quote:
---------------------------------------------------------
I did not ask for 'negatives' (as your answer to me suggested: a "blak list of names"). Rather, I asked you pointedly for a possitive list (a white list?) of names
---------------------------------------------------------

Let’s work on a positive list that is black and white. Let’s make it very long, and let’s not worry too much if some names show up on more than one list. Electra

quote:

---

Genevan Calvinists erected a "expiatory monument" on the site of the burning, not to signify approval of Servetus' views but as a testimony to their disapproval of violence as an instrument for the defense of orthodoxy.

---

quote:

---

Some traditions are more loving than others, to be sure. But its a matter of degree. And no "higher degree" of love can separate itself from the "lower degree" without thereby disqualifying as a "higher degree."

---

quote:

---

I think it reveals something very important -- ALL important -- about aspects of orthodox Christianity that need to be exposed, repudiated, and repented of.

---

quote:

---

...reveals something very important -- ALL important -- about aspects of orthodox Christianity that need to be exposed, repudiated, and repented

---

quote:

---

Let the Spirit of Christ wash over us all—leading us into all truth—in our continued talking of this issue. And may we recognize and repent of wrongdoing, since then, in these moments, and Until That Time…

---

quote:

---

Al: It struck me driving the kids to school this morning, that both the 'small-c' "christianity" (gentlemanly morals, that C.S. Lewis criticized) and the 'small-o' "orthodoxy" (legalism, etc.) that Doc wants to draw into the light are both counterfit.

Doc: When you contrast Chrsitianity with christianity, Orthodoxy from orthodoxy, etc... are you distinguishing between true Chrsitianity and false christianity (viz. "counterfeit")? Are you agreeing that insofar as individuals and the Institution of Christianity killed people, they were counterfeit?

Didn't you and a bunch of others get down on me several pages ago for intimating this?

---

quote:

---

Also, a number of reasons have been given on this thread as to why it is necessary to be out loud about Christianities lurid past. E.g. integrity; non-Christian objections; examining why creeds have a higher value than love in determining "the true church", when Paul teaches the opposite; learning from the past; etc... If these reasons aren't satisfactory to overturn your concern for preserving unity (and why is discussing this "divisive" unless you mean by "divisive" something like "feel uncomfortable), you should interact with them and say why

---

I DID SAY:

quote:

---

May the purpose in talking about this issue be driven by the desire to RESTORE and TAKE BACK what the enemy has stolen so that the impact that the big "C" church (as Al has stated) has on the world be of such an impact (flowing with the Spirit and driven by love) that people will be flooding the church doors... I pray that God's Spirit and heart for unity amongst the body be our passion and purpose in this discussion!

---

Perhaps you can help me with something? My heart and intention on writing on this board is summed up in my quote above. I agree that the integrity of the church and our ability to "catch more fish" depends on our ability to LOVE outrageously. I believe and agree with your sermon series that ALL our actions as a body of believers should be driven with LOVE! I DO see the need to examine where we as a church may have missed the mark yet I also get hung up with the whole idea of where do we draw the line in judging? We are not to judge our brother because we have sin in our own life (like we shouldn't judge an individual who is actively participating in a homosexual relationship because our LOG is too big -- we overeat, drink too much, swear, gossip, whatever) but then some of the same people who have argued this point so strongly (like yourself,Doc) want to expose the sins of the past church fathers/early church when our present day church is FAR from being where we need to be. In lieu of the log/speck analogy, our own log as a church is SO great that how could we even begin to look at the past sins of others? Yet I understand that we can learn from the past. The bible is full of stories that expose the wrongs of some in order that we can learn from them.... I get CONFUSED on separating the two -- on the one hand we need to reflect and make changes YET we ARE NOT to judge others. Can you help me understand? Is there a difference perhaps that I am not understanding?

I have a confession to make. I have not kept up with reading this thread as meticulously as I suppose I should have before posting on this thread and for that I am sorry. I have read the thread perhaps not as detailed minded as I should have before posting. My original intention was that I was concerned that preserving unity within the body was more important than thrashing over the past atrocities... Perhaps my mistake in posting on here was that I had been studying hard the past few weeks for a big test I took last Wednesday thus using this board for an escape! I am sorry if I interrupted or didn't read something thoroughly enough.

My heart is for REPENTANCE, FORGIVENESS, UNITY, and CHANGE. LOVE MUST BE OUR DRIVER IN ALL OUR ENDEAVORS AS THE BODY OF CHRIST. If exposing the past will bring about forgiveness and change than I am all for it. At the expense of unity within the church however I'm not sure?


Hmmmm? Thinking.
trosie

quote:

---

(and why is discussing this "divisive" unless you mean by "divisive" something like "feel uncomfortable)

---

I think this is part of your post that I didn't address enough in my reply so I will add this now. Some people have a fondness of and put a value in the beauty found in certain traditional orthodoxy. I know several Catholics, for example, that hold sacred and cherish the sacraments of their faith and have thus been moved by the Spirit and felt the love of God through participating in these sacraments. I know of Lutherans who highly value the works of Luther...

I liked what Al had to say about creeds. For me this shows how some parts of the orthodox church are valuable to followers...

Al

quote:

---

The question I haven't heard you ask is this: "What role do creeds have in nurturing and protecting Love?" A good answer to THAT should surely be a "qualifying lap" earning getting out of the pits. Else, back to gasoline alley. (Hint: The creeds play the same role as the Psalmic liturgy. What is the role of the Psalmic liturgy in nurturing and protecting Love?)

---

In my opinion to expose the wrongs that religions/leaders have committed in the past may come off to some as an attack to what they value and revere. The internal value and meaning that some give to the early church fathers may be different from what you and others do hence this could put some on the defensive rather than producing an outcome that is positive (which is your intention). You know, people will attend to different parts of the same whole.... People will often feel a need to become defensive and protective over things they value IF they feel the things they value are under attack. Hence, if exposing and repudiating the past sins of the church puts some on the defense than this would be creating division. I know that we can and need to learn from the past in order to make changes in the present. I know the past can be a jewel for our learning and growing. I understand how repentance and change from past wounds is needed if we want LOVE to be the driving force in Christianity... I guess, however, I have been expressing my concerns in that we need to be VERY sensitive and careful on how this task gets accomplished.

Inner healing from the past is needed but that doesn't mean that everyone is in the same spot nor even feels the same need for it. For example, I know that in a family system some members may get offended and defensive when a member exposes a wound from the past with an attempt to seek healing. The reaction from these defensive members doesn't mean that the person seeking healing should "stuff it" but it does mean they should be sensitive and respectful to those who feel offended by exposing it because obviously their view of family honor has a different meaning. We know that some members become uncomfortable when discussing past hurts and wounds in family systems while other members do not and this is based on their internal deep structural beliefs and their coping strategies.

These are my reasons why discussing this could be divisive.
trosie







Edited by - trosie on 11/03/2002 06:11:51 AM

quote:

---

We are not to judge our brother because we have sin in our own life (like we shouldn't judge an individual who is actively participating in a homosexual relationship because our LOG is too big -- we overeat, drink too much, swear, gossip, whatever) but then some of the same people who have argued this point so strongly (like yourself,Doc) want to expose the sins of the past church fathers/early church when our present day church is FAR from being where we need to be.

---

George Florevsky offers a contemporary Orthodox critique of the notion of a separation of the visible and invisible church:



quote:

---

The two lives (of the Church) are united and interrelated in the identity of the subject: unconfusedly, unchangably, indivisibly, inseparably. There is by one church, "visible" and invisible" at once. Humiliated and glorious at once. The human condition is not aboragated by divine grace, but only redeemed and transfigured.

---

quote:

---

Nowadays, "Judge not" has been virtually reinterpreted to mean, "Discern not."

---

I hear you. I did not say that quote, Doc and some others on this board did. I am only asking how they can say that and then go ahead and judge the early church fathers. I don't understand Doc in this and that is why I said that.

It has appeared on this board that "NOT JUDGING" works some of the time but is not consistently carried out. This CONFUSES me. I was sincerely trying to understand Doc's mindset in this because perhaps this might help me with what appears to me to be inconsistency.

I didn't take your post as "rude."

Peace,
trosie

The two lives [of the Church] (that is: victoriously lived, and seriously struggling) are united and interrelated in the identity of the subject: unconfusedly, unchangably, indivisibly, inseparably. There is by one church, "visible" and invisible" at once. Humiliated and glorious at once. The human condition is not aboragated by divine grace, but only redeemed and transfigured.

AND

Even where human sin and lack of faith intercede, the sacraments are celebrated and have redemptive power. Thus, outside the canonical limits of the church, even in communities of schismatics, the sacraments have an inward impulse towards full ecclesial unity.

quote:

---

WORTH REPEATING:

The two lives [of the Church] (that is: victoriously lived, and seriously struggling) are united and interrelated in the identity of the subject: unconfusedly, unchangably, indivisibly, inseparably. There is by one church, "visible" and invisible" at once. Humiliated and glorious at once. The human condition is not aboragated by divine grace, but only redeemed and transfigured.

AND

Even where human sin and lack of faith intercede, the sacraments are celebrated and have redemptive power. Thus, outside the canonical limits of the church, even in communities of schismatics, the sacraments have an inward impulse towards full ecclesial unity.

---