quote:

---

Al: Charles Wesley hymned

Love, that makes us creatures new,
Only love can keep us true,
Perfect love that cast out sin,
Perfect love is God within.

---

quote:

---

Modes said this: "God shows that love does not change the other, but changes itself. God takes on our sin so as to give us God’s righteousness."

That is certainly a soteriological comment, and it is also an ecclesiological comment.

AND it directs our attention to the fact that BOTH soteriology and ecclesiology find themselves within Christology. The God-man takes on our sins, and we find ourselves within his ONE Body, the Church. And there is no salvation but within Christ. The Church begins, then with the "changes itself" that Modes mentions. It does not begin with institutional structures. (There Doc and I both agree.) But it begins and rests in Love crucified, and our participation in that crucifixion. (The martyrdom Modes mentioned.)

Charles Wesley hymned:

Love, that makes us creatures new,
Only love can keep us true,
Perfect love that cast out sin,
Perfect love is God within.

Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 10/08/2002 09:39:59 AM

---

quote:

---

This is really very interesting ecclesially:

quote:

---

Mephi said:

Remember what I said about my disagreement with Bonhoeffer? Whereas he said that ACTION is the opposite of JUDGEMENT, I disagreed. I felt that the POLAR opposite of judgement is ACCOUNTABILITY. Essentially the idea that integrates identification, solidarity, AND repentence (on many levels) I believe that this is the idea that Modes is talking about when he talks about "standing in judgement", not "judgement" qua Bonhoeffer's take. Am I right, Modes?

Semeia:

That's fine. But wouldn't that have to be discussed with Doc before applying that interpretation to what he is saying here?

Modes appears to be making assumptions and conclusions about the "love and judgment idea" that are very different from what Doc has said. It seems to me that that would have to be cleared up in order to have a fruitful discussion.

Thanks,
Semeia

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

---

Semeia, do you realize what this means? It looks to me like you are making an appeal to authority. I may be wrong, but I don't think doc wants to be the final authority on these discussions.

---

Semeia:

Modes, I'm not saying to ask Doc because he's the AUTHORITY!!!!! I'm saying to ask Doc because THAT'S WHO YOU'RE TALKING TO!!!! You are assuming that Doc means something but you're NOT ASKING him if that's what he really means! And if you are using terms that each of you defines DIFFERENTLY - then you will not succeed in communicating effectively. You will continue to misunderstand each other.

Modes said:

Now if this is really a dialogue, Meph and I are within our right to differ from doc and others and even hope that the conversation might receive something good from our input.

Semeia:

Well of COURSE you are within your right to differ from Doc. But you DO have to let him define his own terms - and if you disagree with the definition, then that is where the discussion lies until you can AGREE on the terms you are using. What I pointed out is that you used the word "judgment" differently from how he has been using it. That makes a huge difference in how you interpret what he is saying here. Since you are responding to something that Doc has written, it seems you would want to ASK him what he means by certain terms that you have been defining differently from him.

Modes said:

When you make appeals to authority like this, it seems like conversation is not really open.

Semeia:

I'm sorry, Modes, but that just makes me smile. For anyone to think that I would appeal to authority (!!!) much less DOC AS THE AUTHORITY (!!!!) makes me smile!

DON'T GET ANY IDEAS DOC!!!!!! YOU ARE NOT THE AUTHORITY!!!!

My apologies for not being clear on THAT one!

I have read yours and Electra's responses, and although I have answers to your questions at this point I think it would make more sense to wait for Doc to come back on and clarify what he means, instead of continuing to debate about what we all think he means. I have said where I think he is being misunderstood, but I don't want to continue to argue the point until he confirms or denies it. And I think there is a lot of confusion around many of the terms, such as "identification with" and "judgment" and "exclusion."

Modes said:

No, Semeia, I don't think you are understanding me nor responding to what I have actually said.

Semeia:

The gist of my response has been that I don't think you are understanding DOC or responding to what HE said. So you're right, I'm not responding to the specifics of your argument, because I think it is for the most part based on a misunderstanding, although I DO think that you and Doc look at these things very differently and ultimately may not agree.

Thanks,
Semeia

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

quote:

---

Context, Context, Context

---

Gotta make this quick. Appreciate alot of the responses that have been provided here. And yes, Modes, I do think Greg does some things to illicit a response, that is to shock. He's such a daaawg...

Modes is right here. Concerning "events of history", Christian understanding must probe deeper concerning the meaning of acts. Christian theology with growing agreement from the human sciences is recognizing this more and more and I believe this question has been addressed on these boards in the past within certain contexts. The question may be stated as such:

"Do acts carry meaning within themselves?" If not, "From what does an act derive it's meaning?"

In contemporary thinking, events carry meaning as they form a part of a larger context. No event carries it's significance simply within itself. That is, there are no "brute facts" of history, for every event ALWAYS transpires within a context.

Digression: We recognize this with regard to biblical interpretation.

By extension, the meanings of human actions are always dependent on the context in which they transpire. No act carries its own meaning within itself and no meaning is conveyed by a solitary "brute" act. Rather, all acts occur within a context and are dependent on their context in order to be meaningful.

This is also related to the intent of the actor in performing the action. Meaning, therefore, is the product of the union of two elements, the physical action itself and the context in which it occurs, which is related to the intent of the actor. Like all human actions in general, "events of history" are expressions of the intent of the actor who creates a context for the action from which in turn the act derives it's meaning. Again, there is no "brute act of history" and "no brute act." Thus, again, I (along with others) am not trying to justify certain past atrocities in our Christian past. It is to say that history is much more complex than might be hinted at in Greg's questions and therefore we should not stand with a divisive posture towards our ancestors.

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"

quote:

---

U.S.--we have a sense ofwhat it means to be an American. Meph nailed it in bringing this up. As Americans, we do in fact prioritize our own good over that of others. And because we are the most powerful nation in the world, we are free to do this. This is clear and indisputable in my mind so I won’t waste any more time on it. If you don’t know what I am talking about, ask someone who is not an American. They will help you understand. And yes, I still like being American, and I will choose to remain one, thanks anyway.

---

Oh and by the way. Forgot sum'n. I am thinking of jumping in and swimming across the Detroit River for the promise land...Detroit. Hallelujah! Let Freedom Ring!

Of course, back in the 1800's negro slaves were coming to Canada for freedom. Oh, my, my, my, how times have changed!

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 10/08/2002 7:02:39 PM

quote:

---

Doc: Though some seem to think otherwise, I have no interest in the "in" "out" question either. I'm not raising up the question of why love has never been regarded as a heresy to add one more item (howbeit, the most important) to my personal heresy list to now start the one true "cult of love". I'm raising it up to notice how absent its been and to thereby call into question the high esteem and authority certain writers have within the institution -- as opposed to those who were killed by them and deemed OUTSIDE the institution. I am, frankly, surprised at how convoluted this has become.

---

?Why would anyone raise up the question of love as heresy? I am genuinely surprised that you are surprised at the lack of love in the church. How many years have you been a Christian now? Disappointed, I could understand, but surprised? Really? I never took you for such an optimist.

quote:

---

Modes: What basis do you have, as a person who loves, to judge those who you admit you DO NOT identify with? Doesn’t love require that BEFORE we can judge another we must identify with them… I have no patience, as one raised Lutheran, listening to a non-Lutheran rip on what Luther did,

Doc: Would you say one has to be sympathetic to Nazism to criticize what the Nazi’s did? As Semeia says (typically, more eloquent than I) "by the logic of your quote above, one could only identify destructive behavior if one were part of the group of people DOING that destructive behavior. So by that logic, only Islamic terrorists can have anything to say about September 11th. Or only a Calvinist can critique Calvinism. Of course there are hundreds of posts here on this board of you critiquing innumerable ideologies and beliefs, so clearly you do not believe this statement to the extent that you are willing to act on it yourself."

---

Would you say that a responsible critic would criticize without trying to understand? I responded to Semeia’s eloquence, perhaps I have to repeat that here? By my logic, reconciliation and healing require accountability and identification. A basic requirement. A common denominator on which to build. I don’t really think it is that controversial. I have not said that only a Calvinist can critique Calvin or any other such nonsense. I really don’t see what is so hard about this. Nor what is so convoluted.

quote:

---

Modes: I have no patience, as one raised Lutheran, listening to a non-Lutheran rip on what Luther did, particularly if they are a non-lutheran Christian speaking ignorantly.

Doc: Well now. Maybe I don't have patience with YOU since you clearly are not sympathetic to the anabaptist tradition. hmmmm? And If I have supplied an misinformation about Luther, "speaking ignorantly" of his role in the peasants revolt or against the Jews, for example, I would certainly welcome your correction.

---

Are you having fun? Do you really think I am not sympathetic to the anabaptist tradition? Was I not rebaptized? Do I not rebaptize? Gimme a break. I hope this cutting-one-line-out-to-respond method ends soon. Context. I said much more than you are recognizing here. I hope you will respect that. I can handle some playing around, but I do hope to be taken seriously at some point.

quote:

---

Modes: The only way that I can hear a legitimate Christian complaint aimed at my tradition specifically IN THE NAME OF LOVE is if the one who is making it grieves over it personally because they recognize the identity that they have with the situation.

Doc: So you only listen to criticisms by fellow Lutherans? This seems very odd Modes, as Semeia pointed out.

---

This is not what I have said. I have responded to this objection. This is the second time you have brought it up.

quote:

---

Modes: It seems that you tell us that we ought not to judge, but what you really mean is, don’t judge other "individuals." But go ahead and judge groups of people and denominations?

Doc: We could get into a verbal squabble about the difference between "judge" and "discern." But we can avoid this. I suspect you’d want to "judge" Stalin’s regime of killing 30 million peasants and Hitlers regime of killing 10 million as evil? Whatever meaning "judgment" has in THESE cases is the meaning I want to give it when I say that killing several million heretics, Jews, Muslims and witches in the name of Christ was evil. Is this really controversial? Do you regard this as unloving and judgmental?

---

When you speak about these things, how you identify the perpetrators and yourself is what I am interested in. It is not controversial to want to oppose evil and killing. It is irresponsible as a church leader to stand outside of the church and judge it, rather than stand inside and call it to repentance.

quote:

---

Modes: I could hear you if you were actually speaking at a Catholic Church and appealing to them on the on the basis of your being a brother in Christ, or at the Lutheran or Calvinist church in the same way, but to preach to the choir about those other bad "christians" is of little use to me. There is no accountability in that.

Doc: Who is "the choir" you are speaking of about which there is no "accountability"? And what accountability are you speaking about? How is it present in a Catholic church or Calvinist church, but not on a web site (where it seems I am getting at least as much "accountability" interaction as I would get anywhere else)? Your comments simply puzzle me.

---

Here’s my point: you are preaching to a largely anabaptist group. Your message pronounces judgment on the actions of all but the anabaptists. Are the anabaptists really so innocent? Wouldn’t it be more meaningful to critique the evils within the anabaptist tradition? Why set up another "us vs. them" scenario? Is this your idea of "building bridges" and "tearing down walls"?

quote:

---

Modes: Wouldn’t it be more characteristic of love to say:
WE the Church have killed wrongly, WE the Church have abused women, WE the Church have persecuted other people by race,
WE the Church have forced others to believe what we do or be miserable, etc.? Why disown this? ….THERE IS NO INNOCENT CHURCH OF MARTYRS AND HERETICS!!!

Doc: What constitutes the WE here? Does the WE here include every mass murderer who confessed they were Christian? WE did THAT? Is it lack of love to read about Christians ripping out Michael Sattler’s tongue piece by piece, then chunks of his flesh, before burning him slowly at the stake, and say "I don’t sense any unity with this faith"? Why are THEIR WORDS to bind them to me (or at least, four of their words, "I believe in Jesus") whatever else they DO? Wouldn’t it be more authentic to feel more bonding with martyrs of the Bahai faith who don’t say the four words, but whose actions speak of a faith much more akin to my own?

Who decided WORDS speak louder than ACTIONS? Am I allowed to say I don't share faith with Buddhists whose WORDS are different than mine, but whose actions are perhaps closer to my faith ideal, but not allowed to say I don't share faith with Christians whose WORDS are somewhat the same as mine, but whose actions are antithetical to everything I believe?

---

Boy, I sure hope your actions are all in place to hold this ground. You continue to fixate on extreme details and ignore context. You continue to assume that you would have behaved so much better than these, and so forth. I just don’t share your confidence that we Christians today are less prone to sin than they were. I don’t think anyone has made the claim that words speak louder than action. I just don’t feel like you are hearing me at all.

quote:

---

Modes: I personally find it offensive that a person (Boyd, for example?) can be so short-sighted and naïve as to think that they would not do the things previous generations did, given the same circumstances and context.

Doc: Apply this to Nazies. How can you be sure YOU wouldn’t have done the same thing? I find it offensive that you judge them as evil, especially since you yourself are not within their tradition! Are you even GERMAN?

---

***HELLOOO that is my point. I cannot be so sure. Can you?
doc continued…

quote:

---

There were, remember, outstanding counter-examples of what the institutional church did at every turn. Some manifested the love of Jesus Christ in the face of , and often at the hands of, grotesque religious evil. Call me judgmental, divisive, unloving and heretical, but I feel at home when I study their faith -- even though I sometimes don't agree with their WORDS.

Now again, I have no interest in concluding anything about anyone’s salvation. And I have no knowledge of what I would have done if I had been a medieval priest or a young Nazi in 1941. I am a sinner as much as they. But this doesn’t prevent me – or you, really – from saying, "Nazism did not represent the spirit of Jesus" or "I do not align myself with Nazism in so far as it did this." So why should it prevent me -- or you -- from saying, "The Institution of Christianity did not manifest the spirit of Jesus when it murdered" or "I do not align myself with Institutional Christianity in so far as it did this?" It seems to me, Modes, that the grounds you offer for being offended at the latter should also offend you about the former.

---

I have no idea why you think I would disagree with the statement "The Institution of Christianity did not manifest the spirit of Jesus when it murdered" or "I do not align myself with Institutional Christianity in so far as it did this?" Of course these statements are true. The second one needs qualification however: "I do not align my actions with the Institutional Church in so far as it did this. But I still understand that this blemish is a blemish ON the BODY of Christ and Christ has accounted for it and can and will transform it." But you have also conceded my point, you don’t know that you would not have done these things too. And we DO still do terrible things, even in the name of Christ. It’s the holier than thou bit that is getting really old. It sounds like you want to say, "I am a Christian." only when it means something positive, but then promptly disown the identification when something goes wrong in the Christian community. I know this is not true, but this is what it sounds like. Look, you know that communities have histories and histories are messy. Think about our own community here at WHC. Is it really the case that EVERYTHING that goes on here is 100% of Christ? Are you prepared to disown whatever percentage of the body you assess is not doing their job to that standard? There is continuity to community through time and history. We have to own that. Thank God for the forgiveness of sins.

quote:

---

Semeia: Modes appears to be making assumptions and conclusions about the "love and judgment idea" that are very different from what Doc has said. It seems to me that that would have to be cleared up in order to have a fruitful discussion.

Doc: Both Modes and Semeia have read a rough draft of my work on Love and the Knowledge of Good and Evil. So they have access to areas of my thought I have not yet articulated on this board. I would think it best to carry on this discussion without bringing in this work. But, for what its worth, Semeia is in this case correct. Modes has applied principals I offered about the proper domain for accountability (small groups) to Institutions. I suspect this lies at the foundation of the odd conclusion that we can’t criticize Luther unless we’re Lutherans, or Nazies unless we’re Nazies. (Modes, of course, doesn’t argue for the latter… THAT is completely MY attempt to work through his logic to what seems to me to be its inescapable conclusion).

---

For what it’s worth? Frankly, I don’t think that book, in the form I read it, has been brought into the conversation. Everything I have said in the last week is based on the recent sermons that have been preached and the posts here on this thread. So now "correct" here carries what weight? "Doc agrees with me"? You may deem my conclusions "odd" but they are rooted in your own principles. Rather than cheer one on and call the other names, why don’t address the issues please. And yes, I do not agree with the caricature that you call an "inescapable conclusion." Truly doc, you can do better than this. My challenge stands and I think there are others here who see that it is a valid one. I am not in a competition to win doc’s approval I am saying that there is a very real problem here. Maybe, doc, you have it all worked out and haven’t told me, but I still don’t see how this way of thinking builds bridges across denominations and tears down walls of division between churches. I still don’t see how this sort of thinking brings us closer to the vision Jesus has of the unity of the body of Christ in John 17. Do we just "switch gears" when we talk about those things?

quote:

---

Meph: How could I then say that the bigot is NOT a "true" American because he demonstrated a evil pattern IN ONE AREA that I see? See the issue?

Doc: But would you not say that John ? (the American who fought for Al Queda) was not acting American when he fought? It’s not like he just slipped up and shot in the wrong direction. He joined the other side! And wouldn’t you think it odd if people started appealing to his writings as an authoritative source for American patriotism – indeed, if THEY started basing what it is to be a "real" American on his thought? What if he came to be regarded as one of the "heros" of the American tradition?

---

To me this is obvious. This man abandoned America and joined the other side. He did this both in action and word. This is not the case with church history. You are judging by action and playing that off against what is said by various church leaders. You can indeed show hypocrasy, don’t you think someone could do that to you? Oh, but you haven’t killed anyone, just maybe had an angry thought about your brother, and we all know that that is infinitely better, right?

Doc continued…

quote:

---

This is my ONLY QUESTION: WHY do Christians appeal to certain writings as authoritative when the writers acted INSTITUTIONALLY and SYSTEMATICALLY (not just an occasional murder here and there) in direct opposition to what Christianity is all about? WHATEVER IT MEANS to be American, John ? violated it. WHATEVER IT MEANS to be a Christian, people who murder systematically in the name of Christ violate it. It is as baffling to me that people who killed in Christ name would be highly esteemed and authoritative as it would if John ? were later on held in high regard by Americans. The latter would suggest that Americans did not really think patriotism or freedom was very important. In the case of the former, it leads me to suspect that the Church has often not regarded Christ-like love as centrally important. AND THAT IS MY ONLY POINT.

Are the killers in the name of Christ forgiven. If they asked for it, absolutely. Are they saved. If forgiven, absolutely. Are they part of the Christian tradition, in the same sense that John ? is still an "American?" I suppose. But my issue is why are they held in such high esteem, to the point of being THE DEFINERS of Whose IN and Whose OUT? It's as if John ? gets to determine whose an American and whose NOT.

---

Doc, you intensify the argument but it is the same argument. You cannot reduce the work of those men to simply that which you judge. First of all, who are you to do the judging? Don’t you think that someone could make a case that you are systematically perpetuating some form of evil, but you simply don’t see it that way? I dismiss the American who obviously changed sides. That is not a parallel. It is a different thing to be a person who is more or less a failure but still clings to Christ in some way. You are in no better shoes. I am sorry. But its true.

quote:

---

Semeia: Why not ASK him (Doc) if he is recommending an "action plan" for dividing Christians into groups of TRUE CHRISTIANS and FALSE CHRISTIANS? Why not ASK him if he means this?

Doc: THANK YOU Semeia. OFCOURSE NOT!!! AGAIN, I’m simply wondering why the heretics were burned are JUDGED as being OUTSIDE the church, at least not held in high esteem(and traditionally held MUCH lower – like in HELL) while those who martyred them are JUDGED as being INSIDE the church, held in high esteem (with the on-going authority to determine whose IN and whose OUT). Is THIS not inconsistent with the conviction that the CENTRAL THING IS LOVE. THAT IS ALL THAT IS ALL THAT IS ALL THAT IS ALL.

---

You may recall that Luther considered the Pope the antichrist. But at the same time, he didn’t give up on the church, he tried to reform it. You may recall that it is those who have willfully divided the body of Christ that were condemned as heretics. Even though it is wrong and sad that the church got the power and then abused it, it is not wrong that the church has insisted on the unity of the Body of Christ. Those who chose disunity achieved disunity. I see us, as WHC, as being in danger of choosing disunity. I see you in danger of preaching it. Thankfully, the church no longer has the power to kill us for it. But I still will speak for the unity of the Body of Christ and plead for us to consider getting serious about tearing down walls of this sort and building bridges. You really speak like you think no one in the Church has ever understood the centrality of love before. This makes me nervous.

quote:

---

Meph: He is not just questioning their AUTHORITY. He seems to be questioning his IDENTIFICATION with them, too.

Doc: It all depends on what you mean by identification. True, insofar as the tradition holds those who killed in Christs name in high esteem (as authorities), I don’t identify with it. In so far as they have good things to say, yada yada, I identify with them. BUT NOT AS AUTHORITITES.

Hows this: I identify at least as much with those killed as with those who killed, usually more (esp. Albigensians, Cathars, Anabaptists). Insofar as the official tradition identifies with and takes as authorities those who killed over those who were killed, I don’t identify with that tradition.

---

doc, you seem to think that as a Christian you have the inherent freedom to identify with whomever you like whenever you like. Well, insofar as that always goes in the direction of "identifying" rather than "dissociating" you are correct. But you dissociate, and this is not where its at. We must identify with those who murder because we too are sinners, and we identify with victims for we too are victims. Do you really think you are more a victim than victimizer? As Christians, our identity is established for us. We identify with Christ who identified with sinners. We are NOT free with regard to our identity. Sorry.

Doc continued…

quote:

---

The way to argue against me, I would think, would be to argue that as an orthodox Christian I SHOULD identify with those who killed over and against those who were killed, EVEN THOUGH I NOW REGARD KILLING IN THE NAME OF CHRIST TO BE WRONG, because THEY were on the inside of the insitutitonal church, with whom I should remain identified, while those killed were on the outside of the institutional church, with whom I should not identify. As I read Modes, he is saying he has no patience with anyone who will criticize the institutional church (or a particular segment of the institutional church – Lutheranism) unless they embrace this solidarity at the start.

THIS is the rebut that hits home. But the question I have is, WHY should I identify at the start with those inside verses those outside? If love is my central criteria, I can't help but reverse this. If YOU agree with the criteria, why AREN'T YOU doing the same?

---

I am not basing my argument on orthodoxy. I am basing it on our identity with Christ and Christ’s identity with sinners. You read me wrong. This is now the third time you lodge this same complaint which I addressed with Semeia prior to your posting.

quote:

---

Electra: the thing about Doc's argument that seemed judgmental to me, was that he seemed to be building a case for separating the representatives of "the TRUE church" from the "institutional church." Whether this division is made on the basis of belief or practice, I don't think it is up to us. Excluding people on the basis of love seems just as self-contradictory as killing people in the name of Christ.

Doc: I could go with this idea Electra [the idea that e xcluding people on the basis of love seems just as self-contradictory as killing people in the name of Christ]. But realize, this is at least as opposed to the tradition as anything I’ve said. For the "orthodox" church has ALWAYS defined itself over and against heresies (though lacking love wasn’t one of them). I know what "the insitutional" church is – this is historically defined. I identify with parts of it, not with others. But I don’t have a clear idea of what "The true Church" is… though I think one can discern the spirit of Jesus when its present.

Whatever "the true church" is, I would resist identifying it with every person who says "i believe in Jesus" or "i've been baptized." ("not everyone who says to me Lord lord..." ) And so we're looking for SOMETHING more than WORDS. And whatever that something is, I would think it would rule out murdering in the name of Christ.

---

(my emphasis)

Here we go again. I am not identifying the Body of Christ with anything other than that group of people who are covered by the blood of Christ. You can quote "not everyone who says to me Lord lord..." and I’ll quote "everyone who confesses with their lips and believes in their heart that Jesus is Lord will be saved" and "no can say that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Spirit." You can quote "whoever is not for us, is against us" and I’ll quote, "Whoever is not against us is for us." Here again is your separatist tendency. YOU want ACTION, YOU want someone to PROVE to you that they are worthy of the name of Christ. Right? C’mon. Who made you judge? Your such a good ‘ol anabaptist!

quote:

---

Modes: On the basis of several contexts and criteria I can oppose militant terrorists. The context of creation/criterion of the good of the whole. The context of our universe in particular/the criterion of inalienable rights of a human. Even the context of the US and my desire to see it succeed. It is on these bases that I would oppose them.

Doc: Two points:
A) Why not oppose Christian killing in the past on the basis of these same criteria – plus one: the centrality of love in Christianity?

B) The terrorists you oppose DON’T SHARE these criteria, so who are you to judge. As you said, if you don’t stand within THEIR tradition, indeed, in their historical circumstances, if you don’t grieve in solidarity with them against the evils of the United States – well, what right do you have to JUDGE them?

I'm of course yanking your chain modes, all in good fun. But I'm doing it to make a point.

---

A) Hey, good idea. Let’s do that. Hey, let’s remain Christians who love like Jesus did while we do it!

B) When did you ask the terrorists if they believed in some version of the good of the whole? What was their reply exactly? Did they say, "NO. We are E-V-I-L, we are going to hold the world ransom for 1 M-i-l-l-i-o-n dollars."

I too am making a point. Believe it or not.

quote:

---

Modes: When you (semeia) make appeals to authority (docs) like this, it seems like conversation is not really open…

Doc: Well, I AM the final authority on this matter. But it will be a very cold in hell before Semeia tries to settle an argument on this basis!!!!!! She was simply saying (rightly) that you weren’t understanding my point.

---

And this says what about the conversation being open? HA!

quote:

---

Modes: That is, he had a sense of what he thinks about it, but also genuinely wants some feedback on how others feel about it. It seems to me his questions are succeeding if this is something like what he was after.

Doc: Yes. But I am surprised at the feedback, especially on what strikes me as defensiveness toward the tradition. I honestly didn’t think raising up the centrality of love to notice how it often hasn’t been practiced in church history would be that controversial.

---

Please get this: I am not defensive about "tradition" per se. I am defensive about the unity of the Body of Christ. Please don’t expect me to take you seriously on "tearing down walls" and "building bridges" (insofar as this is applied ecclesially) if this is all you have to say with regard to other people who call themselves Christian. Please don’t expect a big applause next time you quote John 17. I too will watch for action since that is your chosen criteria.

quote:

---

**** final word. Could the fact that I have myself looked into eyes that wanted to kill me, were there not a secular authority protecting me, inform my fondness for the martyrs? duh. Looking into the eyes of religious hatred is a bit unnerving. I've never seen anything quite like it before. (YES I still bless them and ascribe unsurpassable worth to them!)

PRAISE THE LORD

Love and kisses

Doc

---

Does it occur to you that you might actually pose a genuine threat to something that they hold very dear? Do you ever wonder, why do they have such despise for what I am doing? Or does it ALWAYS feed a martyr complex and assure you that you must be on the right path? It is not hard to find enemies in today’s world and merely having them is no guarantee of righteousness.

You may not have "an ‘action plan’ for dividing Christians into groups of TRUE CHRISTIANS and FALSE CHRISTIANS?" as Semeia put it. But do you have a strategy for building up the Body of Christ into the ONE Church that it truly is supposed to be? Or can you at least not encourage judgment and division directly of other traditions and denominations on the basis of the culpability of their leaders and founders? Of course it would not be difficult to return the favor, but that would hardly count as progress.

I do think you could stand to take this a bit more seriously. Just my opinion.


As for that argument that you leveraged against me three times. The point is this, if a person does not have ANY investment or interest in seeing me or my tradition (or whatever the object of critique may be) change, then I am really not interested in their thoughts on the matter. I went to great lengths to show that we are all related to one another at at least several levels and it is the unity that we can have that should motivate the criticisms we bring. I hear nothing of the sort in your critique of the Church and it disappoints.


"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK


Edited by - ModesofThought on 10/09/2002 08:50:43 AM

quote:

---

Hmmmmm. . . do you consider David a "hero"? How 'bout Paul?

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

---

quote:

---

BINGO!!!

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

BINGO!!!

---

What if Paul ( after his conversion ) went about killing all the "christians" that didn't agree with him ? Would we still consider him a hero?

peace and love, don


<hr>
"It's time to wipe the tears from our eyes time to stop questioning why, 'cos every clipped birds gonna fly the Healing has begun" T.S Taylor

---

quote:

---

Neh. 1.4-7: 4 When I heard these things, I sat down and wept. For some days I mourned and fasted and prayed before the God of heaven. 5 Then I said: "O LORD, God of heaven, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him and obey his commands, 6 let your ear be attentive and your eyes open to hear the prayer your servant is praying before you day and night for your servants, the people of Israel. I confess the sins we Israelites, including myself and my father's house, have committed against you. 7 We have acted very wickedly toward you. We have not obeyed the commands, decrees and laws you gave your servant Moses.

Neh. 9.6-37: 6 You alone are the LORD. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you. 7 You are the LORD God, who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and named him Abraham…. 16 But they, our forefathers, became arrogant and stiff-necked, and did not obey your commands. 17 They refused to listen and failed to remember the miracles you performed among them. They became stiff-necked and in their rebellion appointed a leader in order to return to their slavery. But you are a forgiving God, gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love. Therefore you did not desert them, 18 even when they cast for themselves an image of a calf and said, 'This is your god, who brought you up out of Egypt,' or when they committed awful blasphemies. 26 But they were disobedient and rebelled against you; they put your law behind their backs. They killed your prophets, who had admonished them in order to turn them back to you; they committed awful blasphemies. 27 So you handed them over to their enemies, who oppressed them. But when they were oppressed they cried out to you. From heaven you heard them, and in your great compassion you gave them deliverers, who rescued them from the hand of their enemies. 28 But as soon as they were at rest, they again did what was evil in your sight. Then you abandoned them to the hand of their enemies so that they ruled over them. And when they cried out to you again, you heard from heaven, and in your compassion you delivered them time after time. 29 You warned them to return to your law, but they became arrogant and disobeyed your commands. They sinned against your ordinances, by which a man will live if he obeys them. Stubbornly they turned their backs on you, became stiff-necked and refused to listen. 30 For many years you were patient with them. By your Spirit you admonished them through your prophets. Yet they paid no attention, so you handed them over to the neighboring peoples. 31 But in your great mercy you did not put an end to them or abandon them, for you are a gracious and merciful God. 32 Now therefore, O our God, the great, mighty and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love, do not let all this hardship seem trifling in your eyes-- the hardship that has come upon us, upon our kings and leaders, upon our priests and prophets, upon our fathers and all your people, from the days of the kings of Assyria until today. 33 In all that has happened to us, you have been just; you have acted faithfully, while we did wrong. 34 Our kings, our leaders, our priests and our fathers did not follow your law; they did not pay attention to your commands or the warnings you gave them. 35 Even while they were in their kingdom, enjoying your great goodness to them in the spacious and fertile land you gave them, they did not serve you or turn from their evil ways. 36 "But see, we are slaves today, slaves in the land you gave our forefathers so they could eat its fruit and the other good things it produces. 37 Because of our sins, its abundant harvest goes to the kings you have placed over us. They rule over our bodies and our cattle as they please. We are in great distress.

Ezra 9:1-10:1: 1 After these things had been done, the leaders came to me and said, "The people of Israel, including the priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples with their detestable practices, like those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites. 2 They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness." 3 When I heard this, I tore my tunic and cloak, pulled hair from my head and beard and sat down appalled. 4 Then everyone who trembled at the words of the God of Israel gathered around me because of this unfaithfulness of the exiles. And I sat there appalled until the evening sacrifice. 5 Then, at the evening sacrifice, I rose from my self-abasement, with my tunic and cloak torn, and fell on my knees with my hands spread out to the LORD my God 6 and prayed: "O my God, I am too ashamed and disgraced to lift up my face to you, my God, because our sins are higher than our heads and our guilt has reached to the heavens. 7 From the days of our forefathers until now, our guilt has been great. Because of our sins, we and our kings and our priests have been subjected to the sword and captivity, to pillage and humiliation at the hand of foreign kings, as it is today. 8 But now, for a brief moment, the LORD our God has been gracious in leaving us a remnant and giving us a firm place in his sanctuary, and so our God gives light to our eyes and a little relief in our bondage. 9 Though we are slaves, our God has not deserted us in our bondage. He has shown us kindness in the sight of the kings of Persia: He has granted us new life to rebuild the house of our God and repair its ruins, and he has given us a wall of protection in Judah and Jerusalem. 10 But now, O our God, what can we say after this? For we have disregarded the commands 11 you gave through your servants the prophets when you said: 'The land you are entering to possess is a land polluted by the corruption of its peoples. By their detestable practices they have filled it with their impurity from one end to the other. 12 Therefore, do not give your daughters in marriage to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them at any time, that you may be strong and eat the good things of the land and leave it to your children as an everlasting inheritance.' 13 What has happened to us is a result of our evil deeds and our great guilt, and yet, our God, you have punished us less than our sins have deserved and have given us a remnant like this. 14 Shall we again break your commands and intermarry with the peoples who commit such detestable practices? Would you not be angry enough with us to destroy us, leaving us no remnant or survivor? 15 O LORD, God of Israel, you are righteous! We are left this day as a remnant. Here we are before you in our guilt, though because of it not one of us can stand in your presence." 10:1 While Ezra was praying and confessing…

Isa. 42.22-25: 22 But this is a people plundered and looted, all of them trapped in pits or hidden away in prisons. They have become plunder, with no one to rescue them; they have been made loot, with no one to say, "Send them back." 23 Which of you will listen to this or pay close attention in time to come? 24 Who handed Jacob over to become loot, and Israel to the plunderers? Was it not the LORD, against whom we have sinned? For they would not follow his ways; they did not obey his law. 25 So he poured out on them his burning anger, the violence of war. It enveloped them in flames, yet they did not understand; it consumed them, but they did not take it to heart.

Jer. 3.24-25: 24 From our youth shameful gods have consumed the fruits of our fathers' labor-- their flocks and herds, their sons and daughters. 25 Let us lie down in our shame, and let our disgrace cover us. We have sinned against the LORD our God, both we and our fathers; from our youth till this day we have not obeyed the LORD our God."

Jer 4.1-7: This is the word of the LORD to Jeremiah concerning the drought: 2 "Judah mourns, her cities languish; they wail for the land, and a cry goes up from Jerusalem. 3 The nobles send their servants for water; they go to the cisterns but find no water. They return with their jars unfilled; dismayed and despairing, they cover their heads. 4 The ground is cracked because there is no rain in the land; the farmers are dismayed and cover their heads. 5 Even the doe in the field deserts her newborn fawn because there is no grass. 6 Wild donkeys stand on the barren heights and pant like jackals; their eyesight fails for lack of pasture." 7 Although our sins testify against us, O LORD, do something for the sake of your name. For our backsliding is great; we have sinned against you.

Jer 14.19-20: 19 Have you rejected Judah completely? Do you despise Zion? Why have you afflicted us so that we cannot be healed? We hoped for peace but no good has come, for a time of healing but there is only terror. 20 O LORD, we acknowledge our wickedness and the guilt of our fathers; we have indeed sinned against you.

Lam. 3.22, 41-42: 22 Because of the LORD's great love we are not consumed... 41 Let us lift up our hearts and our hands to God in heaven, and say: 42 "We have sinned and rebelled and you have not forgiven.

Dan. 9:2-6 (all the way through to v. 19 actually): 2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years. 3 So I turned to the Lord God and pleaded with him in prayer and petition, in fasting, and in sackcloth and ashes. 4 I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed: "O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands, 5 we have sinned and done wrong. We have been wicked and have rebelled; we have turned away from your commands and laws. 6 We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes and our fathers, and to all the people of the land…

---

Back later!

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

Edited by - TGB on 10/09/2002 5:26:23 PM

Edited by - TGB on 10/09/2002 5:28:41 PM

quote:

---

Doc: Now, I think there are a number of issues here – e.g. the whole thing is premised on a particular, very modern, untraditional understanding of "the Church" (e.g. confessing Christ as Lord is the all important criteria).

Electra: ! So do you consider the nontraditional nature of our understanding a weakness or a strength? I’m curious to know what THE traditional understanding of “the Church” is.

---