 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Love and Torture in History | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
eaglecam
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2002
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 10/12/2002 2:29 PM (GMT -6) |   | Time for a break?
Something just came to me.
"Love is never boastful, nor conceited, nor rude; never selfish, not quick to take offense. Love keeps no score of wrongs;"
Good word, that.
Blessings
..."for him to see me mended, I must see him torn..." Luci Shaw | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 10/12/2002 7:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Al, I apologize for hurting your feelings. It was certainly not my intent to come across in my communication with you in an attacking way. It is particularly frustrating to me that I would come across as attacking when I was trying to communicate hurt. But I am sorry that I hurt you in the process of giving that feedback.
I'm beginning to think this is an aptly-named thread...
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard
Edited by - Semeia on 10/13/2002 12:58:24 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/12/2002 11:10 PM (GMT -6) | | The Lord bless you and keep you, the Lord make his face to shine upon you, and give you His peace.
Next time I won't try and be cute by mixing "complements" with my rebuffs.
That hurt your feelings. I am sorry that happened. I certainly did not intend it.
In the future I'll just try to be simple and clear. (Which perhaps will make it less awkward for you to "let me have it" if you disagree with the position I'm arguing. That would be, of course, fair.)
Love you,
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 10/14/2002 11:00:46 PM
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 10/15/2002 10:37:37 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/15/2002 5:51 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
BBBCanada
Greg, I think I may still be being misunderstood. There is the contemporary context of which both Modes and myself spoke of. And then there is the historical context of which Calvin and others moved. Calvin may have sincerely believe the souls of men were in jeopardy and may have truly not seen calling upon the civil authorities (who were also concerned about unrest) to deal with insuing problems. He would have merely disagree with those who seen it as unloving.
Again, heresy was considered a crime (a legal, societal category) because it was more harmful to the individual (as an eternal soul) than was mere harm to property or bodies. But central to both sin and crime (as seen in the distinction between mortal and venial sin in Catholic theology, or degrees of murder or the insanity defense in civil law) is the degree and nature of individual culpability. That is precisely what the Church has come to better understand through the centuries. Thus, the Inquisition was not self-understood at all as a callous act of murder or repression (as, say, Naziism or Stalinism were), but simply a just punishment, for the good of the society, just as our prison sentences are today. Civilized secular society has come to frown upon capital punishment, by and large, and torture ("cruel and unusual punishment"). It has grown in its understanding of crime and punishment, too. All of civilized society has (insofar as child-killing societies can be considered "civilized" at all), including the Church.
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"
Intersting post, Brandon!
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 10/16/2002 5:28 AM (GMT -6) | |
BBBC:
I don't think the atrocities have much bearing on the truthfulness or legitmacy of what these church fathers taught.
Springs: I do think their atrocities and atrocious lifestyles had a bearing on what they taught. These 'church fathers' were into power and control and to justify their lifestyles they painted God in the same light.
quote:
BBBC:Of course. There is much to this. We do the same today, which has possible implications for Open Theism. That is, nobody does theology within a historical vacuum. Open theists are not immuned from this either.
Springs: So we’re in agreement? Since we do the same thing today, if we were burning people at the stake for being heretics, it would make you question our theology? You agree their atrocities do have bearing on the their legitimacy?
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.
BBBC: Doctrines, etc, were not given automatic authority in the early church. This stuff was hashed out big time. Acceptance didn't come without a price.
Springs: Again, I would say we are in agreement. Only I’m thinking of the price paid by those excommunicated, banned and burned.
quote:
BBBC: Most lay Catholics may give them "automatic" authority. But I doubt they even do this. And if you want to talk about who gives who automatic authority? Protestants are in no better of a position. They should take a good gander at themselves. They seem to be accepting of anything that comes down the theological pike, honey.
Springs: First of all, I WAS talking about Protestants. Why do you “doubt most Catholics even do this” but think “Protestants accept anything that comes down the pike?”
And last, but surely not the least, Shirley, Why did you call me HONEY??? Were you checking to see if I’d have the same response as Semeia did? Well, I did. The only guy that has ever called me honey is my husband. I’ve known a couple of the guys that contribute to this board for years, and neither has EVER called me honey. I can only hope that from your perspective (as a man) it was meant to be endearing, but from my perspective (as a woman) it felt condescending.
Stick that in your hat and smoke it, friend,
Springs
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/16/2002 7:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Not sure it is wise to jump back in here again but I do want to point something out here. There has been a lot of criticism of church leaders at various points in history. Much of it grounded in our own perspective on things from our own context, but some of it truly is transcultural and valid. What we need to recognize and stay cognizant of is this: we cannot actually seperate Scripture from tradition. The Bible did not fall out of the sky one day and then start serving as our sole authority. These various books were written by (and debated over!) and passed down through human beings and it is those who we have as our church fathers and founders. They were edited and sorted by some of these same people we are implicitly attacking at times in this thread. I just think it is important to see this.
If you are going to leverage strong critiques against the early church leaders (and I think there is a healthy role for this) we need to remember:
1. We will implicitly be addressing the people that the Spirit used to bring us the Bible.
2. We must ask ourselves, what WAS the Spirit doing at these times? Not simply what failures do we see the human beings falling into.
These two questions together remind us that we are in the same boat. The Spirit is doing some things in our midst as well, despite our best efforts to do our own thing. One of the things that caused me to respond so strongly earlier was the tendency to assume that we have a more clear criterion for assessing love than was present in the days we want to judge. This is not true. We seem to think it is appropriate to compare our percieved strengths against their percieved weaknesses. I really don't think this is helpful. This is an implicit claim that we have the Spirit of God and they did not. If you make that claim, toss the authority of Scripture. For it was through these very folks that the decisions for inclusion and exclusion were made. I hear in the back ground that high school cheer "we got Spirit, yes we do, we got Spirit, how 'bout you?" Sorry. This actually relates very directly to what Al has been saying about the faithfulness of God to us and through us despite us. The who Eucharist deal, the faithfulness of God to the people who participate in the Lord's Supper, all that...
I DO think we need to consider what it is that love requires, and we need to look for examples of that where we can, but we do not benefit from comparing the weaknesses of the past to our own perceived strengths in the present. It is a classical formulation of the concept of pride to do so. Just consider how EASY this is to do! With any area that some relative progress was made socially or politically. Surely our relationship to the tradition must be more respectful and dynamic than this. Rather, we could speak of the dialectic of Spirit both then and now. How were they doing in following the leading of the Spirit? So far as we can discern? Where did the enemy have them deceived? These questions are universal ones, transhistorical. We have to ask them of ourselves as well. Any heroes we might want to identify are also subject to this dialectic: what was the Spirit of God discernably accomplishing in this person? In what way was the enemy having his way with them? We all must submit to such questions of discernment. We can speak this way of various more specific traditions as well: where did they seem to really get it right? Where did they seem to blow it? Or more "spirit-ually" What did God do through them that we are still seeing the fruit of? What did the enemy rob them of (in what way were they decieved, etc...) that we are still seeing the impact of? I would never want someone to ask only the second question of me and not attend to the former, I think we owe each other, and those that go before us, this much respect.
Just remember, if we ever find ourselves writing off the early traditions or even the tradition generally, we inevitably lose any credible basis for the authority of Scripture.
"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 | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/16/2002 4:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Springs said:quote:
BBBC:
I don't think the atrocities have much bearing on the truthfulness or legitmacy of what these church fathers taught.
Springs: I do think their atrocities and atrocious lifestyles had a bearing on what they taught. These 'church fathers' were into power and control and to justify their lifestyles they painted God in the same light.
quote:
BBBC:Of course. There is much to this. We do the same today, which has possible implications for Open Theism. That is, nobody does theology within a historical vacuum. Open theists are not immuned from this either.
Springs: So we’re in agreement? Since we do the same thing today, if we were burning people at the stake for being heretics, it would make you question our theology? You agree their atrocities do have bearing on the their legitimacy?
**********************************************************************
Springs, the argument runs like this as I see it:
1. Greg: why should we accept automatically accept the authority of those who did not love but MURDERED (there's a difference between murder and killing in the sense that I, Brandon, have use it).
2. Brandon: We need to take them within historical context.
3. Springs: These forefathers were into power and control painted God in the same light.
4. Brandon: There is truth to this. Open theism is not immune to painting God in light of modern assumptions either.
Now what I am saying is this. That both the forefathers and ourselves are not immune from the influence of the surrounding general culture/times. So therefore, I can see why they did what they did to some extent. I can excuse it to some extent. And the same applies to certain factions within evangelicalism today. But it seems to me that Greg does not want to consider seriously the historical context, otherwise, he would not be as harsh as he was, and now has seemingly modified his stance. I don't know if the atrocities have as much bearing on their "legitimacy," meaning "accepting their authority automatically" (?) or the "validity of their ideas" (?) as Greg wants to give them. Personally, I tend not to give automatic acceptance to any church authority. Again, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral being the framework from which I work and authority is one among the four legs of authority for Christian faith and practice. I think we should question authority, just not in the secular sense where one questions authority to rid themselves of any authority over their lives. In the end I won't disregard the validity of all their work for sure.
Plus, I don't think we will ever burn at the stake again:
a) Because we are a psychologically nuanced society.
b) Because the church and state are separate, unlike they were back then and therefore the civil authorities are not/and probably never will be again, the strong arm of the church. 
quote:
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.
See above.
quote:
BBBC: Most lay Catholics may give them "automatic" authority. But I doubt they even do this. And if you want to talk about who gives who automatic authority? Protestants are in no better of a position. They should take a good gander at themselves. They seem to be accepting of anything that comes down the theological pike, honey.
Springs: First of all, I WAS talking about Protestants. Why do you “doubt most Catholics even do this” but think “Protestants accept anything that comes down the pike?”
Well, I don't want to exclude Catholics from the universal body of Christ which is why I included them. Many Catholics do not accept anything that comes down the theological pike. Their problem is accepting the word of the pope as if it was Jesus himself speaking or whatever St. So and so said. At least that is the stereotype. If you look at doctrine of Papal authority you will see that that is not necessarily true. But it's good to see that Catholics are questioning and taking more seriously their faith in my opinion.
Protestants on the other hand, especially in Charismatic circles, because of reliance on the Spirit, and disdain for tradition, will accept almost anything when it comes to "the theological pike." That is because they have broke themselves away from their traditional moorings. When I see this? quote:
My question: If any belief or deed without love, kindness, patience etc… is NOTHING, then isn’t this whole religious history NOTHING -- if not far worse?
it scares me. Ugh...
quote:
And last, but surely not the least, Shirley, Why did you call me HONEY??? Were you checking to see if I’d have the same response as Semeia did? Well, I did. The only guy that has ever called me honey is my husband. I’ve known a couple of the guys that contribute to this board for years, and neither has EVER called me honey. I can only hope that from your perspective (as a man) it was meant to be endearing, but from my perspective (as a woman) it felt condescending.
Stick that in your hat and smoke it, friend,
Springs
First, was that last part necessary? Before you accuse me of being potentially condescending, rightly or wrongly, I don't think that last comment was called for. Especially as I respond you, all I can see is that you put "friend" in bold.
Second, I posted that on 10/03/2002 : 12:18:28 PM and you are now responding 13 days later?? Practically two weeks ago.
Listen, I can understand how you would think it was condescending. I was responding to you. Therefore a response can come off as sounding condescending. Merely making a statement may be different. Like I have all the answers. So I apologize...for the second time this week.
But please, understand me not to take it personal. I see it as a sign of feeling comfortable enough with you, to speak this way. And "this way" should not be interpreted in any intimate way WHATSOEVER. I use it in a totally generic sense, much like some of those in the African American community might call a total stranger in their community, "Sugar," "Nigg'r," or "Hey Baby."
I mean it in a way no different then bowing down to an Asian diplomat means I am not worshipping him. If I mean it in a more intimate or condescending way, then I can clearly understand your frustration. Again, my apologies, but please don't take it personally.
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 10/16/2002 9:38:21 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/16/2002 4:54 PM (GMT -6) | | AL...er...POW...what specifically, do you find interesting?
Modes? EXCELLENT post. Your post explains why I give the "benefit of the doubt" to such movements as, "The Health and Wealth Gospel." Again, was/is there a need/weakness that this movement was fulfilling where the church was lacking? Think of other areas...Psychology for example. Isn't this partially the reason all traditions highlight one aspect of theology, in all its forms, church government, charismatic, etc?
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" | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/16/2002 5:21 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
AL...er...POW...what specifically, do you find interesting?
Wanted to get this thread moving. (Can't remember--been doing homework with my sons.)
I like Modes post lots. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 10/16/2002 6:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey BBBC,
Thanks for the response. I wrote two weeks later cause I was sick the first week and my computer was down the second, I just got back on a few days ago. My closing was to show that I could say something flip, and follow it with "friend" instead of "hon" and therefore make it more apt to be recieved. You've proven that wrong. Now, I'm sorry if I offended you.  Although I appreciate the fact that you feel comfortable with me, I think there is a huge difference between you bowing to a dipolomat and calling a woman hon.
You can call my Shirley, and you can call me friend,
but don't call me hon,
aight dear?
Springs
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/16/2002 6:39 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hey BBBC,
Thanks for the response. I wrote two weeks later cause I was sick the first week and my computer was down the second, I just got back on a few days ago.
So??? That's neither here nor there to me. Two weeks ago. Count 'em. Two. Do you know what has gone on in my life or in the world for that matter that you really felt the need to say this? Hmmm...
quote:
My closing was to show that I could say something flip, and follow it with "friend" instead of "hon" and therefore make it more apt to be recieved. You've proven that wrong.
Proven it wrong. Huh....And I was supppose to understand all this. IC...Hmmm...
quote:
Now, I'm sorry if I offended you.
You didn't offend me. It's just sooo minor in hindsight...that it's kinda pathetic.
quote:
Although I appreciate the fact that you feel comfortable with me, I think there is a huge difference between you bowing to a dipolomat and calling a woman hon.
Like what? Like, the next step is I want to hit the sack with her?  HA! (Brandon thinking some pretty raunchy come backs to this, but others would be VERY offended, )
quote:
You can call my Shirley, and you can call me friend,
but don't call me hon,
aight dear?
Springs
No problem Sugar Pie...hon. Huh...
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" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 10/16/2002 7:29 PM (GMT -6) | | BBBCanada
quote:
Although I appreciate the fact that you feel comfortable with me, I think there is a huge difference between you bowing to a dipolomat and calling a woman hon.
Like what? Like, the next step is I want to hit the sack with her? HA! (Brandon thinking some pretty raunchy come backs to this, but others would be VERY offended,)
Iconoclast
Bowing to a diplomat is typically considered a sign of respect.
Calling a woman “honey” in a flip way is typically considered a sign of disrespect.
My experience is that most women consider this to be disrespectful but do not always say so because they often get a defensive response that is even more disrespectful.
BBBCanada
quote:
Now, I'm sorry if I offended you.
You didn't offend me. It's just sooo minor in hindsight...that it's kinda pathetic.
Iconoclast
Brandon, if you are not offended (feeling attacked) then why are you going to such lengths to defend yourself that you come back and attack Springs for feeling disrespected by what you said?
Why is her feedback that she feels disrespected by your communication so hard for you to accept?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/17/2002 4:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast,
First, I don't know if this should be talked about here on this thread. It probably shouldn't. This is not the purpose of this thread. In one very real way I see this as being a minor thing. I see it as making a mountain out of a mole hill. In another way, I see this as going pretty deep and even prideful on the part of some to not allow themselves to be referred to in the way in which I intended. Really. Your experience is different than mine. No one thinks anything if an African American WOMAN were to say to them, "Hey Sugar..." I doubt even Springs would take offense at it in any way shape or form (that is, how it was intended) if SHE was spoken to as such.
You say that most women feel that it is disrespectful but hesitate to speak up because they feel that they might get a response that is more disrespectful. Well, now. Isn't this the reason why many marriages are on the rocks? Isn't this one of the reasons why relationships of all sorts fall by the wayside? People feel that they are being taken for granted (and in many cases are) but what it really is is "unspoken assumptions" that we assume the other person should know? To me? Even some of that is pride.
Lastly, I don't feel offended for her bringing this to my attention at all. I can understand how she would feel offended by my response that sounded potentially condescending. But how she could take this to mean anything other than that, is somewhat beyond me. I certainly don't mean it in an intimate way on ANY level. It isn't hard for me to accept her feedback I don't think. I am merely questioning/disagreeing with her. She did not "offend" me the first time. But when she came back and called me "dear" the second time, well yes, I was slightly more irritated.
And for me, I think I may have mistaken her "friend/dear" in the same way I feel that she has mistaken my "hon." Context is everything. And that is hard to do sometimes on the internet.
Really, I think this should be discussed off the boards.
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 10/17/2002 10:04:27 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 10/17/2002 5:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Frankly, Brandon, this is simple. A woman wants you to stop referring to her as "honey." Just stop doing it and move on. No big deal.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/17/2002 6:15 AM (GMT -6) | | So then...anyone want to take issue with my last post?
"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 | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 10/17/2002 8:38 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
So then...anyone want to take issue with my last post?
"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
I think you make a valid point, Modes. As I said before, to me, this issue boils down to the dangers of hero worship in general. Instead of deciding which Christian leaders get to be our "heroes" and which do not, why not just appreciate each individual's "heroic" actions, and denounce their un-"heroic" actions? The simplistic categorization process that seems to be afoot here is unfortunate and unproductive.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/17/2002 2:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Been tied up pretty tight. Glad to get back.
Doc: The dilemma is really only a dilemma for me because the theology of the (equivalent of) gay bashers is held up – against me and many others – as the standard of orthodoxy.
Electra: I am sympathetic with your dilemma. These are the hardest people for me to love, and I mostly fail. But I don’t think the solution to their standard of orthodoxy is to champion love as an alternative standard of orthodoxy.
Doc Response: I love your heart Electra. Completely. But I don’t see this as an issue of who we love or not, or who we have trouble loving or not. With you, I confess I have trouble loving the gay-bashing type Christians. But my concern is in proclaiming that NO ACTION has ANY VALUE except insofar as it expresses love. My concern is to fully integrate I Cor 13:1-5 into my thinking, including my perspective of Church history. My concern is to say, only insofar as words, deeds and beliefs manifest the love of God do they qualify as Christian. I do not want to stand over and against anyone who kills in the name of Christ. I just want the truth of Jesus Christ to stand over and against anyone being killed in his name.
I want to say, "acts like this are about people, about religion, about Satan… but they are not about Jesus."
Semeia: I'm beginning to think this is an aptly-named thread...
Doc: Okay, I don’t care who thinks what… THAT was a clever comment. Hope’n all cool between you and Al mister, as well as between BBB and Springs. Dang, love and torture is kind of hard to talk about, isn’t it?
Modes: One of the things that caused me to respond so strongly earlier was the tendency to assume that we have a more clear criterion for assessing love than was present in the days we want to judge. This is not true. We seem to think it is appropriate to compare our percieved strengths against their percieved weaknesses. I really don't think this is helpful.
Doc: Don’t think I agree Modes. Are you saying this categorically – neither we or any one, or period of time, can conclude that any other person or period of time is less loving than its own? Don't you want to be able to say, "boy, things were really unloving, cruel, nasty, demonic, etc... during such and such a period?" I mean, didn't you see Gladiator? Now imagine people doing stuff like this "in Jesus name for the glory of God." Don't mean to be judgmental... but THAT is nasty.
Modes: This is an implicit claim that we have the Spirit of God and they did not.
Doc: I don’t see that its this black and white. But it does seem we can and should say that in so far as they killed people in Jesus’ name they were manifesting the spirit of evil rather than the Spirit of God, and insofar as we or they or anyone stood up against this sort of treatment we and they are manifesting the Spirit of God and not the spirit of evil.
Modes: If you make that claim, toss the authority of Scripture. For it was through these very folks that the decisions for inclusion and exclusion were made.
Doc: Four points good buddy: a) this almost sounds like the standard Catholic argument used against criticizing the Catholic tradition on any point. The claim is that you can’t hold the Bible up to critique the tradition since the tradition gave you the Bible. But as a "protestor" (Protestant) I think you want to acknowledge the right and responsibility to reform the Church and critique its tradition on the basis of the Bible. This is all I’m really trying to do… this time not with passages about "salvation by grace through faith" (as Luther did) but passages about "without love words, deeds beliefs are of no value" (I Cor 13:1-4). B) In any event, the canon was operative long before it was formally acknowledged in the 3d through 5th centuries. C) It was formally acknowledged before the Church as an institution started putting people to death. D) To say that the Church manifested the spirit of Satan in killing people is not to say that everything about the Church was evil.
Modes: Rather, we could speak of the dialectic of Spirit both then and now. How were they doing in following the leading of the Spirit? So far as we can discern? Where did the enemy have them deceived? These questions are universal ones, transhistorical. We have to ask them of ourselves as well.
Doc: Okay, I think we may be starting to track. If you grant that we CAN discern love as opposed to hate and the Spirit of Jesus as opposed to Satan – even between different time periods, historical circumstances (BBB?? ) etc… then we can say (at least in principle) that Calvin burning Servetus with green wood manifested the spirit of Satan rather than the spirit of Jesus. So too with each bulk of the Church tradition that engaged in this activity. My entire argument could be phrased as: If love is the center of the center, then don't we have to access much of the Church tradition as manifesting a demonic spirit rather than the Holy Spirit?
Now, per previous concerns, I don’t feel any need to separate myself personally from Calvin or Luther or the Inquistors etc… as above or really even separate from them. I don’t feel any need, or acknowledge any legitimacy, of trying to decide whether they were part of the true Church ("saved") or not. That I leave up to God. But I DO see a need, and benefit, in saying that insofar as people ACTED LIKE THIS, they were not manifesting the Spirit of the one they confessed.
How this affects our estimation of their religious authority is perhaps a more personal matter. I don’t know. It affects me, but apparently not others. Maybe the whole hero thing is off track. Still in process. But anyway…
What isn’t clear to me, Modes, is how you can acknowledge that we CAN discern the Spirit in past acts, yet seem to say we can’t assess whether love was present "in the days we want to judge." It sounded like you were saying its prideful to say "the church at this time, acting in this manner, was not loving" -- like WE know what love is better than they did. Yet now it seems you’re willing to grant its not prideful to say "the church at this time, acting in this manner, was not manifesting the Spirit."
Yet, isn’t love the main criteria for whether or not the Spirit is present?
Just wondering…
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 10/17/2002 2:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Modes,
I'll discuss your post with you . . .
Modes: If you are going to leverage strong critiques against the early church leaders (and I think there is a healthy role for this) we need to remember:
1. We will implicitly be addressing the people that the Spirit used to bring us the Bible.
2. We must ask ourselves, what WAS the Spirit doing at these times? Not simply what failures do we see the human beings falling into.
These two questions together remind us that we are in the same boat. The Spirit is doing some things in our midst as well, despite our best efforts to do our own thing.
Starkman: Okay, I'm going to hit this head on, so please don't misunderstand my tone (tone? If only we could send voice over the posts, eh!)
Calvin and Luther, for instance, didn't bring us the Bible. And whatever the Spirit was doing has nothing to do with what Calvin and Luther were doing in their sin. Were I to have only been given a copy of the book of Romans, I Corinthians, John's first epistle, or John's Gospel, I'd have more than enough to know not to kill others because they disagreed with me. Cultures influence, but so does sin in the most strongest sense.
Yes, we're in the same boat as they are, though I think there's something to be said about America's foundation for existance being built upon the concept of freedom, most particularly religious freedom, as something that differentiates our boat from the times of the inquisitions and protestant movements; I can see why the later fathers carried over into their lives the context of death to the rebels.
Yes, the Spirit is doing things in our midst today, and that's my point. The same spirit from the same heart of God. Only culture and sin are left to influence. And we here in America, as of yet, are not to the point of killing others because of their beliefs or anything else for that matter (though it wasn't too long ago in Germany this was being done. Sobering.)
Modes: One of the things that caused me to respond so strongly earlier was the tendency to assume that we have a more clear criterion for assessing love than was present in the days we want to judge. This is not true. We seem to think it is appropriate to compare our percieved strengths against their percieved weaknesses. I really don't think this is helpful. This is an implicit claim that we have the Spirit of God and they did not. If you make that claim, toss the authority of Scripture. For it was through these very folks that the decisions for inclusion and exclusion were made.
Starkman Okay, I'm lost here: if we're refering to the period of the reformation (and looking back at the posts, this seems to be the case), how is it that Luther and Calvin, again, for example, made decisions about what inclusions and exclusions, other than the Catholic Apocrypha entries, if even those?
Either way, I concur that we should never be in the position of judging from a "we're better than you" attitude. And yes, we have our own faults today, but how is it that we know better NEVER allow a Biblical (non-cult) leader to authorize manslaughter? The Mormon leader Brigham Young has a history of having ordered the slaying of several because they would not believe. I forget the terminology used for the specific doctrine (something about spilling their blood for atonement purposes), but the Church of Jesus Christ refuses to admit the validity of the history; not because they believe it's okay to kill, but there's no evidence, but because the don't believe it's right to kill others for reasons stated above. It's common sense. The inquisition was not in full form because Catholic church leaders truly believed from the heart that it was for the better. No, it was simply do or die. It is best summarized in the aphorism "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Luther and Calvin were in some sort of mental framework warped by sin and perhaps fueled by cultural leftovers to follow suit. I judge that as wrong, wrong and wrong (and I know you agree too that it was wrong), but I don't judge these men as less than I, or they as being in the dark and I in the know.
Modes: I DO think we need to consider what it is that love requires, and we need to look for examples of that where we can, but we do not benefit from comparing the weaknesses of the past to our own perceived strengths in the present. It is a classical formulation of the concept of pride to do so.
Starkman: I think, Modes, we do benefit by looking at the past and learning from it, particularly in regard to matters of spirituality. I mean, we look at George Mueller, and we marvel (and learn) by his faith. We look at past theologins and marvel at their theology. We had better, too, look at these men and realize their sin. I would contend that those, like Paul, who learned from their sin, would this very thing to us. No, not to judge them, but to learn the bad as well as the good; to learn what it means to really overcome when we ourselves have been overcome with, perhaps, the same categories of sin.
Modes: So far as we can discern? Where did the enemy have them deceived?
Starkman: BINGO! That's what I'm saying, Modes. That's all that I'm saying in regard to reviewing the lives of these great men (and women) of faith.
Modes: These questions are universal ones, transhistorical. We have to ask them of ourselves as well. Any heroes we might want to identify are also subject to this dialectic: what was the Spirit of God discernably accomplishing in this person? In what way was the enemy having his way with them? We all must submit to such questions of discernment. We can speak this way of various more specific traditions as well: where did they seem to really get it right? Where did they seem to blow it? Or more "spirit-ually" What did God do through them that we are still seeing the fruit of? What did the enemy rob them of (in what way were they decieved, etc...) that we are still seeing the impact of? I would never want someone to ask only the second question of me and not attend to the former, I think we owe each other, and those that go before us, this much respect.
Starkman: Ditto on the Bingo above! Well put!
Modes: Just remember, if we ever find ourselves writing off the early traditions or even the tradition generally, we inevitably lose any credible basis for the authority of Scripture.
Starkman: I have to disagree here, Modes, as I've noted above.
Well, there's some input from this side of Minnesota! Hey, it snowed, what, an inch today? Who neeeeeeeeds that in October. it's affected my thinking, but there it is anyway!
For the guys and gals of yester-days.
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 10/17/2002 8:03:03 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/17/2002 3:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc, I hope that you and Modes 'go a few rounds,' so that lots of things can come out and be developed.
Here is a nice quote from you: "Yet, isn’t love the main criteria for whether or not the Spirit is present?"
Not as a criticism or anything, but allow me to make a switch. It might open up a few additional avenues: "Yet, isn’t THE CROSS the main criteria for whether or not the Spirit is present?"
That said...
Let me mutter about these two:
"the church at this time, acting in this manner, was not manifesting the Spirit."
Glad to see the small "c" used. You know what I mean.
"If love is the center of the center, then don't we have to access much of the Church tradition as manifesting a demonic spirit rather than the Holy Spirit?"
Again, good grammar: "Church tradition." Not "Tradition" and not Holy Tradition.
Since I'm sure you followed the above I can quote this from a Greek writer who is probably our age: "Everything . . . which springs out from the life of the church, is holy, because God in the person of Jesus Christ dwells in the church." (Dimitar Popmarinov Kirov)
Where's the rub? Does something "'spring' out from the life of the church?" There's the rub.
The CROSS is a "life-giving cross." Salvation does not come by a "repristinization" of creation. (alla Origin) Salvation comes from the Pascal death and Resurrection of our Lord. Everything that is not to burn up in the final fire must go into the tomb with the Lord and be raised with him, sharing in his emptying, and thus share in His Glory, by grace.
Zoe
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 10/17/2002 8:15:30 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 10/17/2002 4:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc:quote:
Now, per previous concerns, I don’t feel any need to separate myself personally from Calvin or Luther or the Inquistors etc… as above or really even separate from them. I don’t feel any need, or acknowledge any legitimacy, of trying to decide whether they were part of the true Church ("saved") or not. That I leave up to God. But I DO see a need, and benefit, in saying that insofar as people ACTED LIKE THIS, they were not manifesting the Spirit of the one they confessed.
How this affects our estimation of their religious authority is perhaps a more personal matter. I don’t know. It affects me, but apparently not others. Maybe the whole hero thing is off track.
That sounds good to me. I don't think anyone here would disagree with this position, would they? Modes? Electra?
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 10/17/2002 6:06 PM (GMT -6) | | O! O!
Mezami!
Bon Dia Bon.
Great thread. Thanks!
Springs
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 10/17/2002 9:48 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
But I don’t see this as an issue of who we love or not, or who we have trouble loving or not. With you, I confess I have trouble loving the gay-bashing type Christians. But my concern is in proclaiming that NO ACTION has ANY VALUE except insofar as it expresses love. My concern is to fully integrate I Cor 13:1-5 into my thinking, including my perspective of Church history. My concern is to say, only insofar as words, deeds and beliefs manifest the love of God do they qualify as Christian. I do not want to stand over and against anyone who kills in the name of Christ. I just want the truth of Jesus Christ to stand over and against anyone being killed in his name.
Doc, I must be seriously misunderstanding you. I don’t get the logic behind your application of 1 Cor. 13:1–5 to determine whether or not others’ words, deeds and beliefs in Church history “qualify as Christian.” This passage lists things that people generally recognize as praiseworthy—like manifesting charismatic gifts, understanding mysteries and all knowledge, faith that moves mountains, sacrificial giving, and martyrdom—as examples of actions that are worthless unless they are done in love. But you want to apply this passage to historical examples that people (whether they are religious or secularist) generally agree are evil—like murder—and say they are worthless. How is this news?
You say your perspective on historical actions is not “an issue of who we love or not, or who we have trouble loving or not.” Then what’s the point? I understand fully integrating 1 Cor. 13:1–5 to entail grounding our action in love if we want it to count for anything. I am sensitive to issues involving wrongs done in the name of Christ, because they involve the people I am most tempted to judge and condemn. This is a huge area of struggle for me. I want to talk about love as the power that overcomes this struggle.
I trust that you have a way of working out the logic of your perspective that I just don’t understand.
Electra
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8
Edited by - Electra on 10/18/2002 02:54:21 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/18/2002 1:51 AM (GMT -6) | | On several threads I have been left wondering (dispite Bonhoeffer's title) whether what is being put forward is just a form of Ethics, and not spiritual. Let me just put this here for anyone to use if they wish:
quote:
... The holiness of the people is dependent on God's holiness, because the primary source of life is God. God is the author of life itself. In this sense the whole meaning of creation is life-perfect life meant to become holy is the purpose of the creation. The holiness of God derives, radiates from, God's life, from the Divine Being. The purpose of the person is to take part in God's given life, to strive to become holy. The one who attains holiness becomes perfect. This is what Jesus Christ wishes from his followers: "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48).
The Christian Mind and the Ethical Approach to Holiness
Ethics is a human concept embodying a sense of utilitarianism: we behave in accordance with our own best interests; we prefer certain behaviors, such as seeking good relations with the others. Such an approach is more or less the approach of a secularized Christianity: "I do good things because it is satisfying me." Such behavior is far from the Christian deep understanding of sacrifice. Love separated from Christianity becomes egoistic, self-centered-cosmophilia.
However, the Orthodox ascetics did not abide by this ethic. Their path was intended to attain holiness, to be on the way toward God, toward perfection. In drawing nearer to God, through grace God sanctified them and the world around them. A sign of this perfecting process is peace of heart, which means that God already dwells within. Having peace in one's heart is already the path of salvation, a sign of holiness. Peace is attained not by ethical prescriptions, but by following Christ and the grace of the Holy Spirit. This is the advice of the saints towards those who are looking for salvation. St Seraphim ofSarov stated, "Acquire inward peace, and thousands around you will find their salvation." On this path there are no ethical guideposts. Everything issues from the heart and moves outward, not vice versa.
In ethical relationships there are no sacrifices, because ethical prescriptions usually are aimed at social benefits. Although often presented broadly as Christian values in order to be accepted, ethical values have utilitarian aims. Their goal is good, a perfect society, and a frame of reference that will grant a good life for the individual. A proper societal framework affords the individual "the good life." In such an understanding ethics becomes the internal fabric of the society. The individual obeys secular laws and principals for the common good. The freedom of the person in such a way is limited.
This is one of the ways in which the secular and Orthodox understanding of the way to perfection differ. Secular behavior strives ultimately to build a perfect society. Christian behavior purposes to build a perfect person. The methodologies are different. ...
("The Way of Holiness", by Dimitar Popmarinov Kirov, pages 117-126 in Orthodox and Wesleyan Spirituality)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 10/18/2002 6:18 AM (GMT -6) | | AL,
I like that post by Kirov. A Christian's perspective of utilitarianism within an ethical context can conjure up ideas of doing good as evidence toward holiness but having its base within the arena towards pleasing man. Good intentions but slightly missing the boat. Maturity (as well as sound teaching) hopefully thwart this from being a life long short coming.
The natural outcome of one who is seeking God, seeking His holiness--involvement with this holiness at the most personal level--will naturally, as a result of drawing close to God, manifest a heart toward man and his needs. Within the time of that season of Christian initiation and intermediacy, there is the desire to not discredit the Christian message; live ethically toward and in kindness before the non-believer. Taught in Scripture? Sure. But powered by the relationship with God in wanting more of him and producing natural fruits of the Spirit? A lot of times it isn't, at least not until the relationship between God and that person matures.
I've not followed the Bonhoffer thread, but your post fomented my thoughts.
For His holiness,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/18/2002 11:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Okay, some responses, roughly in order of appearance:
BBBC: I agree with your “benefit of the doubt” thing. And much of the other points you made.
BJS: I too see this as boiling down to a need to reject the hero thing in general and focus in on heroic actions and denounce “un-heroic” actions. And I agree that we otherwise seem to be indulging in simplistic categorization unproductively. Way to be efficient with words!
Doc: You made several statements that I agree with entirely:
quote:
Modes: This is an implicit claim that we have the Spirit of God and they did not.
Doc: I don’t see that its this black and white. But it does seem we can and should say that in so far as they killed people in Jesus’ name they were manifesting the spirit of evil rather than the Spirit of God, and insofar as we or they or anyone stood up against this sort of treatment we and they are manifesting the Spirit of God and not the spirit of evil.
Glad to hear it. We need to be very careful to RETAIN the “in so far as” language. This saves the day for me lest we fall into what BJS rightly calls unproductive simplistic categorizations.
quote:
D) To say that the Church manifested the spirit of Satan in killing people is not to say that everything about the Church was evil.
Agreed. And this is the center of my point. If all of your “assessing” included this important qualification, we’d be cool.
quote:
Doc: … then we can say (at least in principle) that Calvin burning Servetus with green wood manifested the spirit of Satan rather than the spirit of Jesus.
Agreed. (I would add that nuancing this with sympathy both for the victim and the victimizer and an eye toward a transformed future would be a more faithful way of stating this.) But note what follows:
quote:
So too with each bulk of the Church tradition that engaged in this activity. My entire argument could be phrased as: If love is the center of the center, then don't we have to access much of the Church tradition as manifesting a demonic spirit rather than the Holy Spirit?
Now, per previous concerns, I don’t feel any need to separate myself personally from Calvin or Luther or the Inquistors etc… as above or really even separate from them. I don’t feel any need, or acknowledge any legitimacy, of trying to decide whether they were part of the true Church ("saved") or not. That I leave up to God. But I DO see a need, and benefit, in saying that insofar as people ACTED LIKE THIS, they were not manifesting the Spirit of the one they confessed.
How this affects our estimation of their religious authority is perhaps a more personal matter. I don’t know. It affects me, but apparently not others. Maybe the whole hero thing is off track. Still in process. But anyway…
You started out great with the “in principle” and a clear application of that principle, but then you moved quickly to (see bold above) what I would call (and BJS might as well?) an unproductive simplistic characterization. Just because a period of church history engaged in a sinful behavior does not mean that you can move from a-z in your language. You have effectively reduced that epoch to the action of murder. This is simplistic. Unhelpful. Not a true representation. Now, you did back off of this again to the point where I could again agree. See the underlined above which others have also pointed out with approval.
Then came the question:
quote:
What isn’t clear to me, Modes, is how you can acknowledge that we CAN discern the Spirit in past acts, yet seem to say we can’t assess whether love was present "in the days we want to judge." It sounded like you were saying its prideful to say "the church at this time, acting in this manner, was not loving" -- like WE know what love is better than they did. Yet now it seems you’re willing to grant its not prideful to say "the church at this time, acting in this manner, was not manifesting the Spirit."
Yet, isn’t love the main criteria for whether or not the Spirit is present?
Here is where this whole thing really surprises me. Don’t we know that only God can judge the heart of a person? Don’t we know that loving behavior can be present but the love itself missing? Isn’t I Cor. 13 all about the fact that we can be doing all the right things and still lack love? And now you still seem to want to be the one who “assesses” the love or lack thereof in a generation far removed when we know that we cannot even really do this with our neighbors? I just don’t get it. To me, the best we can do with this sort of thing is answer these questions:
For WHOSE upbuilding is this assessment being undertaken? (In other words: WHY?)
What is the COST of characterizing history in this particular way?
With what CRITERIA am I assessing?
Am I QUALIFIED to do this sort of assessing?
Is it ME assessing or is it the Spirit of God discerning as I do this?
These are all interrelated but they each represent aspects of my concern in this project.
Here’s MY question:
If it is possible to produce loving behavior without actually having love, what possible hope do you have of assessing whether an individual is truly loving much less a whole epoch of church history? Isn’t this why I Cor. 13 exists? Not to equip us for assessing others, but rather to assess ourselves and check our own motivation. Right? Love is a lot of things mentioned in that chapter, but it is also “fake-able”. IF we are going to go down a road like this, it seems we better be led down that road and it better be the Spirit of God who helps us discern the answers to the questions I raised above. How can we, who are so good at fooling ourselves (assuming I Cor. 13 applies to us), retroactively assess/discern loving behavior from true love motivated by the Spirit? Or is the behavior enough for our applause?
**Back to pick up some other pieces. Doc and Electra both mentioned the difficulty they have with loving the gay bashing type Christians. Me too. But let us remember that religions are inherently conservative. I submit to you that “they” are “orthodox” more because they are “conservative” in bent than because “orthodoxy” is the correct and more compelling position. Sometimes “conservativism” and “correctness” happen to overlap, and at those points, they got lucky.
**Regarding the early church, though it was formally acknowledged that some of the writings were inspired and had functional authority, it was still people who committed murder in the name of Christ who participated in the final canonization. (I don’t recall the canon being completed by Constantine, esp. the current form for protestants.) We do need to ask by what spirit did they do this? By what Spirit did they defend the doctrine of the deity of Christ and the Trinity? Etc.
I am still for a discerning dialectical assessment or no assessment at all.
Starkman: I basically agreed with much of what you said. The confusion was that I was talking about the early church leaders, not merely reformation thinkers. Other than that point of confusion, we are largely in agreement.
"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 10/18/2002 4:36:43 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 285 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:56 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|