Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Love and Torture in History

Forum Quick Jump

285 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 10/3/2002 11:09 AM (GMT -6)

Point of clarification:

What I first meant by "inflamatory" was whether or not a presentation of a topic seemed, to my experience, to likely divide people into sides. That is, whether it seemed likely to make people feel righteous simply because they were "against" the right things. (a.k.a. "P.C.") Electra's post soon after that said it better than I had. That's why I attached to her post.

Clear? So, I was not saying it was mean, or impolite, or in poor social courtesy.

OK.
Next...

John Zizioulas' definition is really helpful here. (Read "Being as Communion.") The Church's eccesiology accurrately is a "pneumatologically conditioned Christology." That is, that the Church is not a phantom. It is "Christological" in that ordinations are to specific "ords." (No 'pastors at-large.') The church is defined as existing in a place. (The one bishop and the people gathered around the Eucharist.) it has real people and is not a church if there is only one person. But that manifestation in historical time and place is not enough to define the church. (And by itself it is obviously a mere bureacracy or a totalitarian structure.) The Church's Christology is "pneumatologically conditionec." (Zizioulas, pg. 130: "Now if becoming history is the particularity of the Son in the edonomy, what is the contribution of the Spirit? Well, precisely the oppostie: it is to liberate the Son and the economy from the bondage of history. ... The Spirit makes Christ into an eschatological being, the "last Adam.")

Doc, I noticed the Process" thinking in some of what you posted. ("..it claimed to represent Christ in the process"... Is that an instance of viewing God as "learning, etc.?) I think that is messing things up for you!!!!

Anyways,

It is a false notion that you have to choose between the "TRUE church" and the "Institutional Church." Ziziolas nails it. The Kingdom (the Church) has come, it is BOTH incarnate (Christological) and eschatological (Pneumatological).

Anything less is a wooden nickle.

(Saba monestary)

brandi
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118

Posted 10/3/2002 5:31 PM (GMT -6)

HEY, I really was serious about wanting a response to my questions. I feel like my questions got totally overlooked!

Sometimes I wonder if perhaps I can be so ignorant that I don't even know when my questions are "stupid"?

I guess I believe that if a person is trying to process something on this web site, then it makes sense that people at least TRY to appease them by answering them back -- don't ya think?

Curious

~Brandi~

PS. Brandon, I appreciate your kind words. We do seem to think similarly in many areas!

Edited by - brandi on 10/03/2002 11:34:58 PM

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 10/4/2002 5:48 AM (GMT -6)

Doc: But I AM wondering why a follower of Jesus should identify with an institution that has engaged in mass murder, simply because it claimed to represent Christ in the process.

Electra: Jesus inaugurated the New Covenant on the night in which he was betrayed. As representatives of Christ, we will not refuse to extend the same forgiveness we have received.

Semeia: What does identifying or not identifying with an institution have to do with forgiveness? One can forgive Hitler and not identify with the institutions he led that helped bring about mass murder.

Doc: More questions: Is the TRUE church identical with the Institutional Church?

Electra: Not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will be saved. But it is not our job to decide who is part of the so-called TRUE church and who isn’t.

Semeia: How is it not our job to choose the best possible path to follow Christ’s teaching? In Jesus day did it make a difference if you followed the beliefs of the Pharisees compared to following the beliefs of the ordinary sinners who readily accepted Jesus’ love and forgiveness? Is the televangelist who stands in condemnation of gays and feminists while badgering confused old people for more contributions really someone we should identify with as readily as St. Francis of Assissi? I agree we should not condemn them – but should we not reject the view of Christianity that they promote?

Doc: Why identify with the Institutional Church and not those whom the Institutional Church put to death?

Electra: Why make a distinction? Love is long-suffering. It keeps no record of wrongs.

Semeia: Why make a distinction? Because if we can’t see the difference between the persecutors and the persecuted we can never learn and grow and understand the erroneous belief system that would use Christianity as a basis for putting people to death.

Love is long-suffering and keeps no record of wrongs? In one sense that is true – in the sense of love not judging others. But in the context of this discussion it is an absurdity: should we forget what white Americans have done to black Americans? On other threads you have been very heated in your outrage at racism. How does that fit in to your statement above? Why make a distinction? You tell me.

Doc: If one believes that it is of preeminent importance to love like Christ loves, do not those who were martyred by the church represent the tradition one is aligned with more than those who martyred them?

Electra: The cross reminds us of the great debt we have been forgiven—we martyred the Lord of love. If we love like Christ loves, we will forgive sinners as we have been forgiven. We will not fear being associated with sinners; though it may cost us a lot, we give cheerfully because we know that Love never fails.

Semeia: What are you even talking about, Electra? What does any of this have to do with forgiveness? Is Doc calling out for judgment? NO! He is calling for us to reexamine history and look at the facts and decide if the traditional church has done a good job of following Christ and living in Christ. The short answer is NO, which leads to the question of how we can do a better job by learning from the mistakes of the past.

Do you align yourself with Hitler and Stalin? They too are loved by God, but that doesn’t mean we blindly accept their beliefs or own their tradition.

Doc: Why is it NOT "divisive" to not identify with a group because of their beliefs, but it IS "divisive" to not identify with a group because of their practices… especially when the NT. seems to put the shoe on the other foot, and especially when those practices are mass murder? Seems like a fair question.

Electra: Whether exclusion is motivated by beliefs or practices (and historically there are plenty of examples of both), it is divisive. On the cross, Christ exposed all expulsive violence for what it was. It is not the solution, it is the problem. It has nothing to do with love.

Semeia: Again, what are you even talking about? How is it exclusion to look back at the beliefs throughout much of Christian history and examine them and reject the ones that seem to go directly against Christ’s teaching? Is it exclusionary for you to talk about racist beliefs in the history of our country, and to reject those beliefs as untrue? How is that any different from what Doc is talking about?

Doc: [Jesus] loved all. So should we. But, at the same time, he certainly "distanced himself" (to say the least!) from the institution and tradition that killed God’s prophets (Mt 23:29-39). I love to fellowship with murders, even Christian murders. But I’m puzzled by the claim that I should stand in and under and in solidarity with the tradition of the historic Institution of Christendom.

Electra: On what basis would you justify rejecting it? How would this be any different than what Jesus accuses the Pharisees of doing: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous, and you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets’?” (Matt. 23:29–30). And Jesus makes it very clear that in spite of his harsh criticism of the Pharisees, he still longs to embrace them as his children—but they were unwilling: “How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” (Matt. 23:37).

Semeia: Yes, Jesus pointed out their hypocrisy: they claimed to be people that wouldn’t shed the blood of the prophets when in fact they were without love and were about to murder Jesus. Was it “exclusionary” for Jesus to point that out? It seems to me that Doc is pointing out the difference between the traditional church’s claims and their most brutal and abusive actions. If we can’t point that out without being exclusionary than I guess we better all just stick our heads in the sand and hope for the best, because we are prohibited from learning from history, and from rejecting the methods and beliefs of tyrants.

And again, what do examining beliefs and seeking the truth have to do with lacking love? I fail to see the connection.

Doc: Seems to me, Electra, that Jesus DID "excuse himself" from the tradition of the Pharisees because he perceived that they were opposed to God’s will (see above). He loved them, for sure. But he certainly did not place himself under their authority or in solidarity with them.

Electra: In the incarnation, Jesus placed himself in solidarity with Pharisees and every other sinner. In the crucifixion, Jesus placed himself under their authority. In both these actions, Jesus did not “excuse himself” from the tradition of the Pharisees—rather, he fulfilled it. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful.

Semeia: He “fulfilled” the tradition of the Pharisee? You make it sound like he was promoting the tradition of the Pharisee – which is so bizarre I hardly know what to say. So we should be embracing the Pharisee way of doing things? Wouldn’t that exclude the Jesus way of doing things?

Doc: He did not take responsibility for what THEY did – even though they represented the "best" of the Judaism he was part of.

Electra: He took responsibility for what THEY—and every other sinner—did on the cross, so they—we—could be forgiven. If Jesus hadn’t taken responsibility for it, even the “best” representatives of righteousness among us would still stand condemned. Loves bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Semeia: You seem to be taking “love … believes all things” in a strictly literal sense, which renders it meaningless. You seem to be saying that we should both believe that the earth goes around the sun AND that the sun goes around the earth. You seem to be saying that we cannot examine the beliefs of our traditions and discover what we find to be true and what we find to be false.

But I am confused. If Doc shouldn’t be calling attention to this, and distancing himself from beliefs that he considers to be directly counter to the words of Jesus Christ, then why would you ever consider it okay to speak out against slavery and racism? When you examine those beliefs aren’t you “excluding” bigots? And if you are not excluding them, but simply examining and rejecting their traditions and beliefs, then what are you arguing with Doc about?

Springs: It's not about burning their work, or judging them, it's about discernment. Why do we automatically give them such authority? They had worldly authority, no doubt. But I have no trouble believing that some of those they condemned were walking in spiritual authority, and that their work, what little survived should not be disregarded.

Semeia: I totally agree.

Doc: What I’m WONDERING about on this thread is why a group’s view of Jesus (or baptism, or the filioque clause, or whatever) is MORE important to our assessment of their "orthodoxy" than their love – especially when Paul and the rest of the NT. suggests that one’s beliefs are "a noisy gong" and "nothing" without love.

IF LOVE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT, WHY IS IT NOT ALSO A "TEST OF ORTHODOXY"? Why is it not THE MOST IMPORTANT test of orthodoxy?

Semeia: It’s a good thing that the methods of the church no longer include burning at the stake or you’d be getting a little toasty right about now! It’s curious how it has offended people throughout history when one talks too much about that pesky “love” business. It seems to interfere with our theologizing. Can’t we just get back to asking “Did God say…?”

Thanks for discussing the undiscussible. Thanks for not being afraid to say that the Emperor has no clothes. Thanks for your energy and commitment. I tend to give up in despair.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Edited by - Semeia on 10/04/2002 11:06:30 AM

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 10/4/2002 9:01 AM (GMT -6)

Please don’t misunderstand me. I think that those who abuse power within the church are the most wicked people of all. I have never suggested otherwise. By all means, expose this evil for what it is. This is necessary for forgiveness (it seems that my emphasis on forgiveness is still being mistaken for ignoring or condoning sin; this is not at all the case).

But doesn’t love offer a more excellent way than seeking to expel and condemn people, whether on the basis of their belief or practice? Does love seek to distance itself from sinners or does it incarnate itself in their midst? Either love is powerful enough to heal the contagious plague that creates victims and victimizers, or this sickness truly is unto death. The Body of Christ is the place where that healing should happen. That’s what Bonhoeffer believed and practiced. He didn’t see forgiveness as a ministry within the church—he considered it to be constitutive of the church. He understood forgiveness to be the means by which the church conforms to the Body of Christ. It gave him the courage to confront the church in Nazi Germany for its evil, and it gave him the courage to identify with it and seek forgiveness so healing could happen, so this evil could be overcome by good (see conclusion of ch. 3 in Ethics). The only thing perfect love casts out is fear. There is no fear in love.

The impulse to distinguish and expel “true” Christians from false Christians is the same impulse that led to many of these martyrdoms. Is the reason some traditions didn’t martyr people due to the incorruptibility of their belief and practice, or due to the fact they simply lacked the power and opportunity? Jesus warned the Pharisees that they were kidding themselves when they looked at their history and patted themselves on the back saying, “We never would have killed the prophets!” Instead of thanking God we’re not like those sinners, we should seek God’s mercy for our own sin, whether it is murdering a brother or thinking angry thoughts about him. In the sermon on the mount, Jesus made no distinction.

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 10/4/2002 10:56 AM (GMT -6)

Doc and Semeia, Electra is correct about the Incarnational identification of Christ with us ALL. And, further, Doc jumped off the boat when he hinted that Jesus was totally outside anything that had been instituted. FAR, FAR from it! Witness the cleansing of the institutionally designated Court of the Gentiles. Witness the Pascal observance that became the Last Supper!!! (Witness what he "instituted" that night.)

The difference, perhaps, that you are reaching for, Doc, is the distinction between a "universal" ecclesiology and a eucharistic ecclesiology. (Terms introduced by Afanassief into the discussion of Vatican II.) As Vassiliadis points out, Afanassief argued sucessfully that "universal" ecclesiology was not the only one, and it was also not the oldest. A "eucharistic ecclesiology" was.

An article in "ORTHODOX AND WESLEYAN SPIRITUALITY" remarks that "holiness is linked with the eucharistic understanding of the church as a communion of the eschaton." Not a catharsis that reclaims a Platonic original rightness. It is this latter impulse that leads so quickly to authoritarianism and central control.

Listen to what Electra is saying.

Communion -- the horizontal relationship of the eschatological Body incarnate in history -- is "instituted."

So "Institutional" is already taken.

Find another strawman.

Or, better yet, assert with Electra that WE ALL are made of straw...and in need of redemption.

Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 10/04/2002 9:33:27 PM

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 10/4/2002 12:01 PM (GMT -6)

The examples of martyrs Doc sites occurred during a time period where political and religious power were very closely linked, and pretty much everyone was a member of Christendom—there was no concept of a secular realm like we have today. Some religious leaders resisted exercising political power as long as they could (Luther) and others did their best to use political power for good (Calvin). The fact that people were martyred within Christendom is tragic and sinful. The fact less people were martyred by Radical Reformers may simply be explained by noting that they had less power. They fled to the New World, and killed the native pagans instead.

Please don’t mistake this post as an attempt to condone evil committed within Christendom or blind acceptance of the authority and teachings of historical church figures or an attempt to burn Greg Boyd at the stake. Rather, I would like to consider the possibility that these examples represent corruptions of what Christians believed and practiced rather than characterizing them. Is it possible that the importance of love had also occurred to these Christians? It is ironic that Semeia noted a Catholic monk from the Middle Ages as a positive example, and a contemporary televangelist—a representative of the Radical Reformation!—as a negative example.

Before we dismiss Luther and Calvin as “murderers” rather than members of the “TRUE church,” let’s remember that God was not too good to allow a murderer, a powerful political and religious leader named David, to capture his heart.

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8

Edited by - Electra on 10/04/2002 5:10:04 PM

Cindy74819
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1

Posted 10/4/2002 12:52 PM (GMT -6)

This may be a little off topic... but as I was reading these postings yesterday, I was reminded that this kind of behavior by people in the church still goes on today. Not to the same extent, thank God! But that is the main reason why I am not at the church I grew up in. (It was a great church with an incredible Christian heritage -- at one time. For that, and the impact it had on my life and faith growing up, I will always be thankful.)

I served on the board of directors for the camp this church owned. And I was SHOCKED by the way some board members (leaders in the church) treated our caretaker -- spying on him from the woods; trying to dig up dirt about him and his family in the local town; gossiping to the new pastor about the caretaker. This was mostly done by one person, but at least one other board member went along with it.

I will never forget that accusing member's words in one of our board meetings: "I hate our caretaker. I hate the man." I was in shock! I don't know why no one had the presence of mind to call for his resignation right then and there. (Spiritual warfare, I'm sure!) It was so obvious that the motivation behind this man's actions was NOT love, even though he professed to have the concerns of the camp as the basis of his motivation.

The part that hurt me most is that good people stood there and did nothing! Led by the Lord, I confronted the situation according to Matthew 18 (as best I could at the time), first talking to the one person causing the trouble, and then taking it to the whole board when he rejected what I had to say. I was disappointed that the board didn't take more of a stand against his behavior. The other female board member shared my concerns, but it was as though the men simply didn't want to deal with the situation. (I think part of their difficulty in dealing with the situation was because most of the men on the board were good friends.) While a few board members thought this one member's actions might be the result of misguided good intentions, they did agree that his actions were wrong; and they recommended he make amends with the caretaker -- which he never did, nor did the chairman ever did follow through with his promise to see that it happen.

This person's bad actions continued on after my term on the board ended. By his continual badmouthing and faultfinding, he finally managed to get that caretaker fired -- even though NONE of the accusations were ever proven true. Guess who got the job then?

You will never know what a blessing it is to me to find a church (Woodland Hills) that teaches up front that the primary motivation for the actions of a Christian should be the LOVE of Christ! What an awesome place this world would be if everyone had that as the motivation behind the way they live out their life.

Cindy

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 10/4/2002 1:28 PM (GMT -6)

Welcome Cindy, great to have you on board.

I really want to dive in, but have to leave in 4 minutes. So I'll simply say

Thanks alot Semeia. I've been putting together this neat response to Electra piece by piece over the last two days, and you go and steal my thunder.

So I'll just say that Semeia clairvoiantly (sp?) expressed my sentiments. We need to distinguish between soteriological issues (Jesus dying for all, our needing to love and forgive, etc.) and ecclesiological issues (which traditions should we align ourselves with).

love and kisses

Greg

To Al: don't know WHAT on earth you're talking about with the "process" thing.
to Brandi: Sorry for no response. It's just that there's no way to answer you without this thread turning into anothere abortion debate. I'll just say that if one accepts your view of the unborn, then your comparison is right on. If not, then it is not right on. So we'd have to discuss your view of the unborn. Maybe you should start another thread on that topic.

over and out

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 10/4/2002 3:05 PM (GMT -6)

Jesus made it clear to stick with God's Word: love God and love your neighbor as yourselves; He qualified the neighbor, someone whom the Jews wouldn't even grant the worth of life: the Samaritan. Further, he set precendents with regard to our attitude toward not only those who aren't "like" us or don't hang out with us, as well as those who are against the gospel (Luke 9:23, Mk 9:39-41).

It is flat, plain wrong for any Christian to kill another person, be he Samaritan, enemy or Christian. Only in two basic instances is it legal: by a court of law in view of crimes worthy of death, and in self defense. (Debating these isn't the issue. That we have no right to kill merely because we disagree theologically with someone is set in stone, God's ten commandments!)

Remember Paul. He lamented over his history of thinking he had done God a favor by killing those who didn't agree with Him (and this when the Law told him to do so!) How much more, then, are we to bless and not curse.

If any of us are to ever be in a predicament of witnessing a fellow "Christian" ready to kill someone because the person doesn't believe as we do (or anyone else believes, for that matter), we had better do two things: rebuke the person HEAVILY, and disassociate with them right then and there. Plain, simple, and to the point, I believe it is.

Well, time's gone!

For the life and love of working out my own salvation,

Starkman

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 10/4/2002 3:08 PM (GMT -6)

Doc, I feel deeply misunderstood. Obviously I have not expressed myself clearly, and I am sorry for expressing myself in ways that cause despair.

Semeia concluded:

quote:
It’s a good thing that the methods of the church no longer include burning at the stake or you’d be getting a little toasty right about now! It’s curious how it has offended people throughout history when one talks too much about that pesky “love” business. It seems to interfere with our theologizing. Can’t we just get back to asking “Did God say…?”

Thanks for discussing the undiscussible. Thanks for not being afraid to say that the Emperor has no clothes. Thanks for your energy and commitment. I tend to give up in despair.

I’m not sure how directly this was intended to respond to my statements, but to whatever extent it was, I am sorry for making people feel like it’s not ok to talk about love or ask provocative questions. I will try to think of more helpful ways to make my point.

Peace,
Electra

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 10/4/2002 3:11 PM (GMT -6)

Cindy, welcome on board!

Starkman, yes indeed, killing is wrong!

Electra

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 10/4/2002 4:28 PM (GMT -6)

Greg, To Al: don't know WHAT on earth you're talking about with the "process" thing.
Al: That's good. Because if you DID then we have a beef. But since you don't, maybe you didn't mean what it appeared to me to be.

Doc: We need to distinguish between soteriological issues (Jesus dying for all, our needing to love and forgive, etc.) and ecclesiological issues (which traditions should we align ourselves with).
Al: Read my post again. Not every kind of ecclediology is "universal" (the sort you are right in criticizing -- and not just for its excesses, but for its being off target). Read my post again.

Do you know Afanassief? The openness in ecumencism since the 60s stems directly to the sort of (original) "eucharistic ecclesiology" that Afanassief carried into the Vatican II discussion from his vantage point outside of the RCC. As one of the articles in "ORTHODOX AND WESLEYAN SPIRITUALITY" pointed out; while these--eucharist, trinitarian and hyscesist--are all three are regarded as synonomous with Orthodoxy, the later two are only dirivative from the first. It is communion (love) that is central. Ecclesiology is ROOTED IN LOVE.

(Semeia, read Electra again. She was providing a corrective. Cant' you BOTH be right?)

Rembrandt Harmensz van Rijn
1606-1669
Les Pèlerins d'Emmaüs

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 10/4/2002 7:53 PM (GMT -6)

Electra said:

quote:

Doc, I feel deeply misunderstood. Obviously I have not expressed myself clearly, and I am sorry for expressing myself in ways that cause despair.

Semeia concluded:
quote:
It’s a good thing that the methods of the church no longer include burning at the stake or you’d be getting a little toasty right about now! It’s curious how it has offended people throughout history when one talks too much about that pesky “love” business. It seems to interfere with our theologizing. Can’t we just get back to asking “Did God say…?”

Thanks for discussing the undiscussible. Thanks for not being afraid to say that the Emperor has no clothes. Thanks for your energy and commitment. I tend to give up in despair.

I’m not sure how directly this was intended to respond to my statements, but to whatever extent it was, I am sorry for making people feel like it’s not ok to talk about love or ask provocative questions. I will try to think of more helpful ways to make my point.

Semeia: I’m sorry for giving you the impression that those comments were specifically directed at you. My words were meant to be a general comment on these types of discussions, which often leave me with a feeling of despair and a dislike of theology. But that has more to do with me and my own feeling of frustration at my inability to communicate effectively, and my feeling of not fitting in with the Christian world.

I should have posted my comment to Springs and my comments to Doc on a separate post, now that I think about it. I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that YOU were ready to burn Doc at the stake (although I’VE been ready to a couple of times…

). I was simply referring to the backlash he seems to get for so many of his ideas, and this one wasn’t going to be any different. I’m sorry to have posted that in close proximity to my response to you. I can see how you could have taken it as directed toward you.

And I’m sure that is not the part of my post Doc was agreeing with in relation to a response to you. He never despairs. Well, he did say once in a sermon that he was really down for two whole weeks. Two weeks? I’ve had PMS for longer than that. That’s hardly a mood swing. Come back when it’s been two months or two years!

Now that I’ve turned my apology to you into a diatribe against Doc for not being depressed enough, I think I’ll go. I am sorry for misunderstanding you, though. Perhaps you can clarify what you were trying to say. We may not be as far apart as it seems.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

brandi
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118

Posted 10/4/2002 9:22 PM (GMT -6)

Welcome aboard, Cindy!

Cindy

quote:
I think part of their difficulty in dealing with the situation was because most of the men on the board were good friends.

It appears these people valued loyalty in their friendship more than defending an innocent person being gossiped about. As admirable as loyalty is it can also serve as a trap. Why do abused women so often lie about how they got the black eye -- because of false loyalty.

Doc, I appreciate that you at least acknowledged that I posted but I believe you misunderstood my motivation in posting. You said that there's no way to answer me without this thread turning into another abortion debate. Then you went on to say that if one does NOT accept "MY" view that abortion is killing then my comparison is not right on... Yet my intention was NOT to debate abortion. My intention was to ask HOW we look back at the atrocities that have happened in the name of Christianity in church history and question where the love that Jesus spoke about is, while at the same time debate whether killing an unborn fetus is a murder? I am willing to wager that if we could stick around this earth for another two hundred years we would hear people saying similar things about our present day church that you are raising here and quite possibly one of the things they would be shocked by is the multitude of lives that are taken through the act of abortion.

I am NOT trying to debate the issue of abortion! I am trying to UNDERSTAND and ENTER INTO the mindset of those who say that an unborn baby being brutally tortured and killed is not the same thing as a group of Manicheans being tortured adn killed? The reason I used abortion is because it fits with the topic of torture and murder.

WHO is it that decides what is valuable and where we will place our value? This society (including much of the church) doesn't seem to place a lot of value in life until it is conceived. By not standing up for the unborn life we are placing much more importance and value in life outside of the womb but WHY? By whose measure do we decide this? I know it's not by God's. God took pleasure in each one of us even while we were yet in our mother's womb!

It appears to me that it all gets down to power and money in the abortion industry, and so too in much of the church. It appears to be that those who have been given power or have a large wad of money will have a huge say in what is valued both in and outside of the church.

I guess in the end we all must take what we want and leave the rest when we look at the early church fathers. I am sure that in the future the people who look back at our era will have to do the same.

~Brandi~

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 10/4/2002 9:37 PM (GMT -6)

[Electra: I’m not sure how directly this was intended to respond to my statements, but to whatever extent it was, I am sorry for making people feel like it’s not ok to talk about love or ask provocative questions. I will try to think of more helpful ways to make my point.

Doc: I NEVER got this impression Electra (and I see Semeia didn’t mean to convey this). I really appreciate your responses. Along with the comments of others, they are helping me think through some issues.

Electra: The impulse to distinguish and expel "true" Christians from false Christians is the same impulse that led to many of these martyrdoms. Is the reason some traditions didn’t martyr people due to the incorruptibility of their belief and practice, or due to the fact they simply lacked the power and opportunity? Jesus warned the Pharisees that they were kidding themselves when they looked at their history and patted themselves on the back saying, "We never would have killed the prophets!" Instead of thanking God we’re not like those sinners, we should seek God’s mercy for our own sin, whether it is murdering a brother or thinking angry thoughts about him. In the sermon on the mount, Jesus made no distinction.

Doc: This raises a very good question. If we were "in power," would we perhaps do just as they did? The fact that there is no example of Christians being in power and NOT acting just as the non-Christian world does when in power gives much force to your point. It is, I think, a good argument for the view that the Church should never seek to have the upper hand of the world’s power. POWER CORRUPTS.

At the same time, I again wonder if your view doesn’t confuse soteriological with ecclesiological issues. Soteriological, no one can be excluded. We are all equally sinners. We cannot judge, for we might have done the same thing in the same circumstances. But ecclesiological, to say we should never "expel" – differentiate what constitutes ones tradition – would imply that we should identify (ecclesiologically) with EVERY belief and practice. I don’t know what this would look like – but whatever it would look like, it would be VERY MUCH outside the view of the Institutional Church. Oddly, this would mean that in trying to remain identified with the Institutional Church, you have placed yourself very much outside the Institutional Church. For the Institutional Church is rooted in the concept that it is THIS and not THAT.

My whole beef, I guess, is not with the idea that THIS is not THAT, but with the fact that the criteria for determining THIS and THAT never included the most important thing: LOVE.

Starkman: If any of us are to ever be in a predicament of witnessing a fellow "Christian" ready to kill someone because the person doesn't believe as we do (or anyone else believes, for that matter), we had better do two things: rebuke the person HEAVILY, and disassociate with them right then and there. Plain, simple, and to the point, I believe it is.

Doc: Brother, I hope if you witness a person ready to kill someone, you DON’T disassociate with them! CALL THE COPS.
.

AL: Communion -- the horizontal relationship of the eschatological Body incarnate in history -- is "instituted." So "Institutional" is already taken. Find another strawman.

Doc: Okay, its "instituted." If a person finds themselves siding more with those "de-instituted" than those "instituted," are they also "de-instituted"? And if so, what is lost? Also, how is it a "strawman" to say that the faith that kills people is radically different from the faith they hold?

Al: Or, better yet, assert with Electra that WE ALL are made of straw...and in need of redemption.

Doc: Again, I think this confuses soteriological and ecclesiological issues.

Electra: The examples of martyrs Doc sites occurred during a time period where political and religious power were very closely linked, and pretty much everyone was a member of Christendom—there was no concept of a secular realm like we have today.

Doc: You are absolutely right. Which maybe means that whenever the Church has exchanged the power of the cross for the power of political authority, it ceases to be the Church. I can’t think of a single example in history where the Church has ascended to political power and NOT ended acting as bad or WORSE than the secular governments it replaced.

*** I think I’m going to go ahead and post my earlier response because it covers a few points not covered by Semeia’s post.

Back in a few minutes.
Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 10/4/2002 9:51 PM (GMT -6)

Electra, I am very much in sync with your heart and general orientation. And I think you’re raising some thoughtful issues. But you are, I think, confusing several issues as well. Specifically, I think your confusing ecclesiastiology issues with soteriological issues. This may become clear in my responses.

Electra: Jesus inaugurated the New Covenant on the night in which he was betrayed. As representatives of Christ, we will not refuse to extend the same forgiveness we have received.

Doc: No problem. But there’s a lot of people I forgive with whom I would not align myself ecclessiology.

Electra: Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will be saved. But it is not our job to decide who is part of the so-called TRUE church and who isn’t.

Doc: It is certainly not our job to decide who is and who is not saved. A person (s) who puts another to death in the name of Jesus may be saved: God is judge. Heck, if God’s mercy can be extended to ME, it can be extended to THEM. But I have to confess that in killing, they are expressing a very different faith than mine, regardless of what other beliefs we may have in common, and regardless of our different circumstances. Yes we may embrace a lot of the same doctrines. But on the crucial point, we differ – far more than if we disagreed on the deity of Christ or the Trinity.

Would you be willing to say that Jehovah’s witness and Buddists and Muslim terrorists are part of the true body of Christ? If not, then by what criteria? And whatever criteria you use, I simply am saying we should, in authority to Scripture, add one more: Christ-like love.

IF you WOULD be willing to say that Jehovah’s Witnesses and Buddhists and Muslim terrorists are part of the true body of Christ, then I’m wondering what the "true body of Christ" means. What does it contrast with?

Again, this is NOT identical to the question of who is and is not saved. In my view, we can’t judge this.

Electra: Why make a distinction (between the Institutional church and those they put to death)? Love is long-suffering. It keeps no record of wrongs.

Doc: I appreciate the direction of your thought Electra. But I don’t see what it has to do with being long-suffering or not keeping a record of wrongs.

In any case, if you deny the distinction between the Institutional church and those they put to death, you are standing OVER AND AGAINST the Institutional Church as much as I am. Also, if you deny the distinction, are you willing to get rid of the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy altogether? If not, then why isn’t lacking love on your criteria for what constitutes heresy?

Perhaps my whole problem here is that I’M OBJECTING THAT KILLING IN THE NAME OF CHRIST HAS NEVER BEEN CONSIDERED A HERESY! I think it IS – which means that I’m concluding that the Institutional Church that put heretics to death was far more heretical than those they put to death. I’m saying that any who hold that love is THE most important qualification for following Christ have more in common with those who died for their faith AT THE HANDS of the Institutional Church than the Institutional "orthodox" Church itself – at least to the degree that it acted like this.

Electra: The cross reminds us of the great debt we have been forgiven—we martyred the Lord of love. If we love like Christ loves, we will forgive sinners as we have been forgiven. We will not fear being associated with sinners; though it may cost us a lot, we give cheerfully because we know that Love never fails.

Doc: Preach it girl!!!

Electra: Whether exclusion is motivated by beliefs or practices (and historically there are plenty of examples of both), it is divisive. On the cross, Christ exposed all expulsive violence for what it was. It is not the solution, it is the problem. It has nothing to do with love.

Doc: Totally on board with the diatribe against expulsive violence. However, if you mean by "exclusion" "distinguishing your faith from another," then I don’t see how you can avoid being an all-inclusive eclectic syncretist. I’m sure you don’t believe Jesus died to destroy every distinction between faiths.

Again, I’m simply saying that a faith that kills in the name of the God it has faith in is very different from the faith that above all commits to loving all people in the name of the God it has faith in. It is more different than the faith that denies Christ is the Son of God and the faith that says he is merely a prophet.

Electra: On what basis would you justify rejecting it [Historic Institutional Christianity’]. How would this be any different than what Jesus accuses the Pharisees of doing: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous, and you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets’?" (Matt. 23:29–30).

Doc: If we have the same spirit as those who killed the prophets, it doesn’t differ at all. Jesus was perceiving that the Pharisees had the same spirit as their predecessors. Hence he firmly confronted them. The fact that they wanted to kill Jesus proved him right. He never confronted in this harsh manner those who had a different spirit in Jesus’ day, whether they doctrinally agreed or disagreed with "orthodox" Judaism. "The prostitutes and tax collectors enter into heaven before you" (Mt 23).

On what basis did Jesus reject the spiritual tradition of the Pharisees? They killed God’s prophets and neglected love and justice. Whenever adherents of one’s own religion kill prophets and neglect love and justice, I think it profitable to distinguish themselves from this spiritual tradition.

Doc: Jesus certainly did not place himself under their [the Pharisees] authority or in solidarity with them.

Electra: In the incarnation, Jesus placed himself in solidarity with Pharisees and every other sinner. In the crucifixion, Jesus placed himself under their authority. In both these actions, Jesus did not "excuse himself" from the tradition of the Pharisees—rather, he fulfilled it. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful.

Doc: Here’s where I think your confusing ecclesiology and soteriology the most. Soteriologically, Jesus was in solidarity with every sinner. But ecclesiology, Jesus reputed much of the tradition of the Pharisees. E.g. "You tithe, and that is good, but you neglect the weightier matters, love and justice." Jesus did not insist on "his own way" when it came to coercing them into conformity with himself – though he could have. But he certainly stood his ground against them.

Electra: He took responsibility for what THEY—and every other sinner—did on the cross, so they—we—could be forgiven. If Jesus hadn’t taken responsibility for it, even the "best" representatives of righteousness among us would still stand condemned. Loves bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Doc: Sure Electra, Jesus took responsibility for the sins of the whole world. But if your suggesting that this is why we should take responsibility for what the past church has done, then the same logic should lead you to take responsibility for everything EVERYONE has done. This is another soteriological/ ecclesiological distinction.

Thanks for the feedback. I think its insightful.

Doc

Ps. Sorry if this has been a bit redundant after Semeia’s fine and feisty post. But don’t you hate putting work into something and then not having others see it?

PSS. Semeia, if you sometimes have PMS for more than two weeks… well, a) poor Iconoclast, and b) SEE A DOCTOR.!

(spoken like a typical male, right?)

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Edited by - GregBoyd on 10/05/2002 02:53:40 AM

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 10/5/2002 4:15 AM (GMT -6)

This is what I'm hearing Doc say:

To the extent that "BELIEVERS IN CHRIST" (in whatever groupings they may be) are existing in STRUCTURES OF UNLOVING BEHAVIOR, and doing so without seeming angst or desire to change, they are NOT being the true Church and thereby can be said to LOSE their some (if not a lot) of whatever authority they may profess to have. (Thinking of Calvin's Geneva) This is NOT to say that useful material can't come from these sources. This is NOT to say that WE, members of the Church at large, CANNOT be mournful for the behaviors of some of our own. This IS to say that if love is the central issue (qua Jesus and Paul), then AUTHORITY and FELLOWSHIP should be GROUNDED on these things. And authority and worship are essential issues in ecclesiology. So follow the logic. It embodies Paul's idea in Romans...

"For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children."

Is this near right, Doc?

brandi
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118

Posted 10/5/2002 4:41 AM (GMT -6)

I am SO thankful that none of you know who I am! I am glad that I can hide behind my pseudonym. Actually, for all you know I may be a few people posting on one pseudonym! I say this because I sense by the lack of interaction that you either think I am WAY off in what I am posting on this thread or else no one on this board wants to dialogue with me. Heck, I will simply leave after this post but I want to make one more comment first.

Murder = to kill a human being
The bible makes it clear that LOVE is the top commandment but murder is also one that is NOT allowable! I guess it gets down to what we consider murder. It gets down to what we define as life. We all make up our own minds on what we define "murder" to be. For example in my opinion murder is not just necessarily physical. You can murder a person emotionally, spiritually through judging, mistreating, abusing...

Semeia, Doc, and some others have time and time again used the log/speck analogy in discussing the topic of judging. Semeia has gone so far as to say we cannot even see sin in others because we are so blinded by the sin in our own life...

- SO THEN -

How do you justify it here? You are picking apart the "speck" in the early church father's eyes yet the majority today have a HUGE "log" in their own. As you would all agree our American church is FAR from perfect. We may not outright "kill" people but we do "kill" people by how we treat them. Heck, even by you all ignoring me on this thread is in a sort killing my spirit to want to post on this board. You may not be murdering me but you are murdering (terminating) my passion to want to interact on this web site. Now, IF this board were my only experience of Christianity I would say that Christianity is for the "intellectual" debator but I have enough prior experience to know that we can reason and intellectualize away but in the end it all gets down to walking in the Spirit and living in LOVE.

Goodbye,
~Brandi~

PS. Mephi and Brandon I love you guys! Brandon I thank you for your support. Mephi, I look forward to your response that you're working on.

Edited by - brandi on 10/05/2002 09:49:01 AM

Edited by - brandi on 10/05/2002 09:50:17 AM

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 10/5/2002 4:54 AM (GMT -6)

OK, so I'm still with Electra on this one. Totally understood her from the start in contrast to Semeia's response to her.

Just wanted to respond to Brandi on her post to Greg. I think I would agree with Greg on this Brandi. That is, that it seems in order for one to make the comparison to look back at past atrocities and say that that is not love, or the church is "nothing," etc, and look at the church today and wonder how in the world that one could not say the same thing. That is, look at the past and give it a stiff lashing, but not do the same in today's church, but rather almost turn a deaf ear or blind eye to today's atrocities, one has to accept that today's atrocities are comparable with the past atrocities or even conclude if they are atrocities at all. If one is going to call abortion (in the way that it is practiced today, IMO comparable to the Jewish Holocaust) an atrocity at all, one has to accept your premise about the status of the fetus. Hence, this is why Greg feels, "...there's no way to answer you without this thread turning into anothere abortion debate.'

Ultimately, for those of us who feel that abortion as it is practiced today is an atrocity comparable to the churches past atrocity, the onus would be on our opponents to give their reasons why they think opposite of us, that is, why it is NOT an atrocity. But, then again, this goes back to my original post as to why these Christians in the past, behaved the way they did. That is, Greg and Co. may have their reasons for not defending the unborn to the extent that Brandi and I might.

Will not future generations look on our time and ask/speak the same statements that we (Greg) are asking of past church history?

Brandon
"A life after death can only be thought of in terms of life before it, and nobody can dream of a new earth when there is no old earth to hold any promises"--Henri J.M. Nouwen, "The Wounded Healer"

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 10/5/2002 5:15 AM (GMT -6)

Brandi, if you don't stay, I'm gonna hunt you down! You got that! So you better not leave for good sistaaar! Besides...I love you.

Anyhoo, I posted my last post just after Brandi posted hers. Girlfran...listen. Greg does not feel that your thoughts here are not important enough to not respond to. It would seem to me, based on the post above, that the question of abortion as comparable to yesterday's church atrocities is not relevant/pertinent to this discussion. That is, Greg simply disagrees with your stance. Greg also, said that if you want to start another thread then you could tie it to this discussion, but here on this thread, he doesn't see abortion as comparable. So he would rather stick with the arguments between him and Electra.

Also, don't ever mistake that no response means your thoughts are not valued. This has happened to me on numerous occasions. It is just that others get caught up in the "flow" of the discussion, in this case, the main arguments between Greg and Electra, that sometimes divergent views are like a tributary to the main river. That is, abortion in this discussion is not a part of the river, it is rather a tributary that may or may not have relevance to the discussion at hand. See what I'm saying?

Brandon
"A life after death can only be thought of in terms of life before it, and nobody can dream of a new earth when there is no old earth to hold any promises"--Henri J.M. Nouwen, "The Wounded Healer"

Edited by - BBBCanada on 10/05/2002 10:16:47 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 10/5/2002 5:57 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Doc: If we were "in power," would we perhaps do just as they did?

EXACTLY.

quote:
AL: Communion -- the horizontal relationship of the eschatological Body incarnate in history -- is "instituted." So "Institutional" is already taken. Find another strawman.

Doc: Okay, its "instituted." If a person finds themselves siding more with those "de-instituted" than those "instituted," are they also "de-instituted"? And if so, what is lost? Also, how is it a "strawman" to say that the faith that kills people is radically different from the faith they hold?

(Note: the "strawman part was a joke. I just wanted to bump you off of a habitual reference to "institutional" as always being "bad" See my mention of "weather" below.)

YOU ARE COMPLETELY MISSING MY POINT!!!

I said: "the horizontal relationship of the eschatological Body incarnate in history -- is "instituted." Salvation is only in the Body of Christ. That is what all of history and the sending of the Holy Spirit is about. And evangelism.

There are those who want to do away with the Church, and just have it be "me and God." Surely you are not one of them. That is not the way salvation works.

THEN YOU SAID:

quote:
Doc: No problem. But there’s a lot of people I forgive with whom I would not align myself ecclessiology.

IS THERE MORE THAN ONE BODY? SCRIPTURE SAYS OTHERWISE. EMPHATICALLY.

GREG, YOU ARE "STUCK" IN YOUR CATEGORIES. THAT IS WHY YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT I SAID.

YOU THEN SAID:

quote:
Doc: Again, I think this confuses soteriological and ecclesiological issues

YOU ARE ONLY WORKING WITH ONE, WRONG DEFINITION OF "ECCLESIOLOGY." WHO CARES WHETHER IT HAS DOMINATED MUCH OF HISTORY. DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE SPIRIT WAS INACTIVE ALL THAT TIME. OF COURSE NOT. THE TRUE ECCLESIOLOGY IS "EUCHARISTIC." HAVE YOU LOOKED UP AFANASSIEF YET? HERE IS A LINK TO SOMEONE WHO FIRMLY WANTS A HIERARCHICAL/UNIVERSAL ECCLESIOLOGY. (WHICH NEITHER YOU NOR I AM IN FAVOR WITH. GET THIS -- AT THE CORE WE AGREE. I JUST WANT TO SHAKE YOU FROM ANTIQUATED CATEGORIES!!!) THE LINK TRIES TO USE ZIZIOULAS AGAINST AFANASSIEF (WHICH WON'T WORK), AND PAIRS AFANASSIEF WITH SCHMEMANN. www.petersnet.net/browse/3488.htm THEY GUY DEFINITELY WANTS A PAPACY! HE DEFINITELY CAN'T STAND AFANASSIEF. BUT THE CRITICISM HE HAS OF AFANASSIEF, WHILE UNBALANCED, SHOWS THE DISTANCE AFANASSIEF HAS FROM WHAT YOU ARE CALLING "ECCLESIOLOGICAL." AND IT SUGGESTS THAT YOU, GREG, WOULD LIKE TO READ WHAT AFANASSIEF HAS TO SAY!!!! (REMEMBER, HE INFLUENCED BATICAN II, AS A NON-RCCer. NO SMALL TOMATO.)

READ UP BEFORE RESPONDING.

P.S. -- GREG, FROM WHERE I SIT, YOUR SAYING THAT YOU ARE AGAINST "ECCLESIOLOGY" IS LIKE SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT LIKE "BAD" WEATHER SAYING THAT THEY ARE AGAINST WEATHER. ITS EXACTLY THE SAME.

YOU CAN NOT CONTRAST SOTERIOLOGY WITH ECCLESIOLOGY. DID GOD TRY TO SAVE THE WORLD OTHER THAN THROUGH HIS INCARNATE WORD? DID CHRIST SENT HIS SPIRIT, PERSONALLY (NOT JUST IN ALL OF CREATION) EXCEPT THROUGH THE CHURCH?

YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS KIND OF DISTINCTION WITHOUT DOING VIOLENCE (AS THOSE WHOM BOTH OF US DISAGREE WITH) TO WHAT THE CHURCH REALLY, REALLY IS.

READ!!!

Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 10/05/2002 11:05:03 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 10/5/2002 6:20 AM (GMT -6)

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "WEATHER" AND "BAD WEATHER."

Ryland does not like Afanassief's view of ecclesiology.

quote:
www.petersnet.net/browse/3488.htm
Seeing Peter through Eastern Eyes
Ray Ryland

In this century there has emerged among Eastern theologians another school of thought advocating what they call "Eucharistic ecclesiology." They focus on the local church as being fully and completely the Body of Christ, simply because it is a Eucharistic community. They minimize or even deny what they call "universal ecclesiology."

They insist that the Pauline doctrine of the Body of Christ refers exclusively to the local church, not to an abstraction called "universal Church." The idea that Mathew 16:17-19 refers to "universal Church" was totally unknown, they say, until the time of Cyprian in the third century.1

An advocate of Eucharistic ecclesiology (John Meyendorff) declares that in our time "there is a remarkable agreement" among Eastern theologians in support of this approach. Indeed, says Meyendorff, it is "the basis, the nucleus of Orthodox ecclesiology itself (italics his).2 This appraisal requires qualification.

It is a fact that ecclesiology which begins from the Eucharistic nature of the Church to explicate the meaning of the Church as Body of Christ has a long history in the Catholic Church. It enjoys wide vogue among Catholic as well as Eastern theologians. Vatican II's Lumen Gentium reflects this perspective. But all Catholic theologians reject Afanassief's exclusive focus on the local church which minimizes or even practically denies the reality of the universal Church. A document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1992 made the same point.

Quite a number of modern Eastern theologians also decry exclusive focus on the local church. "No one doubts the value of this [Afanassief's Eucharistic] theology," writes Ion Bria, a Rumanian. "However, it seems that it does not take into consideration the factual universality, organized and realized, of the Church." Bishop John D. Zizioulas has made the same criticism of Afanassief. Georges Florovsky, perhaps the preeminent Eastern scholar of this century, also emphasizes the universal Church in his writings.3

Proponents of Eucharistic ecclesiology admit that "universal ecclesiology" has dominated Eastern thinking since the third century. But the latter ecclesiology is not the original and correct understanding of the nature of the Church. It has in their eyes most unfortunate implications. Afanassief and Alexander Schmemann, for example, contend that if Easterners continue to hold universal ecclesiology, they must concede the truth of Roman Catholic claims about the papacy. And this, of course, is unthinkable. By itself it constitutes one of their chief arguments against universal ecclesiology.

1. Nicolas Afanassief, "The Church Which Presides in Love," in John Meyendorff, et al., the Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church (London: The Faith Press, 1963), 83.
2. John Meyendorff, Catholicity and the Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1983), 135.
4. Afanassief, op. cit., 86.

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 10/5/2002 6:35 AM (GMT -6)

This, in a small way, may help. Doc, what is a TRUE American? Is it the citizen who MORE PERFECTLY embodies the democratic ideals that supposedly ground it? Is it the citizen who chooses to burn flags? Who?

Check this out. I am an African-American male. Do I denounce many of the evils that many in this country have allowed to go on against Blacks, Native Americans, and others? Hell, yeah. Do I CEASE to be an American because of that? Nope. Do I have ANY LESS to repent for than these people who are my FELLOW Americans? Nope. Why? To the extent, that I choose to be an American CITIZEN, I share in the guilt of what my fellow Americans do as much as I share in the COMMON BENEFIT when things are going right. In short, do I have any right to say that the most bigoted, narrow-minded, freedom-constricting bastard that I can find in this country is NOT a "true" American? Not at all. I DO have the right, I believe, to say that I believe that person is GOING AGAINST the essential values of what it means to be American.

Don't get me wrong. I hear your heart, Doc. And I agree with what I believe to be the ESSENCE of what you are saying. I don't like the way people seem to VENERATE people in church history BLINDLY without acknowledging their all-too-human (and sometimes demonic) traits. I don't like the way that some people just won't admit that some people in Christian history were people who had great insight on one hand, but were f'd up in other areas! It's friggin stupid to me. And I definitely think more effort ought to be taken to recognize the people the Church has killed in its zealous bouts of power. (Thought: Who killed the Prophets, according to Jesus?) However, I don't see the need to separate the Church from the "true" Church.

I feel you may be thinking like this, Doc. Remember your 3 levels of thinking? Let's say that you jive MUCH MORE on the "neurological" level with a NON-Christian than with a Christian at the "community" level. If you are defining the Church as being "people who LOVE", then you have issues. If you are defining the Church more as "the Body of Christ", now we have something. Here's the fact: Someone can be in the Body of Christ, and be acting like children of the devil! That's just how it happens. But here's what we don't focus on. The Church doesn't have to be a body of COMPLETELY loving people. That is it's goal, but not what it HAS to be to be the Church. The Church DOES have to be a body of human beings IN Christ who CONSTANTLY live in community UNDER CHRIST in the "body" mentality, that is CONSTANTLY healing itself by love...even as it constantly WOUNDS itself! If one suffers, ALL suffer. If one rejoices, ALL rejoice. To say that I am not IN SOME WAY accountable for my brother's sins is to place far too individualistic an idea of what the Church is.

Well, enough of this.

Later,

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 10/5/2002 7:55 AM (GMT -6)

Doc: "Brother, I hope if you witness a person ready to kill someone, you DON’T disassociate with them! CALL THE COPS."

Starkman: Um . . . oops! Sorry about that! Forgot that part!

Meph,
You make a great point (your post just before mine.) I wouldn't associate with a Christian at all if he was willing to kill others because the others don't believe as he does; however, I can't immediately call him a non-Christian. As you said, sometimes someone can be in the Body of Christ, and be acting like children of the devil. How horribly true and unfortunate, and only God knows the person's heart. (Hek, it's not just murdering others that can be construed as acting like children of the devil, it can be a whole host of things.)

We are to walk as wholesome, winsome, blameless and in love toward others as we possibly can: "Love God . . . and your neighbor as yourself." God forbid any of us, having a heart after God, should offend Him anymore with such regretful conduct. Unfortunately, in the past I have. But He forgives, and I have a better walk today. (Oh, and there were wonderful, deep Christian friends of mine who quit associating with me when I was living in the sin of my past. I knew in my heart they were right, and that helped me to realize I my sin was not going to just be scooted under the rug. It helped to straighten me out, it did.)

Starkman

Shenaya
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 22

Posted 10/5/2002 8:53 AM (GMT -6)

I am new to posting on this board but not new to faithfully following this site.

I have followed the many controversial subjects such as racism, homosexuality, and abortion to name a few that have been reflected upon throughout the threads on cvm, and I just have to say that I appreciate the transparency of everyone as they honestly and openly share their views.

I'm not sure this is the best foot to start out on but I just had a response to Brandi.

Brandi you have been very open and honest about your beef with no one responding to your posts on abortion over quite a long period of time, so I hope you can take this in the way that I mean it to come across.

As far as I can tell you just change your psuedonyms and then hope to get further responses about the same topic of abortion that bring up on every thread. That obviously is your right to do(and no bad feelings here 'bout you doing that) but then you maybe should consider how you respond to your fellow posters, when they choose to or not to revisit that particular topic.

Please reconsider storming off this site in response to feeling ignored. I think the reason for a lack of response was addressed by Doc. Don't the posters have right to say I don't feel at this time it would be appropriate to dive into that topic from where I am coming from in this forum...please start another thread? It seems to me that the topic of abortion in your heart and mind(and I respect that) is completely settled and clearly black and white. As far as other participators on this board it is clearly not as cut and dried for them as it is for you.

You seem to take it very personally that some posters are making the choice not to take you up on diving into that topic. If you were to start your own thread on the topic,the people who choose to respond are ready and willing to tackle it.

I just think storming off the site isn't the way to handle any situation. You have received a lot of great feedback and input on other threads about other topics. You have been encouraged about your insights and your great questions so obviously it isn't personal against "BRANDI".

You have gotten a lot of support from Brandon, Mephi2k etc., responses from Iconoclast, so out of respect for those that you have been having intelligent dialogues with do you think it is best to just take off over your being miffed that those who have different view of abortion aren't dragged into the topic at this time???

Just my raw and honest opinion.

Shenaya Leiah

Edited by - Shenaya on 10/05/2002 2:06:28 PM

Edited by - Shenaya on 10/05/2002 2:09:51 PM

Edited by - Shenaya on 10/05/2002 3:23:11 PM

285 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:06 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual