. What I do find interesting, however, is when people who do think that (if something is described in scripture) then it is required for everybody today, and then they want to say, well, only those things that we want to see required.
That was an awkward sentence. There are whole religious traditions within traditions who are attracted by the idea that women might have to wear head coverings, for instance, but who cringe at the idea of certain charismatic practices. That seems inconsistent to me given the cultural issues in play.
And then there are things that seem to be practices intended to continue which some groups drop like a hot potato, some may abuse, and some simply plug into how they do and keep on keeping on. For example, some years back I went to a local rich and wealthy and fancy episcopal church for some reason I have forgotten. As part of the terribly fancy and precise service there was a time for those who wanted prayer for healing to move over to an area on the side and get anointed with oil and prayed for by a local surgeon I happened to know. I do not know what his official role in the church was at the time. That seems to me to be consistent with the “is any sick among you…” instructions in scripture. But the local baptists (I just happen to speak baptist) would not be caught dead doing that, while the pentecostals (local AOG church) do something like that as part of “come to the front” time. (I got interested in this as in who does what, and checked this out locally.)
To me, the baptists have made the wrong choice, given the specific instructions in scripture. And if they use traveling healing ministries as evidence of abuse in this area but fail to take into consideration the episcopal liturgical use of the practice, frankly I think that is disingenuous.
Now whether praying for the sick does any good or not, well some studies have shown that perhaps it does not, whatever the methodology, but that is a different issue. In my opinion, we do what we are told to do, and praying for the sick is one of those things.
I hate it that “tongues” is such an issue, and I am not qualified to discuss the practice as done today in charismatic circles (message in tongues for example) since I do not do that and I would be wise to let others talk about it. I have never heard anybody speak in a language they had not learned, but we hear reported cases of people who do that surprisingly after some sort of brain injury–wake up speaking french or something. This is apparently some sort of medical phenomenon in that case. So probably there is something here we do not understand. I am content to leave it at that barring further evidence.
But praying–well, I personally believe in praying and practice several kinds of praying including thinking about something and then saying it, memorized prayer, reading written prayers aloud including praying parts of the psalms, periods of meditative silence, that thing the bible says about the Spirit when we don’t know what to say (Romans 8:26) and as I said “prayer language” which I do not pretend to understand but which I find helpful. None of that includes some altered state of consciousness or bizarre behavior and anything prohibited by scripture. But I do not see any requirement for everybody to pray alike, except to whom and in whose name we pray.
Gram3 wrote:
I think any discussion of this must centre on what the NT says, but if I am honest I came into things ‘charismatic’ because some local believers in the baptist church clearly had something I didn’t. There was a reality with them, a more living faith that went beyond the Christian life of attending church services, which can, if we are honest, be pretty dry (even in a baptist church!). All mixed in with very human immaturity as well.
So experience came first, and only later understanding of experience, but I am glad I was never subjected to the law of thou must speak in tongues, or rigid second blessing theology that is not really biblical, or those who pit the bible against the Spirit. (I don’t think anyone really worships the bible, but they certainly can worship their knowledge of it.)
The connection in my thinking with the Other Discussion you may have noticed is a reluctance to say that what we read in the NT was for back then, but not for today. The NT has the only say in whether ministry gifts such as apostle and prophet were limited to the first century (probably yes), and whether the other 1 Cor 12 type gifts are for today or not. I’ve never found the arguments against the potential continuation of the gifts wholly convincing. I think I have been around enough believers to say that if you ask you can still receive, and have seen the results, even if only very rarely.
This issue is a variation on the theme that having acknowledged the bible is the word of God, his revelation, there being a failure to get into the good of/experience/do what the text itself says. For example, the fear that a modern prophetic word of encouragement and upbuilding will detract from the bible by adding to it, instead of seeing it as part of God’s gracious provision revealed by the bible. The bible has authority when judging the use of gifts, it is the cannon or measuring rod to distinguish what was given by the Spirit from genuine mistakes, or even fraudulent claims.
Big topic, and I had better not get into War and Peace mode on it!
Nancy wrote:
Have you read any of Oliver Sacks’ books, in particular The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat? A neurologist I know gave it to me when he was doing his fellowship. I am fascinated by neuroscience, although the truth is that lacking the science background, I put the neuro in, take the science out, put the neuro in, and shake it all about. You and OldJohnJ would no doubt do it the other way around.
I tend to read the somewhat misnamed charismatic gifts (because all of the gifts are charismatic) as not prescriptive for every believer. The Spirit gifts whom he will how he will.
When I read about anointing oil in the Bible, I tend to think that it is describing rather than prescribing. I do think that God heals; healers I don’t know about. It seems to me that healings done by the apostles and Jesus would have been confirmatory signs that the Messianic Age had begun. But, again, this is not something I’ve thought much about except regarding the obvious frauds who prey on people’s suffering.
But I do wonder if these manifestations of the Spirit might be confirmatory in a culture that has been closed to or unreached by the gospel message. I’m reluctant to rule out what the Bible has not ruled out, and I don’t see the evidence that the charismatic gifts have been ruled out–the MacArthur position–or that they are necessary and normative–the second wave charismatic position (or at least the ones I encountered.)
I agree with you regarding altered states of consciousness, at least insofar as that is considered a way to “access” God. Ixnay no way. OTOH, I have witnessed what I believe was a man having a vision of Jesus. The man, a believer, spoke clearly and coherently in what appeared to be a conversation with someone he called Jesus, though the man had not been able to speak for some time due to strokes. That was something I was not expecting!
@ Nancy:
Let me briefly weigh in on the whole “tongues” thing.
I spent 30+ years in charismatic circles and although there was an emphasis on tongues, it was nothing like as intense as in the old-line Pentecostal churches that sprang up as a result of the Azusa Street revival.
I have a feeling that all of the “sign” gifts are still around today, though NOT necessarily in forms that most charismatics would recognize or accept. What, exactly, those forms are is something I am not in any way qualified to discuss – it’s a hunch/gut feeling/educated guess on my part, that’s all.
I spent my early, formative “post-conversion” years with Catholic charismatics, who actually got a lot of their ideas about the gifts from the AofG. Still and all, I was taught that tongues are *not* an “ecstatic” gift, are mainly for private prayer, and are never intended to be used in a show-offy manner – nor are they more important than the fruit of the Spirit (though I think that last wasn’t emphasized quite enough).
Do I pray in tongues, privately? Yes, sometimes, though much less than I did when I was younger. It’s something you can do while folding the laundry, basically – you just choose to do it and it happens and is independent of other thought processes, kind of like how we can walk and think or hold conversations (or whatever) at the same time, without needing to think much, if at all, about how to walk.
My hunch about the gifts in general is that God is not about being showy or “obvious” in the way that many people might suppose he is, due to how they read the Gospels, Acts and sections of the pastoral epistles. I rather suspect that God works constantly and quietly – and very much in the background, so to speak. Example: I had a severely sprained ankle back in the months prior to my “conversion.” The do thought I needed cortisone injections + a cane, which, at 16, I wasn’t willing to accept. At the same time, my ankle would just give out at odd times, and I would partly lose my balance because of it, risking worse injury.
About 10 days – 2 weeks post “accepting Christ and “being baptized in the Holy Spirit,” I was making my bed and suddenly realized that my ankle wasn’t giving out like it usually did when I was doing this task. And then I realized that it hadn’t given out on me since… well, you get the picture. I have no x-rays, no medical documentation, no *nothing* to show anyone in order to substantiate what I’ve just told you, but it happened nonetheless. I had a couple of similar experiences a while in the past, and again, while I have no medical documentation, I can say two things – the problems/illnesses were very real and they went away, never to return.
Please keep in mind that I have a number of medical problems that led to my going on disability in the late 90s, and those problems remain to this day. I have no idea *why* certain very specific things changed, either as a result of prayer for healing or just simply because they were changed. But change they did.
I have never had that ankle go out on me since then, and I’m in my late 50s now. (Though I’ve re-sprained it – mildly – a time or two.)
@ numo:
Correction: I think a lot of *extraordinary* (as in literally extra-ordinary) things are recorded in the Gospels and Acts, and that can give the impression that these things were happening constantly and that they should be the norm – when, in fact, I think they were likely unusual (to say the least). But since there’s really not much recorded about mundane, day-to-day living in those books, they give the (imo false) impression that certain kinds of miraculous acts are ordinary.
I think they were quite rare, then and now, and that one reason Christ’s miracles are recorded in such detail (even when details vary) is this – to show that he was and is the Christ, and to show God’s love and mercy (as with the man born blind in John’s gospel). It seems that there is plenty to say about what those healings and miracles mean, over and above (and likely more important to the original audience) than the miracles themselves.
@ Gram3:
I like Oliver Sacks’ books, too (when they’re not scaring me, that is!), but, like you, am not exactly up on the “science” part of it all, so my reading and understanding is very hokey-pokey like, too. 😉
Ken wrote:
Yes, I do see that, and it resonates with me, too. Except that I would again add that we need to understand what was going on then to understand how to apply what was said then to what we are doing or should be doing now. So we come back to the same place in a way.
I have to say that I have experienced what might be called “words of knowledge” in the sense that there have been times when a scripture reference came to me seemingly out of nowhere that appropriately addressed a particular situation about which I had no knowledge. And the other way around, too. I’m not convinced that is the same thing as the gift of prophecy, which our mutual friend Grudem says is no longer required to be infallible. I can’t find that change from OT to NT in the Bible, so that leaves me wondering, what’s the point? Others say that the apostolic gift of prophecy is actually preaching. That seems implausible to me because they appear along with one another in the text.
Thanks for your thoughts, and I welcome others as you think of them. And thanks to our gracious blog hostesses for providing a forum to discuss weighty and controversial matters with respect and toward mutual education and encouragement.
@ Gram3:
Paul says our prophecy is imperfect in 1 Cor ch. 13.
@ numo:
The word “imperfect” is used in the RSV. In the NIV it says “in part,” which appears to mean pretty much the same thing, given the context.
Gram3 wrote:
Glad you brought this up, because although the point I’m about to make is relatively minor I still think it’s useful.
The modern label “charismatic” is, as you hinted, cribbed from the Greek “charismata” meaning “grace gifts” (roughly!). These are typically said to be tungz, healing, prophecy, etc, though especially tungz, from 1 Corinthians 13.
But the “charismata” are not in 1 Corinthians 13 at all. They are in Romans 12 (verses 3-8, to be exact). They are prophesying, serving, teaching, encouraging, giving, leading and showing mercy. Much interesting study could be done on how exactly to translate the Greek for each one of those, but that’s not really my point here. The implication, in context, is that Paul is referring to gifts that have been given to a person that are likely therefore to show themselves in that person’s “natural” skill set. Even more interestingly, in verse 3, he talks about the “measure of faith” that God has distributed to each of us. This is often overlooked, but it implies that some people are simply assigned a greater measure of faith (and, therefore, responsibility) than others. Those whose charisma is prophesying are to prophesy according to their faith, for instance. A can of worms if ever I saw one!
In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul does not describe “charismata” at all, but manifestations – “phaneroses” in Greek, a word literally signifying a sudden flash of light – that the Holy Spirit distributes for the common good. But “phanerotic Christianity” doesn’t sound too good.
numo wrote:
I don’t take that to mean that a prophecy given by a prophet can be defective or invalid or that one who prophesies is possibly fallible, but just that whatever prophecies (revelation from God) that we have or knowledge, however great, that we have is incomplete until we see the Lord face to face. The implication is don’t get puffed up about our knowledge or our received revelation, because it is just part of the picture, and we will not see the real and full picture until we are glorified. Check out the interlinear and the other translations of “ek merous” ISTM that the idea is “incomplete” or “only part of the whole” rather than “possibly partly true and partly not true.”
IOW, I don’t know where God tells us that the test of a prophet has changed from OT to NT, or where the idea of fallible prophecy (Grudem’s view) has been introduced into the NT. If there is a gift of prophecy that endures to today, then ISTM it would need to meet the same standard as the OT prophets had to meet, i.e. perfect accuracy.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I think Driscoll would beg to differ. Oh, wait. I misread you. His vision was panerotic Christianity.
You make some good points, and I will look into that.
Gram3 wrote:
You just couldn’t leave that one alone, could you?
@ Gram3:
I am not following your reasoning here. You are using the term “perfect accuracy” for OT prophesy. I suppose you got that exact term from scripture, I have not researched it. Then you are saying that the bible says concerning NT prophecy that it is incomplete and then you are saying that there is no difference here. That looks different to me.
I don’t know from Grudem or fallible or what he said. I am just saying that if you are looking for apparently different expectations regarding prophecy between OT and NT, and assuming the “perfect accuracy” is correct, then you have just demonstrated the difference, it seems to me.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
How could I possibly pass up the opportunity for a dig at Dricoll *and* playing with words. You’re the one who tossed the fat pitch (unsure if that translates to cricket) so I’m pleading entrapment.
@ Nancy:
No, not the exact words. In the OT, the test for a prophet was absolute accuracy. If a prophecy proved accurate, then the prophet was judged a true prophet with a word sent from God. If the prophecy proved inaccurate, the prophet was not speaking words from God, and he was to be executed.
Grudem says that NT prophecy is different, and that a person with the NT gift of prophecy might utter a prophecy that is not true or not completely true. Another way of looking at it is that in the OT the prophecy and the prophet were linked. Grudem wants to decouple the prophet from the prophecy and say that the NT gift of prophecy is not the same thing as OT prophecy.
When the whole Strange Fire meltdown was happening, I watched a youtube of Grudem debating Ian Hamilton (IIRC) on this point. It was interesting, I thought.
Where I am right now is that I think that there is clearly a gift of prophecy in the NT. I don’t see where God has changed the rules about the truth of the prophecy validating the prophet as one who speaks words from God. Again, IIRC, it is Grudem who calls the NT gift “fallible” prophecy, which seems to me to be a bit of an oxymoron.
@ Gram3:
Never mind Grudem. What I am saying is that the descriptive terms “absolute accuracy” and “incomplete” are different terms and different expectations. Now, we need to see what the NT does expect of “prophecy” and what prophecy in the NT actually is, but it seems clear to me that different terms are being used.
Please do not think I am defending Grudem. I have never read any of his stuff and don’t care to.
OK, I think I see where the disconnect is. In the OT, the true prophets spoke the true word of God. They offered authenticating prophecies. But, although the prophetic words they spoke were true, their prophecies were not the complete revelation of God.
In my comment to Numo, I was trying to distinguish again between incomplete prophecy and untrue prophecy, which Grudem would allow. I think that 1 Cor. 13 is talking about prophecy being “incomplete” but not in the sense of being “untrue” or “defective.” The confusion comes from the meaning of “imperfect” in certain English translation, because that can mean in English either “defective” or “incomplete.” Grudem is the theologian of the YRR continuationist group, and his view of a difference between OT and NT prophecy has become accepted.
numo wrote:
Thrice yes!! I was thinking about this, and you can read Acts in about 35 minutes, enjoy all the outpourings of the Spirit and various accounts of miraculous happenings, and forget this covers about 30 odd years (I’ve forgotten the exact period covered). I’m sure ‘spectacular’ things still happen, but comparatively rarely. More ordinary answered prayer and manifestations of the Spirit in the everyday life of the church are or can be much more common.
I liked your reluctance in an earlier post to claim what you have experienced by way of charismatic gifts as being from God. I think this modesty of making claims shows a healthy ‘fear’ of God not to exaggerate, which borders on being dishonest. To me it makes such claims more credible rather than less, and I do not doubt you and Nancy in your own ways have experienced genuine activity of the Spirit.
@ Gram3:
Yeah, i don’t even know what Grudem thinks about this, and was attempting to make the same points Nancy was making.
@ Gram3:
I also think there is some confusion here about what prophecy was in the OT (i can think of several different things offhand) and what it appears to be in the NT.Paul also says that when the perfect comes, the imperfect (as seen in a glass darkly, which was ver much *not* like the sivered glass mirrors we have today, but brass, copper or other reflective metal) will pass away. The imperfect, because there just isn’t ant way that every if, and and but is going to be directly from the mouth of God, no?
@ Gram3:
I would veer toward “not entirely perfect” in this case. That’s not the same thing as innately defective.
@ Ken:
Well hey, i can’t prove anything, can i?! 😉 (only half-joking.)
numo wrote:
Could you elaborate on what you see in the OT and how prophecy there is like or unlike the NT? I agree that prophecy in the OT and NT are incomplete revelation, but my understanding is that OT prophets who were true prophets were subject to a test, but a NT prophet can be wrong and still be considered as legitimately speaking from God?
I’m thinking also of the distinction Nick drew a couple of days ago about the Holy Spirit coming upon people (my paraphrase) in certain circumstances , even after conversion, and that reminded me of the way the Spirit or the Word of the Lord came upon the OT prophets. I had not thought of things in quite that way. This is a new area of consideration for me, so I appreciate the pointers.
Also, BTW, I thought your comment about the perhaps wrong impression we get about the frequency of miraculous or showy gifts in Acts and the NT was very helpful, and I don’t remember ever hearing that point made. But, I have been in a cessationist or cautiously open environment for a very long time, and it wasn’t an issue excepting concern over the way the lunatic fringe of TBN types were negatively impacting churches overseas.
It would be helpful if someone would develop a taxonomy of Spiritual Gift Practice because I feel that very different things are being put in the same bin. Thanks for helping me think through this.
numo wrote:
I don’t think that it means defective at all. I just think that whatever prophets say is a shadowy reflection of the true reality and so imperfect or incomplete. But my question is, can the gift of prophecy in the NT result in a prophetic word that is false or partly false? I’m sorry to keep going to Grudem, but that’s because he is the theologian who is most-cited by people in the PCA and SBC to support the idea that NT and OT prophecy is qualitatively different. If there is another way of thinking about this, then please help!
@ Gram3:
Hey, i am truly unfamiliar with these denominations and views held in each. It might help to know that i was 1st in primarily Catholic charismatic circles, then in mainly Protestant ones, for 30+ years. I am very much a product of my times in some respects (charismatic renewal plus bits of the Jesus Kovement), and of my denominational background (Lutheran – member of the ELCA synod) in others. I am from the Mid-Atlantic states and have never lived in the south, so am totally unfamiliar w/the SBC and have never bern even remotely Reformed, let alone Calvinist. (I know the Reformed claim Luther as one of their own, but trust me, neither he nor Melancthon et al were anything like Calvin in their thinking).
I think that if you look at the OT, a multifaceted portrait of prophets and the prophetic tradition as it developed emerges. It seems to go from ecstatic worship (you know that bit about Saul and whatnot) to people who increasingly speak out against not only idolatry but social injustice and more. I mean, is there anything about Nathan giving a “predictive” prophecy? Instead, he gets that very dramatic onstage (so to speak) confrontation w/David, where he risks his life not to deliver a thundering “thus saith the Lord” message, but to tell him… a parable.
Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel are very, very diffrent books, and Ezekiel’s theatrical stuff has always struck me as a bit craxy, and his message very raw. But all three books are mostly concerned with various kinds of truth-telling, no? Predictice – just a little. I’m sure there were many other prophets whoee words are not part of the canon, that have been lost to us.
I am not sure i can answer the question re. the NT role, though i have personally seen people use it to verbally punish others. I am speaking of a role, not the gift, as Nick mentioned above, which seems to be a different matter. But there’s no detailed description of either thing in the NT.
I could rehash all that i heard and read while in charismatic land, but i am not sure that would be helpful, nor that i agree with much of any of it these days.
Not sure if any of this is helpful, or that i can offer much more to this part of the discussion. I will say, though, that the single OT “test” for telling who a true prophet was just doesn’t even begin to encompass all the things that the prophets of scripture actually said and did. It is narrowly focused on predictive prophecy.
Gram3 wrote:
It is not like that. In the NT there are “lists” of various things here and anon, like Nick referenced Romans and some folks look at 1 Corinthians and a broader way even to see it is to say that all that God does toward us is grace-based and from him (as opposed to earned by us and then demanded from him) and therefore is a “gift” from God. And if anywhere uses the word “gift” word to blow us out of the water consider that by grace we are saved by faith and that is a gift from God, not of works. What is that gift–faith or salvation or both? In my thinking the answer is all of the above. Want to talk gift–there it is.
But who knows when something happens or when you do something and surprise surprise it ends up looking for all the world like God engineered the situation–who can be sure. The Spirit is like the wind, blows where it wills, and we neither know whence it came or where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit. Is that not what he said? You can’t put that in a bottle and sell it-Peter denounced Simon for suggesting that, and you can’t make a concise list of what that means. We are talking about Persons, here-Father, Son, Spirit–persons. You can’t turn a person into a list.
What we think we see, however, if we must think about lists, is more like the long lists of side effects that the pharmaceutical manufacturers show regarding meds. They list about everything that possibly ever happens to the human body or mind as a reported side effect under categories of probability, and one ends up with the conclusion that a side effect might be just anything at all that happens when on that med, related or not. Is that precise? Who knows; it is just a list of reported possibilities.
The better way, I think, is on the one hand to “name and claim” what he invited us to name and claim–salvation and with it fellowship with God. And then just enjoy and marvel at the breeze.
@ Gram3:
Let me go check my Grudem…oh wait….;)
singleman wrote:
Charisma’s got me blocked because I chewed out Jennifer LeClaire for accusing the State Department of not doing enough for Meriam Ibrahim. Not because I regularly took on Dr. Brown on GLBT issues. Because I told Jennifer LeClaire to act like a journalist and call State for a statement on the Ibrahim issue instead of speculating. Those people are not interested in hearing the truth. What I would have told them is that beating children would be a crime if you did it to an adult. But these people have heard this over and over again, and are simply uninterested in anything except asserting their power over weaker ones.
oldJohnJ wrote:
It’s /. (slashdot). I wouldn’t expect the language to be like TWW’s. But then again I know there are different places for different types of language.
This week I’m reading the daily technical issues for my employer. (We have a call every weekday at 8 am, get representatives from every group on, and make sure everyone is aware.) At the end of the call, there is a trivia question. Since today is Halloween, today’s trivia is Halloween-themed. In fact, the question is, which of these three horror movies came first? Friday the 13th, Halloween or Nightmare on Elm Street? (The answer is Halloween, in 1978.)
Now I know some Christians would use my bully pulpit (such as it is) to proselytize. That person would not last long as a reader of the daily news unless s/he was willing to stay with light, amusing trivia. But I must confess that it did cross my mind to ask a trivia question about the 95 Theses, which were posted on a church door in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517. I’m sure I would have stumped people, but they would have thought I was more weird than I already am. Hence, movie trivia.
dee wrote:
If you think Ken Ham is getting the cold shoulder, you should see what’s happening with Kent Hovind aka “Dr. Dino.” You might remember that Hovind is serving out a 10 year sentence for failure to collect and pay FICA tax on his employees and 45 counts of structuring (aka “smurfing”). Of course, Hovind’s followers think he is being persecuted for “telling the truth” and “exposing evolution,” not because he was trying to avoid paying employment taxes on the “missionaries” working at his “Dinosaur Adventure Land.”
Hovind was expected to get out of prison in August 2015, but he had been facing criminal contempt charges for filing a lis pendens (simply: a notice indicating a lawsuit is going to be filed over title to property) on some parcels that the government had taken to pay Hovind’s fine. Hovind did this after a federal judge specifically told him not to do that. The purpose of the lis pendens, at least according to the government, was to cloud the title so the properties couldn’t be resold.
The criminal contempt charge was dropped last week and this week the federal prosecutor in Florida filed mail fraud and other charges against Hovind and another guy. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/USA_v_Kent_Hovind_and_Paul_Hansen_Indictment
Hovind’s fellow indictee, Paul Hansen, is big on “sovereign citizen” theories, which is another one of my pet interests. I fully expect this trial (if it happens) to be a real zoo, with Hovind and Hansen trying to assert theories that the court has no jurisdiction over them and the judge trying to ride herd on that kind of craziness. (By the way, this is not the first time Hovind has tried sovereign citizen theories. At one point in the 1990s, he and his wife tried to renounce their citizenship in order to avoid paying income taxes.)
With the exception of Hovind’s fan base, there’s been virtual radio silence on this new indictment. I’m thinking this is smart, because who wants to be on record supporting sovereign citizen lunacy?
Not all religious leaders are ethically challenged business types. In http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/10/29/035253/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right Pope Francis at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences affirms the big bang and evolution.
@ numo:
That was very helpful, especially because it comes from a totally different perspective. You’ve given me a lot to think about and look into. Thanks for taking the time to do that.
@ Nancy:
I really like your thought about the gifts being like the effects of the Spirit. Or at least I think you were saying something like that. When I think about the issue with that in mind, it is clear to me that my exposure to the issue has been one of improperly categorizing the effects which the Spirit works in us and effectively making them into spiritual “jobs.” Are you saying something like spiritual gifts are not functions but effects? That makes sense to me, especially in light of the Spirit operating like the wind.
Beakerj wrote:
Did you burn your copy in the bathtub?
@ numo:
My word. I had not realized how little I knew about or thought about prophets or prophecy, OT or NT. The “message” I came away from childhood with was -that was then (OT era or apostolic era) and this is now so don’t worry about it. So I just never gave it any thought. I will have to find something to read on the subject.
Testing. I tried posting and got a message about cheating and spam.
Dear Wartburg Ladies and The Guy Behind The Curtain,
I was thinking that maybe you should set up Open Discussion pages by week or month. Those of us who occasionally read on our phones may be unable to load pages with lots and lots of comments after a while. Of course, pin the most recent Open Discussion page to the top, but shuffle the old ones off after a while so that people don’t hit their data caps trying to load them. 🙂 Just a thought.
oldJohnJ wrote:
I like the fact that there is a Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
@ mirele:
We are already discussing what to do. We are pleased that this page was a success. We were not sure. Here is the issue It is currently set up as a page, not a post. So, opening a new one is a bit more complicated since it doesn’t flow like a post.
One solution is to set up subsequent open discussions as a post and link to the post by the side bar. We could then shut the old posts to comments and people could continue on the new post. That would mean updating the side link.
Thoughts?
i know this sounds convoluted. I am running a fever and am not sure I am making sense.
Nancy wrote:
That sometimes happens both here and at other blogs. Try refreshing your page. If it makes you feel any better, I get that message when I try to post about twice a week. I also get “You are posting too fast” warnings.
@ mirele:
Thank you for the update on Hovind. i swear this subject causes mental illness in some folks.
@ Gram3:
Thank you, and no worries!
I realize that the whole cessasionist vs. continuationist debate is pretty narrowly focused. I’ve never been caught up in that, which has probably been a good thing. 😉
@ Nancy:
I guess hanging out with Lutherans and Catholics has its pluses, no? 😉
@ Gram3:
So I wil try this again. I am making a copy this time to avoid the spam glitch.
About function and effect to include the idea of jobs. Since I am not exactly sure what you mean, bear with me if I have misunderstood and this is off base. I do think that there are opportunities and responsibilities that are real and sometimes God-given and which must be respected and dealt with appropriately. For example, how can they hear without a preacher is a silly sentence unless the preacher actually preaches (a function). It is, however, the Spirit who empowers the word and brings about effects. On the other hand there are stories of conversions in Muslim dominant societies initiated by dreams and visions and seemingly miraculous circumstances where no “preacher” by whatever definition is in sight. Here we have effects.
So, I guess I don’t understand this thoroughly. I would say that at least in some circumstances function and effect are intertwined, and at other times that is not so evident.
What has concerned me is the propensity for evangelical christianity to think that some program can be a substitute for the Spirit. Once they think that, and once they adopt the methodology of the verbal coverup, that becomes enormously destructive. They don’t use those words but that is what it looks like. I have heard too many verbally adept but apparently powerless sermons. I have listened to too many prayers which sound like trying to be religious while giving oneself and God an out just in case. I have seen too much money spent on parking lots and insipid literature and new sound systems to the neglect of the proverbial widows and orphans who are not wanted at church partly because they have too little money to contribute. I have seen poor scholarship admired and prayer neglected. I have seen scripture take a beating by people practically worshipping it while at the same time looking for ways to get around those parts which they don’t want to deal with.
And all of this is religious functioning. Religious jobs-lay and professional. All done for “the lord” of course. Too much of it is phony and too much is futile, being contrary to scripture and without evidence of being Spirit led.
I guess I think that function and effect are not the same thing but can be intertwined. I know I think we can do without the buildings and the programs and the money but we cannot do without the Spirit, and the Spirit is himself given (sent) and is a person not either a function or an effect. And what we see is our attempt to understand what God is doing. We see through a glass darkly, so said the man whose writings we try to understand. That is as close as I can get.
dee wrote:
Sorry to hear that. The farther away we get from the safe world of the powerful antibiotic and the deeper we get into the jungle of the awful viruses, the sorrier I get over a fever. We sure don’t want anything to happen to you. We all need what you are doing, and we all care about you.
numo wrote:
I mean it does. Incidentally, i went to catholic mass this morning. It was a special program at the school where my grandson goes, and he got to read the portion from revelation so of course the entire family had to go. Very inspiring.
New Topic: 2015 is the Chinese Year of The Sheep
Idea: A sheep revolt in the church
Q: What would it take to organize a year long boycott of the institutional church (or the machine, or whatever you want to call it), and for everyone to stop funding abusive churches? Could this be done?
Could 2015 be the year that the sheep take back the body of Christ from the professional clergy, the money men, the cheaters, the abusers, the charlatans, and the false shepherds (a.k.a. hirelings)?
Gram3 wrote:
I let it be crushed in the boot of my old car. Bwahahahahaaaaa
@ Nancy:
That is helpful. What I had in mind when I said “jobs” is that one of the approaches, though not the only one, to spiritual gifts is the idea that the Holy Spirit has gifted certain individuals with certain gifts. There are various assessment tools to evaluate “what your spiritual gifts are” so that the individual best knows how the “exercise their spiritual gifts” to best benefit the body. They are very much like aptitude tests that employers administer.
That is the paradigm of a job assignment which the Holy Spirit gives particular believers. However, in reading your and Numo’s replies and Nick’s prior comments, I see that I have adopted this paradigm without actually thinking through whether that best models what the Bible is telling us.
What I am hearing is that there is not an office of “Prophet” either in the OT or NT. It is much more dynamic than that. People are not discerners or merciers or tonguers or healers or teachers. But the Holy Spirit can enable a believer to manifest his various gifts in different ways and different times. That’s what I’m hearing, so refine or add or subtract from that if you see that I’m missing the point.
Now, my concern remains about prophecy introducing untestable subjectivity to God’s words. OTOH, some say that the gift of prophecy is actually preaching, and we are to compare what is said to what is written and so verify what the prophet/preacher is saying.
I would say that this conversation is an example of how iron can sharpen iron by bringing different perspectives and experiences to our questions or positions without accusations flying back and forth.
@ dee:
Hope you feel better soon! It’s a bummer having a fever while tending to so many of your virtual kids here.
Doug wrote:
If this occurs in 2015, it would be one of the exceedingly rare occasions when I’ve been ahead of the curve.
Beakerj wrote:
Oh, I forgot that! 🙂
@ numo:
Big surprise that the issue is framed in absolutes. You Must Always! You Must Not Ever! I have considerable experience with Catholicism, but none with Lutheranism, so I appreciate the perspective that adds. This has been a profitable discussion for me.
@ Gram3:
Hey, i think anyreasonably decent studies of the developmet of prophets and prophecy in the Hebrew Bible is going to cover the points i touched on, and in much greater depth.
I also like to read Jewish sources, so some of my thinking comes from them. I think any true scholar of the OT absolutely cannot ignore Jewish schorship.
@ Gram3:
It strikes me that Grudem and his cohort likely don’t have much background in either the history of Judaism or of xtianity, very much including a lck of awareness of what ancient writers kJewish and xtian) had to say on many topics.
Or else they do know, but choose toignore it.
I realie that I’m going on a hunch here and don’t really know the truth of the matter. But then, the term “systematic theolgy” practically makes me break out in hives!
Gram3 wrote:
As I read Paul’s list in Romans 12, he is referring to abilities God gives to each of us, leaving with us the responsibility to use them well (or not). I don’t think for a minute that the Romans 12 list is meant to be exhaustive, incidentally. They’re not called “gifts of the spirit” and, actually, aren’t called “spiritual” at all in this passage.
There’s a subtle point hidden in there, related to the point already made that not every day of the whole period covered by Acts was necessarily extraordinary or miraculous. That is, I think we often tend to over-mysticise anything that we might vaguely call a “gift” – or, for that matter, a lot of what the Holy Spirit does. It’s easy to imagine that any Act_Of_God must be accompanied by mind-boggling CGI and overwhelming psychological and emotional side-effects. When in fact, Jesus himself looked so ordinary that the Sanhedrin’s armed mob needed an insider to point him out to them when they came to arrest him.
I think I can probably mention the “prophecy” thing in the same breath, because again, I’ve come across the idea that prophecy is an extraordinary, once-in-a-lifetime experience in which God descends to earth to thunder forth New_Revelation that shakes the very foundations of scripture, and probably leaves hundreds of people dead and thousands more homeless. Whereas the OT promise that “your sons and your daughters will prophesy”, and Paul’s exhortation to the whole church to desire to prophesy, suggests that it was much more common than that. And therefore, presumably much more localised; an NT prophecy might be an exhortation or encouragement (or warning or rebuke) to just a small group of people or even just one person. Agabus, for instance, prophesied to Paul that he would be bound by the Jews if he returned to Jerusalem. This prophecy was only partly accurate..! And although Agabus did act it out to some extent – taking his own belt and tying Paul up with it – he doesn’t seem to have fallen into any kind of trance and there’s no particular evidence on whether he spoke it in a silly voice.
Even in the OT, we know that prophets did more than Write_Scripture. Elisha founded a “school” for the prophets (plural), and soon-to-be-king Saul met a company of prophets (plural), none of whose output is written down in scribsher. But they must have prophesied at some point, or they wouldn’t be called prophets!
I think it helps to consider spiritual gifts as tools, tools to help build up the church. They are means of one believer blessing another. So, for example, if I’m given the gift of faith, this will produce faith in someone else, not me. Perhaps they were having an ineffective prayer life, and suddenly find through this gift manifested perhaps in something I say that it bursts into life, they start praying effectively and with faith. Or you have the gift of encouragement, but I get encouraged. The whole emphasis in Paul is building up others, which is why loveless churches don’t want the gifts and seek to quench them.
As for prophecy, this was a ministry in the OT of bringing God’s word to Israel and later the rest of the word, first spoken and then written down. I think this ‘office’ continued in the NT before the NT canon was completed, and after that was no longer needed, being replaced by the teacher of God’s word written.
The gift of prophecy continues, and if God wills and we ask may be received by any believer – something I think true of all spiritual gifts, the right tool for the right occasion. This prophetic gift for encouraging and edifying is specifically for an individual or church at one time and location, and so in no way an addition to scripture. It’s a bit more low-key, a word in season. It is ‘fallible’ in the sense that like preachers and teachers, we can all make mistakes, and need the written word to test it. I do think this kind of speaking in the Spirit ought not to be written down.
The OT test no longer applies because we are under the NT, the Spirit has been poured out on all flesh rather than a select few. It never ceases to amaze me how evangelicals of the cessationist variety who otherwise preach we are not under the law immediately put us back under the law when it comes to NT and modern prophecy by using the test applicable in an obsolete covenant. It’s got to be infallible or rejected in toto. Well they don’t apply such a rigid test to their own sermons!
Ken wrote:
Good point about not being under the Law but under the Spirit. I need to do some thinking and synthesizing of some very good ideas. As I said, I can’t see the hard acArthur cessationist position in Scripture, but I don’t like Grudemessque NT prophecy, either, and I’m looking for a way of looking at the issues that is more coherent and consistent with the revelation we have. You all have given me some good ideas to work on that.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
As soon as my head clears, I’m going to start digging ito the instances you cite. Thanks so much.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
… I should clarify: yes, I have occasionally met people who (apparently) believed that public prayer and prophesy needed to be done in a silly voice.
Ken wrote:
To give an alternative perspective, I believe the OT office of prophet continued until it was replaced by Jesus himself, and is no longer needed because one who has seen Jesus has seen the Father.
I can’t presume to offer a knock-down proof of this, but I can at least explain why I believe it. This from Matthew 11, for instance:
I think the real ceased/continue question is not about the gifts, but about the Holy Spirit himself – is He still here? There are theological positions, held to by no few Christians, that in varying degrees confine Him under the authority of the words he (allegedly…) inspired – some even teach that the Holy Spirit can only speak through scripture. But I can’t find any good reason to accept that, three hundred years after raising Jesus from the dead and thereby sealing God’s ultimate act of self-disclosure to humanity in the Person of his Son, the Holy Spirit should suddenly become constrained more tightly than he ever was even under the old covenant.
There’s no point denying that I’ve often chased after one gift or another as an end in itself. But I’ve less often learned to cultivate what Paul called the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Which is daft, because if I’ve got him, I’ve got Jesus, which means I’ve got everything..!
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Have you ever met those who think demons need to be cast out by shouting loudly in an American accent? 🙂
@ Gram3:
I think getting away from the sources you’ve been exposed to is a very good idea, because it seems to me that neither side is getting at the heart of the matter.
I agree with Nick that Jesus is the final word, so to speak, but equally, i think there are still prophetic voices to be heard – the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for example, or + Desmond Tutu. It isn’t the same as in the time of Isaiah or Jeremiah, but you can find the same passionate call to God’s righteousness, justice, mercy and forgiveness there. (And in the lives and words of many others.) John the Baptist may have signalled the end of the old order and the beginning of the new, but i think he still has plenty of company. 🙂
Ken wrote:
Not come across the fake American accent thing, though I did know someone over here who prayed to Guard.
About the prophecy discussion:
One of the teachers where my daughter works is all-over-the-place pentecostal. She says she has been anointed or something by somebody in the past, and commissioned I guess–it is a little unclear. She is also an eastern band cherokee and possibly a bit over the line since diagnosable over the line runs in her family to hear her tell it. She does not hesitate to do outlandish things, like pray for somebody loudly enough you know, right in the middle of the school hallway while the crowds mill about. Understand what I have said in the past that we are an extremely diverse bunch in the south, so this is not as bad as it might sound elsewhere, but it is…well…noticeable.
People all the time are asking her to pray for them, and actually answers to prayer follow her around like puppy dogs. I mean, it is amazing, some of it. She also “pronounces” things sometimes including how things are going to turn out or what to expect is going to happen, and there are more stories of times she was right than anybody even tries to remember. Back in Salem, Mass they might have taken exception to this behavior, but we mostly just avail ourselves of it and move one. I am thinking we might call her pronouncements insightful or we might wonder if this is a prophetic gift.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
What does a fake American accent sound like? The Guard person was possibly from coastal South Carolina or Georgia. I’ve heard folks with roots there say “Chicargo.”
dee wrote:
An update: the trial on the mail fraud charges is scheduled for December 1, 2014, which is downright speedy in federal terms. I’m guessing the judge and the prosecutor want to get this over with. However, as with all things judicial, expect there to be delays.
Gram3 wrote:
How long is a piece of string? It all depends on the not_American person who’s doing the faking. By analogy, what does a fake British accent sound like?
Groundskeeper Willie off the Simpsons
Any other “British” character on the Simpsons that isn’t a guest-appearance from a British person
Any “British” accent on family guy, apart from Patrick Stewart (who is for real)
Dick van Dyke
Another good example of a fake accent appears in the Bruce Lee classic Enter the Dragon. The character from New Zealand was played by Peter Archer, who was in fact Australian. Now, an Australian accent sounds markedly different from a New Zealand accent – but not as different as the voice actor who was dubbed over Archer because the director didn’t think Archer sounded New Zealand enough. Exactly what the director (Robert Clouse) thought New Zealanders sounded like is anybody’s guess.
numo wrote:
Words to live by!
I’ve recently changed the vocabulary I use when discussing matters that tend to polarise opinions. Rather than referring to “extreme” positions, now I talk about “monochrome” positions; because most controversial matters aren’t simply one straight line between two extremes. And you’re quite right (assuming I’ve understood you correctly) in that neither side is likely to capture the heart of the matter… To pursue a certain play on words, the heart of any matter is rarely in the middle, either. That is, picking two “extremes”, and taking a “balanced” view between them, can be just as simplistic and misguided.
Hmm… I know what I mean by that, but it’s Bedtime in Blighty, so I’ll sign off there for the noo.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
OK, that one I get. The others not so much since I live in a pop culture cave.
What I thought was funny was that the exorcist was trying to imitate some kind of American accent, and I was just curious which American accent is considered the authentic one for casting out demons. I think it is hilarious when Hollywood types think that East Texas sounds like Eastern NC, for example, because…Southern. Hugh Laurie has a quite convincing American accent, at least to me.
This diversion puts the open in open discussion, I suppose.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Agree with that, and sometimes fresh perspectives are very helpful when trying to unwind or break up a paradigm which is built on false dichotomies and equally false split-the-difference answers. Your comments have been very helpful.
I have another reply to you in moderation which may be due to Mr. van Dyke’s first name.
Gram3 wrote:
Not the Deep South or John Wayne, a bit more Robert Mitchum or George Clooney. And the wording, with increasing volume as the sentence proceeds is ‘We command you spirit of [whatever] to come out in JEEEEEEEEESSSSUS Name’!!
I would never mock a genuine ministry in this area, but we Christians don’t half do some daft things at times, and we rightly should avoid taking ourselves too seriously, especially when we put on the mantle of royalty and talk about ‘we’ instead of I.
So I hope you appreciate our contribution to this topic.
Ken wrote:
Absolutely! And on whatever topic.
Now I need to find that fascinating youtube about vowel shifts in English. The real English, not the American dialect. 😉 I would like to visit Great Britain, and it would be interesting to hear what Ulster Scots English or Islay Scots English or Derbyshire English sounds like. Those are some of the places my people came from.
__
“Piper’s Positive Partitive, Perhaps?”
Quack! Quack!
Did someone say, “Riddle?”
Blink! Blink!
😉
hmmm…
Twee-tel-e-dee, Piper’s widdle rambling riddle may mean (imho):
If we are to obtain these precious things,
A face that shines like an angel,
Possession of irresistible wisdom,
Dwell with the fullness of grace,
With the power to exercise these things,
We must decrease,
The Lord must increase in our lives.
I’ze all for dat.
(smiley face goes here)
Sopy
—
In regards to the Piper tweet, I think you have to take it in the context of the one just after it. Both relate to being martyred for one’s faith.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/muslims-hack-off-christian-mans-head-after-forcing-him-to-deny-jesus-christ-and-salute-mohammed-as-messenger-of-god-124300/
JohnPiper: If you’re ever told that your life will be spared if you renounce Christ, remember this. http://t.co/3pTThQCQTU
Gram3 wrote:
Thank for your kind words – appreciated in turn!
Now the UK has its dialects of English that equate to England, Wales and Scotland, and within England very roughly South-East (BBC English), the west country with (very unfair this) stereotypical farmer’s country bumkin English, and the north which is half-way up England and above. The north has pure short vowels, more genuinely Anglo-Saxon. There is considerable variety within these broad distinctions such as local to Birmingham or Liverpool. Coming from the south, when I first lived in Nottingham I thought the dialect was the same as Yorkshire, but soon realised it wasn’t once my ears had acclimatised to it. There are small residual differences in vocabulary, for example, in the north there are dialect words from Old Norse in areas settled by the Vikings.
You would love Derbyshire. A lot of it is a national park, and therefore protected from unseemly development that might ruin its character. Hills, valleys, streams, dry stone walls and picturesque villages. We’ve gone there once a year now for our hols (vacation to you!) for several years, especially good for walking and second-hand book shops. The children, oddly enough, having been brought up in Germany with English in the home and German elsewhere had difficulty understanding the locals in Derbyshire which surprised me. There are some regional accents such as Geordie in Newcastle or rural Cornwall I have a job to understand, but I didn’t think Derbyshire that difficult!
Tatty bye for now!
@ Sad:
Piper is not adept with utilizing technology to express his thoughts. I don’t even want to get into his videos gaffes.
If that is what he meant, he should have put a number at the beginning of the tweet to let folks know it was part of a series. Most everyone does this. (1/3; 2/4 etc.) I think Piper likes to play shock and awe and he does so poorly.
He is becoming known for his bizarre tweets and somebody needs to speak with him.
@ Sad:
@ dee:
The issue that comes to mind for me regarding the tweets is that Piper seems to be trying to make the issue with extremist Islams between Christians and extremist Islams “only.” The truth is that the extremists will just as quickly murder an atheist who denies their form of God as they will a Christian that won’t denounce Christ. Christian leaders such as Piper need to broaden their scope of understanding before they turn world issues into it’s only us (Christians) against the evil in the world issues. There was a very eye opening news report on Dateline last night about extreme Islam in Great Britain. Piper would be wise to broaden his scope of thinking outside of his fundamentalist world view.
dee wrote:
I agree. I think Piper’s starting to really misfire on a few cylinders.
@ Bridget:
Also, Muslims who do not agree with them and/or belong to other branches of the religion (Shia, Ismaili). ISIS has bern systematically targeting Muslims, not just members of religious minorities.
Bridget wrote:
It appears to me Piper lives in a world of make believe….as well as a fundamentalist bubble. He lives ( and tweets ) in a world so far removed from the time/circumstances in which Stephen lived.
If he wishes to have the countenance of Stephen, I am quite sure some extremist group would accommodate his desires. But of course that isn’t Pipers desire.To me he comes off as trying really hard to be holy and pious but lives a rather comfy life in Minneapolis.
Mae wrote:
Good observation. He didn’t go to Somalia or Sudan or Saudi Arabia or Syria or Iran to be all gospelly a year ago or so. He went to that hotbed of persecution against Christians, Dubai. It wasn’t because he wanted his face to shine like Stephen’s. Because he would have that opportunity in any of the countries where persecution is really taking place. ISTM he wanted the glory and money of proclaiming his “gospel” in Dubai without the privation and real persecution that Stephen endured. All expenses paid gospel tourism complete with video crew to record Pastor John’s gospel humility and challenge for *others* to go.
Hey, Pastor John, why don’t you take all of your manly men of CBMW over to Nigeria and find and rescue the little girls kidnapped by Boko Haram? Why don’t you preach the Gospel in Sudan and rescue the little girls who are genitally mutilated just because they are girls? While you’re over there, you and your Gospel Glitterati buddies could have a big splashy gospelly conference, because they really need the Gospel there, though they probably won’t buy many books from Crossway. Bummer. But, OTOH, David Platt could take some IMB missionaries along to demonstrate his conviction that observing proper gender roles promotes the gospel. Somehow. Because nothing says gospel like exerting power over someone.
Oh, I forgot the way we should think about female subjection being God’s good and beautiful plan. I guess those little girls should have been in subjection more and should have stopped stepping outside their female role, and I guess they’re just supposed to endure it for a season for the glory of God. The lot of you do not look like Jesus or Stephen.
Sad wrote:
Piper’s perplexing tweets scream frontotemporal dementia to me…
Bridget wrote:
While I remember, there is a documentary (viewable on YouTube) called “My brother the Islamist”; a more recent follow-up can also be viewed, “My brother the terrorist” – I found them both so thought provoking.
I believe Boko Haram have announced that the kidnapped girls have converted to Islam and have been married off. My heart goes out to those girls and their families.
Haitch wrote:
The thought has crossed my mind. A number of tweets recently have sent out some warning signals.
@ Estelle:
I am so sorry for those girls.
Gram3 wrote:
Piper is rather odd. He claims to wish to defend women with his life but shows little sympathy for the women being abused. He has an odd belief that a man must lay down his life for a woman if they are mugged, even if the woman is capable of beating up the mugger and he isn’t.
The Dubai tri[ is the only time TWW has had some success in confronting Piper. I do not know if you were reading us them. he made a video with the Burj Khalifa in the background, saying that Christians would bring down those towers.
i knew this was problematic and we posted an immediate plea to take down the video as well as contacting a few groups. It got taken down quickly. I am shocked that no one in Piper’s crowd could see the problems with his video.
@ dee:
I did read about Piper’s Dubai stunt along with Platt’s Dubai stunt here. I’m thankful you got the video taken down. The only reason to leave it up would be to show what a publicity hog Piper (and Platt) are, but the damage would be far greater if it had been left up.
Piper has a deep hatred for women. I don’t have a charitable way of seeing his view. I don’t think he is interested in protecting women. I think he is a poser. Period. I give his profession of love and concern for women about as much credibility as his martyrdom poser tweet. He needs to have some kind of plausible deniability for the consequences of his personal disdain for and, I would argue, fear of women. How pathetic is it that he is so obsessed with a woman taking control of him? What a truly weak human being. It is sad.
It would be a real blessing for him, and for all of the men who puff themselves up with their own importance as heroes of the story, if they would just get back to what God said. Jesus is the Hero of the Story. The Holy Spirit is the Authority over all who are in Christ. Women and men are equal and they are different and complement one another. One is not designed and created to rule the other.
In addition to their legalistic role rules, Piper and company totally obscure the Gospel by their desire to enshrine the consequences of the Fall and pin it on God’s design. They deny the efficacy of Christ’s atonement for difficult relationships marred by sin between all people, including ones between men and women in marriage and the church. I think this is at least partly due to their view that the Atonement was exclusively penal substitution. It was certainly that, I think, but Christ accomplished so much more.
In their view, women are Daughters of Eve who are deceiving usurpers, so they cannot have an unmediated walk with God. However, men are sons of Adam but are *nevertheless* able to have an unmediated walk with God. This is absolute nonsense, and it only resonates with men who need to feel significant *in themselves.*
All men and women who are in Christ *are* significant, but they are both significant because *both men and women* have been granted adoption as *sons* by the One who was born of a woman. They have cut Galatians 4:5 out of their Bibles, probably because it hearkens right back to the Father’s blessing in Genesis 1:26-28 and the undoing of the curse in Genesis 3 by the fulfillment of the Father’s promise of the Seed.
These men have set themselves up as little Christs. I wish that they could experience their freedom in Christ rather than trying to enslave others to their false gender gospel.
@ Gram3:
Yes inddedy do to all that, Gram3. One thing that I can’t quit pondering is, since so much of what the think/do is based on selective and incomplete views of scripture, and since so much of what they thing/do cannot be shown to be either true or a good idea by history or science or reason or common sense, and since so much of what they think/do simply does not work in practice but rather damages so many people, why do they keep on thinking/doing it? How and why do people hang on to something so flawed? Well, one might say, because they want to be in control. Sure, but why want to be in control at any cost if being in control is not working any better than it is.
I have some ideas. David P., you want to talk about radical? You should hear my radical ideas of what is the explanation for some of what you all are doing. I am not going to spell it out here and now, because I am not trying to start a problem, and my ideas would be problematic to a lot of folks. But I do want to say that we have to ask why and how did this happen and why does it continue, so that the rest of us do not fall in to this or a similar pit of dysfunctional thinking. (AKA sin, if one really is trying to grab the power away from God and keep it for themselves.)
I don’t see a lot of difference between Piper’s confusing views on women and what passes for moderate Islam and its views on women.
Nancy wrote:
The ones I know who are immersed in this ideology basically inherited it, either from their teachers or indirectly by adopting the YRR package of doctrines which are sold as being centered on God rather than man. The women don’t question it because they’re told that it is God’s plan and they don’t want to be like Eve who came out from under Adam’s authority, do they? They tell the men that God has given them leadership, and they better lead! Many, if not most, of these men appear to treat their wives well, so the rottenness at the core of things isn’t always obvious.
As for why people can read things like RBMW and not see how ridiculous and made-up the entire narrative is, particularly chapter 3, I have no idea. Maybe it’s because they never took it apart, step-by-step and asked whether the assertion they make is really in the Bible or if is read into the Bible.
The other thing is that the discussion has been so poisoned from the beginning by accusations of being yet another departure from the Bible by liberals, or it’s divisive (well no kidding!), or it’s the fruit of scary feminists who want to overthrow male authority. As a result, many women will not speak up for fear of being labeled, or they are afraid to lose their friends who all think like that. Many men will not speak up, maybe because they like the power, but others because they would be labeled a man-fail and other things. It is spiritual blackmail perpetrated on both men and women.
But, when you zoom out, the big picture is that the Big Guys are pushing this because it makes people acclimatize to being “under authority” which inures to their benefit. Power and authority is the real goal, because that’s what keeps the money coming in. It is basically a theology of fear, and nothing makes people compliant like fear. It is not a theology of freedom in Christ, because freed captives are not very compliant to new overlords. Fearful people are willing to keep coming back to yet another conference and buy more boatloads of books which say the same thing in order to relieve their fear and anxiety.
They are training and entire generation into this tyrannical and idolatrous way of thinking, and I fear for our kids and grandkids. I have never seen such hard hearts as I’ve seen from leaders in this movement.
Lydia wrote:
I think Piper’s view of women is clear. He hates and fears them. The confusion occurs because he needs to rationalize that so that it sounds bibley, and that’s tough to do if it is not in the Bible. I think people get mesmerized by Piper’s persona and don’t think about how ridiculous and goofy his ideas are.
Similarly, Grudem’s irrationality is ignored because for many young people, his systematic is the only one they’ve ever read. So, you have two Blue Books which are the hadiths and Talmud which explain and interpret the Bible. It’s just backward from the way it should be.
In the SBC, Mohler pushes it because it primes people in the SBC to abandon their instinctive rejection of spiritual authoritarianism. He came to influence and power during and just after the height of the Gothard and Shepherding era, and I think he, like a lot of mega-pastors saw the benefits of people who are groomed to be unthinkingly compliant.
These suggestions are for Elastigirl in response to her comment in yesterday’s Home post, asking for help for her mother.
(1) If possible, make an appointment and sit down face to face with your mother’s Kaiser primary care physician (PCP)to discuss options. Ask for a second opinion (referral) to another physician(s) or clinical team of physicians/nurses to review her case, if that already taken place, for diagnosis and treatment. If her PCP is not board-certified in Internal Medicine (IM), that’s a place to start. IMs either practice primary care, or train further into a specialty area like Infectious Disease or Gastroenterology. Let the PCP know you expect him/her to be your mother’s advocate and coordinator of care.
(2)Second opinion is covered by insurance. (Your mother’s “Evidence of Coverage” outlines in detail her benefits. If you can’t find the EOC, check online, or with Kaiser Customer Service.)
(3) If Kaiser or PCP balks, two options: (a) Ask to speak directly to Kaiser Medical Director, and/or (2)Write a written complaint/grievance about her care, addressing it to the Medical Director, and Kaiser Customer Service. Kaiser must respond within a certain timeframe under regulation to any grievance. Request a clinical team to review your mother’s case for diagnosis and treatment–and as appropriate, refer to a non-Kaiser clinical team.
Hope this helps. It is exhausting, as you described. You will need to be her advocate, as you navigate our healthcare maze. Praying for you.
@ DebWilli:
Elastigirl,
I concur with Nick’s comments (on Home post) about ruling out Lyme’s disease, and about your mother’s sensitivity to any medicine she takes. Make sure PCP/Kaiser includes a pharmacist in clinical team and review of her case.
@ Gram3:
It is not just about women, though. They stigmatize anybody, male or female, cleric or lay, evangelical or other who disagrees with them about anything. And again I say anything. They look like they are emphasizing the comp theme because it sells well right now given various cultural and political and economic issues in this nation and in the world at this time. And they have made a try for the charismatic theme, but that has not sold as well. It is not just these things though. Rather, it is a system wide problem with the attitude of I am right and everybody else is wrong, disobedient, rebellious and probably not really a christian. The thing is, the bulk of christianity disagrees with them about various manner of things (but everybody else is wrong, of course) and always has (but that is no problem since christianity started with calvin). Disagreeing with them on various and major issues has been there before and after calvin and certainly before and during the current crowd. And let’s face it, these ideas about women are endemic in various other religions and various other cultures and they do not have the market cornered about this.
The major issue is, as I see it, authority. Where does ultimate authority lie? The larger church: catholic, orthodox, other? Or is the only authority seen as sola scriptura? Or how about the autonomous local church? Well, hey, what an opportunity. Here I am Mr. Preacher Man and I think that ultimate authority is the local church while operating on the principle of sola scripture and as understood in the way I explain it from the pulpit. Guess what, I the MPM of the ALC by the power of SS play a pivotal role, if not the pivotal role, in real authority. I tell people what to do, say, think in everything; but nobody tells me. That is only, of course, because I am right.
Arguments that they are not right do not get very far, because being right is not the prime goal. Being right is only a tool or argument to help them toward the goal. The goal is I am the authority, do not question or challenge me, because when you do you question and challenge God because…well, because…I really shouldn’t say but, God needs my help and advice to straighten out this mess which he has neglected to adequately address, don’t you see.
That is what I see.
Sorry, I meant to say the anti-charismatic theme
@ Nancy:
I agree that unquestioned authority and unrestrained power is their goal. I may be misreading you, but I do think that the comp issue is essential to their quest for power. They have to have a hook to keep both the men and women in line and unquestioning. Therefore, they make appeals to men’s pride and to women’s cowardice and timidity and the general desire among both to do what they think pleases God (the Spiritual rationale) and their desire to have a harmonious home and godly children (the Practical rationale.) I see this as a system of belief that makes the pewpeons feel good about selling out their spiritual inheritance as sons of the King.
Someone else has observed that the people demanded a King, God gave them a king, and Saul was corrupted by his power because he was a ruler rather than a shepherd for God’s people.
I think Mohler and Patterson got drunk on the power they gained through their success with the conservative resurgence. Did they start out with good intentions? I don’t know, but it sure looks like this was the goal from the start.
Regarding the charismatic issue, I think there was an agreement to adopt the “open but cautious” position because that was a segment of the market that was growing, and the way to triangulate that sticky wicket (to mix some metaphors) is to remain vague. You get the drawing power of the charismatics without scandalizing the cessationists. Mohler is a political genius at this tactic.
It all gets to the same point: A few men at the top control the people and the cash flows for their own benefit.
Nancy wrote:
Welcome to my life.
@ DebWilli:
Thank you, DebWilli. I’ve copied your info into my running mom’s health doc.
Gram3 wrote:
I thought cessationists had no dealings with charismatics! (Cf. John 4 : 9 in the original Cryptic)
Ken wrote:
I take your point, though in my opinion the words of the Cryptic text need to be understood in light of the culture of the Cryps during the time that the Cryptic text was encoded, which was well before it was included in the
Codex Crypticus Receptus. However, in this instance I shall be uncharacteristically deferential to your word of knowledge.
I thought the crypts were a gang.
Many women come into the Catholic Church because of Jesus’ mother, Mary. What has Mark Driscoll preached about Mary? Apparently he was raised a Catholic and has very problematic views of Mary. Doesn’t it make sense? When you diss Mary and you can diss all women.
Nancy wrote:
Right, and they tagged in Cryptic.
@ elastigirl:
I’m way behind here, but if it is looking like lyme, check out this blog by a doctor who’s devoted himself to Lyme treatment: http://lymemd.blogspot.com/
You also might check the Lyme Disease Association for a state chapter. The Michigan chapter had a short list of doctors willing to treat outside the box, which my daughter needed after coming back from Maine feeling crappy but not diagnosed for 5 months, then finding two standard stretches of antibiotics inadequate. http://www.lymediseaseassociation.org/
Lyme disease and its treatment is controversial and if you want to know why, read this book by a journalist who got it, Pam Weintraub, “Cure Unknown: Inside the Lyme Epidemic”.
There’s a very good website and forum on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFIDS) and neuroimmune disease (Fibromyalgia, for eg) that you could look through for insight, testing, proposals, experts to pursue, etc: http://phoenixrising.me/
If your mother is suffering arthritic pain as well as other systemic issues, it might be Rheumatoid Arthritis and here is a homey practical site about that: http://rawarrior.com/about/
There’s a lot of overlap in these illnesses and some are merely a collection of symptoms with no known cause. Thus discovery can be a long process. I went through the long haul for my daughter and then my own bad health. I also had Lyme, apparently made worse by a genetic vulnerability for rheumatoid arthritis, which I am now being treated for.
I wish you and your mother the best, elastigirl. Any questions you want to throw my way, maybe the Deebs would be willing to pass on my email.
THC wrote:
It does make sense, and I think you should think about it and investigate it and get back to me/us. The protestant trend of thinking that I grew up with just ignored Mary but certainly did not disrespect her or for that matter disrespect women as a whole. But they had not been raised catholic, and having been raised catholic was considered to influence the rest of one’s life if/when one converted to being a baptist. I think that back then if someone had been raised catholic and was now a baptist preacher almost everything he said or did would be watched carefully and with suspicion just because of that prior influence. However, times and thinking change. This current bunch of neo-puritans are a whole different ball game.
Let me suggest something as a place you might start with your investigation, should you choose to do this. And let me say it with all due respect. There are those who think that some of the Marian dogmas go too far. And if they eventually go with Co-Redeemer (Redemptrix), oh my. Perhaps what some people react negatively to is not Mary herself (who would not admire her, for crying out loud) but perhaps they are reacting to some of the Marian dogmas and/or some of the Marian devotional practices of some people. There is no telling what Driscoll or Mahaney saw or dealt with in their early years, or how they may have distorted what they saw.
Anyhow, that was a good observation you had there, and I think there may be more to be said along that line. And I think that a healthy respect for Mary is long overdue in evangelicalism. The lack of it is a big tip-off to a problem, I am thinking.
Have you noticed that the one area that seems to be off limits totally for discussion is Mary? Debate rages on about the papacy and miracles and sacraments and political and medical issues and even the very nature of God–anything and everything except Mary. It seems to be such a highly emotionally charged area that avoiding the whole discussion seems to be the best bet. At least, from my side of the fence it looks like that; don’t know how you all may view it. So, yes, there may be some issue here about Mary that is part of what is going on with some of these neo-puritans.
In other news:
My quiet time began with Psalm 139 today, which I read while grieving the loss of one of our supported national missionary’s newborn baby girl. I woke up to an email that she died early in the morning on Nov. 6. She was 9 days old.
The day before I had sent out a cute picture of her to the church prayer chain. Now she is gone home to be with the Lord. Please pray for the couple, as this is the 2nd child they have lost.
Jesus was right when he said that we would have tribulation in this world. Some of my own troubles are suddenly very small now when compared with a mother’s grief at her daughters death. But we are not like those who have no hope. We know that Jesus has overcome the world and that we are overcomers by faith. Still we are sad for them because when one part of the body suffers, we all suffer with them. It’s what we do.
Someday that mom will see her daughter again, along with the other child they lost. And someday we will have victory over our small troubles. We know that our loving heavenly Father will take care of us, because He cares for us & loves us. Even the darkness is light to Him.
Peace in Christ.
Doug wrote:
And this is the truth we must cling to when the darkness makes no sense. I’ll be praying for your missionaries. Thanks for sharing this with us.
@ Gram3:
Thanks!
THC wrote:
When you diss Eve, you diss all women?
“For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Matthew 12 (also Luke 8)
Lydia wrote:
I don’t know what Eve has to do with it, but I do think that if somebody can convince women to disrespect Mary then they can teach women to disrespect themselves. How so? Mary did not do anything deserving of disrespect. She was female and human. She responded to God’s call on her life. And she stuck with it. Watch her handle her son at age twelve, and watch her at the foot of the cross and in the upper room. All of this is scripture. But if people can disrespect this, then they can certainly disrespect the rest of us, and we can even hate ourselves if being female and human is so bad that even being “the handmaid of the Lord” does not make up for it.
I think we of the baptist or evangelical tradition have taken things too far in one direction trying to compensate for what looks like catholicism taking things too far in the other direction.
I have heard two ways of looking at two crucial statements by Jesus on this subject. One is the one you referenced in which his mother and brothers went looking for Jesus after they heard rumors that he had lost his mind. At this point, with them standing at the door, Jesus made that awesome and inclusive statement in which he included masses of people in the family of the Father. Some have said this meant that he was rejecting his own family of origin. I don’t see that at all, and I think that has been read into the text when it is not there. This statement seems to me to belong with his y’all come message, not with some rejection of anybody.
The other is the statement to the woman in the crowd who wanted to say Jesus’s mother was blessed because of her biological relationship to him, and he said that not that is not it but rather people are blessed who do the will of the father. Ah, but the bible says that Mary did do the will of the father (be it unto me…). Again, this statement does not criticize much less renounce Mary but rather clarifies what are God’s priorities. Biology vs obedience, obedience wins the priority contest.
How can we hold up as examples and make arguments in favor of women by using Deborah and Priscilla and Junia while ignoring or even showing disrespect for Mary whom God himself chose and called and used in a special way? That makes no sense at all. I want to say, what is wrong with this picture?
Personal story (true like they all are.) I had a grandmother named (“X”). Just one given name. I thought that was strange since everybody else had two given names, but I was assured that she only had this one name (“X”). Decades later some folks started searching records for geneology and they found her. Her name on her birth certificate was Mary X. This was extreme anti-catholicism on the side of the family which had a catholic history. I don’t know why, but that was ugly and unnecessary. I think some of this sort of attitude is out there yet.
That’s all I am saying. Honor to whom honor is due, no more or less. And, no, I do not “venerate” Mary.
Clarification. Her middle name was not X. I am just not using her middle name like I don’t use the names of any of my family–ever.
@ Patrice:
Thanks, so much, Patrice. wow, both your daughter and yourself. i am amazed at the amount of knowledge of Lymes just at TWW! She is having the western blot test tomorrow — who knows the what the result will be. I understand that it is hard to diagnose. And she truly may not have it. But all her doctors are scratching their heads and haven’t a clue what’s wrong with her. she is in excruciating pain all day long — amazing no one can figure it out. i mean, we can send people to the moon. but we can’t figure out the human body.
Elastigirl, hugs and prayers from South Africa for you and your mother. I hope that you are able to find the best way forward so that elastimom can start to improve and get better.
About dispensationalism, the rapture and Al Mohler
There is a good you tube video of Albert Mohler talking about eschatology. It runs a little less than 5 minutes. He says that he is not a dispensationalist, but has worked with some and hired some. He presents a concise and easily understood statement about “historic premillenialism” which is his position. Anyhow, the thing I like about the video boils down to first his answer to a question from the audience as to what did he think about the chronology of the end times, and he said “I think it is all going to happen” meaning whatever God has in mind will happen. Then he goes on to say that he does
not believe in the rapture, and states why. The other part I like is his discussion that we are not told some things because we are not supposed to know some things and following Jesus is basically a day to day operation.
The position which he states was the predominant position which I heard in baptist churches long ago, along side of some folks who believed in the rapture but who did not plan their entire lives around it. I don’t know if this is what you all heard, but it is certainly different from Lindsey or LaHaye. Who thought I would be recommending something by Mohler, but I am.
@ Nancy:
Yes,let’s encourage all to explore the differing positions regarding eschatology. It’s no sin to believe in pre / mid/ post millennium or amillennialism.
Sooner or later, all believers will know which position came to pass.
Nancy wrote:
Here’s how I remember things unfolding. Mr. Baptist, Herschel Hobbs was Amill, and that’s what I heard up until the late 1960’s. Amill has been the default position for almost all of Christianity since Augustine’s apologetic for the Kingdom of God in view of the fall of Rome. In my opinion, Augustine engaged in “newspaper exegesis” to re-interpret what the Kingdom of God was, because it wasn’t working out the way it was expected to work out in Christendom. Also, Augustine was from Alexandria, which had also been the home of Philo and Origen, so his hermeneutic was much more allegorical. The Kingdom morphed into a spiritual Kingdom with a spiritual king who became the Pope as vicar of Christ reigning over the kingdom.
Dispensationalism didn’t get much traction in Baptist circles until the the Israel gained control of Jerusalem in the Six-Day War. Dallas Seminary was born out of conservative Presbyterianism, so it wasn’t on the radar screen much in Baptistdom. Dallas’ version of Disp came from the Niagara Bible conferences in the late 19th century, and they were centered on teaching laypeople to read the Bible from a more literal point of view, particularly the prophetic parts. Scofield came from the Niagara movement.
What is interesting about that is that the idea that the Jews would ever be in control of Israel, much less Jerusalem, was laughable at the end of the 19th century when the Niagara conferences were a thing, yet the literal interpretation of the Bible led people to conclude that Israel someday would be in control of Jerusalem and that a huge number of Jews would become believers in their Messiah. This was occurring about the same time as the rise of Zionism among Jews. Interestingly, the Zionists were considered flakey by other Jews! Why would anyone want to move to a land that was either a swamp or a desert?
The core distinctive of Dispensationalism is actually not a pre-Trib rapture. It is the distinction between ethnic Israel and the Church and the idea that God still has business to conduct with the seed of Israel as an ethnic group. When we hear “nation” we think of “nation-state” but the “nation of Israel” in the Bible has always been a more tribal or family idea with tribal lands. So, when the nation-state of Israel took control of Jerusalem, that idea gained some more plausibility. Maybe God had not written off the Jews? The founding of the State of Israel was a political act by the UN, but no one expected Israel to regain Jerusalem in the way the 1967 war unfolded, and many took that as a sign.
Another interesting aspect of that war is that it was in a significant sense a proxy war between the Soviet Union, who was arming the Arab countries, and the USA which was arming Israel. When Israel won that war so quickly and decisively, many Americans took that as an American victory, and it felt culturally like more expiation for the Holocaust. In the American church it was taken as a sign that God was working and also of American exceptionalism.
The other thing that contributed to the rise of Dispensationalism in SBC life is that it takes a more literal approach to the prophetic parts of the Bible, so that was attractive to the conservatives in the SBC during the Battle for the Bible years of the early 1970’s. By that time, Israel had withstood the Yom Kippur War and was still in control of Jerusalem, and that seemed like confirmation of God’s intent to restore Israel.
So, I think that the combination of the 1967 and 1973 Israeli victories made the idea of a revived Israel being part of God’s plan plausible, and then the question became, when will the rapture occur? Who is the Antichrist? What does Ezekiel 38-39 mean? In other words, there was excitement due to the expectation that God was working and lots of speculation about what it all meant. Also, this was the beginning of Christian publishing and music as Big Business, so that also fueled the speculation, because you need a new idea to sell books! Everyone had the magic formula to decode what God had encoded.
I don’t remember non-Dispensational premillennialism being discussed much in Baptist circles until after the 1988 Disappointment. Many were disillusioned when 1988 came and went, and so the thinking shifted due to that, I believe. Plus there were more and more Christians who had no memory of the events of 1947-48, 1967, and 1973 which were so surprising at the time.
Among the Reformed, Amill has always been the dominant view, but they have been challenged by Post-mill and radical Post-mill Dominion or Reconstructionist views. As far as I know, Amill has always been the view of Reformed Baptists and the more liberal Baptists.
Post-mill thinking usually waxes when things are improving and wanes when things are looking bleak. So, there was a rise in Post-mill in the 17th-19th centuries, but the 20th century wars damped it down. However, the Reconstructionists have a bit of twist on things, because it is a triumphalist rise-from-the-ashes-to-rule version of Post-mill that plays better in bad circumstances. That’s why Recons were on the ascendancy in the late 20th century. However, Y2K was to Recons as 1988 was to Dispensationalists.
I believe that the rise of non-Dispensational Premill is due to the influence of George Ladd on people who were disillusioned with Disp but not as allegorically-minded as Amills are. Plain premill has always been an acceptable but minority view among Presbyterians.
Those are some thoughts from my experience of how views changed and why. Basically it seems to me that everyone tries to make the Bible and their experiences and the world make sense. The way we do that looks a lot different, obviously.
@ Nancy:
Nancy, I think we agree on something. 🙂 Or, close are very close to agreement. The more I understand Mary, and specifically the Catholic teaching about her, the more I see Mary as integral to Jesus and the gospel. Mary is the new Eve, the ark of the new covenant. Her entire devotion to Jesus is something for all of us to strive for. “Do whatever he (Jesus) says” is what she said at the wedding feast at Cana. At her behest, Jesus performed his first miracle. That’s the first time she interceded for us. When Jesus was on the cross, he told John, “Behold your mother” and from then on she was for all of us a Mother.
As you mentioned, God singularly chose Mary to be his mother, to take on her DNA, to have her raise him, care for him, watch him suffer and die. Mary knew Jesus 10 times longer than any of the apostles. I have no problem with the Marian dogmas because they all speak to some aspects of the singular grace that she was given. Mary as Queen of Heaven is especially admired by me. In the old testament, the queen was often times the king’s mother, not his wife. Jesus kept the commandments and, to this day, still honors his father and mother. If she is good enough for Jesus to honor, so will I.
BTW, there’s a new book out called Behold Your Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines by Tim Staples. I am going to pick up a copy to read.
THC wrote:
I agree that Mary is a fine example of devotion to Jesus and faithfulness and faith, especially given how her pregnancy would have stigmatized her in her community. Were it not for God’s protection and Joseph’s faith, she no doubt would have been. I wish that I had a small fraction of her faith and faithfulness under what I would consider unendurable circumstances and grief.
However, I disagree with your view of Mary as the ark of the New Covenant. The ark is a vehicle of salvation from death. Therefore, Jesus would be the anti-type of the ark. We are saved via Jesus, not via Mary. Mary was a faithful servant of the Lord, but she has nothing to do with our salvation. Mary is not the New Eve, but she is a New Eve. Every woman who is born of the Spirit because of Jesus’ atonement is a New Eve just as every man who is born of the Spirit is a New Adam.
The word for ark in the case of the Ark of the Covenant is not the same as the one translated ark of Noah or Moses’ basket. Both of those arks were vehicles of salvation from sure destruction and death. But the ark of the covenant is a box or chest or even coffin, though the English word is the same.
The Ark of the Covenant contained the jar of manna (the Bread of Life), the Law tablets (which Moses broke but Jesus fulfilled as the Prophet like unto Moses and the Incarnate Word) and the rod of Aaron which budded (the sprout from the stump of Jesse who would become the Great High Priest). This ark was covered by the Propitiatory Seat or covering place which is what Atonement means. Jesus is the fulfillment of the type of the Ark of the Covenant just as he is the fulfillment of the type of the ark of Noah and the ark of Moses.
THC wrote:
This is one of the major arguments against the position that some protestants take concerning certain statements by Jesus recorded in scripture. If He was to be the spotless lamb, the perfect sacrifice, the fulfillment of the law, then honoring His parents is something which He would have had to do. To ignore that demand of the law is not for consideration. So to then say that well this or that which He said could possibly be understood to be a slight against his mother–come on now. That is reaching so far out that it is not even worth considering. Leaving home to pursue the mission is not a slight. Preaching that God is to be chosen over family however that plays out is not a slight. Saying “but rather..” in the one reference and “whoever does the will of my Father…” in the other reference is not a slight. He did not break the law, not this way or any other way.
And there is this, that reward is promised even to one who so much as gives a cup of cold water…What should we then say? Except not to Mary? Now, speculating further than that would lead us into areas of disagreement and I don’t want to do that. I am trying to present some ideas to dyed in the wool bible believing christians in an area which I think is neglected, and I am going to stay within those bounds.
@ Nancy:
I agree. Nothing Jesus says is offensive towards his mother, actually it’s quite honoring! For instance, using “woman” is like saying “ma’am.”
I think what people fail to realize is that Jesus didn’t suddenly stop honoring his mother after his resurrection and assumption into heaven. He still does and will do for eternity.
My contention is that for many “dyed in the wool bible believing christians” that a skewed view of Mary brings about all sorts of skewed views of women (think Mark Driscoll).
I know many will hate the thought of the rosary but all that is is a view of Christ’s life, passion, and resurrection through the eyes of Mary. Much of it is found in scripture.
THC wrote:
Could I ask, exactly how Jesus still honors Joseph & Mary “to this day”?
THC wrote:
I think you may want to look into the Queen of Heaven idea in the OT, particularly Jeremiah. I think that the Queen of Heaven is the Bride of Christ.
THC wrote:
I’m not sure what you mean by a skewed view of Mary. Protestants reject the veneration of Mary, particularly the view of John Paul II that she is a co-redemptrix. IMO protestants overreact to that by rejecting the honor she is due for her faithfulness.
I’m wondering why you think we should give any special weight to Mary’s view of the events of Christ’s life rather than the Holy Spirit’s view as recorded in the NT?
THC wrote:
Absolutely. Or the other way, that a skewed view of women prevents a positive view of Mary. But I think the two are related. But then, I think this is where we started in this conversation.
Nancy wrote:
What is the skew we are talking about? Mary was the woman who bore the Seed who was promised to the Man and the Woman who both sinned.
I don’t think that protestant resistance to the veneration of Mary is due to misogyny, or at least primarily due to misogyny. I do think that misogyny exists in the Roman Catholic church just as it does in protestant churches just as it does in the world at large. But that is a reflection of Genesis 3 where God told them what life was going to look like as a consequence of their sin.
Gram3 wrote:
It is not just the co-redemptrix thing, since that is not (yet) a dogma, I think. It is rather a whole lot of other Marian beliefs and devotions and apparitions and such also, since this goes way back before JPII. My feeling is that protestants should not let that keep them from believing and doing what is clearly taught and described in scripture, and I think we have let ourselves get pushed too far toward the other end of the spectrum about Mary (and about a few other things which might be interesting to talk about later.)
And I think we have missed something in arguing the role of women in the NT. We say all the time that a woman was the first to know about the resurrection and therefore…Okay. Not a bad argument. But look, the original promise was to Eve concerning the savior. When the fullness of time had come what did God do-first he arranged and incredible pregnancy involving the mother of John the baptist–the Elijah who was to come, only to have her husband be struck into silence for unbelief. Then he called another woman, got her permission and co-operation, and the Word became flesh. So far, we have God actualizing that step in the redemption of humanity and what do we see? Two pregnant women. Good grief. One guy is struck dumb and the other guy is dumb-struck while two pregnant women praise God and take up the challenge and call of God. But where do we hear anybody in protestant-land using this for an argument showing some of God’s attitude toward women? I never have heard it. I did not make this up. This is scripture.
But hey, that is nothing compared to whether Junia was or was not a woman and an apostle, never mind we know nothing else about her. Say what? This is what I am saying. We seem to be allergic to Mary, allergic to thinking that Jesus was raised by a Jewish mother, blind to evidences that she participated peripherally in his preaching ministry by accompanying him at least some, and oblivious that she was there after the ascension and was among the 120 just like she was there before his birth as a faithful servant of God. What the blip are we thinking? And I have not said one thing outside of scripture right now. We as protestants act like we do not like Mary and we try to make her invisible. I say that we have let ourselves get pushed into this position and it is incorrect. We need to stop this. If we say all the time “the bible says” and if we announce that we preach it cover to cover–well we need to do it or find another motto.
And no, I have not checked my memory against scripture this morning, so if somebody has chapter and verse where I am wrong please correct me. I am not exactly on any OCD scale but I do hate to be too far off the track.
Gram3 wrote:
The skewed view of women is the view of women which is one of your arguments against Grudem et al, how he and his ilk view women. The skewed view of Mary is to try to make her as invisible as possible as a way of reacting against some of the catholic opinions in this area.
I was writing the above comment and did not see your comment when I hit the yellow button. Did not mean to be oblique.
@ Nancy:
Sorry to be so cryptic, I was joking about Eve. Agree with you on Mary and that passage. It was not about dissing her but showing that doing the will of God is what is imporant. And His will has not changed: Do Justice, be merciful and walk humbly.
Mary is a hero of the faith like Paul or anyone else. I know a lot of people who put Paul right up there with Jesus.
@ Nancy:
I agree. We have developed an allergic response to any honor being given to Mary because we are afraid of the veneration of her. My reference to co-redemptrix is just to illustrate the extreme veneration of JP2 which looks a lot like worship to me and dethrones Christ as sole Redeemer.
To expand on and possibly quibble with what you said about the Promised Seed of Woman, I think that the fact that the Redeemer came without male participation is the answer to the argument that male priority arises from the fact that the Woman came from the Man. The fact is that in both cases the human was a passive participant in God’s work in creation and re-creation. We cannot take “credit” and are not required to accept “blame” as a gender class for what individuals of a particular gender have done or for what God has done through them.
It was a great honor for Man to have been created first. It was a great honor for a Woman to bear the Redeemer. I think that is the point of Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 11. We need to stop arguing about who is more important or who is the leader based on gender or social status of any kind. If you think about the topics Paul addressed in Galatians, Ephesians, Corinthians, Philemon, and the Pastorals, it is apparent that this idea of status or prominence was just as much a problem in the early church as it is today. We really need to stop looking like the world where status and status markers are everything.
THC wrote:
Ok, so maybe I missed the protocol meeting, but this question of mine seems to have been ignored by THC. So I’ll ask anyone who cares to answer; Can someone please explain how Jesus is still honoring His father – Joseph – and His mother – Mary – to this day?
I assumed that THC was talking about keeping the 4th commandment. I would like to know how exactly Jesus is still keeping this commandment “to this day”, as THC has said.
That is not something I have ever heard before, and I am curious as to how, exactly, that works.
@ Doug:
I don’t know what THC meant since I don’t see it from a Roman Catholic viewpoint. I think it is reasonable to say that Jesus still honors his mother and Joseph, his adopted father. It depends on what someone means by honor. If looked at from the perspective of Kingdom values it makes some sense. Jesus the Greatest showed honor to the least. If it means that Jesus holds them up in Heaven as special objects of veneration, then I would disagree.
@ Gram3:
adopted should be adoptive
Doug wrote:
Not at all. I have other things to do in life. I guess I would have to turn the question to you. Knowing that Jesus won’t break his commandments, how would he honor Mary now? Ponder that a minute and really think about it. Take a couple days actually because it is profound.
I think that the Church’s view is that she is the queen of heaven, just as those kings in the old testament had their mother’s as queen. It’s a place of honor, not authority. She isn’t equal with God (and the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that). She would say today what she said at Cana, “Do whatever he says.” She is the Saint with the highest honor.
Gram3 wrote:
Thank you for your response. I am a bit confused. Wasn’t the 4th commandment part of the Old Covenant? And if so, then wasn’t it’s promise was tied to the land? I can see how Jesus fulfilled the law and kept all of the 10 commandments, but for the life of me I cannot see how fulfilling something at a point in time (the cross) extends to the present day. Doesn’t “fulfill” meant “completed”?
And in context, wouldn’t the 4th commandment be limited to those known as the earthly parents? Joseph was known as Jesus’ father, and Mary as His mother. So keeping the command to honor them would have been limited in scope, wouldn’t it? Wasn’t he honoring Mary when He passed her into John’s house?
Forgive my confusion, but what THC said doesn’t even make sense. And that seemed to be the basis of THC’s honoring Mary. Unless I read it wrong. Better get more coffee…
Gram3 wrote:
Jesus loved and loves his mother very much. More so than you or I can imagine. Her womb was the holy of holies. She bore the incarnate Word of God. Elizabeth’s unborn baby lept in her womb when he came in the presence of the pregnant Mary just as David lept and danced at the presence of the ark of the covenant.
Do you believe Jesus holds Mary in a special place in heaven or is she just the same as the other Saints?
Doug wrote:
So you don’t need to honor your mother and father now? WWYMS? (What would your mother say?)
I guess by extension you can commit adultery and kill and steal?
THC wrote:
Sorry, but I don’t play that game. It really wasn’t a difficult question. So when you have time, I would appreciate hearing exactly how that works in the present day. Thanks.
Doug wrote:
I don’t know how that might work. But if the choices are honor, dishonor and ignore then somebody has surely thought about this and has some ideas. I do agree with Gram3. I think that God honors us all in the very reality of redemption and adoption into the family of God, and I do think that scripture teaches that there is recompense or lack of it based on “works” (oh, goodness, I said that word) but I do not mean as related to salvation. So I think it is safe to think that Jesus has not forgotten his people or neglected his people or been stingy or tightfisted with his people. The whole well done good and faithful servant thing…So I don’t know, but I see nothing in scripture to indicate that Jesus abandons his people now or later, or fails in the promises, or betrays anybody. And there are just all kinds of promises. Not that you said that, you understand. But, it seems to me that this is another area which seems to have fallen by the wayside in our thinking lately.
@ Doug:
I think confusion comes when we talk about Jesus fulfilling the law. I prefer to think that he *is* the fulfillment of the laws, just as he fulfilled all of the laws given to Moses. So, the letter of the law was abolished but the principles behind the law, which was a dim reflection of God’s holiness, endure in the One who *is* the Logos.
The honor/shame system would dictate that his parents have the highest honor, but he showed that the honor/shame system is of no effect in the Kingdom. It doesn’t mean that he did not honor his earthly parents, though frequently we misinterpret certain incidents as being disrespectful of his mother or his family. I think he was just teaching the greater significance of Kingdom relationships compared to family or tribal relationships, and that was truly counter-cultural.
Doug wrote:
And I answered it!
@ Nancy:
Nancy, to be perfectly honest, the idea that Jesus is still fulfilling or needing to keep the commandments is a new one to me. It was my understanding that Jesus fulfilled the law, which included the 10 commandments (along with he rest of them) at the cross. As you know, at that moment (of His death) the veil in the temple was ripped from top to bottom exposing the most holy place. According to my reading of Hebrews, Jesus abolished the Old Covenant. Therefore there would be no need to continually honor Mary in order to perpetually fulfill the Old Covenant. If she has some special place of honor in heaven we do not know because we are not told. If someone has been told that she has some special honor, I think it falls under the category of extra-Biblical revelation. That is a separate question from Jesus honoring us. And we know from His promise that He will never leave us of forsake us.
THC wrote:
Ok, I am done with you. thanks.
Gram3 wrote:
I agree. And when you comment I feel like a paper airplane in the wake of the space shuttle…
THC wrote:
I disagree that Mary’s womb was the [antitype] of the Holy of Holies. That doesn’t make any sense. The Holy of Holies signified where God is met face-to-face. Only the High Priest was allowed to enter, and then only on the Day of Atonement.
Your argument is somewhat self-defeating, because Mary’s womb has as much significance this side of the Cross as the Holy of Holies does.
The curtain veiling the Holy of Holies was torn at the Cross because Jesus had made full atonement for our sin and was the Atonement who covered our shame. The veil that was torn was erected in the first place to protect the people from being destroyed if they were exposed to God’s holiness, and that’s why it was so heavy. After Christ provided atonement, it was no longer necessary, just as the entire Temple system was no longer necessary.
Under your typology it seems as if the birth of Jesus would have been the tearing of the curtain event as Jesus emerged from her womb.
As for the unborn John the Baptist leaping in Elizabeth’s womb, that had nothing to do with the presence of Mary but everything to do with the presence of the unborn Messiah. That is the OT theme of joy in Messiah being lived out as is clear in Luke 1 and which recalls Malachi 4. David was rejoicing in the visible presence of the Lord which the Ark of the Covenant represented. That the the point of comparison: joy in the presence of the Lord, not joy in Mary’s presence.
I don’t believe in super-saints. I believe that all who are in Christ are saints of the Most High God. I believe that Mary is and will be recognized as the human mother of Jesus, which is certainly an honor, but that is not the same thing as being set apart as a super saint for special veneration.
@ Doug:
She is the woman “clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.” Rev. 12.
THAT’S a place of honor. Why? You wouldn’t have Jesus without Mary. Sure, Jesus could have done it another way, but he chose Mary. We know that the kingdom isn’t just a mass of “equals”. Some have more reward, more “status.” You believe in rewards right? Mary just happens to top the list. Not because I said it, but because God did it.
Gram3 wrote:
Luke 1 is referring to 2 Samuel 6 when David approached the ark of the covenant and lept and danced for joy. And in Revelation 11:19, John sees a vision of the ark of the covenant and shows what that is in Rev. 12- Mary. Jesus is the New Covenant and Mary is the Ark that bore him.
Mary’s womb is a sacred place, it is the Holy of Holies. As you said no one could enter it except for the high priest (Jesus). Foreshadowed in Ezekiel 44:2: “Then said the Lord unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.”
RE: Mary
Nancy, I agree that Mary is given little honor in the evangelical world. I would also go so far as to say that she is ignored. The only reason I have ever heard verbalized is that “we don’t want to be too soft on Roman Catholicism”. So if you see the Catholic Church as a mission field, then you would want to stand apart from them in every way. Every movement needs it’s bogey man.
The treatment of women in evangelicalism is, imo, horrible. The ignoring of the women in scripture is reflective of a general ignorance of scripture imo. A lot of it stems from men who want to set up the a type of “Chinese wall” with women based on one passage of scripture and their weak understanding of the role of women in the Kingdom of God.
The most significant spiritual influences in my life have been women. Maybe I am just pu**ified. But I believe that we can learn just as much from her as we can from the rest of the disciples once we realize that we are reading a narrative and not a law book.
@ Gram3:
The catholic imagination is different from the protestant imagination in many ways. This difference is more broad than deep. By that I mean it affects more things rather than that we are miles apart in a few things. Andrew Greeley wrote about this as results of some studies they had done. I am seeing THC as she sees analogies and relationships which you do not see, and I see you saying things which are coming from not just a different viewpoint but from a different way of experiencing “imagination” for want of a better word.
If I say this it will be misunderstood, but this is the best I can do. Comparing the two ways of imagining is like comparing an instructional manual with a poem. Either approach can lead to either accuracy or error, but the path to the conclusion travels through different parts of the woods.
Another example. The art teacher at the school said this, that real artists actually perceive visual realities differently. Not everybody who visits a museum or crochets an afghan is a “real artist” but there are those who are, and their brains work somewhat differently than mine.
We see this kind of thing with “real” musicians and mathematicians. I had a violin teacher whack me over the head with the back of her bow when I thought I had it right with the Vivaldi Concerto in A minor, but she said no, it was technically correct but I did not feel it. Bingo. Same thing.
Anyhow, I think this is part of what happens between catholics and protestants sometimes.
THC wrote:
Sorry, that is Israel. 12 stars = 12 tribes. Try again. Still have not answered how Jesus is honoring Joseph and Mary as mother and father to this day. Sorry.
Nancy wrote:
You are right Nancy. First, you can refer to me as a “he” because that is what I am. But just as your imagination is that I am a “she”, so to it is that many people interpret scripture through their own reality lens. I have heard you use the word “tradition” and that is what it is. Baptist tradition is just that, tradition, which has its roots in the last 500 years.
To argue with someone about what scripture means is really just a “he said, “she said” discussion. What matters is who is interpreting it. This is the Protestant dilemma. 40,000 denominations all saying they can interpret the Bible. I am not a cradle Catholic, but a Catholic convert. The reason is simple…authority. I love the Catholic Church because it has the FULLNESS of truth. Not that Protestants don’t have truth. They DO. The Trinity comes to mind among many other things. I find in Catholicism the richness of the faith, including Mary, especially Mary. It’s the difference between eating dinner or just looking at the menu.
THC wrote:
You mean when they killed the people who disagreed with them? That kind of authority?
THC wrote:
I’m afraid you’re going to have to walk me through this. You are making a lot of assumptions, not least of which is that the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary.
The leaping is done for joy in the presence of the Lord. Messiah is the son of David. I don’t see how you get from David leaping in the presence of the Ark of the Covenant to Mary being the Ark of the Covenant.
I don’t even want to go near the gate being shut typology. I suppose that is taken as evidence that she was a perpetual virgin, assuming it even is referring to Mary at all. If you want to believe that, then I’m not going to convince you. Honestly, this is a Jewish text and context, and you are putting things into a Jewish text which are not Jewish ideas. That’s all I want to say about that, but people who are familiar with Gentile religions know what I’m talking about.
Doug wrote:
No, the authority that Jesus gave the Church in Matthew 16.
Ad Hominem attacks may be persuasive at face value, but ultimately don’t win the argument.
THC wrote:
Will do. I like your poetry, but I do not arrive at all your conclusions. I am sure there are other topics which will come up from time to time where our conclusions are the same. It will be interesting to see.
Gram3 wrote:
By extension, you must then dismiss all OT prophecies about Jesus because they were a “Jewish context.” Good job! The modern day Jews would heartily agree with you!
Nancy wrote:
Thanks. But I am not trying to wax poetic. I am trying to explain as best I can what the Church teaches.
@ Gram3:
I can’t bring myself to enter this conversation and I was a “cradle Catholic” (what is meant by that I do not know). It almost seems like a put down, but I’m not sure.
Nancy wrote:
Maybe we should inquire into the notion of ‘salvation’. What does it mean? Does it mean different things in different paradigms (eg. Greek vs. Hebrew thought parameters)? Same with ‘works’.
THC wrote:
An historical fact is not an ad hominem.
Ah yes, it is all about the keys isn’t it. Yeah, I have seen that movie before. Lot’s of bloodshed. High body count. No thanks.
Funny thing. I have a personal rule not to participate in a religion (or it’s children) where it’s champions kill the people they disagree with. It’s silly, I know.
If you want to throw the authority of the “church” around, and identify with said “church, then you have to answer for the history of authority in that “church”.
Sorry. It’s date night so I’ll go decompress. Have a nice weekend and a good Lord’s day.
@ Nancy:
No doubt about different presuppositions. Let’s just say I have some personal experience with Roman Catholic presuppositions. I think the burden lies with the one making the claim, in this case that Mary should be venerated absent explicit textual evidence.
“Cakegate” in Northern Ireland, as reported in that classy rag, the Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2824510/The-real-victims-bigotry-family-bakers-dragged-court-opponents-gay-marriage-persecuted-Tories-vowed-protect-them.html
THC wrote:
Before I start, let me assure you that I respect the Catholic church tremendously. I disagree with many evangelicals who look down on it.
But, I do not see the Catholic church as any better in dealing with the faith and Scripture. It has had its share of embarrassments throughout the centuries, just like the Protestants.
The Inquisition, the Galileo event, the “three popes and counting” incident, indulgences leading to the Vatican being built on the backs of the poor, the excommunication and reinstatement of Luther, the infamous interdicts to force people to do their will, the innumerable children birthed by the mistresses of popes and bishops, etc., the wink and nod at the Mafia, pedophilia, annulments for those with influence…
Please do not think I am pointing this out and saying it is worse than the Protestants. It is not. Pervasive sin is apparent in all permutations of the church: Protestant and Catholic.
As for Mary, I do believe she has been overlooked within Protestantism because of an over reaction to what is seen as over the top veneration by the RCC. I have been planning on writing a post about this. It will probably be too much for some evangelicals and too little for some Catholics.
What I am saying is there is a lot on both sides which should embarrass us all.
As for Biblical interpretation, I agree with Doug on the twelve stars. However, I certainly can see where Catholics are coming from.
The most important thing for all of us to remember that only Jesus got it right 100%. We don’t. We do choose to follow one way or the other and all of us think we are right. However, we need to be like Jesus and show some humility as we approach one another.
Assuming that you goal is to get us to understand the RCC, I think understatement will accomplish the goal more effectively.
Doug wrote:
It’s also a red herring.
Doug wrote:
I am a former Protestant and honestly, this argument doesn’t hold water. First, to a non-Christian, I had to account for it as much as any Catholic does. Saying “It was the CATHOLICS not me!” is just preposterous to the person saying it. Secondly, you do realize that Protestants killed Catholics as well because they disagreed with them?
As you said, “So if you see the Catholic Church as a mission field, then you would want to stand apart from them in every way.” I think this clarifies your position here nicely.
Doug wrote:
Have a nice evening. My regards to your wife!
Bridget wrote:
I don’t think it is a put down but just a statement of fact, like cradle-roll Baptist or baptized Presbyterian or Methodist. If you meant that I have said something as a put down of Roman Catholicism, then I apologize. I try to argue issues, but I understand where Roman Catholics are coming from pretty well.
@numo, as previously promised, your movie selection for the week if you so choose ! I don’t know if you have an ‘Australiana’ section online or at your local DVD shop, but here’s five suggestions for your viewing pleasure – I think you would put these in the ‘Australian quirky’ genre perhaps. I will add more female actors into the next suggestion list !
Crackerjack (2002) – with Mick Molloy
Mullet (2001) – with Ben Mendelsohn & Susie Porter (hint – the title is not about a haircut, but rather a fish)
Spotswood (1992) – also titled The Efficiency Expert – with Anthony Hopkins and Ben Mendelsohn
He died with a felafel in his hand (2001) – with Noah Taylor
Gettin’ square (2003) with David Wenham
Muff Potter wrote:
If you have some ideas along those lines I would be interested in hearing what you have to say. My thinking is pretty simple, protestant-traditional with a fair sized periphery of toleration for some other people’s ideas, within limits. In other words, I am thinking that probably you have thought about it more than I have.
THC wrote:
Again, I don’t know how you get that idea. The fact is that the Bible was written in a Jewish context. The book of Revelation was written by a Jew who used who knows how many allusions to the Hebrew Bible, the OT. In no way do I dismiss the OT prophecies because they were made by Jews to Jews. The Bible is for all believers. What I said was that your interpretation of Revelation is imposing non-Jewish ideas on a Jewish text written by a Jew.
The proper way to study the book of Revelation or Ezekiel is not to just assume things, because apocalyptic and prophetic literature needs to be handled very carefully.
I think, respectfully, that your position would be strengthened with protestants if you would use textual arguments. Everyone knows that we disagree about the authority of tradition vs. the authority of Scripture. As I said to Nancy, you are the one making the claim that Mary should be venerated. If you want to believe that, then God bless you. If you want to convince protestants, then bare assertions of authority just will not suffice.
@ Gram3:
It wasn’t referring to what you said. THC used the term.
I walked away from Catholicism as a teenager. I couldn’t handle the drunk priests and mean nuns. Too much hypocrisy that this then teenager couldn’t let slide. Very much like the teens of today probably 😉
Bridget wrote:
There was a prior conversation with somebody (maybe THC or maybe not) in which the person was an enthusiastic advocate for something or the other, I really can’t remember. The conversation got kind of edgy, and the person said he was a convert and not a cradle catholic. To which somebody said it shows and upbraided him for excessive enthusiasm or brashness or something. I think somebody suggested that the person take a couple of years to get himself settled a little before saying too much more.
Cradle catholic, to those of us who are not catholic, carries with it the connotation of somebody who speaks the language with a native accent, has filed away the rough edges of both belief and personality maybe, and with whom one can talk calmly and rationally. It is, in other words, a good thing.
dee wrote:
Being that you aren’t Catholic, I can understand how your position is that the Catholic should be “understating”. Let me assure you that I am not “overstating”. I am explaining. If you noticed, I found much agreement with Nancy. I know that relativism is the mantra of our society, but does that include doctrine?
As for your rehashing of the things you find problematic with the CC, I don’t disagree with you that there have been things in the past that were dark periods in the Church. No honest Catholic would disagree. That said, Christ never said the Church would be PERFECT. It is made up of humans, with the tendency to sin. Where we disagree is that imperfections in the Church doesn’t diminish the fact that the CC, through all its foibles, is Christ’s Church. Now I know you don’t like the idea of anyone having keys, but that is scriptural, and they were given to St. Peter. If you read the early church fathers you will see that they were Catholic in doctrine and teachings, not protestant as most assume.
I resent that you think I am somehow not humble when I interact here. That’s a problem. To not assert any truth or definitive opinion is a protestant invention. That’s because there is no “Protestant Authority” to make definitive claims on faith and morals. It’s left up to one’s conscience to decide. Read the scripture, decide what it means, and then don’t rock the boat on anything. The truth is that the Church has made many definitive statements that is accepted to this day outside of the Catholic Church, such as the Trinity and even which books belong in the Bible. Do we need to keep an open mind that the Gospel of Thomas is inspired scripture? If I say it isn’t, am I not being “humble” as you put it?
Bridget wrote:
Thankfully you NEVER see such behavior in Protestant churches. No hypocrites there for sure!
Here in Rockville MD where I live I got a very glossy flyer in the mail about a new church plant. Im not interested in going but thought if any SGM refugees wanted to check it out.
Myforesthillsbaptist.com
Gram3 wrote:
I think it depends on which Protestants you have in the room. You can’t agree with each other on much of the Bible anyway, let alone a Catholic interpretation.
@ Gram3:
I have always understood the term to mean people who were baptized Catholic/Lutheran/Orthodox/Anglican/a couple of other denominations as infants and thus counted as members of the church in which they were baptized. The term also i, plies (imo) being raised in whatever church one was baptised in, going through cathechism classes, receiving communion, etc.
Sometimes the tefm seems to be a stand-in for “nominal,” but i took what you said at face value, as people in it from the get-go.
Bridget, i don’t know if this is helpful or not, or if it’s just me being wordy! 😉
@ numo:
Meant to say “implies.”
@ THC:
THC, was that really necessary?
Not sure if you are aware of the ptofound differences and disagrerments among members of ghe RCC today as yet. But the fact remains that there are many Catholics who hold widely differing opinions on many things (the veneration of Mary being one of ghem, but by no means the only thing, let alone most important). There have bern profound disagreemrnts in the Western church throughout its history, and msny of yhe since the Protestant Reformation.
I am not sure that hostility and sarcasm are helpful in tjis discussiin – rather, the opposite.
THC wrote:
THC what do you think my comment about the teens of today meant? How about they see the same thing in the church (universal) today? I did come to faith in the evangelical world, but am now a none (none church goer) because I see the hypocrisy now as well. No need to get in a wad over the reality of my experience in the CC.
@ numo:
Apologies for all the typos. Android…
@ Haitch:
Ooh, thanks! Not sure where or how I’ll find these, but they’re going on my list.
The next to last title – LOLZ.
@ Bridget:
The nuns i lived with had their own horror stories about mean nuns and alcoholic priest! (No surprise to you, I’m sure.)
fortunately, a lot of religious orders do much more rigorous psychological screening today – not that they have people battering the doors down, but you know what i mean…
@ numo:
Yes. And, honestly, I’d love to be able to go back and lisen to the life stories of the ones who were alcoholic and mean. I’m sure many (most) were dealing with their own pain.
Bridget wrote:
That’s cool. I was just pointing out the obvious that the Church (Catholic or Protestant) is full of hypocrites. If we are honest with ourselves, we all are.
@ THC:
The term Protestant is very generic, like evanglical. They both cover a multitude of sins as it were. I think there is surprisingly more unity on essentials of doctrine and faith, the fundamentals if you like, amongst non-Catholics than you think. There are numerous disagreements on secondary matters, like church government structure, and differences on emphasis. Hardly surprising, the bible is a large book, and all believers are in a process of growing in knowledge and grace.
Has it every occurred to you that the seeming unity of the Catholic Church – and I am not convinced it is as monolithic as it likes to portray itself – is due to suppressing dissent? There is no central human authority over protestantism, so such an appearance of outward unity is far less possible to achieve.
I don’t have a particular axe to grind on this centuries old dispute except to say if I were ever to confuse putting my faith in Christ himself as saviour with trusting the church and those who populate it, I would almost certainly have long since become agnostic.
numo wrote:
Disagreements, yes, but the Church is united in what she teaches. As we’ve seen throughout history, those who (rightly or wrongly) disagreed with the Church have broken themselves off from her, started their own thing.
@ THC:
I think you might be missing the point i was attempting to make.
Ken wrote:
I do agree that the term “protestant” is a broad brush. I should be more precise and say “non-Catholics.” But for ease of use I will use the term protestant because that makes up the majority on this board.
I think if you look broadly at the scope of protestantism today you will find vast differences. Are works necessary for salvation? Is infant baptism OK? Is baptism eeven necessary? Can you lose your salvation? Let alone all the moral issues such as homosexuality, birth control, abortion, etc. What are the “essentials?” I don’t think protestants even can agree upon that.
THC wrote:
But Peter was a Jew, THC. And I don’t find scripture that calls him “St. Peter” any more than St. Paul, St. Mary, etc. I’ve always found that strange.
@ Bridget:
I think loneliness is one of the commonest factors in alcoholism where priest are concerned. And i very much agree about hurting people. I know that, pre-Vatican II, many orders told postulants what they were going to do – teach, nurse, orphanage work, hospital administration – and they had to do it, regardless of whether they had any ability at it or inclination toward it or not. That created a pergect storm situation for the religious ad well as for those who had to endure them and their job (etc.) frustration.
@ Bridget:
That’s a relief. No one has a corner on hypocrisy, that’s for sure.
@ THC:
I would be interested in seeing your take on these things about 10 years from now, when you’ve been part of the RCC long enough to get a feel for some of the things i referred to.
@ THC:
I think you and some of the new converts to the Orthodox church might have some interesting discussions. 😉
Victorious wrote:
Can I call you St. Victorious? I love that name- Victorious. Paul said “To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi.” Are you a saint? Aren’t all Christians saints?
THC wrote:
No, that’s not right. There is authority in Protestant churches. The authority in every believer’s life is the Holy Spirit. The authority for faith and practice is the Bible. Various protestant churches have other kinds of authority, and I don’t agree with all of them. So your claim is simply false. If you want to make the claim that there must be only one human authority of the universal church, then you need to demonstrate that claim with some evidence.
It is perfectly acceptable for a Roman Catholic to be baptized, observe the other sacraments as necessary, believe what they want and ignore the rest, and not rock the boat. I know quite a few of them. That is not peculiar to protestantism or Catholicism.
Rather, that is precisely how people function in organizations and dysfunctional relationships. However that is not how people function in healthy relationships, which is what the church should be–the body of the Lord with its members ministering to one another as gifted by the Holy Spirit.
THC wrote:
No, we don’t agree with one another. That is why we are instructed to interact with one another in the power of the Holy Spirit and sharpen one another as iron sharpens iron. You seem to be assuming that universal agreement is what the Lord desires from his church. He desires unity, and that does not demand uniformity. Maybe the Lord is more interested in how we take our journey than they precise route we take.
@ Ken:
Sorry Ken, I repeated what you said and I agree. I usually work my way down the thread and end up repeating things.
THC wrote:
I think you are mistaken. It depends on what you mean by “what she teaches.” There are many schools of thought in Roman Catholicism. Pre-Vat2 or Post-Vat2, for example.
History shows that the Roman Catholic church, like certain protestant churches, has allowed people to leave peacefully and without consequence only fairly recently. Others were not permitted to leave under such pleasant circumstances, just as with certain protestant churches. The commonality is whether the church has the formal or informal power of the sword.
THC wrote:
You are making assertions without evidence. There was extensive discussion regarding what the keys are and what Jesus meant when he renamed Peter and gave him the keys. I don’t want to rehash that here since you can read my explanation on the 9Marks Keys posts.
St. Peter is not mentioned anywhere in the text of the Bible.
The Early Church Fathers were men who were not inerrant and who were not all in agreement with one another. That defeats your appeal to them to support your assertion of uniformity in the teaching of The Church, even if, for the sake of argument, I grant the validity of an overarching institutional church. I think you would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that the ECF taught the developed Roman Catholic doctrine of today. That doesn’t prove anything one way or the other.
numo wrote:
As well as cage-stage Calvinist converts.
THC wrote:
You misunderstand my intent. It is not the Catholic but everyone. And, if you have read this blog enough, you should know that I am most supportive of those who are Catholic, far more than many.
THC wrote:
What I am saying is that the Catholic church does not have a leg up on the Protestants when it comes to dealing with sin.
THC wrote:
Not only have I read the early church fathers, I taught a class on the beliefs of the early church fathers which encompassed the period of time from immediately post apostolic through about 300.I would disagree with you assessment, by the way. As for Peter, I view his confession that Jesus is the Christ as the "on this rock I will be my church." I am well aware of the view of the RCC on the matter, having discussed it with Father Bernardi in Dallas. Great guy-he helped me to accurately portray the Catholic point of view and was very kind to me.
THC wrote:
Nope- one can state one's belief system and be *sure* they are correct but do it in a manner that draws people into the conversation. Jesus did that a lot.
THC wrote:
I don't believe we need to keep an open mind on the Gospel of Thomas. I don't believe it is part of the canon. But, if someone said to me that they believed it, I might be interested in drawing them out, seeking to understand their point of view. The' I'm right and you are dead wrong" certainly conveys your point of view but it doesn't do much in a dialogue.
BTW, your Pope Francis is a wonderful example of one who dialogues. He has invited a bunch of evangelicals to Rome to have a discussion with him. I think highly of him. Do you know that when he became cardinal, he asked Luis Palau to come and lay hands on him and pray for him? Now that is how to build bridges.
http://www.charismanews.com/world/38766-evangelist-luis-palau-has-laid-hands-on-pope-francis
THC wrote:
All believers who trust in Christ are saints, and they are victorious overcomers through the victory which he won for us.
@THC, I’m curious – what’s your take on liberation theology?
Gram3 wrote:
Yes, they are, but not as an elevated “position” as is the practice of the RCC I believe. It’s conferred as an emblem of a particular level of holiness not apparently designated to the “average” catholic. That’s been my understanding.
Victorious wrote:
I might add that it seems to become a title attached to the name as evidence of a particular sign of the individual’s holiness by miracles performed after their death.
Victorious wrote:
Yes, that’s what I was trying to say. None of us are at an exalted level over others, whether now or in eternity. We are only saints because we are in Christ, not because special status has been conferred upon us whether it’s ordination or beatification or canonization or anything else.
@ Gram3:
Having seen more than a few arguments betwwen converts to both Catholicism and Orthodody that basically amounted to “my church is better than your church,” my thought is that they end up canceling themselves (and each other) out, in both the long and short run.
Which is worlds apart from saying “My understanding of X is…” and the like.
As for Protestant churches being some kind of bloc, well, i will admit to feeling completely at sea whenthe SBC, dispensationalism etc. are mentioned, because they’re just not part of my (Protestant) world.
When i lived with the nuns, they encouraged me to stay Lutheran rather than convert to the RCC. They believed that Christ was just as present with us as he was with them. Kinda ironic in light of some of the comments today, no?
@ Victorious:
That is part of the current process of canonization, but i don’t think anyone can dispute the part about saintly/Christlike character during the earthly life of any given person who has bern canonized. (Though the church’s calendar of feast days underwent a lot of cleanup post-Vatican II, when a lot of “saints” who camefrom folk religion, paper errors, spurious legends and the like were removed from both ofgicial sainthood *and* the church calendar of saints’ days.) There are good reasons for the existence of All Saints’ Day, which is also observed by some of us over on the Protestant side of the aisle. Many of us also use the title “St.” in reference to the Four Evangelists and the 12 apostles, plus a few other folks. But our criteria aren’t the same as the RCCs’, nor is the understanding of sainthood.
In the end, i honestly think this is mostly small stuff, and isn’t going to make a bit of difference in the presence of God. I don’t think he wants anything to spoil his party for all of us prodigals, you know?
dee wrote:
Quite true! But that’s different than the position of the CC being Christ’s Church. As sinful as people are, it doesn’t diminish Christ’s promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
With all due respect, I’ve been on this blog for years and I am very familiar with your posts. I find that you are quick to jump to the “attitude” accusation when you don’t agree with a poster’s position.
As far as the early fathers, I would just suggest that you read them without the bias of anti-Catholicism. I can provide links to their actual writings if you would like.
Gram3 wrote:
Not familiar with the discussion, but I am sure it has something to do with big rock and little rock or Peter’s faith, etc. Not sure, but that’s the usual argument. Jesus was speaking singularly to Peter and gave HIM the keys.
Gram3 wrote:
Sure seems that way to me.
“I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.”
THC wrote:
The only thing I am protesting is those who use the guise of authority, real or imagined, to oppress people and kill them, either spiritually or physically.
You know nothing about me and you never will. Religious bully’s do not impress me. I have endured enough abuse to last me two lifetimes.
I wish you could hear yourself. I asked as simple question, and a real question to boot, and got nothing in return. So be it.
Have fun. I hope you find what you are looking for in your new found faith.
THC wrote:
“FULLNESS of truth”, hmmm. Mulling on that.
Doug wrote:
I’m not a bully, I am a teddy bear. Honestly. I guess I just don’t use enough emoticons to show it. 🙂 😉 🙂
And, I gave you an answer to your question. Do you want me to copy/paste it for you?
@ THC:
Actually, you are incorrect in your assumption about what I think. I believe that the Lord spoke to Simon Peter and clearly told him that Jesus would give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. If you are really interested, you can do a search on this site, or you can check the archives for October. I do not believe that you can demonstrate from Matthew 18 that Peter was the first pope or that he was given the authority to rule the church. That is eisegesis, but you are certainly free to believe that and to submit to the authority of the pope if you choose to do so.
In John 17 the Lord prayed that his people would be completed in unity, not in complete uniformity. That is a very big difference. There are brothers and sisters in Christ with whom I disagree, but we are in united in love for one another and we are united by the Holy Spirit and we are united in the purpose of promoting the Gospel of Christ.
The Roman Catholic church has divisions as well, as I stated before. However, if you believe that unity means uniformity and that the Roman Catholic church demonstrates uniformity, then I don’t think I will be able to convince you otherwise.
numo wrote:
Well, I’m pretty sure the Lord isn’t concerned about whether our nametags are red or blue or green or yellow. I take the Lord at his word that the Holy Spirit is with us and in us if we are in Christ. I don’t know who is in Christ, and I don’t need to know, and I don’t need church “authorities” with any kind of “keys” to testify to whether or not I am in Christ.
It may be a blessing to you not to be concerned with the goings on in the SBC. There are no doubt things in your church that you can deal with better than those of us who are not Lutheran. We need to clean our own closets.
@ Gram3:
Oh trust me, my Lutheran synod has plenty of problems, and frankly, i would rather steer clear of them and just *be.*
@ Gram3:
About the nametags: i just don’t think God cares about that, and in my time living with the nuns, i saw that they thought like that. I am so grateful for having the opportunity to live w/them for a while. As an older single woman, i find myself thinking of them and of their example quite often. (I never intended to remain single; it’s how things happened, and i figure i might as well kick back and enjoy my life rather than feeling inaquate, as i did for my entire time in the evangelical world.)
I think the discussion includes the major issue of what is the definition of church. And, of the variety of several all-true meanings of the word, what is the relative importance of each. If I remember correctly from RCIA, the RCC itself uses the concept in more than one way. I can look that up later.
I can’t talk this morning for a while. Going to an early morning sale on men’s clothing at one of our favorite places at the mall. My ride is due soon, trying to be part of the first 100 who get something or other as a prize. So, armed with his plastic and my plastic we are doing an open assault on his wardrobe. Not sure how much he knows about that, but his wife called me and cooked this all up. He who gets a good wife gets a good thing.
Comment moderation team: please delete my comment that is in moderation. I have my reasons. Thanks. Happy good morning to you all.
I’ve watched the development of Marian arguments and Papal authority over the last few days with amazement and disbelief.
To correct the mistaken notion that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant I can do no better than refer readers to the fallibility.blogspot.ie where the case is dismantled step by step. The conclusion there is that
“If you are predisposed to believing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and then decide to go to scripture to see if this is so, I have no doubt you’ll find the “evidence” you’re looking for so long as you have the eyes to see it. In other words, we tend to find in scripture what we want to find there. The arguments for Mary as the the New Ark of the Covenant are an example of just that.
But if we scrutinize those arguments against their biblical contexts, we’ll see that they trade entirely upon the force of parity in perceived parallels that, in all probability, where never intended to be made by the Biblical authors. Parallelomania is alive in well in Roman Catholic apologetics, especially when it comes to attempts to give a Biblical basis for certain Marian beliefs.
Unfortunately types and allusions are all too often in the eye of the beholder. We can only hope to refute these arguments by patiently trying to see what our Roman Catholic friends think they’re seeing. Then we need to tell them the honest truth: that we’re just not seeing what they see for the simple reason that, in all probability, such types and allusions are just not there.
P.S. A Note on Leaky Buckets
It may be at the end of the day that you will be unable to convince your Roman Catholic friend that he or she is seeing typological parallels that simply aren’t there. They may even accuse you of being blind to the “obvious” Marian implications of the texts they present. If they do, you can always point out the obvious. The overall argument rests upon at least five mutually reinforcing parallels: David/Mary (“arose and went”); David/Elizabeth (“who am I that you would come to me”); David/John the Baptist (“leaped”); Ark/Mary (stayed “three months”); Ark/Marya (“overshadowed”). Taken by themselves, no one parallel is all that convincing. But stacked together, they, seem to gain plausibility.
Question: Can a stack of leaky buckets hold water? Answer: No. For at the end of the day, the water eventually leaks out. In the same way, the Roman Catholic “stack” of typological parallels, fails to hold water as well.
I’m currently in “an Gaeltacht” in Ireland where Roman Catholicism is the predominant religion. For the last couple of years I’ve looked into whether such a religion is compatible with the teachings of Scripture with a view to ” crossing the Tiber”. But the more I looked, the more I found of its continuing medieaval corruption and deadness.
@ Victorious:
Actually, in Catholic terms, a saint is someone who is in Heaven. As simple as that.
(I think we all complicate things more than we need to).
And Mary is called the Ark of the [New} Covenant, because Jesus Christ is the New Covenant, & He was conceived & grew within her womb.
zooey111 wrote:
My Catechism states that “the church” canonizes “some” of the faithful because they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God’s grace. It also states that those saints are models and “intercessors.”
I didn’t think I was complicating anything when I commented that “some” are elevated to a position because they have been conferred with a “title” available to selective members. That elevation along with the title does imply not all members are entitled to be called saints…living or dead.
@ Victorious:
Zooey111 is right. Saints are those in heaven who have a beatific vision of God. The church also recognizes saints (little s) on earth, those who are in the body of Christ through baptism.
Catholics call Michael the Archangel a Saint because he is in the presence of God. It isn’t a “title” but more of a recognition that that person is in heaven. It ties into the doctrine of purgatory, since not all souls are yet in heaven. One of the ways that someone is considered a Saint is that they were martyred.
It’s so moving to sing the Litany of the Saints at Easter. What shoes we have to fill of those who have gone before us!
Gavin White wrote:
Catholics don’t just look to the Bible, but also Tradition. We can argue over what a scripture means all day long. That’s why you need Church Tradition to understand it. Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant was believed by the early Church fathers. I’m failing to see why Mary as the ark is something that Protestant’s don’t like. Care to explain? Because it might lead to Mary “worship?”
Gavin White wrote:
That is a good summation of the phenomena of clearly “seeing” something that is not actually there.
And it is also a good summation of the process that the “complementarians” use to support *their* doctrine which is not in the text but which they put there. I could re-write your comment as a comment on the “complementarian” error. An example of this is the list of arguments for why the Man is in Authority over the Woman which is compiled by comps. None of them have any weight and are even contradicted by God’s own actions. But somehow the totality of them amounts to something.
Roman Catholic doctrine, because it is so determined by tradition, puts a lot of weight on the ECF. But they were heavily influenced by the hermeneutics of Alexandria which was firmly allegorical, finding allegories in all kinds of things. Origen is the master of this. (St.) Augustine was trained in that hermeneutic, and we need to remember that.
numo wrote:
You’ve hit a nerve with that. It aggravates me the way that unmarried people are considered deficient in some way. That is not what Paul taught, and Jesus never said anything about it. It’s just another way of dividing people and assigning status to groups when Jesus and Paul both taught that we are *not* to do that.
Gram3 wrote:
You say that like it is a bad thing. BTW, I didn’t know what you meant by ECF, but figured it means Early Church Fathers. I think it is an incorrect belief that the RCC today figures out its doctrines based on the Bible and Tradition. Not so, it is ALL tradition, some of it was written down (the Bible), some of it was oral. But, the Church has faithfully passed down through the centuries the Apostolic faith. This makes so much more sense than Bob Smith who picks up his Bible and gives his own interpretation of passages in John 6 or Paul’s writings. Peter said that some of Paul’s writings are “Hard to understand.” I think the Covenants are at the top of the list.
Moreover, ALL protestant churches use tradition, to one degree or another, whether they acknowledge it or not. For instance, the Trinity isn’t explicitly taught in the Bible. It is part of Tradition. The Canon of scripture is Tradition. The reformers of the 16th century held contradictory beliefs, they each appealed to tradition of the early church fathers, they just chose the fathers which supported their position. For the last 500 years, those traditions are what forms your theology, whether you acknowledge it or not.
Gram3 wrote:
Amen! Reading something into text as well as grouping them together based on speculation, can be instrumental in arriving at almost any desired agenda.
Here’s a perfect example of “Top Ten Ways to Find a Wife…according to scripture”
http://wearegoonies.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/top-ten-10-ways-to-find-a-wife-according-to-the-bible/
🙂
@ THC:
I made an observation that is true and is neither negative or positive. All theologians study the ECF. I explained my observation by further noting that Origen and the others of the Alexandrian school viewed the Bible as allegory in large part. The spiritual meaning was the important meaning to them.
You are correct that each church has traditions. The difference is that protestant churches *should* judge their traditions according to Scripture. You have an unstated presupposition that the magisterium of the Roman Catholic church is the ultimate authority. I say that the Holy Spirit is the ultimate authority and that the Incarnate Word has given the Holy Spirit to each believer who ministers to every other believer.
Christ’s universal church is not an organization but rather an organism with functioning members who each are instructed to act for the benefit of the others. You cannot demonstrate hierarchy in the church from the Bible. I have made innumerable comments here on that very topic.
The desire of people for certainty of knowledge and certainty of outcomes in this world and the desire of some people to rule over others are things which are not commended but are rather condemned by the teachings of Jesus and the record of the Holy Spirit’s words found in the Bible. That, of course, does not prevent people from taking those words and adding to them or twisting them or taking away from them. And that is why we are to help one another learn what the Holy Spirit wants to teach us and grow in love toward one another and toward God, in obedience to the greatest commandment.
Victorious wrote:
Well, I guess Gramp3 and I do not make it into the top 10. We met at a college fellowship where I was in a *gasp* leadership “role”, but for some reason he was not scandalized by that nor intimidated by being the newbie in an established group. It just never occurred to any of us to ask John Piper or Wayne Grudem if my “role” was a permissible one. Oh, wait. They had not invented their system yet. Thank goodness they came along to save the church from culture! Where were they in the 1st century when the ambient culture was really bad?
Gram3 wrote:
And that is a perfectly normal Protestant position. I know what you are saying because I also used to believe the Bible as my only source of authority. In practice though, I do not believe the Holy Spirit teaches one person one thing and another person something completely contrary. Both claim the Bible as their ultimate authority, both interpreting it completely different. And we aren’t talking about MINOR issues.
I don’t believe God set up the individual to be the arbiter of scripture, but the Church. Your interpretation, while well intended and I know you believe deeply that you are right, is just that, your interpretation. As much as you say you are just going by the Bible alone, I can show you many, many groups that you would consider either heretical or non-Christian who also go by the Bible alone. The real dilemma in the Bible alone argument is that the Bible never itself says that all truth must come only from the Bible. In fact, it says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. 1 Tim 3:15
And I am not trying to be combative with you here. We believe probably 90% of the same things. If anything, my responses are to me, a former protestant, and what I used to believe. I am just arguing with myself, if you will. I KNOW the non-Catholic position because I used to be one, and used to vilify the Catholic Church over these very same issues.
THC wrote:
I don’t want to argue the point, THC, but I posted (practically verbatim) what my “Catechism of the Catholic Church” states. According to that Catechism, not “all” Catholics are entitled to be called “saints.”
Now I’m aware that a number of beliefs have changed over time; i.e. mass on Sat. fulfills obligation; no need to fast from midnight the night before; sin for eating meat on Friday; women must wear hats/scarfs/veils in church; prayer and sacrifice for the “poor souls in purgatory: etc. So it’s possible the “tradition” about who is a saint has changed as well.
@ Gram3:
There are several passages in scripture which speak against the habit of following the traditions of men/pharisees. This is my contention when someone comes along with the idea of church traditions. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not church traditions.
zooey111 wrote:
I think it is a mistake to say that Jesus Christ *is* the New Covenant. I think it is true that he instituted the New Covenant and gave himself as the Perfect Lamb who poured out his blood that sealed the New Covenant. Therefore, I think it is more proper to say that he was in the position that God was in when he made the covenants with Abraham or with Moses. He was the Covenantor, not the Covenant himself.
Christ was the one who birthed the New Covenant, not Mary. That is not to diminish her faithfulness or the importance of what she did. It is just to keep within what the Bible has said and not draw connections which are not grounded firmly so that we don’t go beyond what has been revealed.
Bridget wrote:
That’s a good point, because Jesus said that the Scribes and Pharisees had nullified the Law by their additions to it. The tragic result was that they failed to recognize the Incarnate Word/Law when he appeared. Instead, they judged him to be a lawbreaker because he broke their human laws which had blinded them to the truth.
THC wrote:
In view of what you have written, what is your explanation for the Avignon papacy, for example? There were anti-Popes who were certainly completely opposed to one another. Who decided which Pope was the real vicar of Christ?
You simply cannot avoid the problem of uncertainty, which is another way of saying that we are called to live by faith in God through the power of the Holy Spirit and not by sight which is what we are doing when we follow a mere man.
THC wrote:
I agree. I am not setting myself or anyone else up as the arbiter of Scripture. You are doing that by setting up the magisterium as the arbiter of Scripture. I believe the universal church is not identical with persons baptized in the Roman Catholic church nor in any institutional, visible church.
I think it is entirely possible that one group within the universal church may have some things right that others get wrong. But as a whole organism, the church will do what God the Holy Spirit wills it to do, even though we may not see how he is doing that or even what he intends to do.
Again, in my view you are way overvaluing certainty. By choosing to place certainty in one man or group of men in communion with him, you have gained a feeling of certainty, but you don’t actually *have* certainty. None of us has certainty, and that is why we are called to live by faith and not by sight through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Gram3 wrote:
Thank you for at least getting back to the topic at hand (although it has become quite a free-for-all as it usually does when discussing “Catholic” doctrines. This is where I say you can’t really understand the New Covenant apart from Mary. As the Blessed Mother Theresa said, “No Mary, No Jesus. Know Mary, Know Jesus.”
Gram3 wrote:
I think most people do want certainty. It’s better than uncertainty. Why is certainty a bad thing? Jesus knew that people would be thrown around by every wind of doctrine and that’s why he gave us his Church, a visible organization with a visible leader.
My guess is that you believe that you are going to heaven when you die. I hope you do. I hope I do. How certain are you? Are you just overvaluing certainty?
I don’t care to debate apparent problems with this pope or that pope. I’ll just point you to the book Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid if you are inclined to read about all the myths of the papacy.
Victorious wrote:
There are Traditions and there are traditions. That list of yours, so far as I can tell, is based on small t traditions. Those don’t have the same apostolic authority as big T Traditions, like the Trinity or the two wills of Jesus. Small t traditions can and do change over time based on many things, and it is within the within the binding and loosening that the magisterium can change them. They can’t change capital T Traditions, however.
Victorious wrote:
I would agree that not all catholics who die will be canonized as Saints. If you are part of the body of Christ, you are called a saint, as Paul did. There are a lot more Saints in heaven whom the Church hasn’t canonized.
CCC 828 says “By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God’s grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors.”The saints have always been the source and origin of renewal in the most difficult moments in the Church’s history.” Indeed, “holiness is the hidden source and infallible measure of her apostolic activity and missionary zeal.”
THC wrote:
Thank you for that. And for agreeing that we are all saints (who are born again) whether or not we are elevated to the sainthood position with a title via canonization by the RCC.
Also, as to your mention of “small t” traditions, you might not be old enough to know this, but we were told all of those small t’s were mortal sins which meant the guilt was serious enough to warrant the fires of hell for eternity. (that doesn’t include the hat/veil tradition however.) The threat of eternal damnation warrants a designation of “big T” imo.
THC wrote:
I don’t know what this means. Mary is nowhere mentioned where the New Covenant is mentioned in Scripture. Possibly you mean that you cannot understand the New Covenant apart from Mary.
@ Gram3:
Thank you for this comment. I appreciate it very much.
THC wrote:
No, I am not overvaluing certainty. I have a certain hope, and I walk by faith in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. It is impossible for me to have certainty for the simple reason that I do not possess omniscience. What we experience as reality may be part of a giant Monte Carlo simulation.
The fact is that every human being operates by faith. Even atheists operate by faith. We may have different objects of faith and different degrees of faith, but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that we have certainty.
Similarly, every human being must decide what or who is their Authority.
You dodged the question of the Avignon papacy. I have visited the papal palace there. I have visited St. Peter’s and been blessed by Pope Paul! You are the one who says authority is vested in the magisterium as headed by the Pope. So there is no question that lots of people accept that there were, in fact, two popes at least in that instance.
I accepted your assertion for the sake of argument, and then asked you how that is consistent with your idea of ultimate authority residing in one man when there were times in history where more than one man claimed to be Pope. There were two or more heads of the Roman Catholic church at the same time, and there were two or more claimants to the seat of St. Peter, and each had followers who recognized them as the vicar of Christ. ISTM that defeats your idea of certainty and authority residing in the papal office.
Victorious wrote:
You make a good point that there are a lot of people who don’t have any memory of pre-Vatican II Catholicism and the requirements that are no longer in force. I’ve heard of mortal and venial sins, but I don’t recall anything about big T and little t traditions.
dee wrote:
Thanks! Back at ya!
We went to a seafood place that we tried to get into 3times before. Had to get there super early but still got the last table. The mrs was late cause she got stuck behind a manure spreader.
Had shrimp and prime rib. Went shopping afterwards. Another successful date night in the books, 21 years worth and counting. Wouldn’t trade that time for anything.
THC wrote:
If you know the protestant position, then why do you assume that you will persuade mostly protestants to believe otherwise. There are Roman Catholics here who share many of the concerns which are the focus of this blog. I don’t vilify the Roman Catholic church. I disagree with many of the teachings, and I am challenging your assertions, but that is not the same thing as vilifying a group of people or an individual. Are you vilifying all protestants by saying we are disobedient to the magisterium?
THC wrote:
Basically, all I can see is you are making some specific historical “individuals” as the arbiters of correct interpretation which is really no different than what you say Protestants have done. (I am not Protestant because I am protesting nothing :o) The “church” is nothing but a called out assembly of “individuals”. The individuals are now the temple where God resides.
You do ask an interesting question though. Does the Holy Spirit guide individuals in different ways which could be confusing if we try to make them rules for all. I would say yes. Just a quickie example off top of head in one instance Jesus tells his disciples to not take anything with them but in another he tells them to take a sword, etc.
It would be kind of interesting to do this exercise with the OT.
Doug wrote:
You’re a newbie, but it sounds like you’re off to a great start. 😉
I have always wondered why it is seen as different how the Pope is chosen from how a typical Protestant pastor is chosen. Both would say that it was from God when we all know it was the choice of a few people whether the Cardinals or the pulpit committee.
@ Gram3:
Indeed We could also look at how a lot of the gains of Vatican II were systematically rolled back under both JPII and Benedict. Francis has a tough row to hoe.
The catholicism that I was exposed to earlier in my life was before Vatican II. I was in my early thirties and a employee of a catholic university (while stationed at a secular hospital) during Vatican II and I listened to my catholic co-workers talk during that time. By the time I went to RCIA it was way past Vatican II, and I did not hear or see much of anything which I recognized from the “before” days. This was a really big problem for me at the time, because I had watched the catholic church vigorously proclaim certain things to be either true or necessary–right up until the day that they changed a bunch of stuff. Interesting thing, none of the catechists at the RCIA program had been around prior to Vatican II and there was no way that they knew what I was talking about.
There are several reasons why I did not convert; and while this was disconcerting, it was not one of the definitive issues for me. And, no, I do not choose to debate the virtues or vices of either catholicism or protestantism with any catholic or protestant.
Gram3 wrote:
I haven’t dodged the question. I gave an answer, but it must have been unfulfilling to you. I think you are referring to the great Schism (when there were two and then three competing “popes”), not the Avignon papacy (when the papacy was moved to Avignon from Rome. I have no problem with this. Only one was really the pope and throughout the time, the church wasn’t divided over doctrine. It was Urban the VI in Rome.
I actually see this, and other examples, strengthens my belief that God, through the centuries, has maintained his church.
Gram3 wrote:
Again, just because something isn’t explicitly mentioned in scripture doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. The Trinity isn’t spelled out in Scripture, but you believe that. I still would like to know why you have a problem with Mary being referred to as the Ark of the New Covenant? Do you think that it somehow takes away from the focus on Jesus?
THC wrote:
I’m not the one who made the claim. I have a problem venerating someone other than the persons of the Triune God. You are saying that Mary was an anti-type of the Ark of the Covenant and that her womb was an anti-type of the Holy of Holies. I said I see no evidence of that in the Bible, and I also believe that comparing a mere human being to the Holy of Holies is moving into places I would never venture. If you want to believe that teaching, then believe that teaching. Just don’t try to say that you get it from the Bible.
The Lord of the Church certainly has preserved his church and will preserve his Church, just as he promised. There are Roman Catholics who are members of Christ’s body and there are Roman Catholics who are not. Just like Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox, etc. But the Roman Catholic church is not the universal spiritual Body of Christ.
If you have faith in the office of the papacy, then that’s your business. If that is where you think that ultimate spiritual authority is, then OK, that’s what you believe. But again, don’t say that there is Biblical warrant for the office, much less the absolute authority of the magisterium, without some evidence. You are free to believe as you wish.
@ Gram3:
Well some discussions on some threads are known to get to be very long you know … !
No need to apologise, I think it is good sometimes to know that someone else agrees with a view you are expressing, so at least you find you are not the only thinking that way, and may therefore have lost the plot.
THC wrote:
That line stood out to me. My answer to it, and I don’t know how else to phrase this, is that Mary is dead and unknowable – as are all the saints who have gone before us – but Jesus rose from the dead and is indeed knowable.
That she was ‘blessed’ in a unique way is undeniable and she is rightly honoured by believers, but apart from that she is no different from any other Christian wife and mother, or single or widow. The faith that the apostles proclaimed is precisely the same for each bog-standard believer, there is in one sense a complete equality of status between all believers in all ages.
Ken wrote:
I have no idea what you mean … ! But I am glad that you see things my way. 😉
I like your idea of a bog-standard believer, but not so much the “one sense” part.
Ken wrote:
I thought most Protestants don’t believe in “soul sleep.” Don’t you believe your soul is alive with God in heaven until the resurrection? God is not the God of the dead but of the living. We know that Jesus concurred death. I believe a favorite verse is “Absent from the body, present with the Lord”?
Revelation 5:8 tells us that the prayers of the saints are offered up at the alter of God in heaven. People in heaven are just as much alive, much more so, as we are in our physical bodies. The Church doesn’t separate those who have died with those still alive. We are all one body, whether alive here on earth or in heaven.
Ken wrote:
Look, I get it. Mary is probably one of, if not THE hardest Catholic doctrines to understand. I don’t begrudge anyone for not getting it, but I will say that knowing Mary has helped me understand Jesus better. How can that not be a good thing?
BTW, you can be a good Catholic and never pray the rosary. It’s not a requirement.
Gram3 wrote:
I never did. But, you still have to show me from the Bible where I NEED to get all truth from the Bible.
Gram3 wrote:
Again, I never said it was. It is the visible body of Christ on earth. The body can and does extend beyond the Catholic Church. That’s what the Church teaches and believes. Gram3 wrote:
There’s plenty of Biblical evidence (Matt 16:18, 1 Peter 3:15, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2) but your interpretation and my interpretation are different. You can also read the early fathers. Here’s Ignatius of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John, in 107 AD. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-roberts.html
The mere fact that the apostles replaced Judas demonstrates that apostolic authority was to be perpetual. Why replace him if it wasn’t?
@ Nancy:
Ikwym about all of the changes, and then things changing again… and so on.
Being involved in Catholic charismatic groups during the early-mid 70s, my understanding is very much influenced by the changes that were still under way at that time.
Otoh, i have relatives who are happily parts of one of the most conservative dioceses in the US.
As with all other churches, there’s a spectrum of belief and practice.
@ chris knickerbocker:
I’m new to the site, but I have to disagree with you. I consider myself an agnostic after loosing my faith due to moral disagreements with religion and also the fact that god seems to do little to nothing to end the suffering in this world. However, after reading this blog for the past couple of weeks and beginning to see Christians as human beings rather than the parodies they’d become in my head, I’m considering finding a church and giving God another try. The only contagion I see is acceptance that leads to open dialogue rather than judgement that shuts down any attempt at reconciliation.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I have never heard or read that exact statement anywhere. Fascinating! Helpful as well to one who does not believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Jesus is the word. The Bible is a tool for learning. I will not shout heretic or blasphemer. My faith has been lost and I’m trying to find a way back. Thank you for giving me something positive to consider.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Note that the Catholic Church has married priests in the particular churches of the Eastern Rite, and the Patriarch of Babylon who rules the Chaldean Catholic Church was for many centuries dynastic. The Assyrian Church of the East, from which the Chaldeans seceded, had a hereditary patriarch until the 1970s, when the last one was assassinated and replaced by Mar Dinkha IV. These patriarchs were hereditary but were typically one of two sons of a non-reigning father; succession went from uncle to nephew. Their accomplishments as hierarchs have not been entirely impressive; the Assyrians have made more progress in the past 40 years than in the previous 400. So you can have a hereditary dynasty in a celibate office.
THC wrote:
The doctrine regarding the Theotokos is not uniquely Catholic; the Orthodox, high church Anglicans, and many Lutherans regard her in the same way. Thus for most Christians it’s not even an issue; only a tiny minority belong to churches which reject the doctrine of perpetual virginity for example. In the Panarion of St. Epiphanius, a glorious catalog of 80 cults each likened to a specific venomous animal, he cites a group that performed sacrifices to Mary, the Collyridians, and another group with a less memorable name, as two sides of the same coin; some people do fall into the trap of Collyridianism, and others, in disgust at that, including to some extent Nestorius, go the other way. For my part I a convinced that proper veneration of Mary as the Theotokos, but not the worship of her, which would be blasphemous, is the most effective way for those churches committed to the apostolic faith to ward off misogyny. To put it another way, any church that denies the perpetual virginity of Mary or her status as Theotokos is misogynistic, even if it makes the rather superficial gesture of ordaining women.
Quick question: are ‘Acts 29’ and ‘Acts 29 Europe’ strongly related? I’m assuming so, but I wanted some confirmation.
I’m currently visiting churches in the city where I live in the UK, exploring a bit before I decide if I want to move into a smaller congregation.
A friend is a member of a church that belongs to the ‘Acts 29 Europe’ network and I recently went to a service there. On the surface it looked OK… Friendly people. And it felt very similar to the church I’m currently attending, which is considered very conservative in the evangelical spectrum.
So, I wonder, how similar are the two networks? Also, do they put much emphasis on membership? I checked their website and could find nothing about it… But there was something in their distinctives that sounded like complementarianism.
I really doubt that I’ll join them, but I am curious nonetheless.
Thanks!
THC wrote:
I get the Marian dogmas, but I don’t believe them, and it’s not because they are THE hardest Catholic doctrines to understand. They are not based in the words of the Holy Spirit, so from my perspective as a protestant, the Marian dogmas are mere accretions to the traditions of the Catholic church with no authority at all. If you find authority in tradition, then certainly that your privilege and responsibility.
No, it is not necessarily a good thing if you think that you understand Jesus better via veneration of Mary. She is a noble and faithful woman whose obedience far exceeds mine, but God’s plan and Jesus’ birth did not hang in the balance waiting for her decision to obey. She is the Lord’s servant as we all are. Nothing should be given to her or any human that is due to God alone.
It is unclear to me what your purpose is. No one is disputing your right to believe as you please and to place authority where you like. Certainly if you read my comments you understand I totally reject spiritual authoritarianism in all its various forms, and I believe that is the consensus of the commenters here.
I’m fairly certain that all of us know people who have converted to and from the Roman Catholic church. We have heard it all before, or at least I have, but in case we want to know what Scott Hahn thinks we all know where to find him. Or we can pop over to Called to Communion if we are interested in Catholic apologetics.
Martos wrote:
The About page indicates that the European affiliate was started in 2009. If I were you, I would not participate in anything connected in any way with Acts29. Their doctrines are extra-biblical, which is to say non-biblical. They demonstrated no leadership here in the Mark Driscoll disaster, only cutting him loose when he began to tarnish their image.
I will grant that the romantic and heroic vision of ministry is compelling to some. But the doctrines are toxic. There are lots of posts and comments here by people with first-hand experience with these guys.
Martos wrote:
Just a little caution on this point. This is a very conscious strategy which high-demand groups use. We call it love-bombing. They make you feel very comfortable and important and everyone is very friendly. As long as you don’t disagree. Then you are a pariah–serious questions are not permitted. If you want to be a Berean, that is not the church for you.
If you want security and certainty and everything scripted by a handful of men, then that’s for you. If you believe that there are ranks among the eternal persons of the Trinity rather than Christ laying down his power while he was tabernacling here among us, then that’s the church for you. I think that is heresy, but Grudem is their theologian, and that’s what he teaches, and it’s what they believe.
I read their distinctives, and like every CBMW group, they are very misleading about what they mean by “complementary.” They start off with the standard lip-service to equality in dignity and worth and say women are free to do whatever is “consistent with the Word of God.” They do not mean that. What they mean is that everyone is under their authority, and they will inform you what is consistent with the Word of God.
What they mean is that women serve, and men rule. Men lead, and women follow. Women are created for the man’s purposes. Women are rebellious usurpers of men’s authority. Women are p*nis homes and men who don’t measure up to their man-made standards are p*ssyfied. Of course they will not tell you that up front. But that’s what they think or they would have said something way before their weak and overdue response to Driscoll who is the personification of Acts 29 thinking.
May God grant you wisdom.
Gram3 wrote:
So be it. I was having a nice dialog (or so I thought) with Nancy about the reason Mark Driscoll disrespects women- because of his unorthodox Marian position. Then, I was bombarded, mostly by you, with all the vehement denials of anything Mary. That’s OK with me, but you crashed the party so to speak. Your last comments are choice. I think we’ve ended our discussion. 🙂 Pax.
William G. wrote:
Thankfully, you are not God and your declarations can be ignored by those of us who don’t believe Mary was a perpetual virgin. 🙂
THC wrote:
We cannot know that Driscoll’s rejection of the Marian dogmas is the *cause* of his misogyny. While that may be a contributory cause that he nor anyone else ever mentions, the fact is that Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware are his theologians, or they were, and their peculiar view of male priority is grounded in 1 Timothy 2:12 which they rip out of its historical and textual context. We know that. It is perfectly possible for anyone to be misogynist while affirming whatever they want about Mary, because she is viewed as exceptional among women, a view which I share.
I did not intend to bombard you nor to crash the conversation with Nancy whom I respect and whose comments I read religiously, so to speak. I’m happy to discuss particulars, but the fact is that we will always come back to the same point of ultimate authority being vested in a human being, and that is a presupposition on which we cannot agree.
@ William G.:
Misogyny won’t be eliminated by venerating Mary as the Theotokos. Misogyny and all other forms of self-exaltation above others will disappear when we all look to Christ as our example and see one another as equals whom God has gifted uniquely to serve the Body of Christ. When we become men in Christ and women in Christ instead of women playing roles and men playing roles, we will grow up into maturity into Christ who is the Head.
Gram3 wrote:
I have agreed with this idea for a long time. Do you think that this failure to see the organic nature of the church is part of, (if not the) cause for what we see in the “church” today? I am thinking of this in a root cause kind of way.
(Acts 29, MHC, ARC, SGM, ecclesiastical abuse in all forms, etc.)
Every time I bring it up in my tribe, the eyes begin to roll.
Doug wrote:
I do think it is one of the main causes. The universal spiritual church is not visible and does not have hierarchy. Each of the members has gifts to use for the benefit of all the others. Some of those gifts are speaking gifts, but Paul is quite clear that none of the gifts is more important than the others, and that status of any kind no longer has a place since we are all servants of the same Lord.
My opinion is that when Constantine institutionalized the church, the church adopted a structure modeled more on civil government. The churches which came out of the magisterial branch of the Reformation did not abandon this affinity for the state and its governance model because what other model did they have? Plus, they needed the protection of a civil ruler to protect them from the Roman Catholic church.
The Anglican church was the origin of Methodists and English Baptists, and Anglicans were shaped by being under the governance of the monarch of England. Really, for the most part, churches have adopted a top-down model because that is what *seemed* to be the right way to do things. And it is the necessary way to do things when people are not mutually indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
I wouldn’t say that organizational model is the only problem, because house churches can be abusive and dysfunctional, too, when the “leaders” forget that they are followers, too. I think an organic model is difficult to sustain because believers are still sinners, and I think any polity can be gamed to benefit leadership, so that’s not a magic bullet either. Humans want neat solutions, and vertical governance is much more efficient when you have larger numbers of people.
So, I think a big and systemic problem is thinking that is formed by a desire for hierarchy and status and an unexamined acceptance of traditions and what seems normal and right but which may not be the way the Lord designed his church.
There is a need for organization in the church but not a need for organizational thinking, if that makes any sense. Of course, that is what Paul describes when he says for the congregation to appoint leaders. The problem occurs when both the congregation and/or the leaders begin to think the leaders are in a different class.
What are your thoughts?
Gram3 wrote:
Yes, that makes perfect sense. My first thought is that organization is important, and that “organic” and “organization” are not necessarily mutually exclusive ideas. Even in nature, organisms are organized. (Except maybe in “The Blob”, but even then, the blob seemed to have a purpose.)
The rub seems to come into play with the idea of “status”, imo. I even see it in my small tribe. Missionaries are elevated to super-saint status. They are a little more “God-like”, a little more appreciated, a little more blessed than us “pew-ons”. If you are a “full-time” Christian worker, then you are considered to be a step above the rest of the mob. Clearly, Jesus telling his disciples not to call one another father or teacher leads me to believe that He was looking for an organically flat organized body rather than what we see today. One flock and one Shepherd lends itself to that organic model, if you can call it that, more so than the corporate model that is so prevalent today.
But I do think it is driven from both directions. People who want to be led (or want a guru) and the sociopaths (often, but not all) who are all too willing to accommodate them.
Gram3 wrote:
If you read the ECFs you see this IS how the Lord designed his church. It was hierarchical all the way back to the apostles. The priesthood of all believers is an invention of Martin Luther to dismiss the authority of the Pope. He proof-texted scripture.
As for tradition, it isn’t “unexamined” (at least not by me). I have examined it and it is what the early church taught. Read the letter by Ignatius that I linked to earlier. He taught that it was the heretics who denied the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. Where did he learn that? From the apostle John, whom he sat week after week listening and watching him say Mass.
I do think that the many splits in Protestantism every year are not so much a result of difference in doctrine, but in not understanding ecclesiology. The Bible talks about those who are “sent” (Rom 10:15). Well, someone has to send them, and it wasn’t the lay people, it was the apostles and later bishops. Today, anyone can just start a church in their garage.
William G. wrote:
I note you have already had some come back for this statement! I don’t know of any evidence for the perpetual virginity, but there is biblical evidence against it, namely Joseph didn’t ‘know’ her until after Jesus was born, and that he had brothers and sisters. I don’t see where misogyny enters into it, Jesus was born into a normal family and this in no sense ‘defiled’ his mother. Wouldn’t you agree that even to hint as much is in fact being disrespectful both to Mary and to God?
I think though this is a good illustration of how catholicism and evangelicalism are sometimes different in their defining beliefs, with the latter only requiring what is explicitly taught or inferred from the NT itself to be a matter of faith.
THC wrote:
No where in scripture does John talk about saying mass. And the Church isn’t a place, it is believers in Christ gathered to encourage one another and worship God (which also encourages). The priesthood of all believers did not start with Martin Luther. It started in the New Testament.
Gram3 wrote:
Despite the fact that your comment was addressed overall to Doug, I shall take advantage of the ambiguity between singular and plural among english second-person pronouns and post my thoughts.
Large architectural pyramid structures were built by ancient civilisations on both sides of the Atlantic, separated by thousands of miles and many centuries. My belief – shared by mainstream historians the world over- is that this is not evidence that both the Egyptians and the Mayans/Aztecs were mentored by aliens from Atlantis (or the Predators out of Alien versus Predator, which was not nearly as bad as most critics claimed *). Rather, if you want to build a certain kind of huge structure, and you don’t have concrete or steel, then in practice you’re going to make a huge pile of stones.
By very loose analogy, anybody wanting to build or sustain a big organisation, who hasn’t grasped or understood how the Holy Spirit himself can interact with a group of believers, will inevitably build a pyramid structure. Lacking what I call – for want of a better term – the “spiritual technology”, they’ll copy what they see in the secular world. And I agree that this is a fundamental problem with institutions. If Jesus did indeed rise from the dead, and is the King of a Kingdom that is not of this world, and his Spirit does indeed indwell believers, then organisations that depend on structures that are very much of this world are missing something very important.
It’s not just ancient institutions that adopted this practice, of course. The house church movements that sprang up in the UK in the 1980’s were decidedly pyramidal. And most megachurches are pyramidal in vision, strategy and activity, even if they are not grossly authoritarian (and not all are).
* AVP II : Requiem may or may not have been as bad as critics claimed. However, since all the crucial scenes involved a black-coloured alien fighting other black-coloured aliens in unlit caves or basements at night, I’ve no idea what actually happened in it.
Bridget wrote:
Sure it does. That’s what “breaking bread” means and they did it every week on the “Lord’s Day.” Paul taught HOW to partake of it in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.
The center of worship was and is the Eucharist which Jesus instituted at the Last Supper and Paul affirmed: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.” (v.26)
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
LOL!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Now that I think about it, that reminds me of some church business meetings I’ve been in…
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
This is a good point and I would add from my background in leadership training
that part of the problem is the Pagan thinking that any group of adults ALWAYS
need a leader.
And one could make that case using adescriptive interpretatation of the OT and making it prescriptive.When in reality God was angry the Jews begged for a king (like the pagans had) since He wanted them to see He was their King. (This is where the idea of King Jesus comes from, I think. He is King)
I see “service” to others in the NT as “making disciples” but it is quite fluid. Anyone in the Body so gifted could “pastor” another for a time. But let us hope they mature and pastor others. That sort of thing.
Most of the letters were written to the entire body. Some were written to those who were laboring in making disciples. Ex, All we know about Corinth in terms of “leadership” is that Chloe “had people” who had concerns.
History has taken on the top down hierarchical Pagan/Roman/Greek Chain of being constructs and transferred it to the Body of Christ. The question is why in this day and time with so much freedom and information at our fingertips so many believe they need a “spiritual leader”. Because we do not make “disciples”? We recruit followers of men?
Adults have a leader: Jesus Christ. I wish it started there so people would know it is up to them to become mature in Christ.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
If you-all (plural) would just take advantage of what we (plural) do in the south, then they (plural) would not need any explanations. Kind of evens the playing field among the plural personal pronouns. Having done that, then, one can break all kinds of rules with abandon, citing clarity of expression.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
You know I’m always interested in what you write, except WRT pasta. And I agree with you about the impulse to pyramids. House churches that I know of here tend in that direction given enough time.
I see the church, as the Bride, as a start on the return journey to the Garden, where the Man and the Woman (and by extension if the Fall had not happened all men and women) walked with God face to face with him as the Leader. It is only when sin comes that there is a need for Authorities and Leaders because we have all taken our eyes off of God and onto ourselves. With the Holy Spirit indwelling, we are in an already/not yet situation.
Doug wrote:
Returning the LOLs!!!
Lydia wrote:
Yes, we are to grow up into the Head instead of jockeying to be the head or trying to make sure we follow the right head who has all the answers.
@ Nancy:
It works in west central Scotland an’ a’.
Singular: ye. Plural: yeeze.
It even appears in the imperative form of certain verbs.
Singular: Gonnae shu’up! Plural: Gonnaez a’ shu’up!
@ THC:
This is another instance of the same disagreement. If you want to persuade me or other Reformationals, then you need to cite Scripture along with the application of sound methodology.
The ECF are not authoritative. If they were, their writings would have been included in the canon. I hear your objection that the church determined the canon. I agree, except that I believe the church in question was the universal spiritual Body of Christ and not the institutional Roman Catholic church.
The “priesthood” is an invention of the institutional church as well, since we no longer have need of priests. We are all priests, living stones of the Temple of the Lord who is the Great High Priest. You are correct that we disagree on ecclesiology.
Gram3 wrote:
Not sure why I am in a perpetual moderation time out. I guess the moderators didn’t like something I said.
I am not trying to persuade you. If anything, maybe to dig a little deeper. I would also say that if you want to persuade me, you need to show me from the Bible where it says the Bible is the ultimate authority. When Jesus was ascending into heaven he didn’t look back over his shoulder and say, “Don’t forget to read my book!” There are Bible versus that support oral tradition. I go by Tradition and the Bible. Why? The RCC can historically trace its roots back to Jesus.
Gram3 wrote:
Except that it was both. Did you know that there were 27 gospels floating around in the year 150 AD? It was the Church that infallibly determined which books were part of the Canon, at the Council of Carthage. They looked at things like, how old the documents were, did it support the acknowledged oral Tradition of the Church, etc. Of course, you may believe R.C. Sproul’s comment that the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books. In other words, since the Church determined which books, that was a fallible decision, but the books themselves are infallible.
But, if you subscribe to that, you then do not have certainty that you have the right books to begin with. Maybe the Gospel of Thomas should have been included? How would you know otherwise, except for the Church’s declaration at the Council of Carthage.
@ Gram3:
Thank you very much for your comments. I have done a bit more research and the two organisations certainly appear to be very closely related… So much that the director of ‘Acts 29 Europe’ is in the board of ‘Acts 29’. Also, Matt Chandler is mentioned several times in their website. I even found a link to an article in the ‘Acts 29’ website by Mark Driscoll that, actually, led nowhere as it seems to have been deleted.
Gram3 wrote:
This is very interesting. Even before I read your comment, I had the feeling that a lot of the vocabulary used in the website tried to give an impression of being involved into something epic and, as you say, romantic and heroic.
Gram3 wrote:
You know what? Even though the people were very friendly, and I believe that many were genuinely so, I had the feeling that something was a bit off… It’s hard to point exactly what it was, maybe because it wasn’t too different to what I’m used to in my current church… A church that I’m thinking about leaving, actually.
In any case, I tried to be very observant during the day, looking at how people interacted, and did wonder a lot about the way the church was organised, about how heavy they may be about membership and accountability… All this even before I researched the websites more deeply and discovered the direct connections with ‘Acts 29’. Also, the congregation appeared to be rather homogeneous, mostly families with very young kids and university students.
In general, I don’t tend to follow my gut feelings… But I think I will do it this time.
This experience, somehow, left me a bit sad.
Lydia wrote:
Amen, Lydia!
1Jn 2:27 As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.
THC wrote:
The problem comes in when tradition contradicts scripture. I don’t want to get into the traditions of the RCC that contradict scripture as they’ve been hashed over already (I think), but one just can’t make up rules, laws, and traditions and teach them as though they were ordained of God. That’s the very thing many on this blog try to expose in a number of Protestant churches today.
@ Gram3:
@ THC:
I don’t know if you all are vying for who gets the last word–or not–but just in case that may be it (because I really don’t see anybody convincing anybody of anything) let me get back into this since I was part of how it got started in the first place.
So let me have the last word, and everybody else can retire from the playing field with honor. So, if you want to do that here it is.
word!
And if not, well it was worth a try.
Ken wrote:
The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is ancient; almost all early Christians aside from the so-called Judaizing sects (I hate to call them that, because even though they weren’t strictly speaking practitioners of Judaism, the word appears anti-Semitic) believed it; so did Luther, Calvin and Wesley. The popular rejection of the doctrine is extremely recent, beginning in the radical reformation and popularized in recent years by premillennial fundamentalists of chiliastic persuasion such as the late Chuck Smith.
There is in fact no compelling reason to reject this doctrine, and a very compelling reason to accept it. Lot is referred to in Genesis as the brother of Abraham, when in fact he was his nephew; the early church believed St. James the Just to be the cousin of our Lord, and with no offspring or half brothers, there was nothing to lead to the highly destructive succession crises that plagued Islam and the Bahai faith after the death of their founders.
On a personal level, I can’t bring myself to disagree with the Catholics, the Orthodox, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and Wesley. I was a Methodist, and am now Orthodox with somewhat of a crush on high church Anglicanism, and in my youth I attended a Lutheran school, so literally, I am confronted with this doctrine at all points of contact I have had with the Christian faith.
Now I have no problem with people not believing this, but I do feel that, especially when combined with a male only leadership, an indifference to the person of Mary leads to misogyny. Also, as a matter of record, the Council of Ephesus declared anathema those who deny her status as Theotokos. However I am deeply troubled by neo-Collyridians; the hysteria in the Roman church over unsanctioned apparitions such as that of Medjugorje, and the attempts by some Catholics to get Mary declared co-redemptrix, is profoundly disturbing and warns of a possible degeneration of some portions of the Roman church into a mother goddess religion.
Nancy wrote:
And the last word shall be..
ZYMURGY
B****r. I forgot about “zypethsary”.
Bridget wrote:
The word Mass is derived from the rather curt dismissal in the Roman Rite, Ite, missa est, which differs from the flowery benedictions found elsewhere. One thing that does vex me however is when Catholics and Protestants attempt to say there is a fundamental difference between the Eucharist when celebrated in the Latin Rite as a “mass” or in a different rite, as “The Divine Service,” “The Eucharist”, “Holy Communion”, “The Lords Supper”, “The Divine Liturgy”, “Qurbono Qadisho”, “Razza” or “Badarak.” The underlying concept, based on 1 Corinthians 11, is identical, and has been practiced by nearly all Christians since the Last Supper. Even those generally regarded as heretical, such as the Gnostics and the Mormons, practice(d) this rite. The only groups I can think of off the top of my head who do not are some Quakers.
In fact, it is the commonality of this rite and that of baptism that has enabled the ecumenical movement. There is no consensus on exactly how this rite began, whether or not it evolved out of the Agape love feast still observed in some Eastern churches, and revived by John Wesley among others, or was always a standalone celebration, and there is no consensus on the definition of the rite, whether it is sacrificial, symbolic or memorial, and what happens to the bread and wine/grape juice/water, but there is consensus in the essential action of the rite itself; it is practically the defining characteristic of Christian worship. I reccommend the Oxford Handbook of Christian Worship as a guide to the history of the Eucharist and the diverse manner in which it has been celebrated.
THC wrote:
We have a word filter which protects us when we are not watching the comments. If you saw some of the words, you would wonder why they are there. There is a reason. Used in conjunction with other words, it could cause issues.
Secondly, when I am not going to be around and I see a potentially negative a explosive situation developing, I put a person into temporary moderation. It happens routinely. However, you have little to quibble with me over. All of your comments have been approved.
@ William G.:
And it is entirely possible to believe that Mary is the theotokos *without* believing in her perpetual virginity.
These arguments (here, on this page) have gotten very circular. I think it is fine for you to believe as you do, and for those who disagree to believe otherwise.
Ultimately, it has no bearing on the centrality of the incarnation, redemption and resurrection of Christ. If it were central, surely it wouldbe in the earliest creeds? But it isn’t, and i think arguing whose position is the “right” one is an exercise in futility.
Victorious wrote:
I will just say that no Tradition of the RCC contradicts scripture. The problem I think is that it may contradict your *interpretation* of a particular scripture. Some Protestants believe that infant baptism contradicts scripture. Others Protestants don’t. Some Protestants interpret the Bible to say that baptism is required for salvation, other’s say the Bible teaches it is just a symbol and is not required.
Nothing in scripture contradicts the teachings about Mary, perpetual virginity, ark of the covenant, bodily assumption, mother of God, etc. I think what it does contradict is most Protestants own tradition about Mary- what they were taught by their minister or particular religious group. That’s really the issue.
@ dee:
The only thing I think this could explode into is people getting out their Bibles and or studying the early church more closely. Neither of which I see as necessarily a bad thing.
numo wrote:
You know I’ve never seen anyone who affirms the Council of Ephesus but denies the perpetual virginity, but that said, it is theoretically possible. The ease by which such novel ideas can form is the reason why I believe the future of Christianity depends on the past, that is to say, our willingness to study diligently the development of Christian doctrine between Pentecost and the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and to understand the process of Patristic thought.
THC wrote:
And you assume that people here haven’t done this why?
@ William G.:
I think it is important to understand that in many peoples’ minds, supposed perpetual virginity is equated with perfection. This has played out in very painful ways for women over the last 2000 years. One result is commonly known as the “Madonna/whore” dichotomy – women are either one or the other, with no in-between status allowed. Add to that the whole bit about women being “saved through childbearing,” and things get truly toxic.
Supposing that the early theologians had had women in their ranks, i strongly suspect that different conclusions would have been made, and much misogyny avoided. Jaroslav Pelikan’s book Mary Through the Centuries (on changing social and cultural as well as religious views of Mary) is great, and i recommend it highly.
@ William G.:
A lot of Lutherans beli3ve exacyly what I stated. I am one of them. 🙂
@ William G.:
Again, is perpetual virginity stated in the Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian etc. Creeds?
I know, the creeds leave out a lot. But being a woman, i cannot believe in perpetual virginity, if for no other reason than that the hymen (gold standard of virginity then, and even now) would have had to have been broken when Mary gave birth. It id just plain common sense, though to people who knew lityle or nothing about human internal organs, reproductive anatomy or the processes of both pregnancy and childbirth, it *might* be possible to grant a suspension of disbelief. By the High Midfle Ages, this had led to theologians in the West making inane assertions – Mary giving birth through her *ear* was one of them.
Add to that a fascination with typology (thus view of Mary as “the New Eve”) and things get all kinds of crazy very, very fast. The idealization of celibacy for both men and women (as somehow automatically making a celibate person closer to God) is part of that, imo.
dee wrote:
I don’t assume anything.
numo wrote:
Interesting that you say that. The Church teaches that Mary was virgin before birth, during birth, and after birth. Mary did not experience the physical labor pains that was part of the penalty for original sin. One church father described Jesus’ birth as a light coming through a window.
@ THC:
Please answer me. You claimed that your comments would cause a explosion because people would study their Bibles and the early church fathers. Since your comments are being read here, they are aimed at people here. I can assure you that many people here, along with your adorable blog queen, have read the Bible and studied the early church fathers. So, to whom are your referring?
@ Martos:
Yes, it is tragic, and many people have been hurt by Acts29 and Mars Hill. I hope that you find a church that follows Christ and not men.
Nancy wrote:
Ever the optimist, I see.
numo wrote:
Well, there is a broad spectrum of Lutheranism. I think authentic Lutheran theology is that rooted in Martin Luther and his successors, and while I am not personally a subscriber of his theology, he embodied the ideal of the magisterial reformers and was responsible for the repair of the medieval Western church.
Now regarding the issue of celibacy, the early church valued it as much for men as for women. The first monastics, Ss Paul the Hermit and Anthony, were of the male gender. Today, there is a Lutheran monastery in the US and several in Germany and Sweden.
In the Eastern churches, there were always many more monks than nuns; in the West one gets a sense that at times women were coerced into cenobitic convents, whereas in the East such a condition is not known.
Holy celibacy and holy heterosexual matrimony are the accepted modes of Christian sexuality according to St. Paul. The status of Mary crossing both categories essentially validates this ideal.
The early church did improve the lot of women compared to paganism and even Judaism (by way of our Lord emphasizing the wrongness of men unilaterally putting away their wives). Later, things slipped back a bit in the Dark Ages, particularly in the West, but to say that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary has harmed women is simply wrong.
Also it should be stressed that the ecumenical councils are not the sole font of extra scriptural dogma. In the Orthodox Church we have the concept of Holy Tradition, the Catholics rely on the Magisterium and the papacy, and the Lutherans, Anglicans and classical Calvinists, on the idea of consensus patrum, that is to say, the shared view of the fathers. Because on the subject of Mary these are in alignment I personally am unable to reject this doctrine.
When one finds an authentic rift among the voices of antiquity, for example, the Chalcedonian schism, it is easier to diverge, but where such broad consensus exists I simply can’t deviate. There is actually more disagreement regarding the canonical standing of Revelations (deprecated by Luther and the Assyrians, and not read liturgically in any Eastern church) than there is over this issue.
Gram3 wrote:
My optimisterizer function is just about busted. We need to think of something interesting for conversation but which at the same time is not so contested. You are good that that sort of thing. What have you got that we need to talk about?
dee wrote:
Honestly, I just threw that out there because I have no idea why my words would cause an explosion here. It was tongue in cheek. Maybe you can explain why a discussion on RCC teachings is a “potentially negative explosive situation.” I feel your actions speak louder than your words. Of course, I may very well misunderstand the intent of your actions.
THC wrote:
At best that is an argument from silence. I think it is more precise to call Mary the Christotokos, if she must have an honorific. Jesus explicitly taught the disciples that the Kingdom is not based on blood or ethnic affiliation. He is the Son of God and the Son of Jacob and the Branch and the Son of David.
It is a mistake to assume that the brothers of Jesus were not his half-siblings. If cousins were the proper interpretation, then one would expect to find John the Baptist described as Jesus’ brother. This is the same mistake that the complementarians make regarding “head.” They take one meaning that is *possible* out of a range of meanings and assign that meaning to the word so as to arrive at the correct doctrine, and that doctrine was assumed a priori.
Now, if Mary was indeed perpetually a virgin, then I must reassess my opposition to canonization, and St. Joseph would certainly qualify. An argument from antiquity will not work for reasons including the fact that false teaching and wrong doctrines and wrong inferences from wrong doctrines have been in the church from the beginning. Judaizers were merely applying their understanding of the necessity of the covenant sign, not realizing that the entire order had changed after the cross.
That doctrine, along with the immaculate conception is, for me, very disturbing. It implicitly assumes that she is a holy object that is not to be defiled by a man. Paul teaches us that marriage is good and the marriage bed is undefiled. Presumably, Adam and Eve would not have sinned if they consummated their marriage before the Fall. I am not saying they did, because we don’t know the entire story. But it is the pagans, as at Ephesus in the religion of Ephesian Artemis, who elevated virginity above marriage such that virginity was virtuous. Paul tells the women there to get married and have children so that they would not follow the lifestyle and teaching of the Ephesian religion.
These two doctrines, IMO, steal glory from the unique son of God, the only human ever to be born without sin and continue without sin. He is the only child not conceived by the action of a man. He remained a virgin male. To ascribe those unique qualities to another human being and then venerate that human being is going into very dangerous territory.
William G. wrote:
The indigenous pagan religion at Ephesus celebrated virginity and castrated males. I don’t think we should assume that none of that thinking crept into the early church, particularly a council which took place at Ephesus. The instructions Paul gave to Timothy are quite explicit. Women need to stop teaching these false doctrines which they had learned from birth, they need to renounce them by learning the Scriptures, and they need to stop spreading the false teaching from house to house. Paul told Timothy that they would be saved through the Childbearing. That elevates giving birth to a dignified place in Ephesus, and it would have been shocking for the pagans at Ephesus.
Paul is very clear that neither virginity nor marriage is superior per se. He celebrates both, and both are beneficial in different contexts, but neither state is superior to the other and neither state is commanded for all.
THC wrote:
What is the evidence which the Roman Catholic church presents for the assertion that she was a perpetual virgin and that she had no labor pain? It seems that might be an inference from a prior assumption of her immaculate conception.
William G. wrote:
I think that is a very bold statement for a man to make. Please stop and think about that. To fixate on a woman’s sexual history or status is simply wrong, to use your words. Women are shamed way too much in the church, and venerating Mary does not help that.
The magisterial reformers retained doctrines that other streams of the reformation discarded. Zwingli is an example of a magisterial reformer who struggled with which doctrines to keep and which to discard. Marburg was all about what the correct sacramental theology was. If Mary had been elevated when she should not have been, it would have likely been seen as diminishing her even if the reformers were attempting to correct the wrong doctrines which had become ingrained. That’s how ideas and human nature work.
Nancy wrote:
I don’t call myself a cynic or a pessimist, rather I consider myself an experienced optimist.
However, HUG brought up Christian monism on the other thread. That could be a fun topic that you could teach us something about.
THC
You misunderstood me. Read my comment again.
The ‘”potentially explosive discussion” has to do with the use of combinations of words that are picked up by our spam filter which was not designed by us, by the way. It is used by many blogs. We use the filter to prevent trolls from causing trouble on the blog when we are away, sleeping or catalog browsing. It has nothing to with any church,religion, etc. It has to do with use of words, whether you are RCC,Reformed, Hindu, atheist or a movie reviewer.
You are being a bit paranoid. This blog allows all sorts of comments-much more than most. This is my last explanation to you on the matter. Yes, some of your stuff is being moderated but all of it has been let through which should speak to my actions that you have denigrated without cause. So, please dial it down or you will get to see what slow moderation looks like. Ask Seneca.
Gram3 wrote:
I don’t even know what that is or how to spell it. We need HUG here, and I can think of a few others who talk here. I have never known HUG to be lacking in information, and when he explains something even I can understand it. You have a great idea there, I think.
Hope everyone has a great Monday evening!
@ THC:
I think this is not possible.
Nancy wrote:
Yes to the first part about HUG having information about lots of things. No to the second part, because there are many things he says that leave me with question marks floating vertiginously over my head, except for the Orwell references. The cultural references are totally lost on me, the pop culture nincompoop in the Deebs’ virual living room.
How about this proposal: We can talk about how Christian monism might affect how we think about the immaculate conception of Mary. Traducianism or Creationism (not YEC)?
@ William G.:
William, i have stated what i believe to be true, and you have done the same. There is more than a little misogyny in the writings of many of the early church fathers, especially based on the argument that Eve was deceived and then somehow coerced Adam into sinning, too.
Asfor women being put into convents against their will, yes – and within recent decades. Large families in some parts of the world will literally get rid of “extra” (dowryless) faughters that way. It is also true that many monks were placed in monasteries when very young (even as infant oblates, up to a certain point in time) and had no real choice in the matter. Howdvet, most Westetn orders of nuns have taken the opposite tack from enclosure over the padt severzl centuries. The nuns i livec with were part of an orfer that, at the time, was mainly involved in school and hospital work. Nowthat most parochial schools have either closdd or are staffed by lay people, i am honestly not sure what the order does. (Their hospitals have mostly bern sold or closed in the intervening decades.)
Re. Luther and Melancthon et. al., i respect yheir views on tnis, but thrre was never anything binding re. Marian devotion, as you will see if you get hold of a copy of the Book of Concord. I have no doubt that *some* Lutherans today believe as Luther did, but my hunch is very, very few. I have never bern aware of Marian devotion in my synod, nor have i ever seen wall paintings or stained glass windows where she was either the sole or primary subject. As you probably know, most Lutheran churches have no sculptures, other than a cross (sometimes a crucifix, sometimes a Christus Victor figure on a cross, but mostly just plain crosses, or occasionally with a Chi Rho or similar).
@ numo:
My apologies vor typos!
It’s such a blessing to be here.
@ Gram3:
How about we drop all of this and talk about our pets or something less potentially upsetting? I think that i need to chill and not get into making any more potentially divisive comments at the moment. Text-only communication is hard, especially when difficult subjects are under discussion, and i know that i need a break!
@ William G.:
You cite monasticism as part of the practice of the early church, but i think it is important to be clear about its history. The amount of time that passed betwen Pentecost and the 1st people heading for the desert is not inconsiderable. There are sovial and cultural factors involved here as well. I do not see anything in the Gospels that even remotely suggests that Jesus recommended that people become hermits, live in enclosed communities, etc. Of course, groups like the Essenes already existed, and istm that people adapted ideas that were already in the air, for many different reasons.
I believe in the sincerity of those who wrnt to the desert, but am by no means convinced that it was a good idea to do so, then or now.
@ Gram3:
Yeah, I said when he “explains” something. Mostly I miss his references and zingers and just don’t get it. But from time to time he explains stuff, and I find myself wishing he would do more of that.
As to the rest, I will look that stuff up and see if I understand anything about it and then we can (perhaps) do as you suggest.
@ numo:
I don’t have any pets…unless you count the 8 pt buck and family that eat all But tell me about yours. I’ve loved and lost so many that it’s just easier not to have them now.
I can understand how typing an answer to these intense comments would be tough on a phone, though I think your experiences are very interesting. I don’t know much about the Lutheran churches because I’ve lived in places that were dominated by SBC, PCUS/PCA/PCUSA, Catholic, and a touch of charismatic/Pentecostal. I do have Lutheran ancestors who immigrated from Hamburg. A loooooong time ago.
@ Gram3:
…8 pt buck and family that eat all the deer-resistant plants in our yard. The fawn came up to Gramp3 this summer.
numo wrote:
Speaking of. Somebody had the bright idea to cross a poodle with a Yorkshire terrier resulting in something called a yorkie-poo. And somebody else had the bright idea to spend their hard earned money on one of those things. I refuse to admit that I was the one who did it. This poor critter is pitiful to look at but is good natured. Not all genetic modifications turn out too well.
numo wrote:
Certainly is an assumption…
numo wrote:
The early anchorite monks were simply following in the footsteps of celibate apostles like Paul, who in turn were following the example of our Lord. Of the leaders of the early church, men and women, most were celibate but a minority were married. The idea that marriage alone is an honorable condition however is not only unscriptural, flying in the face of St. Paul’s own epistles, but in fact a characteristic of Semitic religions such as Islam, Mandaeism, the Bahai faith, and Rabinnical Judaism. Conversely, the idea that marriage is evil was held by some Gnostics, and more recently the Shakers and some of the sects resulting from the Nikonian schism.
Now the Lutheran monastery here in the US, St. Augustine’s house, is a very friendly place and I would urge you to consider making a retreat there and talking to the brethren (there are only 2 or 3 but that’s more than enough). I think you would have a very rewarding time.
The monastic institution offers us three very valuable services: firstly, monastic hospitality provides people with a spiritual retreat, which is why in churches that have them, monasteries are the principle retreat centers used by clergy. Secondly, the monastery offers the chance for people who are oppressed by the evil that is in the world, including their own sinfulness, to escape from it and live in a state of increasing holiness in preparation for the dread day of judgement. Thirdly, the monastery provides different forms of what the Catholics like to call an apostolate; monks intercede for us with their prayer, set a moral example, and in some cases, engage in active evangelization, especially in the Western church, where the Benedictine monasteries were on the front line of the conversion of Northern Europe.
Now, not everyone is called to the monastic vocation; it is a very hard life. However, all monastics deserve the respect, love and prayer of all Christians. There is nothing about the monastic vocation which can be said to be in any sense unscriptural, whereas one can at least make an argument against the perpetual virginity from a naive reading of the Gospels.
I just read an article by Amy-Jill Levine and I am going to get something of hers and read it. She is Jewish and is (among other things) a professor of New Testament at Vanderbilt. The article was about her take on some parables. Interesting enough to pursue.
THC wrote:
Just a big comment here. On the internet no one can hear your voice inflections or see your facial expressions. There for it is considered almost a requirement that any humor/sarcasm/”tongue in check”/whatever have a disclaimer after it. Forget the almost. Put a disclaimer.
Gram3 wrote:
Christian monism strikes me as oxymoronic; while monism is integral to the Hindu religion, unless monism in this sense is interpreted in opposition to Manichaean dualism, the concept seems entirely alien to the Christian system; in particular, by implying that God created evil, it wreaks havoc with our concept of theodicy. Also, it certainly runs afoul of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which anathematized Monergism along with monothelitism (Calvinism thus runs afoul of that council with its doctrine of the reprobate foreordained to damnation). Monism clearly depends on Monergism. More disturbing is the consideration that Monism, if interpreted in a Hindu sense, would invalidate the Holy Trinity.
Now the Trinity consists of three coeternal and consubstantial persons in a perpetual union of love, all equally God, distinct from creation. The Hindu model envisages deities such as Vishnu, Shiva and Ganesha as manifestations of the one Brahmin God. Thus Hinduism resembles the Sabellian or modalist view of the Trinity. Hinduism, by virtue of its pantheism, is really the monist religion par excellence.
@ Nancy:
That would be an interesting topic. Because of the split that occurred between the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians, I think we have lost some of the meaning in
the Bible. Now I need to go find the book I picked up at a Purim festival at the Jewish center about Christians and Jews in that time period.
@ Gram3:
It does seem to me that some christian thinking has become rather in-bred, what with all the labeling of things as heresy, and the more and more narrowly defined ideas and doctrines. We have a lot of defending of our own various positions, but two year olds do that with “mine” “no, mine.” My late great tradition which I fortuitously abandoned was prone to label things “compromise.” Compromise with the thinking of the world and that sort of thing. Thing is, I never did hear an adequate explanation as to why compromise per se was inherently and always wrong. If my position has some merit but misses being infallible and somebody else’s position, while different, also has some merit but misses perfection, it looks to me like everybody could learn by dialog and (gasp) perhaps even compromise or that even more contested word “tolerance.” We sometimes seem to be more interested in winning that in pursuing actual truth.
@ William G.:
I’m not trying to undo history, and i guess you might not know that i lived in a very small convent for a year, back in the early 70s. I have all linds of love and respect for those nuns, and for other men and women like them.
I was attempting to make a point about extreme asceticism vs. what i believe Jesus did, which was to go out to a lonely place to prsy – and then come back. I don’t see anything in the NT to support extreme asceticism of any kind.
But i think we need to agree to disagree, no?
@ William G.:
Just to clarify, I was referring to the discussion among Christians regarding whether humans are bodies with immaterial properties or bodies and souls that are united in life but separated during the interim between death and the bodily resurrection. It is an interesting question that has been revived due to the advances in neuroscience.
That is a very crude approximation of some of the issues which I very coincidentally became interested in recently. It isn’t the other monism, though the terms make it confusing. I don’t actually know which one HUG was referring to since I did not look up Christian Monist yet.
numo wrote:
I think it depends on how you define extreme asceticism. I do not support the use of the cilice or self flagellation, and neither do most monastics. However, John the Baptist lived an ascetic life unrivaled by any monk I’m aware of with the possible exception of Paul the Hermit, so I think if we take St. John the Baptist as the high end of asceticism, then everything up to and including what he did is acceptable.
Where asceticism becomes unacceptable is when the monk intentionally harms their body, which is a temple of the Holy Spirit; for example, the use of the cilice by members of Opus Dei, or Origen castrating himself. Such extreme asceticism does occur in the Indian religions; in episode 2 of the BBC documentary series Extreme Pilgrim you will see Hindu sadhus laboring to breath under the weight of thousands of beads, or with their arm withered above their head. Practitioners of the Jain faith are known to commit suicide through slow starvation over a multi year period. I think we can both agree that this level of ascetic practice is sinful in that it amounts to self destructive violence against our bodies, which are a gift from God.
However, at the same time, I cannot be persuaded that everything up to the asceticism of John the Baptist is wrong, but I don’t think either Ss. Paul the Hermit or Anthony the Great pushed that far. Most cenobitic monastics, like the nuns you lived with, live a much more luxurious life than either Ss. John, Paul or Anthony. The Desert Fathers were hermits without the benefit of a formal abbot and the systematic agriculture and industry that the cenobitic monasteries later developed; thus they lived under much more primitive conditions, sleeping on the ground and eating very meager diets. The modern day monks at St. Anthony’s are well fed, sleep on beds, have electric light, plumbing and other amenities, and there is even a dentist in residence. Even Father Lazarus, the Australian convert who lives in a cave in the hills above the monastery, enjoys some modern conveniences such as a pantry well stocked with exotic coffee, flashlights, and modern walking shoes. I don’t know of anyone roughing it like the early monks with the possible exception of the Syriac Orthodox holed up at the Mar Mathias convent near Mosul.
Lastly, one should observe that with the development of cenobitic monasticism, going straight into the desert became discouraged, at least for beginners. St. John Climacus warns against it; on Mount Athos permission to live alone in a hermitage is granted only to the oldest and most experienced monks via a formal process.
@ Nancy:
Compromise to me carries political connotations or go along to get along. That’s fine. I think that when church people use it they mean something like capitulation to cultural pressure in order to gain acceptance in the culture. Tolerance used to be a really good term, but it has been hijacked from the realm of ideas and transported to the realm of behaviors. Since behaviors usually impact others, and pure ideas do not unless they are acted upon, I think that tolerance no longer means what it once did.
When it comes to seeking the truth, I guess I believe in the idea that “more information is more better” and information and ideas should be tested by open exchange of alternative ideas and information. ISTM that modeling should always be provisional under conditions of uncertainty and subject to revision when more information becomes available and has been validated.
If someone is only interested in compliance with their will or agreement with their idea, then they will try to silence opposing ideas or withhold information which contradicts their model or use all manner of poor reasoning. If someone is truly interested in the truth, then information that can be tested should not be a threat.
IIRC Nature is reporting that Neanderthals carried the reservoir of math genes while Cro-Magnon had the genes for social skills, and apparently that information blew through some accepted models. Then there was the article about re-plasticizing an old brain. Now we’re talking, because mine is practically vulcanized.
Gram3 wrote:
The consensus patrum was that the elect would experience a foretaste of paradise, and others, a foretaste of damnation, but the matter would ultimately be settled on judgment day. Some Eastern fathers wrote of heavenly toll houses, and in recent years the late Fr. Seraphim Rose talked about the concept at length, but it remains controversial among the Orthodox as it contains more than a faint whiff of Gnosticism. However, there is some Patristic material to support it, albeit unlike in the Gnostic version, there are no secret passwords to get you past the demons. I myself do not presume to have an opinion on this matter other than to hope that God will forgive myself and my loved ones (like St. Paul, I am not sure of my soteriological outcome).
By the way, I myself would really love to discuss the liturgy if anyone is interested. I just received for my birthday a superb recording of Herbert Howells organ works; I am a massive of his choral settings of Anglican services, and his hymns and anthems, including A Spotless Rose and the heartbreaking Take Him Earth for Cherishing, composed in honor of his deceased son, who I believe died at age 11. There is a profundity depth to the work of Howells which flows from the great hardships he endured, and his music I believe more than anyone else’s defines the modern atonal polyphonic ascetic of contemporary English sacred music.
On a lighter note I received When Augustus Reigned, a collection of Orthodox liturgical music for Christmas and Epiphany, by Capella Romana, which is a fantastic choir specializing in Eastern church music, ranging from ancient Byzantine chant reconstructed from the disused Cathedral Office sung at Hagia Sophia until the Ottoman conquest, to contemporary settings of Orthodox music in the English language. Their director, Alexander Lingas, is one of the foremost musicologists working in ancient church music.
As I’m sure you might expect given my enthusiasm for the ancient, I love this stuff, although I am very fond of classic Western hymnody by Charles Wesley, Martin Luther, etc. The Orthodox Church has lamentably not figured out a good way to use these hymns without threatening liturgical purity, although the Carpatho-Russyns, or Ruthenians, among others, sing Western Christmas carols in their cathedral in Pennsylvania at Christmas. However their music program has been a bit of a let down for me; Ruthenian chant is a very interesting subspecies quite unlike the church music of surrounding peoples (The Carpatho-Rusyn-Ruthenians are a Slavic people from a region in Poland, Ukraine and Belarus, and neighboring states, but they are a distinct ethnic group; they became Byzantine Rite Catholics following the Union of Brest, but in the 19th century their diaspora in the US largely joined the Church of Constantinople in order to keep their married priests).
Oh, one other comment on celibacy for Numo: I do believe that the Roman church insisting on celibate priests in the Latin Rite is wrong. I support celibate bishops because of the problems we see guys like Mark Driscoll get into due to their uncontrolled sex drive, but priests who are married can provide valuable counseling to married laity. In the Orthodox churches the wife of the priest serves as a sort of mother figure to the community and is referred to as the “Matushka.” Based on a literal reading of Paul’s epistle to Timothy, priests must be married before being ordained, or commit to celibacy, and may not remarry without returning to the laity. I am not saying this is the best way to do it, and there have been some great married Anglican bishops, but I do think its a good approach. There was one married Anglican bishop whose name escapes me who wrote a fantastic commentary on Pontius Pilate and moral relativism in the late 19th century which I can dig up if anyone is Christian.
I want to wish you all a good night, on this note: though we do have our disagreements over church polity, ecclesiology and some matters of doctrine, we are clearly brothers and sisters in Christ, and God bless the Deebs for creating this forum where we can have an open ended discussion and engage with each other on these matters of theology.
Gram3 wrote:
Regarding the Council of Ephesus, you would have a point if it were a local council consisting solely of Ephesian clergy, but it was in fact a general council consisting of all bishops, except for the Persians, who arrived late. St. Cyril of Alexandria, Egypt, who presided over the council, should have waited for them, but he was impatient, and thus inadvertently caused the Nestorian schism. However the Assyrians venerate Mary as Christotokos to a huge extent, with special services commemorating her assumption on the 15th of August.
It should be noted that the Bishop of Ephesus was a particularly honorable post, as tradition held St. John the Evangelist was the first bishop of that see, and that the blessed saving in lived in his care, attended on occasion by St. Luke in his capacity as physician, until her Dormition. That aside, there is nothing particularly unique about the Ephesian church that would set it apart from any others in Asia Minor, and it was never a Patriarchate or even an important regional archdiocese in the manner of Caesarea or Milan. It, like Nicea and Chalcedon, was a charming town not too far from Constantinople, and thus, as far as the third ecumenical council was concerned, basically a glorified convention center. If you know the UK at all you may recall how the Tories used to have their annual convention in Brighton; Ephesus was basically the same thing; it would not be too much of a stretch to call it a resort city along the coast. Nicea and Chalcedon were similar in this regard, Nowadays Chalcedon is a busy neighborhood on the Asian side of Istanbul, across the Bospnorus from the Great Church and Topkapi Palace.
Speaking of Nicea, Canon I of the First Ecumenical Council held there under St. Constantine in 325 prohibited self-castrated persons from being ordained, declaring self mutilation to be self murder. This canon was reaffirmed at Ephesus.
In general, I believe that as we dive deeper into the history of the early church, we will find that, more often than not, it is on our side when it comes to these issues. I am convinced that most, if not all, of the abuse documented on Wartburg Watch occurs as a result of the ancient canons being violated. These canons, if followed with a proper balance of economy and exactness, provide for the harmonious operation of a merciful church. As a thought experiment, I would urge you to read the Pedalion or another compendium of ancient canons, and then see how they apply to the stories run on Wartburg Watch; I think you’ll find in most cases there is a canon that if observed, would have saved people some misery. The canons should not of course be viewed in a legalistic sense, as if they were Mitzvot; they are guidelines that can be waived in cases of pastoral necessity, at least in the Orthodox Church. I can’t comment on the disciplinary processes of other churches other than to say that the Roman church provides in the modern day a very equitable justice system to enforce its canons, but it’s body of canon law is rather weighty and perhaps well beyond what a layman could be expected to learn, whereas among the ancient canons there are only a few hundred that are commonly cited.
Gram3 wrote:
I will have to read that. Whole chunks of me are turning to something which may be the early stages of concrete. My brain is stiff. The area they irradiated is stiff. One hip and one shoulder (where I fell) are trying to get into the act. I am trying valiantly to hold on to my attitude so that it does not go down that same path. Oh to be pliable again.
Nancy wrote:
I can identify with this! It does seem that the primary function of a retiree is keeping employment up in the medical sector of the economy.
One comment not approved. Paranoia does not make for thoughtful discussion.
oldJohnJ wrote:
LOL! Thanks for the humor this morning!
For the Suggestion Box (whereever it is):
Is there any way that the order of these posts can be reversed, with the newest ones at the top? Sorry if this has already been suggested, but with this many posts it is difficult to read on a phone.
Thanks in advance for considering this. 🙂
dee wrote:
I always suspected you thought I was paranoid – now the truth is out!
@ William G.:
The point was not that the men at the Council of Ephesus were all Ephesians. The point was that the indigenous pagan Ephesian religion had infiltrated the church at Ephesus, and I think it is naive to assume that just went away after Timothy dealt with it. That’s just not how culture works. In addition to that, the information we have from history is not exhaustive nor is it unbiased, so I assume there is information about that event that was not recorded or preserved for any number of reasons.
Every church is subject to its indigenous pagan or essentially pagan influences, including America. We need to recognize what those infiltrations are and deal with them. The early church was not pristine, including the church at Ephesus and her leaders.
William G. wrote:
Beg to differ with that. The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus was a wonder of the ancient world. It was a pilgrimage city, and the record we have in Acts of Paul’s experience there indicates that they were very serious about their worship of Ephesian Artemis. Ephesians were a little excitable about their goddess, and the pagan deities were closely identified with their territory or land. It would be hard to undo the influence of hundreds of years of tradition overnight, and syncretistic thought patterns and even practices are included in every religion because of cultural pressure. Cybele, Ephesian Artemis, Greek Artemis, and Roman Diana are, IMO, examples of this.
Again, it is naive to ignore the implications of an indigenous religion, even influence which would persist after hundreds of years. One could argue that America’s indigenous religion is the pursuit of affluence, so a missionary to America would certainly want to give due weight to the presuppositions Americans have about “the way things are or ought to be.” That’s just the way humans are.
Gram3 wrote:
(mind immediately thinks of casinos on reservations)
On a change of subject, this is an abnormally long comment but it covers matters that are close to the heart of the TWW community. I have quoted it verbatim from an article I read today by Keir Starmer, the former Director of Public Prosecutions (the DPP is in effect the most senior law enforcement officer in England and Wales independent of government).
Starmer wrote this against a backdrop of recent high-profile prosecutions of celebrities for very serious sexual offences committed many years ago, often against children. The points he raises are important enough to justify posting a comment this long, and are worth reading. Starmer’s words are in italics.
In the coming months, Oskar Gröning, a 93-year-old former Auschwitz guard, will stand trial in Germany, accused of 300,000 counts of accessory to murder. In Britain, a host of greying celebrities have been arrested on suspicion of historic sex crimes. A number have been brought before the courts. Some have been convicted.
What is common to both investigations is that offences that were allegedly committed many years ago are now being tried, decades later.
We all know the maxim that “justice delayed is justice denied”. For many years that dictated that if a prosecution wasn’t brought within a certain period of time, it was not fair on defendants and should not be brought at all. Finality triumphed over justice.
But in recent times, there has been a profound shift in thinking when it comes to our attitude towards time and justice. Central to that change has been a growing understanding that time runs at a different speed for victims. When I was Director of Public Prosecutions, a number of victims disclosed to me that, particularly in cases of personal sexual violence, time ran at a very slow speed indeed. Several explained that they had not been able to sleep properly for many years, with nights spent playing over in their heads the abuse that they had suffered. In a sense they carried an unresolved issue with them, almost as an open wound, for many years, maybe even for their entire lives.
This has forced us to reconsider the relationship between time and justice. And as we try to come to terms with the scale and extent of the previously undisclosed offences omitted by Jimmy Savile, this has all been brought into very sharp focus. We are rightly reluctant to say to those now coming forward to report serious allegations, not infrequently against those in the public eye, that they are simply too late.
Some people may ask what the point is in bringing a case years, maybe even decades, after the alleged offence took place. The accused may be in their twilight years. If they are found guilty, the inevitable march of time may well mean they do not live to serve a sentence to fit their crimes. Where is the notion of restitution?
Starmer at this point acknowledges the impact of being tried and acquitted, or arrested and released without charge, on a person who is most probably innocent. In this part of the article, he states that, in deciding whether a case should be prosecuted:
The golden rule is that it must be possible to have a fair trial But, if the only factor weighing against prosecution is the passage of time, for me, that is simply not a good enough reason not to bring a case.
He finally goes on to say:
It’s important to bear in mind that at the heart of most of the cases involving historic allegations that have recently gone to trial are allegations of serious sexual wrongdoing. And whether those allegations relate to celebrities or not, neither the police nor the Crown Prosecution Service go looking for victims. A case only gets investigated when a complaint is made.
So the relationship between time and justice has changed. To my mind, for the better. Of course there have been huge scientific and technological developments, such as advances in DNA profiling. But most importantly, we now understand victims’ interests better and recognise that, for many, achieving closure, the knowledge that someone has been held to account, is an end in itself.
@ Gram3:
America’s true indigenous religions are those of the native peoples in the loer 48, Alaska and Hawaii. (Am sure you know this; just saying.) Immigrants from all over have added their own foklore, superstitiins, devotionsl practices and more. I don’t think any nominally xtian countries have ever eradicated pre-xtian beliefs, nor (imo) is it good to focus on that, other than to acknowledge that it’s there and still plays a art in peoples’ daily lives. Efforts to purge such things tend to turn into fanatacism and end up being very ugly (like the Salem witch trials).
A book you might enoy is William Dalrymple’s From the Holy Mountain. He traveled throughout the Middle East (including Turkey), looking for traces and remnants of the era when xtianity was the pevasive religion. It’s a fascinating book, and he’s an engaging and sympathetic narrator. Higly recommended
@ William G.:
Relatively few Hindu sadhus practice extreme self-mortification anymore.
Humans are social by nature and communities are a good model. I think there are a very few people fitted for life in isolation, but it’s inadvisible for most of us.
@ William G.:
There is a lot of controversy over the Jain practice that you mentioned. Many in India would like to make it illegal, but it is very hard to call certain religious practices into question. Japan made a similar practice in some Buddhist sects illegal after WWII.
@ William G.:
Howells really is amazing, and thanks for the music recs!
@ numo:
I would also caution that the sadhus who do harm or appear to do harm) to themselves are often
– people with untreated mental and physical illnesses
– or people whose displays are a show nd who are basically out to use their appearance of holiness to make money off the credulous. One man who devoted his life to exposing faked god-men was murdered a couple of years ago.
@ Gram3:
You might have a point were Ephesus anything more than a venue. However, the actual debate was between Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople and a pupil of the Antiochene school of theology, and St. Cyril, Pope of Alexandria. The net contribution of Ephesus to the council was the vote of one bishop, plus the hospitality.
Of the seven ecumenical councils, three were held in Constantinople, two in Nicea, one in Ephesus and one in Chalcedon. The councils were ecumenical, meaning global, presided over by the emperor, with each bishop or his delegate having one vote. Some of those at the first council were at the second, and several of those at Ephesus were also at Chalcedon. Because of the global nature of the councils it is inconceivable that the host cities had any influence on the theological proceedings; only Constantinople and Ephesus were important; Nicea and Chalcedon were basically suburbs. Of these cities, only Constantinople was a patriarchate.
Where one does find local influence is in the local councils, which reflect more purely the theology of different regions of the church. So for example, one sees the Spanish councils from a very early time adopt a distinctive approach to certain issues. However the Third Ecumenical Council was not a local council. In that era, Ephesus was a respected and uncontroversial diocese; it did not have a history of feuding rival bishops like Antioch and Caesarea, nor was it a font of theological talent in the manner of the Cappadocian sees or Milan.
@ numo:
That book sounds very interesting. What I meant by indigenous was not the First Nation/Native American religions but the cultural religion of the American Dream. That’s the aspect of America that most people from outside the West that I know have noted. And it makes some sense when you think about the reasons immigrants come here, including my ancestors!
To be honest, I don’t study much about animistic or pagan religions. I just can’t do it. I’m thankful others are not so queasy about it.
@ numo:
I am inclined to agree. My point is that Saddhus embody the kind of excessive asceticism that exceeds what is allowable in the Christian faith. However I think that within Christianity, everything up to John the Baptist is acceptable and praiseworthy.
However many monks remark that in their struggle with temptation, they have it easier than Christians living in the world.
@ Gram3:
I think it is likely less scary than you might guess. I had similar feelings myself for a long time, but i feel more queasy about a lot of things that are happening in supposedly xtian crcles!
@ Gram3:
As for indigenous, i understood, but was thinking about indigenous peoples and…
William G. wrote:
It’s a doctrine that was birthed out of a time that did not see women as the equals of men. A time where legally, women were treated as property. And a time where it was believed (per Aristotelian biology) that women contributed no more to children than the “ground” (womb) and a good attitude during the pregnancy.
To me, the perpetual virginity of Mary is a slap in the face to every other woman born. There is no way, *no way* that *any* woman can emulate a virgin mother. Sure you can be a virgin or you can be a mother. It makes marital relations suspect. After all, if Mary and Joseph didn’t have relations, then perhaps nobody should, because after all, they’re the Holy Family. Maybe it makes you happy that Mary’s a woman apart from every other woman, but to me it makes her not human.
I’d also note that the proclamation of Mary’s perpetual virginity may be old, but it’s not in the New Testament. In fact, Paul knows nothing of Mary’s perpetual virginity, to say nothing of a virgin birth. He states of Jesus in Galatians 4:4: “But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,”.
But then again, the churches which tend to believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity also don’t see women as being able to image Christ because we’re missing an all-important piece of anatomy (or an XY chromosome set). As a woman, I find this obnoxious and little different from the complementarian garbage being spread about in some conservative Protestant denominations.
numo wrote:
Totally get that. I didn’t read the actual complaints in the SGM suit for that very reason. When you start talking about abusing kids, I just can’t take reading the details. I can’t watch the trial/crucifixion scenes in Christian movies. No nature videos with realist portrayals of, well, nature, either. Hyperactive empathy circuits with no off switch.
numo wrote:
Yeah, I’m one of them. Sorta.
mirele wrote:
Such good points. Especially Mary as “other” and the double-bind of women being instructed to be conformed to the image of Christ, but men like Bruce Ware saying we can’t because our imgaging of God is “derivative” from the male. Male is normative for human. Female is less than the ideal.
Nancy wrote:
There are three things which I believe in as non-negotiable axioms:
1) Jesus’ supernatural conception–no human male sperm involved.
2) His bodily resurrection from the dead after being murdered by a corrupt religious establishment in collusion with the Roman military.
3) Jesus’ return into real space-time at some point in future.
The rest of the stuff I’m told that I must believe in order to be ‘saved’ and go to ‘heaven’? I’ve given it all a listen and have weighed it carefully. I keep my own counsel on whether or not I sign onto it either in whole or in part. I’m pretty much all over the map with regard to religious and spiritual beliefs. I can be bane to both liberal and conservative alike.
@ William G.:
We are talking past one another. We are concerned with very different matters, and I doubt that we will agree on what is important much less why.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
That article raises some difficult questions, but it certainly does bring the SGM situation with the statute of limitations to mind.
Is there talk of revising statutes of limitation in GB? It does make sense to re-think an idea when the rationale for the idea has changed. In this case, the available evidence and the integrity of the evidence. Technology has changed so much since these statutes were written. Then there is the issue of shifting cultural mores.
Thanks for the article. And for changing the topic!
In other news, the Philae lander is due to detach from the Rosetta spacecraft less than 5 minutes from now (at 8:35 GMT), the final “go” decision having been made an hour ago.
Confirmation that the two spacecraft have separated will not be received by mission control for another 30 minutes, though. I will keep everyone posted (for any who are interested…).
mirele wrote:
There is a very valid reason for the fact that Mary alone can be a virgin mother, and that is the fact that Christ was only once born of a woman; at the dread day of judgement he will not return in this manner. Thus the correct theological response is not to resent Mary for the unique honor granted to her, but rather to understand Mary as the iconographic embodiment of womankind.
Mary, unlike Christ, was conceived naturally by sexual intercourse; in the Orthodox faith we even reject the idea of the immaculate conception, because our model of ancestral sin, derived from St. John Cassian, rather than St. Augustine, does not posit imputed guilt, nor do we believe the conjugal act is sinful, for as Paul says, the marriage bed is undefiled.
Thus, if we recognize that Mary, a natural born woman, was physically closer to the incarnate God than any other human, it becomes evident that women, in the Orthodox faith, have attained the fullest degree of holiness. All women who piously live in Christ in holy celibacy or holy matrimony are iconically representing Mary and are through their piety and fidelity participating in her holiness. The virgin birth itself is a factor of the divine nature of Christ; because our Lord was God incarnate and not a mere man, the manner in which he was born was distinct from ordinary human birth, The consensus of Patristic sources indicates that Mary did not experience labor pains.
This particular holy state should not be envied or resented, I repeat, because all women can iconographically embody it. Mary, through her actions, which included extreme suffering, including the suspicion of having cheated on Joseph and the misery of watching her only son perish on the cross, sanctified the entire course of female life in a unique way. Before Mary, if we look at Genesis, we see women being assigned a certain guilt for Eve succumbing to the temptation of the devil and then corrupting Adam; with Mary, this situation is reversed; by being incarnate of a woman our Lord removed the stigma associated with the fall.
Now I will readily concede this will not be enough to satisfy some progressive Psuedo-Christians like Elaine Pagels. People who insist on the use of gender neutral language or praying to “Our Mother who art in Heaven,” will not be swayed by traditional orthodoxy. I cannot hope to persuade the pastor of herchurch, for example, as to the error of her ways. However, these errors are not specific to women; the most pernicious heresies yet created have been the fruits or ambitious, egotistical and misogynist men. The idea that Mary was not a perpetual virgin but just an ordinary woman was advanced by men like Chuck Smith.
I firmly believe that the key for women to empower themselves is to reject the misogynist authoritarian male pastors like Chuck Smith, Mark Driscoll and so on, and to actively embrace Mary as the true Mother of God, and lay a claim to her holiness as the supreme example of human closeness to God. The Bible clearly demonstrates, by simple biological fact, that Mary was the human closest to God, and this fact alone should be enough to silence anyone who wishes to reduce women to a subservient state, as in the Islamic faith. So by iconographically embodying Mary, and availing oneself of the fact that Mary sanctified all aspects of the female condition by being a faithful wife and a virgin mother, who obeyed God without any regard to what her husband might think, women can claim their place as the pristine daughters of the holy and life giving Trinity.
Now of course, some feminists regard marriage and monogamy as disempowering, and presumably view holy celibacy with similar disdain. However, sexual promiscuity is equally abhorrent in men and in women; in fact, I daresay it is more abhorrent in men, because men frequently coerce women into sexual abuse, and many women who have experienced such unpleasantness are purely the victims either of specific men or of society in general. The idea that such women, including those forced into prostitution, are somehow tainted, is repugnant to the Christian conscience. No Christian should ever refer to a woman as a “slut”, and this is one sin I have with the assistance of God not committed.
For what it’s worth, my understanding of sexuality and holiness is that women represent the ideal by virtue of the special relationship between Mary and her son the incarnate Logos, who is fully God and fully Man. Like Elijah, Mary was not left to rot, but at the end of her life was assumed, albeit in a different manner. The sublime holiness of Mary was reflected iconographically by the early women of the church: Ss. Mary and Martha of Bethany, and Mary Magdalene, among others. The superior holiness of these women was recognized by God, for they were the first to discover the resurrection of our Lord. The male disciples, in a moment of sinful sexism, dismissed their reports in the same patronizing manner a 19th century husband might refer to his wife as being in “hysterics”, and were then humbled when the risen Christ appeared to them. Of course our Lord being merciful conducted all of this to the advantage of everyone in terms of the salvation of their respective souls.
In the centuries that followed, scores of women were liberated from the oppression of the male dominated Roman society by the church, and some anthropologists posit the rise of Christianity to women adopting it due to the safeguards it offered them, and then requiring their suitors to convert. Many women were martyred, often in particularly cruel ways, and many women had leadership roles in the early church. One of my favorites is St. Helena, the wife of Emperor Constantine, who directed the rebuilding of Jerusalem, the construction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and who recovered the True Cross, whose fragments crown churches across Europe. Calvin, who did believe in the doctrine of perpetual virginity, to his credit, but who otherwise was in my opinion rather mean, once claimed that a galleon could be constructed with all the fragments of the cross Helena found, but this was proven to be pure calumny by a French scientist who weighed them in the late 19th century; at most, they amount to a third of the original cross. Another hero saint was St. Nino, Evangelist of the Georgians and Equal to the Apostles; after the conversion of Armenia under St, Gregory the illumination, she travelled further north into the Caucasus mountains to preach the gospel to the Georgian King, and endured much hardship and imprisonment before her efforts prevailed. All of these women embodied the holiness of the blessed Theotokos and are heroes of the Christian faith. In more recent times one can point to a number of remarkable female saints in the Roman church, such as Catherine of Sienna, Brigitta of Sweden, and most recently blessed Mother Theresa. Probably the most famous woman to be glorified in the Orthodox Church was the Grand Duchess St. Anastasia, who was just 17 when the Communists gunned her down.
So in summary, the example of the blessed Theotokos (and all generations have scriptural grounds for calling her blessed, based on her song known as The Magnificat found in Luke Ch. 1) does not represent an impossibly high bar for women to be measured against, as you fear. Rather, Mary, through her meritous life, sanctified all aspects of the female existence in a unique way, and through her, God demonstrated to the world that not only were women not inferior to men, but rather, that women were worthy to draw closer to the living God than any man. For this reason I regard the male priesthood and episcopate as essentially a penitential institution; men must now labor to attain the closeness to God that comes naturally to womankind on account of the iridescent holiness of the blessed Virgin.
Thus, whereas a man must subject himself to vigorous fasts, vigils and prayer, and deal with inordinate guilt, in the process of Theosis, especially those called to the priesthood, who must endure many horrible trials, women can naturally minister to those around them and reflect the divine grace simply by asking themselves “How can I be like Mary today?” Indeed, they don’t even have to do that, for the simple conditions of celibacy, matrimony, motherhood and obedience to God, none of which preclude successful careers in any fields, including the most important, evangelism, as St. Nino shows us, all reflect and embody the holiness that emanated from St. Mary.
Gram3 wrote:
I really do wish for us to have a meeting of the minds of this issue. Your point, as I understand it, seems to be that the Ephesian church may have been influenced by traces of Ephesian paganism. My point is that, either way, that had nothing to do with the dogmatic definition of the Third Ecumenical Council, which was simply hosted in Ephesus. The dramatis personae were the Emperor from Constantinople, Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople but a pupil of the Antiochene theological school and of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret and Diodorus, St. Cyril of Alexandria, who embodied the teaching of the rival Alexandrian theological school, Pope Leo I who weighed in on Cyril’s side from Rome in absentia, by his delegates, and lastly, the Persian bishops, who were themselves alumni of the Antiochene school, and who broke away from the rest of the church in anger because Cyril deposed and exiled Nestorius before they arrived at the council, giving rise to the Nestorian Schism, which persists until the present. The venue aside, the Ephesians doubtless had their diocesan bishop in attendance, and he, along with all other bishops aside from the Persians, sided with Cyril of Alexandria.
So I am just not seeing what the history of the Ephesian church has anything to do with it. Sure, they had a bishop there, but he was a bit player; the venue was doubtless selected because of its convenient location in Asia Minor and it’s fame as the former episcopal see of Ss, Timothy and John the Evangelist, and the final residence of the Virgin Mary, The question as to whether she was Christotokos or Theotokos was of course central to the council, but I don’t think the selection of Ephesus as the venue was intended as any kind of anti-Nestorian snub.
So what am I missing here? If your point was not to say that the Ephesian church influenced the Third Ecumenical Council in a material way, or to be clearer, in a materially bad way, then please elucidate me; if however that was your point then I suppose we have both our our positions out there and will have to “agree to disagree.”
Muff Potter wrote:
It seems to me that salvation would depend not just on believing those things as static articles of faith but living them, through baptism and communion, and repenting of sin. The essential dogma you identify is axiomatic but surely there is more to faith than merely believing certain things in an academic sense? I would also propose that on no. 1, the supernatural conception of Jesus should be considered as his incarnation as God, that is to say as the second person of the Holy Trinity, the divine logos in human flesh; at least, this is what the Gospels together imply. However, our God is so merciful I am sure His love will extend to those Christians who do not personally understand the Trinity, which, while arguably the central doctrine of the universal Church, is one that is paradoxical, and has to be extrapolated from the implications of the canonical Gospels and the book of Acts.
@ Muff Potter:
You have more non-negotionables than I have and than the particular branch of protestantism I worship with requires. I think that the concept that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself is a non-negotionable, and seems to be observable in the working out of it, while I also think that it is open for discussion just exactly what that means and how does that work, and most important to me is how can I get in on that. That belief, of course, puts Jesus smack dab in the middle of it all and when he claimed that no man comes to the Father but by him, I believe that, but I am not sure how all that works or what all he meant by that. Operative word is “all.” There you are–my non-negotionable and its corollary.
At the same time I think that, given the current evidence, which is of course partial and certainly fallible, it looks to me like the gentile converts co-opted the Jesus movement (or were just the only bunch pretty much left standing) and that what we have today is a picture of Jesus and that is more “gentile” and less “jewish” than he was. It also seems to me that some very popular christian beliefs are taken from or adaptations to some pre-christian ideas, and I think it is way past time we left that behind and cleaned up our act so to speak.
I look at Jesus’ life and message and see more demands for personal and social justice than fundamentalism takes into account. Similarly I see more emphasis on the present and/or coming kingdom, and thinking that Jesus was a part of the jewish apocalyptic movement like John was seems to have a lot to recommend it. I think that the catholic position seems correct that it’s all tradition, including the bible, just some oral and some written, but I do not see any evidence that this makes anything in toto and every word straight from the mouth of God, at least not in the way that protestant fundamentalism believes the bible to be. And the bulk of what has come down to us as christian tradition, excluding scripture itself, I take with a grain of salt. I did not say that the bible was not true, just that it is not to be understood in certain ways. I think that God can be experienced in profound and life changing ways but that this is an area in which caution is essential because our knowledge is limited and humans can fool themselves quite easily.
And of course I am convinced that one should not take oneself and one’s ideas too seriously since we paddle our boats on a huge sea of mystery yet to be revealed.
Nancy wrote:
I totally agree. And it makes for such interesting conversation but few are willing to discuss it!
Just the reaction to the book Pagan Christianity (from pastors) was enough to show me that even discussing what is tradition and what isn’t is a problem for many pastors. (And Pagan Christianity has its own problems but was an excellent resource to start the conversation about the Jewish Jesus and what happened to Him)
You know, just as we cannot divorce the political aspects of Christian History and claiming tradition as orthodoxy (I maintain the Reformation was mostly power politics and changed little in the way of the state church mentality) so we cannot divorce the political aspects of Jesus Christ in the 1st Century. The irony of “King” Jesus.
The Historical Jesus is crucial. Because if we do not seek to understand the Historical Jesus, we end up inventing one of our own. Just as we have seen all throughout history with the invention of a Gentile European Jesus. Even a Jesus who despised Jews!
Sometimes we forget or perhaps don’t know that God wanted the Israelites to be the light of the world.
Boze Herrington has a great tweet quoting NT Wright:
“The word *biblical* has been shrunk, so that it now means, ‘according to our tradition, which we assume to be biblical.'”
“Justice is what love looks like when you face the problems that your neighbors are dealing with” NT Wright.
Oh how I agree with this one! When we took the concept of justice and made it something that can only happen in “heaven” we basically spit on God’s redemptive plan for us.
@ William G.:
We disagree on the Ephesian pagan influence on Marian doctrines, and we disagree on the other influences which come to bear when forming a consensus and writing documents that are able plausibly to accommodate everyone’s POV, or at least the things that they think are important. We disagree on the biases in the historical record, because what we have is a sample of what was actually written.
What and who we accept as authoritative is a matter of faith and conscience. You and I disagree where we should place our faith and the weight we should give to certain evidence. So, I’m doubtful that we will able to come to a meeting of the minds given our differences in the areas of faith objects and evidence weighting. We are free to differ. That’s OK.
@ William G.:
I think you are missing her point, as well as the points i tried to make earlier. I don’t mean this unkimfly; it is a statement about how it looks to me. Elevating Mary to an exalted status does not mean that things are better for women. It didn’t work thst way in ancient times, and it doesn’t work that way now. I realise that i cannot convince you of this via a nlog comment and think it best to let this go for now. I think we are talking past each other.
Lydia wrote:
Very good point about the issue of politics in church history. From the start, the Jewish Zealots first embraced Jesus when he entered Jerusalem thinking he was coming to conquer the Romans and restore the Kingdom, but they totally flipped when it was clear he was not going to do that.
I think that is the human reason that the Jews as a whole ultimately rejected their Messiah, because it was accepted as axiomatic that he would be an exclusively human conquering King. They had no room in their thinking for the possibility of the Messiah being God, and that when Messiah came he would establish a spiritual Kingdom only at that point. Jesus of Nazareth did not fit their rigid paradigm for Messiah, so they rejected him.
I need to look for my Jewish book that explains the political and religious aspects of 1st and early 2nd century Jewish and Christian relations.
Very much appreciate your observation that the Reformers had political entanglements and that confused church-state thinking still persists.
William G. wrote:
I didn’t read the rest of this wall o’ text (I skimmed it and thought, this is just theological gobbledygook–sorry), but this…this…
Let me just say a few things here.
Again, “Born of a virgin” is not part of the original proclamation of the Gospel by Paul. If it was, he would have written about it. The original proclamation is “Jesus Christ and him crucified.” I don’t *resent* Mary–I just don’t think she was ever-virgin. As a woman, I have to ask what good this story does for women in general. IMHO, it does us absolutely no good, because it puts one woman on a pedestal at the expense of every other woman. Because no other female can be both a virgin and a mother.
A woman who was conceived without sin (Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception), a woman who conceived a child without the required need for male involvement, a woman who gave birth without the pangs of childbirth (also some sort of Catholic doctrine), and then never had sex with the husband she was married to, well, that is not a human woman. That is a demigoddess who has nothing in common with me or any other woman who has lived on this planet. She is NOT the iconographic representation of womankind in the world. My mother, who had three children the normal way, is more an iconographic representation of womankind, as human and as imperfect as she is. (I don’t use myself because I’ve never had children and am now in menopause myself.) And that’s the point. Paul said Jesus was born of a woman, born under law, and added none of the fabulistic theological accreta of the last 19 centuries.
And that’s all I’ve got to say on this matter.
@ mirele:
This is not going to be popular but the whole Mary perpetual virgin thing seems to have originated somewhat with Augustine’s beliefs about original sin, imputed guilt, women and sex. Perhaps it’s just because he was a prolific writer and it spread West.
mirele wrote:
The Mary that has been created by tradition does not look to me like the Mary of scripture. The Mary of tradition looks like somebody God had to resort to when he could not find an actual woman for the job. In my mind that is too bad, because we have been robbed, so to speak, of the very human Mary who was apparently a fine person.
@Albuquerque Blue, if you see this, I’m curious what you think of the NT Wright quote on the top banner, “Christians have a problem with evil & atheists have a problem with good”.
Haitch wrote:
Not AbqBlue but there’s got to be more context to this quote. Because the more I think about it, it doesn’t make sense.
Haitch wrote:
I don’t understand it myself. Maybe Dee can enlighten us with what NT meant by that remark. At face value it smacks as put down toward atheists that they don’t like “good.” I don’t get that sense from atheists myself, but I may be misunderstanding the quote without the context.
@ Haitch:
Heh, I actually emailed Dee asking for context, since like Mirele it didn’t make sense to me. I can understand the Christian problem with evil, but I’m nonplussed about the problem with good that faces atheists.
Bridget, It probably has to do with the origination of good and evil.
@ mirele:
yeah, I find it very confusing myself.
__
“Discussion Page or Proverbial TWW Dog House?”
hmmm…
WilliamG he came ta TWW, he apparently forgot da suffering of others, he broke doctrinal N’ ecclesiastical wind…
Fumpth !
huh?
…venerate all you want, Pal, but Christianity -itz not about Jesus’ mum, Mary, but about Jesus Himself. —> Itz about da fields being white with harvest, the souls of kind folk desperately needing a Savior,
What about Jesus, fella?
hum us a few bars…
toot!
…you might even attract a few converts,
-snicker-
wonders never cease.
🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNQVVdiGzCc
—
Dee is out on an errand and will respond to the discussion in a few hours. She did ask me to post this.
“What I mean is that Christians have trouble discussing the problem of evil and the good God. Atheists have no problem understanding evil but have more difficulty in defining where the concept of good comes from.” Dee
I’m (Bridget) not sure if that clears it up for everyone/anyone 😉 Dee can expound on this thought when she’s able.
@ Bridget:
In defense of NT Wright, from everything I’ve heard about him a put down doesn’t seem to be his style. I’m thinking maybe it’s a reversal of the problem of evil?
Actually if anyone’s a fan of NT Wright that has a short book of his they’d recommend I’d be grateful. A few people have recommended him, but I don’t know what of his to read as a starter.
@ Bridget:
Thanks for passing that on Bridget. ^_^
I forsee a coming discussion of semantics. I’ll bite! Let me go run some errands and I’ll come back with an attempt at an answer of where I and some others think the concept of good comes from.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
I agree about NT. I was conveying how the blurb at the top comes across. I was sure there was more context. Obviously, several of us thought the same.
From what I gather of NT’s writing, he usually isn’t condensed.
Bridget wrote:
What an understatement! 😉
mirele wrote:
I am inclined to agree that if Mary were born outside of sin via the immaculate conception this would make her less of a natural woman. This is why the Orthodox Church rejects the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, because we deny that human beings are tainted by original sin at the moment of conception. Instead, we say that human beings, including Mary, are born into a condition of mortality as a result of the fall, and are thus in need of a savior in the person of Jesus Christ to allow them to attain Theosis, that is to say, to reassume the fullness of the image of God.
Gram3 wrote:
The Jews as a whole most assuredly did not reject Christ; in the Antiochian and Syriac Orthodox churche and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem you will find members of the church who trace their lineage to ancient Jewish families and have Jewish names. Judaism was also present in Ethiopia and in Kerala, India, before Christianity spread there. It is more accurate to say that some Jews rejected Christ, and some accepted him, but most of those who accepted him gave up the Torah. The Ethiopian Christians still observe it however; they practice circumcision on the eighth day, sit separately in church according to gender, follow Kosher dietary regulations, and immerse themselves in pools of holy water for healing purposes that look suspiciously like mikvehs.
There are also the Ebionites and other so called Judaizing sects that became extinct, and more recently, the very happy phenomenon of Messianic Judaism. Either way, some Jews did embrace Christ and their descendants are among the persecuted Christians of the Middle East who have suffered so much under the Islamic State.
@ Albuquerque Blue:
and everyone else!
Dee is back and is so, so sorry for how that comment came across. Then, I took off to do some long overdue errands and am so grateful for Bridget who alerted me to the problem. I would never, ever, ever want to appear to insult people of good will, no matter their backgrounds and that was no my intent.
Instead, I thought this would be a good way to show that we all have our difficulties in explaining good and evil in this world. However, I poorly worded it.
NT Wright did not mean this as a put down. Albuquerque guessed correctly in spite of my poorly worded quote. Last night Wright discussed justice and touched on the problem of evil, a favorite topic of his. He was making the observation that people of all persuasions have difficulties in dealing with good and evil.
He said, roughly, that Xians have difficulties in dealing with the origins of evil while atheists have difficulties in dealing with the origins of good. In other words, we stand together in the difficulties inherent in all of our beliefs (or lack thereof.)
Again I apologize for coming across snotty in any way. It was not in my heart when I wrote that.
@ Sopwith:
Sopwith, I think it would help in dialogue if you were to use a more sober approach to posting in conversations of this sort; your present style makes it look a bit like you’re just making fun of everything and it’s a little hurtful.
Now regarding the blessed virgin, the following points should be made: Christianity is not about her, but about her son, who happened to be God incarnate. This renders her a saint and a very important saint, but it does not make her a goddess. I will readily confess that I am not personally comfortable with the Rosary Prayer because of its single minded focus on Mary. The arrow prayer used by Orthodox on the other hand is “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy on Me, a Sinner.”
However by the grace of God I will confess until the last breath that Mary is the true mother of the incarnate Logos, the son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, true God and true Man. I also do not believe its possible to deny that the early church did improve significantly the lot of women; the early church banned infanticide and various forms of sexual coercion that were de rigeur in pagan Roman society. People like Elaine Pagels who insist otherwise are doing society a great disservice.
@ Albuquerque Blue:
I particularly apologize to Albuquerque Blue whom I respect enormously.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
Scripture and the Authority of God and Surprised by Hope are my personal favorites. Both thought provoking without being indigestible.
You could have a go at one of the books from his The New Testament for Everyone commentary series. I read the ones on the gospels and enjoyed them.
Dee — So glad you had the opportunity to hear NTW. I hope I have the opportunity to hear him the next time he visits Fuller Seminary. His writings have helped me.
Gram3 wrote:
What I’m fundamentally interested in is the historic record of the matter. I would sincerely like to see your research into this area, because my understanding of the Church of Ephesus is that, after the death of St. John, it became just another bishopric. If you can point me in the direction of any books or resources showing an influence of Ephesian paganism on the Ephesian church in general, and the Third Ecumenical Council in particular, that would be of great help to me. The main stumbling block for me in accepting your theory is that the doctrine promulgated at Ephesus came from the Alexandrian church; Ephesus was more under the influence of the Antiochene school.
Starting in the third century, there were two main theological schools in Christianity, that of Antioch and that of Alexandria. The former emphasized the humanity of Jesus and the latter, His divinity. The Antiochene school influenced persons such as Ss, Ephraim the Syrian and John Chrysostom, and on a darker note, the heretics Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret and Nestorius. After the Council of Ephesus, the school fled from Antioch to Nisibis, which remained the main center of education for Assyrian / Nestorian clergy.
The school of Alexandria numbered Ss. Alexander, Athanasius, and Cyril among its ranks, but also on the darker side, Origen and Eutyches. After the Chalcedonian schism it slowly withered into obscurity.
There were a few other places of theological influence prior to the Third Ecumenical Council: Caesarea, and later Jerusalem, which were centers of the Hellenic Jewish Christians who are now mostly Eastern Orthodox; Edessa, which was the first city state to embrace Christianity, and the center of the Syriac speaking Christian world, Cappadocia, the region of Turkey home to Ss. Gregory the Wonderworker, Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyassa, Milan, home to Ss. Ambrose and Augustine before the latter moved to Hippo, and finally Rome, which at that time was known for being the most theologically conservative diocese, and also a major pilgrimage center in its own right due to its status as the resting place of Peter and Paul.
Ephesus, from my understanding of it, was a minor bishopric, historically significant due to it being the see of St. John and Timothy, but otherwise, relatively unimportant. Cyprus had a fairly substantial autocephalous archbishophric and was arguably more important at the time. One interesting fact is that we have no confirmed surviving Ephesian liturgy; we have the ancient liturgical rites of Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Milan, Edessa and Ethiopia, but nothing confirmed to be Ephesian. It is rumored that there was a “Divine Liturgy of St. John” that hailed from there and spread across Europe to influence the Gallican Rite, but this cannot be proven; most liturgical scholars think that whatever liturgical traditions Ephesus had were displaced by those of Antioch and Consantinople.
So to me at least this suggests a backwater. Now I should say for the record that I do accept that indigenous religious ideas shaped the development of the Christian religion as it spread, and often in a good way. The interaction between Christianity and Platonic metaphysical speculation gave us apophatic theology and the works of Psuedo Dionysius the Aereopagite. There is a beautiful African flavor to Ethiopic Christianity, and a beautiful Semitic flavor to Syriac Christianity. So if the ancient Ephesian religion did rub off on Christianity, I want to know about it; my inclination would be to interpret such cross pollination as a tremendously positive occurrence, directed by the Apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, just as the Old Testament makes reference to the Semitic pagan religions and uses Babylonian, Egyptian, and even Zoroastrian religious ideas in order to tell the truth about God.
dee wrote:
Oh my. There’s nothing to apologize for. I was intrigued by the comment, not offended at all.
William G. wrote:
This is just plain wrong. Eve did not corrupt Adam. Eve dishonored God by believing the lie, and she sinned against God by eating the fruit. She blamed the serpent. Adam took the fruit from her and ate it. Adam blamed Eve for his own sin. Adam was corrupted by Adam’s sin and Eve was corrupted by Eve’s sin.
Mary did not reverse anything. She was the one favored and blessed by God to bear the Promised Seed of the Woman. Giving birth does not save anyone, despite what 1 Timothy 2:15 “plainly says.” The Lord removed the stain of sin and the sting of death, not by being born of a woman but by dying on a cross.
For some reason it is nearly impossible to get men to understand why this line of thinking is so repugnant and disgusting. Women are not body parts or sexual histories. We are human beings fully created in the image of God.
Women are not the deceivers who brought sin into the world. The serpent is the deceiver, and he deceived by twisting the words of God. And that is exactly what these misogynists like Wayne Grudem and John Piper and the rest of the CBMW cult are doing. We must say what God has said and no more and no less. The woman sinned, the man sinned, and all humans have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. Jesus alone atoned for that lost glory and removed the shame of sin. Not Mary. Not John Piper or Wayne Grudem or any of the others.
@ Gram3:
I believe William has no intention of being hurtful, and he is, unfortunately, correct in stating that male theologians have been coming up with these ideas since the early centuries of the church.
William G. wrote:
Then what in the world was Paul talking about in Romans? No one disputes that large numbers of Jews were converted. But the vast majority of Jews throughout history have rejected their Messiah. I thought this was uncontroversial.
@ Gram3:
I also profoundly disagree with these views and have stated my objections upthread.
dee wrote:
Alright, the origin of good. I’m going to toss out how I’m defining good here so as to make sure we’re on the same page, scaling up from basic to more meta. First, good is something that fulfills it’s function/purpose; i.e. my heart pumps blood, it is a good heart because it is doing its purpose/function. Now from there, lets scale up a little bigger. My heart pumps blood well, which keeps the whole body working. The better it works, the better the rest of the body will achieve their function/purpose. Scaling up. A lone human needs food, shelter, etc… Now they can achieve that solo, but not that well. We’re social creatures. So good in this case can be how we behave in our culture because it makes survival easier, better. In small scale there’s family interactions, friendships, work and public behavior. In larger scale there’s justice movements, social pressure and lifestyles. I hope that covers the concept of “good” as I’m approaching it. I understand that we all can have some varying definitions of the word “good” and I’d be happy to discuss that.
Personally as an atheist Absurdist I find that Kant’s first and second formulations can explain how I approach “good” better then I can so here you go:
First
Second
Don’t use people as means to achieving your own ends, don’t use yourself. If you hold a standard, apply it equally across the board. This is what I think of when I see good. Someone going above and beyond.
@ Jenny:
Thank you Jenny, I’ll see if I can find an ebook copy.
@ Gram3:
Please – can we not go in this direction? One of THE biggest reasons for Jewish people being averse to xtianity can be summed up in two or three words: perecution and rank anti-semitism on the part of supposedly xtian people. This, too, is a painfully constant thing since the days of Constantine.
@ William G.:
I don’t know how else to put this. You can do research on Ephesian Artemis, Cybele, and the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus. Ideas move forward in history, not backward. Do you believe the tradition that Mary lived in Ephesus after the crucifixion? If true, that might have some significance to the development of the doctrines of perpetual virginity and the immaculate conception.
Ephesus may have been a “backwater” in church history, but it certainly got a lot of attention from Luke in Acts and from Paul in Ephesians and the letters to Timothy, and last from the Lord himself via John in Revelation. Is Jesus our first love, or is Mary?
William G. wrote:
That is very true, but the fact is that the pagan presuppositions regarding women still drive the theology of the misogynists in the church, including the Gospel Glitterati. The reason Christianity improved conditions for slaves and women and children is that it is a faith headed by a Head who is more concerned about lifting up the weak in status and power rather than reinforcing the strong and powerful. The men of the Gospel Glitterati are not following the example of Christ but of Aristotle, to name one pagan.
As Lydia commented above, Augustine had pagan beliefs regarding sex and women. Regrettably, his thinking on these topics and others persists without much critical engagement in parts of the church.
@ Gram3:
Did you know that bunnies can be wonderful pets, can easily learn to use a litterbox, and are highly intelligent? I lost my beloved Nibbles (who was with me for going on 8 years) last year, and while i miss her terribly, i have since adopted a young bun, Michiko, who is a joy and very much loved.
See http://www.rabbit.org for more info.
@ numo:
I wish we would all (me, too) act with greater care and compassion toward the creatures who share this planet with us.
@ Gram3:
What William G said is also what I have read. We have misunderstood, or perhaps we have been deliberately lied to, about the alleged massive rejection of Christ by the Jews of the day especially since we can read the Pentecost story and see that the earliest Jesus followers were religious Jews. We also have not been informed about the absorption of Jewish believers into the increasingly predominantly gentile church. With time some chose to reject Christ and others chose to give up Torah, so I have read. The ones who gave up Torah became absorbed into the gentile church and eventually were no longer identifiable as of Jewish lineage. And then there are the in-between groups that William talks about. I am no authority on this, it is just what I have read.
As for people rejecting Christ, the majority of the people on the planet do not believe in Christ and never have. And even those of us who do believe do not agree on much of anything else. We (gentiles) have a long and infamous history of anti-semitism with some really horrendous stuff. As for Paul, he was blazing paths and had to come to settled places in his own mind and we can see him deal with Jew/gentile and law/grace. He also had to deal with the opposition which was against both him and his understanding of those issues. It would not be wise to turn Paul’s comments about what he was dealing with into some master plan that was bound to be played out in the following few centuries. Better to listen to the historians tell us what they know about the church after Paul for that information.
@ Gram3:
William is a convert to the Orthodox church and has stated over and over that he deplores abusive actions and statements by supposed “leaders.” And he is young.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
When I read the quote I thought of Mortimer Adler who was an atheist but was drawn to God because of the problem, as he saw it of the virtues. That is not how he put it, but one of my kids swiped all of my Adler books a long time ago, so I am going off of memory and the index to my memory is unreliable.
It wasn’t so much that atheists cannot be virtuous or good, because they clearly can be, but that the explanations for the existence or origin of virtue without a Virtuous God were problematic for him as an atheist. If someone has his books, please correct this!
@ numo:
He has encountered abusehimself. For a start, please check the opening reply on this page, which might be helpful to you and others in understanding a bit more of his story.
@ numo:
I understand, and I agree that this has been a problem since the beginning. Unfortunately, if theologians accept prior traditions uncritically, then those traditions become the basis for yet more traditions. And so on and so on. Then, if someone wants to correct the record, that person becomes a transgressor of the inviolable rule of We Have Always Believed This Therefore This Is True And Cannot Be Questioned So Die, Heretic.
@ Nancy:
Yes, though i have to stress that hearing anyone make claims about deicide and/or Jewish people “rejecting” Christ makes me break out in a cold sweat?
My background is a bit unusual, in that our next-door neighbors were an obsevant Jewish couple who always invited us to their Passover seders and who were very open in discussing their beliefs, as well as history. Their grandparents fled persecution in tsarist Russia. When i couod no longer believe in god as presented by the church, i was comforted by *their* belief jn a good God – this in immediate post-Holocaust decades. So it always feels like people i know are being attacked when i see such accusations – and truthfully, they still get a fair amount of invective thrown their way, as do most other Jewish people.
@ Gram3:
Look, i just can’t engage in this discussion now.
@ numo:
I wasn’t clear. I have enormous sympathy for the Jewish people and had difficulty getting through Yad Vashem, thinking of the hatred poured upon the people from whom Jesus came. I am the *last* person who would be anti-Semitic and, since I grew up in a Jewish culture, it would be weird for me to hate the people I loved. For me, when I hear anti-Semitic remarks, I see the faces of people I know.
My understanding of Paul’s view is that, in fact, the vast majority of Jews have rejected Jesus of Nazareth as their promised Messiah. Just as the vast majority of Gentiles have rejected a Jewish laborer from Galilee as their savior. Paul’s burden was great because he felt that tragedy personally, and maybe he even felt guilty for persecuting Jews who believed in Jesus. The average person was misled by their leaders who had a lot to lose if people started following Jesus.
My view of the crucifixion is that the Jewish collaborators worked with the Gentile Romans to crucify the Savior of both. The idea that Jews as a whole are responsible for the death of Jesus and somehow Gentiles like me are not is beyond disgusting.
I apologize for the hurt or distress I caused by what I wrote or didn’t write.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
You sound as excited as this guy Nick ! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2831371/Meet-Dr-Matt-Taylor-British-scientist-taking-Twitter-storm-confident-Rosetta-success-s-landing-TATTOOED-leg.html
@ numo:
Now you’ve reminded me of my mother and her pet bunnies. I’ve only ever had one, and that was a wild baby that had lost its mother. We found it alone in our backyard and tried to keep it going with formula from the vet but I suppose it was too young to survive. My mother loved her bunnies. I just don’t think I could go through losing another one.
Now I just put out hostas and pansies that our deer love. 🙂
@ numo:
I’m so sorry I’ve hurt you, and I think you and I have more in common than you may think.
@ Gram3:
Jesus died of his own free acquiescence to the will of the Father because the death of the righteous is an atonement for the sins of the people. He, then, being the ultimately righteous god-man atoned in his death for the sins of the world. He himself said at the time of his trial that the authorities would have no power over him if it had not been given them by the Father, and he noted that he could have asked the Father for legions of angels to rescue him. But he died instead.
Every time we get into who killed Jesus we miss the entire point.
Nancy wrote:
The information I have about the early history of Jewish and Gentile believers is actually from a Jewish perspective that I bought at a Purim festival at the local Jewish Community Center. I wanted to read from that perspective to see how a non-Gentile, non-Christian viewed the early years of the church which coincided with the development of a non-Temple Judaism.
For many years I’ve talked with my Jewish friends about Jesus, and I feel Paul’s pain at the thought that my friends could not see Jesus as their Messiah, one of their own people. I believe, based on what I’ve seen, that the Lord will bring many to himself. I don’t know how or when or exactly what Paul means.
But I don’t believe that God has abandoned his own people, contrary to many in the institutional church throughout history. I think that Gentiles were privileged to be grafted in and that the institutional church’s rejection of its Jewish heritage is tragic and has resulted time after time in tragedy for the Jewish people.
Nancy wrote:
I totally agree with that. My only point was that Jesus came to deal with the sins of all people, and that all people bear responsibility for his death humanly speaking. Historically and politically, I believe that his trial and execution was at the hands of the Romans, who had the civil authority to do that, and that the Romans executed him at the instigation of the Temple elites who did not have that authority. I believe that many followed Jesus, but the gospels tell us that many ceased following him when he did not give them what they wanted. In that respect, the ones who left look a lot like the “christians” who want Jesus to give them wealth and health.
@Beakerj, not sure if you’ll see this, but here’s to you getting through a tough time lately, and here’s a slight spicy comfort food recipe to help you on your way: http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/bread_and_butter_pudding_07166 (in my opinion, not enough spice, I think it needs candied ginger, and I can’t decide how much cinnamon, nutmeg or clove I’d put in). Alternatively, here’s a recipe with pistachios, saffron and pawpaw: http://cooks.ndtv.com/recipe/show/bread-and-butter-pudding-258232
Continuing in the cooking as therapy theme…
@elastigirl, you seem super busy ATM, so here’s a super quick recipe for (wait for it)… mug cakes. Simple with limited washing up, yay.
http://cooking.lovetoknow.com/cake-recipes/how-make-mug-cakes
Sopwith wrote:
I kinda thought you might have been a bit above this Sopy. Pot, kettle, I know.
Thanks to all the “NT Wright quote crew” who helped sort that out. It’s a really interesting one to ponder. @ABQ, I’ve got a sticky note somewhere saying, “don’t forget: become an absurdist!”
I’m loving this open disucssion page, it’s a hoot. Last one for the day.
@daisy, haven’t seen you around much, here’s a recipe I’ve made many times from my favourite New Zealand foodie, Peta Mathias: http://www.foodshow.co.nz/home/recipes/a/autumn-salad.aspx (hint: it has always taken me longer to prepare than I expected). She is also the author of many books, one of them is humorously titled, “Just in time to be too late: why men are like buses”. Book review here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/lifestyle-entertainment/weekend/3018464/Man-wrangling-with-Peta
Nancy wrote:
It seems reasonable to me that the 3,000 who were converted at Pentecost may have actually been stirred by the news or buzz of the Resurrection which had occurred a month and a half prior to Pentecost and the Ascension a week and a half before. It seems plausible to me that observant Jews would be the ones making the Pentecost pilgrimage, and they no doubt had heard the Resurrection news. They were primed for Peter’s Pentecost sermon, humanly speaking, and I think the Holy Spirit brought the messages of the prophets to mind as Peter spoke.
Certainly something amazing happened for that many to accept a Messiah who had been crucified and was not visibly reigning on David’s throne. That was a huge paradigm shift. Messianic Jews I know have compared the 3,000 saved at Pentecost to the 3,000 who died at Sinai.
Let’s just say I’m skeptical about claims about massive Jewish conversion and assimilation made by churches who historically engaged in active persecution of the Jewish people, including forced conversion after torture and on pain of death. It seems a little self-serving and even self-justifying after the fact, and I think like all historical questions, we may never know the full truth.
Postscript
@numo, I might skip the braised rabbit in red wine sauce recipe for the numo (totally agree with your comment on being kinder to animals, it is depressing how the drive for the A$ is the overriding imperative in many animal care decisions unfortunately). I might have said before, we used to have free range pet rabbits. They had their own burrows and everything. When we all moved from the property and the burrows had to be filled in, a careful count was done beforehand. One of the rabbits was then (temporarily) unable to be found, and poor papa nearly had kittens (get it?) that he had accidentally sealed in a rabbit in its burrow. Rabbit turned up, all ended well 🙂
Gram3 wrote:
Not speaking for Jews here, but based on conversations with Jewish friends of mine, the rejection is because Jesus didn’t fulfill Jewish expectations of what the Messiah is supposed to be. Which is not what later Christian theology makes the Jewish expectations of a Messiah to be. There’s also the very real problem that calling Jesus God violates the Shema (“Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord”) in Jewish eyes.
The notion that Jewish rejection of Jesus is uncontroversial *only* to Christians. As far as Jews are concerned, they are upholding the faith given to their fathers. They do not see that Jesus fulfilled the requirements for being the Messiah. They are still waiting for the Messiah. To say Jews rejected Jesus is to look at it from a totally Christian point of view. And given how Christians have treated Jews throughout the centuries, I’m thinking that dropping the “rejected Jesus” language might be a good start towards understanding where Jews are coming from. Because the Jewish position is that that Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic expectation.
numo wrote:
I’m sorry, I went there. Oh well.
Gram3 wrote:
You said “The Jews as a whole”, not ” the vast majority of” or even “most.” Regarding the ratio of Jews who accepted vs rejected Jesus I would really need to see numerical evidence before even agreeing with such a sweeping statement as “the vast majority of”, and considering that such demographic data about the Roman Empire is unlikely to exist, I believe it would be best to say “many Jews” rather than “the Jews as a whole.” I am extremely well acquainted with a an Antiochian priest whose family converted from Judaism at the dawn of the church, that still has a recognizably Jewish name, so when people talk about the Jews “as a whole” rejecting Christ, this comes across to me as a dangerous and deeply misleading generalization. It’s also really a slap in the face to the Antiochian and Syriac Christians in Syria and Iraq, who are largely descended from Jewish Christians and who are right now being slaughtered by ISIL.
Gram3 wrote:
Neither the Chalcedonian Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch, or the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Anrioch, or the Assyrian Church of the East, ever tortured any Jews or ran an inquisition. In fact after Spain expelled the Jews, many Sephardic Jews wound up living alongside Christians in Palestine and other parts of the Ottoman Empire. In Israel and Palestine, there are still a few ancient Aramaic speaking villages where both the Jews and Christians spoke Aramaic.
In fact the non-Chalcedonian Christians never even had the means to persecute Jews; they existed alongside Jews as a separate ethnarchy within the millet system of the Ottoman Empire.
What I fear you are doing is reading the black history of Roman Catholicism into Eastern Christendom, and assuming the same abuses that were committed by the Inquisition were committed by similar bodies in the East. This is simply wrong; only within the Russian Empire did pogroms against the Jewish people occur; in Palestine, the Jews and Christians essentially suffered together as dhimmi subjects of the Ottoman Caliphate. The Russian Empire for its part was, like Spain, a bigoted backwards military dictatorship, but 500 years ago practically all governments on the face of this Earth could be described thus, and as such, one cannot specifically blame the Christian religion for the misconduct of the Czars; rather, one can blame the misconduct of the Czars on a failure to abide in the Christian religion.
Gram3 wrote:
I agree with this statement of yours in general, although I believe the specific account you are referring to in John Ch. 6 occurred after our Lord advised his flock that the way to eternal life was to eat his flesh, and drink his blood. This seriously non-plussed the 70, but a large swathe of them later returned after the resurrection according to Eusebius et al. And, the best part was, it left us with the Eucharist, which remains the religious ritual par excellence.
@ Gram3:
You didn’t – no need to apologize, thiugh your kindness is much appreciated.
I have seen xtians flame like crazy in internet discussions of the topics, and felt it best to back out temporarily (plus i was out for a while anyway, visting my mkm and running errands).
I hear you, though how could the vast majority of the Jewish population have even heard of Jesus back when Paul wrote Romans? I think he was engaging in a bit of exaggeration for rhetorical effect, which isn’t the only place it shows up in that letter.
Gram3 wrote:
I am familiar with the Cult of Artemis and Cybele but I don’t see how you’re connecting the dots between that and the emergence of a pagan corruption of Christian doctrine.
I do naturally believe that Ephesus was the residence of St. Mary and the Bishophric of St. John. However, John received the Revelation when exiled on the island Patmos, which is some distance away. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, whose works you may find to be of benefit, is a member of the Monastery of St. John on Patmos.
However, right now all you’ve done is mentioned the existence of widely known pagan cults in Ephesus, and then alluded to a destructive influence these cults may have exerted over the early church, without providing anything in terms of evidence to back it up. If you can show me ancient historians, secular or ecclesiastical, reinforcing these views, then I would be in a position to evaluate them.
It should also be noted that if the cults of Artemis and Cybele did somehow infect the Ephesian church, then we would be well advised to, in the manner of the Alogoi, rip the Johannine corpus out of our bibles. What is more, our Lord himself did promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the church; surely the corruption of the see of St. John, one of the three most important authors of the New Testament canon, if true, would make our Lord out to be a liar.
Christian theology rests upon an interconnecting latticework of dependent doctrines, ideas and personages, not entirely unlike a house of cards. If one removes a critical piece at the foundation, by for example writing off the Diocese of Ephesus as a hotbed of crypto pagan heresy, then one risks toppling the entire edifice.
mirele wrote:
That is exactly what I’ve heard from my Jewish friends, but I’ve never heard any of them shy away from saying they rejected Jesus as Messiah. I think that idea gets mixed up with the garbage spewed through history that “The Jews rejected Jesus so God has rejected the Jews.” And the corollary to that hatefulness was “So it’s our job to take vengeance on the Jews.” I agree with Paul that God has not rejected the Jews. God forbid!
Some but not all of my friends are/have been Messianic, but what they agree on is that what they were expecting is not what happened. Jesus claiming to be God is a definite deal-breaker, although many of my friends were atheists, so Jesus’ identity wasn’t their main objection.
This is a really good reason, IMO, to be very careful about how we think things will all play out WRT eschatology. Or how dogmatic we might be about anything, because we do not have perfect information and God will do things his own way in his own time.
Also I think we need to accept people where they are and try to see things from their point of view.