 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Love and Torture in History | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/18/2002 3:05 PM (GMT -6) |   | In retrospect, I can see that I didn't really answer doc's concern here: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?
I am not saying that we can discern the Spirit but cannot recognize love. I am saying that whatever we think we are doing, we must do it as an act of faith (read "in a Spirit led, loving way") or else not do it at all. I prefer speaking of "discerning the spirit" of something because it is a different thing to ask of an "event" or "action" whether it was "kind" than whether it was "boastful" for instance. It is different to ask whether something was "arrogant" or if it was a form of "rejoicing in wrongdoing." It is different to aske whether someone believed all things or if they were "irritable" and "resentful." It just makes no sense to me to take this discription of love and pick an idea out of it and examine others with it. Whether they be contemporary or historical. UNLESS you specifically feel led to do so for some specifically edifying reason. Some reason that is for the good of the body that you have yet to articulate.
Discerning the Spirit seems different to me in that we look back and attempt to trace the hand of God as best we can. What transformative things happened? What progress was made? We can give God credit for that, and we can be grateful that the people involved didn't resist God in those things as much as they might have. This can be for the glory of God! When discerning the negative, we can take your warfare thesis very seriously and say, what has the enemy been up to? What damage has been done? Where did the failings of human individuals and institutions give the devil a foothold? We are told not to be ignorant of the enemy's schemes. But let us be consistent here and lay responsibility at the feet of the enemy and express sadness that people, even Christians, gave into these schemes. And for this, they are surely culpable. This just seems to be consistent. If we are going to praise God for faithfulness, we should condemn the enemy for destruction. When we consider the human element, we should acknowledge the spiritual battlefield. Otherwise, what I hear you saying is that individual human beings are fully responsible for such large scale and deceptive schemes as smuggling in an old political tactic when there is oportunity for something truly new. Humans are just not worthy of such magnificent responsibility. They may cave to such schemes unwittingly, and for that they are responsible, but if you are going to deal with large scale epochs and so forth, you should let the weight of the responsibility rest on those who are most capable of large scale strategizing. God and the enemy.
I would say that the main criteria may be love, but it is that only as we assess ourselves. We are always free to assess ourselves. But this does not mean that we are entitled to assess others with the same freedom. That, when and if it must be done, is a different sort of enterprise.
I think it very instructive that Paul uses "I" throughout I Cor. 13:1-3. Then he goes on to describe love in a way that encourages us to examine ourselves (vs. 4-7). Then he points to the future that this calls us toward by showing the eternality of love (vs. 8-10). And then he returns to where he began, "I" language: When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known... (vs. 11-12).
It seems clear to me that the obvious way to hear these words--all the words of I Cor. 13--are as an occasion for self examination, not the assessment of others behavior past or present.
The long and short of it is (for me): I think we are terrible at assessing love in others. We can do this for ourselves to the extent that we are honest with ourselves(!!), but we should not expect that the world will extend this transparency to us. Especially abstractly through historical accounts. We might be able to assess "the spirit" of something, but it would have to be something we are led to do for the upbuilding of a particular situation. Otherwise, we seem to have better things to do than give our assessment, in general, over history, church or otherwise.
I really am trying to point to rhetorical tools for getting at the insights I think (hope) you are after. I think the spiritual warfare rhetoric is the most promising, but this means we have to ease up a bit on some folks that you seem to see as purely victimizers and recognize that they are also victims (of the enemy). Of course, they are still guilty, but that is not all they are. If we don't keep the spiritual warfare perspective central, it seems they will be easily reduced to merely that.
"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 10/19/2002 11:08:21 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/18/2002 5:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Modes, some real good stuff here. Our assessment of others can be quite off at times. I read a quote in Christianity Today a long time ago that the greatest kind of deception is not decieving others, but SELF-deception! This may have some bearing on hearing the voice of the Shepard, but surely it will have for assessing human beings! Either way, in an earlier post I stated:quote:
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.
Again, no event carries significance within itself. And in order to judge the intents of persons we need to be critical of everything around them. If this is very hard to do in contemporary settings, how much harder for by-gone centuries?
Some more stuff to add tmw.
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 | | |
|
gguskid
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 32
| Posted 10/19/2002 9:53 AM (GMT -6) | | If I might be so bold as to interject with an exposition on the issue RE: 1 Cor. 13 and the topic at hand. I read the first two pages of this thread and jumped to the end to see where it was ending up; it’s not to far from its beginning.
Modes: 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?
gguskid: You will notice that the first three Vv. of 13 talk about “actions without love” as opposed to what you call “producing loving behavior.” These are two different ideas.
In the first case we have mere external action without a real internal motivation—akin to works righteousness—(that is if I do these things…well now, that’s something!!). However, in the second case, the text clearly shows that without the internal motivation of love, various outward actions are actually nothing—more akin to filthy rags than righteousness. Love produces these rather than them producing love as a result of doing them.
What the next few Vv. (4-7) do not say is: “Love is Fake-able.” They actually point out the negative or positive out workings of what love produces. As in the positive, Love IS patient. And if love is such then NOT love is NOT patient. One having love, though in process of becoming even more loving, recognizes the need for patients and seeks to allow the reforming work of love to have its way in ones life. Go through the list and make the same application to each one listed. Or to use the negative, love is NOT jealous. Applying the same application as above but from the negative to the positive you end up with the characteristic produced in one who HAS love and one who HAS NOT love. We know from modern day circumstances (not the far removed historical atrocities spoken of in this thread) that jealousy often merges with any number of other unloving characteristics (being provoked, taking account of wrong, etc.) to the point of shedding blood (murder).
I Cor. 13 points out clearly what love is or at least ought to be producing in ANY one. Though we all fall short at times, if love truly resides within us as a motivational disposition, it works itself out in ways that are very recognizable—in myself and in others. Though this doesn’t mean we have a right to look with a critical eye on those who have not allowed love to take hold in their lives, we can, through a discerning spirit, seek their reconciliation with the Lover of their souls (assuming we're not looking at history here). But when looking at history, however, we may be trying to discipher if at some point we made a wrong decision and if so, seek to remidy it based on what we now know or understand. This, I think, might be what Doc has been getting at.
Modes: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?
gguskid: It certainly is helpful for the believer to see, read and hear God’s Word on love and understand it in relation to our very own internal motivations, but to think that it (God's Word) can’t help ALSO to illuminate the path once traveled by those who held NOT love in their hearts, for the purpose of keeping us from such destruction, and of preserving the message of love for a world with out it, seems thoughtless. I say for both reasons God gave us His words as found in I Cor. 13 regarding love, what it is, where it works (in our lives), and knowing of its character prudicing effect (as seen in my life and every one esles) that produces a character seeking to be identical to its very own nature (see list in Vv. 4-7).
Modes: 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.
gguskid: Amen to that! SEE: I Tim. 3:16 (God breathed)!
Until That Time…
Edited by - gguskid on 10/19/2002 2:55:10 PM
Edited by - gguskid on 10/19/2002 2:56:30 PM
Edited by - gguskid on 10/19/2002 3:00:41 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/19/2002 10:56 AM (GMT -6) | | I haven't read the last few pages of this thread 'cause I've been to busy since coming back from St. Paul. But assuing it still has something to do with identifying with the crummy history of Christians, I'd like to ask whether or not identifying with the history of Christians then and now demands that we identify with some existing denomination expression of Christianity. That is, am I free as a follower of Jesus to say I don't want to be a Catholic, a Protestant, or whatever...Evangelical as well. Am I free to be JUST a follower of Jesus and his way of life as I understand that from the Bible?
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/19/2002 11:29 AM (GMT -6) | | I was doing some reading and I read that some where at the end of the sixth century the Western church decided to tolerate magic, fertility cults and other manifestations of pagan spirituality where key elements of folk religion was incorporated into Christianity. It has been contended that on making this sort of accommodation, nothing less than the survival of Christianity was secured.
Now it is maintained that we might dilute the gospel when we tolerate such practices. Catholics maintain that because of the incarnation they can hold to a high aesthetic, which celebrates the dignity of created reality, whereas Protestants enjoy bad taste in order to succeed in evangelicalism. But this seems ironic to me, because I am wondering who is really is affirming human struggles, joys and tradgedy--the lovers or the despisers of popular culture.
Here’s the catch. It seems to me that the inoffensive, weak Jesus with his heart exposed, and in humiliation can say something to those that might be mystified by say, the work of a great artist a Rouault’s (French Fauvist/Expressionist Painter, 1871-1958) image or a Rembrandt’s, “Head of Christ,” for example. Mother Teresa would talk about how she seen the beauty of Christ in those dying in the streets of Calcutta hidden beneath the “dreadful disguise” so that one might now ask, whether or not Christ can be revealed through Church history no matter how ugly it may be.
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 10/19/2002 4:33:06 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/19/2002 3:17 PM (GMT -6) | | gguskid, nice to meet you.
I think I need some help seeing your point. All I am saying is that it is very possible to produce behavior that appears loving to others but NOT have that behavior actually be a result of living in unity with God.
A connection can be made with the first three verses in that laudable actions can be badly motivated. One can appear patient but actually be judging silently, for instance.
It seems as though you and others assume that what appears loving must necessarily be loving. That is, the behavior is good enough. And it also seems that some want to assess on the basis of this outward appearance. I am just not comfortable with that at this point.
More later....
"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 | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 10/19/2002 5:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Modes
It seems as though you and others assume that what appears loving must necessarily be loving. That is, the behavior is good enough. And it also seems that some want to assess on the basis of this outward appearance. I am just not comfortable with that at this point.
Iconoclast
Mat 7:15-23
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'
Jesus says that we will know a false prophet by their fruit. He says very clearly that we will know whether they are ravenous wolves on the inside by their fruit. In other words we can tell what someone is on the inside by what they do on the outside. But what does He mean by “fruit?” Is “fruit” the same as behavior?
I would suggest that it isn’t. Jesus says that these false prophets will come to us in sheep’s clothing. That seems like behavior to me. Jesus also says that many will say that they prophesied, cast out demons and did many mighty works in His name, yet Jesus will declare that, “I never knew you.” Apparently prophesying, casting out demons and doing many mighty works in His name cannot be said to be “good fruit.”
Yet Jesus says that we CAN know someone’s INTENT by their fruit. I would like to suggest that “fruit” in this context has two intertwined meanings. First, I think that our “fruit” is the IMPACT we have on others. Second, I think that “fruit” implies our “ongoing impact.” You cannot tell if a tree is bearing good fruit by looking at the first budding fruit that it is starting to produce.
A person with a bad intent may behave at first similarly to a person with a good intent. The key difference is that the person with a good intent will ADJUST their behavior when they see that their behavior is not having a loving impact. They will apologise for hurting someone even if they did not intend to hurt them and even if they think the other person is being over-sensitive or even if it really was the other person’s fault to begin with. Why? Because their intent is to actually produce a loving impact.
To me, doing “good” behaviors without love is meaningless because if it is without love it means that we don’t really care about our impact on others. Thus, we will not measure our behavior based on its impact.
Given this, can we assess whether someone is acting out of love by the actual impact they are having on others?
Matt 25:34-40
Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
This seems like a clear example of “good fruit.” It seems to me that the King is assessing based on the actual impact we have on others - whether it is loving or not.
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
Edited by - Iconoclast on 10/19/2002 10:27:24 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
gguskid
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 32
| Posted 10/19/2002 7:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Modes, nice to have made your acquaintance.
Modes:I think I need some help seeing your point. All I am saying is that it is very possible to produce behavior that appears loving to others but NOT have that behavior actually be a result of living in unity with God.
gguskid: you are right in that many who profess faith in Christ are actually doing it in pretense. They are called Nominal Christians (in name only). The want people to think they are something (true believers) when actually they are not (though for the moment I am not necessarily aware of that fact). But when one really gets to know such persons, it becomes ever clear that the lives they are living have nothing whatever to do with the Lordship of Christ in their lives. They exhibit characteristics of NOT love, according to I Cor. 13:1-7, in due time.
Modes: A connection can be made with the first three verses in that laudable actions can be badly motivated. One can appear patient but actually be judging silently, for instance.
gguskid: Again see above. One who has NOT love can only act as though they do have love for a period of time before the external acting false character of the individual begins to crumble. This is due to the fact that NOT love also has as its inherent characteristic of being jealous (jealousy coupled with fake patients will last for only so long before the true inner character of NOT love begins to show). Now couple that with the characteristic of NOT love in terms of being provoked and your well on your way to disaster.
PURELY HYPOTHETICAL HERE: Just think of a jealous husband who has been attending church and for all practical purposes expresses outwardly that which appears to be LOVE. For what reason he is jealous we don’t know but when patients begin to wear thin and the man is provoked beyond what he can bear, outrage and anger are unleashed on his family in a fit of terrific violence. Highly unlikely? Maybe, but take a read through the major daily’s or watch any metropolitan news cast and you might encounter it more than not. Applied to the historical focus in this discussion I think the shoe could fit.
Modes: It seems as though you and others assume that what appears loving must necessarily be loving. That is, the behavior is good enough. And it also seems that some want to assess on the basis of this outward appearance. I am just not comfortable with that at this point.
gguskid: It seems as though you and others assume that what appears as NOT love (various acts of killing) must not necessarily be NOT love.
Until That Time…
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/20/2002 11:22 AM (GMT -6) | | I like the way you layed out your point, Icon.
Fine job, Modes.
Hello, Gus! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/20/2002 12:52 PM (GMT -6) | | gguskid,
I am not sure how to unpack the multiple negatives in that last point of yours. Perhaps you could rephrase it with out so many negations. I am saying that huma nbehavior is ambiguous and we cannot assess the heart of others with certainty. Period. That's all. I don't see that as a controversial claim, but I am being surprised to find that so many seem to think it easy to assess. I find the desire to assess in this way more a temptation to judge than an act that edify's the body.
With regard to Iconoclast's references to Christ. My take is that the fruit is the fruit of the Spirit, not the fruit of the individual. This is precisely why I can and want to speak of discerning spirits not assessing on the basis of behavior. I think Paul models this for us but I will let Electra come back and demonstrate that. I have stolen enough of her insights recently. She is very gracious.
"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 | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/20/2002 1:35 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Modes: With regard to Iconoclast's references to Christ. My take is that the fruit is the fruit of the Spirit, not the fruit of the individual. This is precisely why I can and want to speak of discerning spirits not assessing on the basis of behavior. I think Paul models this for us but I will let Electra come back and demonstrate that. I have stolen enough of her insights recently. She is very gracious.
Good point. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 10/20/2002 4:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Modes
With regard to Iconoclast's references to Christ. My take is that the fruit is the fruit of the Spirit, not the fruit of the individual. This is precisely why I can and want to speak of discerning spirits not assessing on the basis of behavior.
Iconoclast
I agree that we can’t assess based on behavior. I am suggesting that we can only assess based on the impact on others over time.
I am a little confused on your take about what Jesus means by “fruit.”
Gal. 5:22-23
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Mat 7:15-17
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit.”
If by “fruit” Jesus means “fruit of the Spirit” and NOT “fruit of the individual” then why does He speak about “evil fruit?”
And what do you mean by “discerning spirits?”
Modes
I am saying that human behavior is ambiguous and we cannot assess the heart of others with certainty. Period. That's all. I don't see that as a controversial claim, but I am being surprised to find that so many seem to think it easy to assess. I find the desire to assess in this way more a temptation to judge than an act that edify's the body.
Iconoclast
I agree that human behavior is ambiguous and that we cannot assess the heart of others with certainty. But surely we can assess the impact someone is having on us and on others. If someone starts preaching some doctrine and then goes around causing division and strife and actually starts murdering people wouldn’t it be appropriate to apply Jesus words in Matthew 7:15-17 and determine that this person is a false prophet? Wouldn’t it be appropriate to seriously question the doctrine they were preaching? And to the extent that the doctrine they preached led to the negative impact they had – wouldn’t we want to counteract that message?
All that I hear Doc saying in this whole thread is that we should assess a prophet based on their “fruit.” Specifically – whether their “fruit” is the “fruit of the Spirit” or not. Whether their “fruit” is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.
If that is what you mean by “discerning spirits” then I agree.
I would say that we can indeed “discern spirits.” We can discern that the spirit that any prophet who burned others at the stake for their “heretical” beliefs had, in the moment that they did that, was the spirit of the stolen knowledge of good and evil – a.k.a. Pharisee-ism.
I see this observation and line of reasoning as being very edifying to the body of Christ as this is the number one problem that the Church has today and has had since it was made up of humans.
Perhaps your concern is how this relates to judgement?
I agree that we should not condemn such prophets or, in turn, burn them at the stake, for to do so would be to operate out of the very same spirit they operated out of when they did that.
At the same time I do think that we should publicly “observe” the impact such prophets had and call attention to the spirit that it was done out of – for Observed behavior is changed behavior.
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 | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/21/2002 1:38 AM (GMT -6) | | While Modes and Icon work on what is meant by "fruit of the spirit," I'll clear ground for footings/foundation for a bridge on the other side of the creek. Maybe the two can meet in the middle, and form a bridge.
Here is the scripture citation that forms the rhetorical basis for the beginning of all the conciliar declarations:
"...it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: ... (Ac 15:28)
Icon and Modes are working on one side, trying to communicate clearly on what the nature of the Holy Spirit's word (fruit) in us is individually. The above verse is an example of when the Spirit's fruit is corporate in terms of direction and organizational guidance.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 10/21/2002 4:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
While Modes and Icon work on what is meant by "fruit of the spirit," I'll clear ground for footings/foundation for a bridge on the other side of the creek. Maybe the two can meet in the middle, and form a bridge
I'd like to throw in something that I thought about while reading through part of this thread. If it applies or is helpful -- GREAT! If not, that's fine too.
Digging up the sins of the past can only be good if it produces positive changes in the present and works toward bringing about a better future. I am wondering what Doc's intention was for originally starting this thread? What is the purpose in digging up the sins of those in the past? I wonder it there is any need for healing within the body from the sins and wrongs of the early church? Perhaps we could apply the principles found in innerchild work?
The purpose of doing innerchild work is to go back into past memories and experiences in order to bring about healing while also giving the brain a new direction to go (lead to truth). Through the process of innerchild work we analyze the situation, challenge the beliefs that were installed, and then apply the truth. A HUGE part to the healing is coming to an understanding (if at all possible) as to what was going on for the person who hurt us -- this is can be empowering part of the healing process. We don't want to stay in a bitter state with the person who hurt us, nor do we want to excuse what they did, BUT it's helpful to come to some understanding of what was going on with them in order to make some sense out of the event.
Perhaps a similar thing is required on this thread in digging up the sins of the early church fathers? For whatever reason these leaders were put into their positions within the church. While they did horrendous things in the name of Christianity not everything they did nor offered was horrendous. I believe it's important to not throw the baby out with the bath water. We can assess what was wrong (sinful) and hopefully learn from this. We can choose to take the good and divorce the bad. For example, we can learn to be more tolerant of differences and allow people the right to explore their beliefs...
If the purpose in analyzing the past is to judge what "they" as wrong then this will bring about no good fruit and will ultimately only cause dissension within the body. I agree with Modes and some of the others in that we need to unite and tear down the walls that divide! We can learn from the past by applying truth to the present.
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 10/21/2002 6:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Well-stated, trosie.
I think the legitimate point Doc is trying to make is that many Christians give too much authority to certain Christian leaders of the past, and if people appreciated some the deplorable behavior that these leaders sometimes exhibited, they would be more judicious in their appraisal of those leaders' teachings.
This is a very good point to make, and I think it is extremely pertinent to the modern evangelical Christian.
However, during the course of this discussion, I think Doc took the point farther than he probably intended it to go. He seemed to be advocating that we should participate in the very thing that he is criticizing: ascribing "hero" status to certain historic Christian leaders. In attempting to get us to appreciate the "unheroic" behavior of certain traditional Christian influences (e.g., Luther, Calvin, etc.), he suggested that we needed to find other "heroes." He backed off of this later, and I think rightly so. It is the granting of "hero" status to any human being that leads to the indiscriminate acceptance of their every teaching.
Let Christ be our hero, and let us measure all action by his standard. Let us appreciate others when they emulate Him, or as Paul said, follow them as they follow Christ.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 10/21/2002 6:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Let Christ be our hero, and let us measure all action by his standard. Let us appreciate others when they emulate Him, or as Paul said, follow them as they follow Christ.
I agree with you Brett! 
My intention in bringing up the innerchild work concept is because I believe we (as a UNITED body) should and must look at the atrocities in the past IF it is presenting any issues or causing any blocks for people to want to align themself with Christianity or if it is causing any of the body difficulty or disunity. Healing from past church history may be necessary (so this is a great topic to discuss) YET along with this we need to keep in mind the reasoning and the mindset of those we are trying to distance ourselves from -- "There but by the grace of God go I"
Blessings,
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/21/2002 7:28 AM (GMT -6) | | In response to Iconoclast's questions:
quote:
I am a little confused on your take about what Jesus means by “fruit.”
Gal. 5:22-23
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Mat 7:15-17
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit.”
If by “fruit” Jesus means “fruit of the Spirit” and NOT “fruit of the individual” then why does He speak about “evil fruit?”
Jesus speaks of evil fruit and locates its source pointedly. Recall the encounter with Peter: "get thee behind me Satan!" (Matt. 16:23) and at another point Jesus accuses the disciples of not knowing what spirit they are of. Can't remember the reference sorry. Anyone?
On the positive side we see the source of good fruit as well:
"See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves...When they hand you over, do not worry about how you are to speak or what you are to say; for it is not you who speak but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you" (Matt. 10:16, 19-20)
I will have to come back for this one:
quote:
And what do you mean by “discerning spirits?”
The first and most obvious meaning is articulated in I John 4:1-6:
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God; every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that is coming; and now it is already in the world. Little children, you are from God, and have conquered them; for the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore what they say is from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and whoever is not from God does not listen to us. From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error."
It may be unpopular, but this seems to be a claim to authority and source as criterion. For those who are familiar with it, Kierkegaard's article "The difference between a genius and an apostle." articulates this quite well.
"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 10/21/2002 3:18:22 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 10/21/2002 8:27 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
Let Christ be our hero, and let us measure all action by his standard. Let us appreciate others when they emulate Him, or as Paul said, follow them as they follow Christ.
I agree with you Brett!
My intention in bringing up the innerchild work concept is because I believe we (as a UNITED body) should and must look at the atrocities in the past IF it is presenting any issues or causing any blocks for people to want to align themself with Christianity or if it is causing any of the body difficulty or disunity. Healing from past church history may be necessary (so this is a great topic to discuss) YET along with this we need to keep in mind the reasoning and the mindset of those we are trying to distance ourselves from -- "There but by the grace of God go I"
Blessings,
trosie
Amen!
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/21/2002 10:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast wrote:
quote:
Perhaps your concern is how this relates to judgement?
I agree that we should not condemn such prophets or, in turn, burn them at the stake, for to do so would be to operate out of the very same spirit they operated out of when they did that.
At the same time I do think that we should publicly “observe” the impact such prophets had and call attention to the spirit that it was done out of – for Observed behavior is changed behavior.
Yes, I am concerned about how this thread relates to judgment.
I am glad we agree that we are not in a position to condemn or persecute others. We agree that doing so is wrong.
I am confused why you are referring to "prophets" here.
I really like the phrase you closed with. "Observed behavior is changed behavior". I am not sure it is true, really, but I like it. We, in this thread, are "observing behavior" from the distant past. It obviously is not changed by our observing. Did you mean observed contemporary behavior? Then it would be more true to say that observed behavior is affected by its being conscious of being observed. But this may or may not change the outcome. Help me out with where you are headed with the phrase. I recognize it as a quantum theory insight but I don't see what you are doing with it here.
Oh, wait, do you mean our observing the behavior of others changes our own behavior? Maybe?
"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 10/21/2002 3:20:45 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/21/2002 11:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Trosie, I do not agree with you. I think that this thread has become exactly what I voiced fear of in the second post: "inflamatory." Even you own post is vague-but-yet-condemnatory. (Do you see what I mean?) Your own post lumped-together what Modes had to pull apart--there are so many old guys and old gals, and they can't just be lumped together because they are old!!!! The only thing they share is that lots of us are far to ignorant to comment on them. BUT, WE TOO EASILY FOLLOW WHEN SOMEONE ELSE CONDEMNS.
quote:
Trosie: My intention in bringing up the innerchild work concept is because I believe we (as a UNITED body) should and must look at the atrocities in the past IF it is presenting any issues or causing any blocks for people to want to align themself with Christianity or if it is causing any of the body difficulty or disunity. Healing from past church history may be necessary (so this is a great topic to discuss)
So, as far as any of your idea has been done, this tread is not a good example. (A practical, and on-going program for asking forgiveness is LINKED in a post below.)
True, honest HISTORY is great though. THAT is healing. But I highly doubt, dispite your enthusiasm, that modern "techniques" have anything possitive to contribute.
I recomment John Meyendorff as a very good, honest, fair, even-handed, and generous historian. He did lots of WCC eccumenical work, and knows both HRRC and OC histories and their interactions. I'd recommend him.
Sorry.
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 10/21/2002 4:53:17 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/21/2002 11:18 AM (GMT -6) | | ON THE TOPIC OF JUSTICE, SUFFERING, AND GOD…
(Nick Wolterstorff, in "The Grace That Shaped My Life"
Though there are strands in the Reformed tradition for which sovereignty is God's principal attribute, I don't think I ever thought of God much in terms of sovereignty. God was majesty for me, indescribable majesty. And graciousness, goodness; God is the one who blesses, blessing calling for gratitude. To be human is to be that point in the cosmos where God's goodness is meant to find its answer in gratitude: John Calvin told me that.
. . .
It moved me deeply to discover one day that John Calvin alone among the classical theologians had written of the suffering of God. Whenever he wrote of it, it was, so far as I could discover, in the same context: that of a discussion of injustice. To wreak injustice on one of one's fellow human beings, said Calvin, is to wound and injure God; he said that the cry of those who suffer injustice is the cry of God.
. . .
God is more mysterious than I had thought-the world too. There's more to God than grace; or if it's grace to one, it's not grace to the other-grace to Israel but not grace to Jeremiah. And there's more to being human than being that point in the cosmos where God's goodness is meant to find its answer in gratitude. To be human is also this: to be that point in the cosmos where the yield of God's love is suffering.
Something to think about before one throws out "bath water." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/21/2002 11:38 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I believe we (as a UNITED body) should and must look at the atrocities in the past IF it is presenting any issues or causing any blocks for people to want to align themself with Christianity or if it is causing any of the body difficulty or disunity. Healing from past church history may be necessary
How's Bonhoeffer's quote go?
Wenn Jesus ruf ein man, er ruff Ihm "Komm und sterben!"
When Christ calls a man, he bids him: "Come and die!"
The healing point, that perhaps is sought here, is Golgatha!
The CROSS is the sole first in-common thing that we cal all be united with in Christ. Everything else comes from that, and returns again and again to the CROSS.
ANTHING else is just a human institution and a human alliance, and will not last.
quote:
Bede: After showing to His disciples the mystery of His passion and resurrection, He exhorts them, as well as the multitude, to follow the example of His passion. So, it continues; And when he had called the people to him with his disciples also, he said to them, Whosoever wishes to follow me, let him deny himself.
quote:
Chrysostom: But He does not say that a man should not spare himself, but something more than that, that he should deny himself, as if he had nothing in common with himself, but face danger, and look upon such things as if someone else were suffering; and this is really to spare himself; for parents then most truly act kindly to their children, when they give them up to their masters, with an injunction not to spare them. Again, He shows the degree to which a person should deny himself, when He says, And take up his cross, by which He means, even to the most shameful death.
quote:
Bede: ... we deny ourselves, when we avoid what we were before, and strive to reach the point to which we are newly called. And the cross is taken up by us, when either our body is pained by abstinence, or our soul afflicted by fellow-feeling for our neighbours.
quote:
Chrysostom: He says this because someone may suffer and yet not follow Christ, that is, when he does not suffer for Christ's sake; for the one who follows Christ walks after Him, and conforms himself to His death, despising those principalities and powers under whose power, before the coming of Christ, he committed sin. Then there follows, For whosoever wants to save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the Gospel's, that one shall save it. I give you these commands, as it were to spare you; for whosoever spares his son, brings him to destruction, but whosoever does not spare him, saves him. It is therefore right to be always prepared for death; for if in the battles of this world, he who is prepared for death fights better than others, though none can restore him to life after death, much more is this the case in spiritual battle, when so great a hope of resurrection is set before him, since he who gives up his soul unto death saves it.
+ + +
quote:
Christ our God, who deigned to undergo voluntary crucifixion to bring about the common resurrection of the human race, and in your love for human-kind, with the Cross as pen and with red ink, bloodied your fingers, as you put your royal signature to our pardon, do not forsake us, in danger of being separated from you once more, show loving kindness, you who alone are long-suffering, to your people in distress: Arise, Almighty, do battle with those who battle against us.
(Doxastikon from the Vespers of the Worship of the Cross)
+ + +
quote:
The Stadium of the Virtues is open. Enter, all who wish to compete, girding yourselves for the noble contest of the Fast; for those who strive according to the rules are justly crowned. Taking up the armour of the Cross, let us do battle with the enemy, having the Faith as our unassailable rampart, prayer as our breastplate, and almsgiving as our helmet; for a sword, fasting, which cuts away all evil from our heart. On the Day of Judgement, whoever does this will receive the true crown from Christ, the King of All.
[Matins -- The Sundays before Lent]
| | Back to Top | | |
|
gguskid
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 32
| Posted 10/21/2002 12:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Modes, thanks for the proverbial responce. I hardly know what to say!
Feeling brushed off but with a leg-up in the driver's seat ;-)
Until That Time...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/21/2002 12:00 PM (GMT -6) | |
Frederica Mathewes-Green on Forgiveness Vespers (Cheesefare Sunday)
www.frederica.com/orthodox/ofeforg_mrb.html
quote:
. . .directions for all the worshippers to form a long line, extending to his left; they move into place, standing along the side-wall and facing the center of the room. Then he says, "The first person in line--in this case, my son David--will stand in front of me. He'll make a prostration or a mentania--you can do whichever you want--and ask for my forgiveness. And you can say this however you want: 'Forgive me for all my sins against you,' or 'Brother, please forgive any way I have offended you,' or any variation, whatever comes naturally. I'll offer forgiveness, then I'll bow to him and ask him to forgive me as well. Then we'll embrace.
"After that, David, you'll move over here to my right. The next person in line will go through the same forgiveness process with me, then with David, then stand on David's right. And so forth; we'll continue until everyone has moved over to my right side, and every person here has exchanged forgiveness with every other one."
The six of us in the choir begin singing quietly the song that we will trumpet on Pascha morning: "Let God arise! Let his enemies be scattered!" Gary and David stand face to face, or as nearly so as they can; David at 15 is several inches taller than his dad. David's dark blond hair curls on his shoulders and his blue eyes behind wire-framed glasses are wide and peaceful; this son is a quiet, centered sort. I watch father and son bow to each other, and murmur unheard words. The rest of the congregation watch quietly, and David looks a little awkward; he hates being the center of attention. David and Gary embrace, and tears sting my eyes. I look quickly back to the music.
A moment later I look up to see David embracing his younger brother Stephen. Where David is a cool stream, Stephen at 13 is a geyser, full of passionate opinion, deep sentimentality, wide-flinging love and, not infrequently, anger. There were things to be forgiven there. The brothers embrace, David bending stiffly over; powerhouse Stephen is compact, nearly nine inches shorter.
By the time the choir finishes the anthem and joins the end of the line, about half the worshippers have moved to my husband's right. One at a time I bow to people I worship with every week, looking each one in the eye, men and women, children and aged. Each interchange is an intimate moment, and I feel on the wobbly border between embarrassment, laughter and tears. Just to pause and look at each fellow worshipper for a moment, to see the individual there, is itself a startling exercise.
Individuals respond to the ritual in individual ways. When I ask 12-year-old Melanie to forgive me, she says, "Not that you've done anything, but okay." Basil is giving out enveloping bear hugs with exclamations of "Praise Jesus! Praise Jesus!" His son Michael offers a courtly, "I forgive, as God forgives." Choir director Margo is teary-eyed as she hugs me, and bursts out in a whisper, "I love you!" Down the line, as worshippers dip and bend, embrace and move aside, it looks like a dance, a dream-paced country dance laced with dreamy smiles.
I come to my daughter Megan, who will be eighteen in a few days. She has made it safely to adulthood past an adolescence that had it rocky places; yes, there are things to forgive here too. I bow to her and manage to say, past the lump in my throat, "Megan, please forgive me for any way that I have offended you." I could think of a million mistakes I had made. She looks at me, her lashes wet, and says, "I forgive you, Mom." Then she bends to touch the floor and stands again, and says to me, "Please forgive me, Mom, for everything."
Can a mother do such a thing? You bet. A moment later we are in a marshmallowy embrace.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/21/2002 12:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey gguskid,
Not quite sure what you mean by "proverbial response". I was just confused about something you were saying. Upon review, it seems that you think a person's true nature will shine through eventually and presummably it becomes evident whether they "are" or "are not" filled with love. I just think that this is too simple. I have never met someone who represents such a pure form, for better or worse. Life is a complicated series of successes and failures and we manifest different spirits along the way. Sometimes willingly and knowingly, and often times unwittingly but still just as powerfully. Just help me understand what you were saying if you want a fuller response. Okay?
"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 | | |
| 285 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:09 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 |
|
|