 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/1/2002 5:44 PM (GMT -6) |   | Something to think about:
Paul tells us that we can speak in tongues, have all faith, have all knowledge and prophetic powers, do wonderful deeds, but if we don’t have LOVE, we are NOTHING (I Cor 13:1-4). He then tells us what love looks like… it is patient, kind, not jealous, etc… Jesus says that love is to be defining mark of the disciple (Jn 13:35; 17:20-26). The apostle John over and over hammers home that Christ like love is the defining characteristic of a follower of Jesus. Paul tells us that ABOVE ALL we must clothe ourselves with love (Col 3), as does Peter (I Pet ?). I could go on and on.
Now, my studies have taken me into church history lately, especially studying the history of Manicheanism in church history. The standard charge against any one the Church didn’t approve of was that they were Manichean (believing in two ultimate gods, one good, one evil). Many were accused of this heresy, including the Prisillians, Abegensians, Paulicans, Bogomilians, Cathards and others. (I personally am very suspicious of these charges. Most were hated by the Church on other grounds (like preaching to everyone without hierarchical endorsement/ criticizing the carnality of church leadership, allowing women to preach) and it could very well be that some of these charges were trumped up. I'm just now investigating the meager direct evidence we have of what these folks believed, and much of it can be interpreted to mean simply that these folks believed the devil was very powerful in this world – they held to a warfare worldview in other words. The evidence is meager because their works were usually burned – along with them).
In any case, what bothers me is that these folks were routinely tortured and then executed. We’re talking thousands and thousands of people over the centuries. Add to this the massacres of the other "heretics" (Huss, Wycliff, etc.) Jews, Muslims, infidels and witches. Now we’re into the millions. BRUTALLY tortured and executed. (The accounts are ghoulish). One report I read said that for every Christian killed in the first three centuries of the church, a <i>thousand</> others were killed BY CHRISTIANS in next thirteen centuries.
The protestants came along crying freedom of conscience, but as soon as they get in power they do the EXACT SAME THING. Luther lends his authority against the peasants revolt and thousands are massacred. Calvin burns Michael Servetus at the stake. Both, together with Zwingli and the Catholics, try to exterminate the anabaptists. Thousands upon thousands are burned or drowned, many after being tortured. The different sects, except the anabaptists, fight each other brutally till finally secular princes put a stop to the whole thing (in principal) with the Peace of Wesphalia in the 17th century.
Localized persecutions still went on, of course. But to a much lesser extent. Notably, to the best of my knowledge, the Arminian wing never murdered anyone in the name of Christ.
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?
Since love is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, without which everything else is worthless, why was no one, in the entire history of the church, ever tried for lacking love? Lacking kindness? Lacking patience – with heretics, for example? And why was love, patience and kindness absent when people were tried for far lesser heresies than the heresy of lacking love?
How could any true follower of Jesus, who told us to love our enemy and bless those who persecute US, end up torturing others in his name?
Does this barbarism have anything more to do with genuine Christianity than (say) militant Islam? Does it perhaps have LESS to do with genuine Christianity, since it is presumably more heinous to kill in the name of Christ than in the name of Allah? If we think the devil is involved in Islamic violence, should we not suppose he is much MORE involved in Christian violence -- since on top of destroying people, this undermines Christ's reputation?
Might the real heirs of Christianity not be those "heretics" who, following in the footsteps of their master, were massacred for their faith – not those who did the massacring? (Of course, there have also always been multitudes [on the inside of the official religion who have been loving – e.g. ST. Francis of Assisi). Some of the accounts of how the Paulicans and Cathars etc. died are truly moving. They often loved to the very end.
Why do followers of Jesus today put so much stock in what some of the "great minds" in the history of the official church said – when they were murderers, or at least condoned murdering? Would it not be better to completely distance our faith from that violent tradition? Would we take as a theological authority anyone TODAY who was known to have burned people alive?
In the first three centuries of the church, followers of Jesus followed him in meekness, for they were persecuted. AS SOON AS Christianity became the dominant power (though Constantine) it started being the persecutors! Might this not be an indication that true Christianity was never supposed to exercise Constantinian-type power?
Just tossing some dangerous thoughts around. What do you think?
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6
Edited by - GregBoyd on 10/01/2002 10:49:20 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 10/2/2002 3:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc,
I don't have time, but let me just say this...
you are the FRIGGIN MAN, man! Bare those guts, great one!
Filled with MAD respect (as if THAT'S anything new  ),
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/2/2002 4:15 AM (GMT -6) | | OK. At the moment, I have a very short (and meager) response to this and I look forward to what others have to say, maybe they can build on it.
Who wants to deny that some pretty sh***y stuff happened in the name of Christ? I don't think Christians should or even can ignore their history. But here's a few of points:
1. Does truth exist apart from these barbarous atrocities? In otherwords, Calvin for an example, presented a system of theology. Pinnock, I believe, said that it was "good" theology. By this, I don't think he meant that he agreed with everything Calvin had to say (obviously), but ultimately, there is much good that we can glean from it. I don't think the atrocities have much bearing on the truthfulness or legitmacy of what these church fathers taught.
2. Christian History put out an issue about the Inquistions and "Holy Wars" some time ago. While I can't remember most of what was said (I would have to go and back check it out) one thing that was clear, is trying to understand these atrocities within their historical context. That is, we can always look back (in hindsight) with our modern sensitivities and complain about past injustices. And as complex as history is, I don't know if we have the right to do that, (check out what was posted concerning slavery by Dinesh D'Souza on the Christian and Politics thread).
3. Lastly, I would agree with you when you say:
quote:
AS SOON AS Christianity became the dominant power (though Constantine) it started being the persecutors! Might this not be an indication that true Christianity was never supposed to exercise Constantinian-type power?
I believe we agree that the church AS THE CHURCH should not be involved in politics. And they definetly should not excercise "Constantinia-type power." However, there are plenty of examples of Christians (individuals) emersed in politics because they were called to do so, for the betterment of their fellow man and society.
Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/2/2002 4:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the feedback BBB and Meph.
BBB: 1. Does truth exist apart from these barbarous atrocities? ...I don't think the atrocities have much bearing on the truthfulness or legitmacy of what these church fathers taught.
Doc: Yes, truth can be found in many places. I honesty find many of the writings of church fathers who killed people or condoned killing people to be insightful and even profound. But insofar as they killed people or did not speak out against killing people, they were "heretics" on the MOST FUNDAMENTAL POINT. They were not kind or patient (to say the least) and are thus to this extent "nothing." It would seem, then, that one's attitude toward the insights one gets from them should be roughly the same as the insights one might get from any other "heretical" or non-Christian group. And ones overt alliance with them should be the same as their alliance to other "heretical" or non-Christian groups.
In short, I don't see why the traditions created by a killing church should be authoritative for followers of Jesus. (This isn't as radical as it sounds, actually, for it is what the Protestant principle of sola scriptura has always said).
BBB: we can always look back (in hindsight) with our modern sensitivities and complain about past injustices. And as complex as history is, I don't know if we have the right to do that...
Doc: I've heard this sort of argument many many times. I don't buy it Brandon. The fact that many people AT THE TIME were rising above the culture and actually LOVING enemies and decrying persecution shows that the culture didn't have to dominate the thinking and acting of Christians. The anabaptists and Quakers, for example, spoke out against violence, and practiced incredible love in the face of violence -- as did the earliest Christians.
Blessings
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 10/2/2002 5:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Well said, Doc.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/2/2002 11:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg's opening was certainly inflammatory. (If I see to much of that I'll criticize. But he did want to light a match.)
Two comments.
First, for BOTH the Reformation and for the time of the Emperors, it was often the emperor who called the meeting. (Rulers like predictability and unity; both aid efficiency.) "Hypostasis, as a word (If I remember right) was suggested by Constantine. Wanting to hold things together he called the meeting and held them to the task of coming to some resolution. In Late-Medieval Europe rulers also wanted things to settle down. They wanted unity.
The point is that it is naive to think that it is just those passionate about religion who urge on force.
Second, the church has NEVER been completely swallowed by institutionalism. Very early on St. Anthony (see the thread) left for the desert. Monks never left the communion of saints. They returned to be part of the ecclessiology of the church -- to participate in the Body. But their "religion" was outside of institution or concept.
The legacy, the tradition that the Church holds out for us today is a mixture.
We are stupid if we abandon it.
It was actually a criticism when a Father wrote that every baker and carpenter (what ever) in Constantinople wanted to discuss theology. On the one hand it seems nice that theology was a popular topic. (Would you like that?) But his comment was that people were off target -- discussing theology and not focusing on the Lord.
Even in the midst of that necessarily important movement to deal with a real heretical threat, those who were spiritual did not see "religion" in religeosity.
Think about the two of these. They are different. But like custom perscription glasses, they may help things come better into focus.
+
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 10/02/2002 4:51:59 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/2/2002 3:31 PM (GMT -6) | | AL: Greg's opening was certainly inflammatory.
Doc: On what parts did I exaggerate in an inflammatory way? I think what I said was pretty straight forward history.
AL: for BOTH the Reformation and for the time of the Emperors, it was often the emperor who called the meeting... In Late-Medieval Europe rulers also wanted things to settle down. They wanted unity.
Doc: Agreed. Both the ecclesiastical and political authorities wanted unity -- UNDER THEIR POWER. Hence groups like the Waldensians or Albegensians who preached outside of the institutional authority were perceived as a threat and violently suppressed. This was not kind. Love is kind. Without love our unity, power, deeds, achievements amount to nothing. I rest my case.
AL: Second, the church has NEVER been completely swallowed by institutionalism.
Doc: Agreed. There were people who followed Jesus both inside and outside the institution -- though those outside the institution were often put to the flames. THESE followers are the true church, known most of all by their love, and so it is true to say the church was never swallowed up in institutionalism.
AL: The legacy, the tradition that the Church holds out for us today is a mixture. We are stupid if we abandon it.
Doc: Of course. But insofar as the institutional church -- or any other form of "Christianity" -- murdered, it was heretical on the point it is most important to be orthodox on: exercising agape love. If the institutional church had (say) adopted a gnostic view of Jesus, or denied the Trinity, it wouldn't have been MORE heretical than it was when it murdered people in the name of Jesus or the Trinity. Still, exponents would have undoubtedly had some things to say we'd be stupid to reject. And so might the gnostics and non-trinitarians.
Doc
I
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6
Edited by - GregBoyd on 10/02/2002 8:33:40 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/2/2002 4:47 PM (GMT -6) | | OK. Couple of things Greg.
1. I am not trying to justify or excuse the atrocities of the past. Especially in light of what you said:quote:
Doc: I've heard this sort of argument many many times. I don't buy it Brandon. The fact that many people AT THE TIME were rising above the culture and actually LOVING enemies and decrying persecution shows that the culture didn't have to dominate the thinking and acting of Christians.
It would be hard to argue against that. I am more or less trying to delve into THEIR REASONS for why they did the things they did. And it could be that IN THEIR EYES they did some things from a sincere and genuine heart. They honestly believed they were pleasing God through such barbarism. For example, many of the "Holy Wars" were fought because the Christians believed they were "fighting for God against Satan." Could there not be other reasons for why such atrocities were committed? Can we not say that there are genuine "blindspots" in Christian history?
2. Isn't it somewhat idealistic when you say:quote:
Doc: Of course. But insofar as the institutional church -- or any other form of "Christianity" -- murdered, it was heretical on the point it is most important to be orthodox on: exercising agape love.
Again, I don't want to bring the bar down, but whenever is this REALLY the case? I was just reading Grenz on this this morning in the context of marriage in his book entitled "Sexual Ethics." Maybe we need to look at different models for how we can work our idealism into "the reality of the situation."
3. Sola Scriptura it seems to me, was to bring us back from other extremities. However you don't seem to respond to well IMO to AL in regard to whether tradition should be authoritative for us. Actually you admit that it should (even though it came from a killing church), but you then re-emphasize that the church is heretical "on the point it is most important to be orthodox on..."
Jesus didn't have problem with traditions. It was when it was "the tradition of men" that he had some beefs 'bout.
Gotta fly.
Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 10/2/2002 5:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Eww. Please forgive me for repeating myself, but this is an area I feel very strongly about:
The aspect of Bonhoeffer that has given me the most hope is the way he closed Chapter 3 with the section on “Guilt, Justification and Renewal.” Rather than distancing himself from people within the church who participated in great evil, Bonhoeffer identified with them. In his context, I can’t imagine an act of greater courage and sacrifice. As a member of the body of Christ, he takes responsibility for the guilt of his fellow members as if it were his own, and leads the whole Church in confession of its sin against God and the world:
quote:
In this recognition of guilt there begins the process by which man is conformed with Christ. This recognition of guilt differs from any other such recognition which is self-effected and sterile. The place where this recognition of guilt becomes real is the Church. But this is not to be understood as meaning that the Church is the place of genuine recognition of guilt as something additional to the other things which she is and does. The Church is precisely that community of human beings which has been led by the grace of Christ to the recognition of guilt towards Christ. (Ethics 111)
…In the interest of proving ourselves to be loving, it is much easier to distance ourselves from (division), rather than identifying ourselves with (unity), members of the body throughout its long life and myriad expressions who have not exhibited loving behavior. But in doing so we miss an opportunity to confess and repent so healing can happen (including healing for our own hypocrisy as well as the world’s own wounds)—we reject the ministry of reconciliation that God has entrusted to us.
Electra
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8
Edited by - Electra on 10/02/2002 10:11:12 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 10/2/2002 5:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Jesus didn’t seem to be too concerned about identifying himself with people who had sordid histories, or too eager to cast stones at those caught in the midst of shameful acts, or too righteous to break bread with his betrayer and a bunch of people who would deny and desert him. These are the people he trusted his mission to—both victims and victimizers—in other words: human beings. Why should we be so shocked and offended that he has chosen to identify with such a community? This community you call “nothing” and “worthless” is the very community Christ identifies as his own body and bride. Electra
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8
Edited by - Electra on 10/02/2002 10:32:10 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/2/2002 5:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Electra makes a mighty point, Doc. And it is that call to identify that must be heard. But it is "inflamatory" to merely incite to "division", rather than the "identifying" Electra spoke of.
I never suggested "exagerations", Doc. You can be inflamatory ("victum" producing) without ever exagerating.
That is what I meant. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 10/2/2002 5:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Jesus was highly critical of the Pharisees. But Jesus also ate with them. The reason he didn’t fellowship more frequently with the Pharisees was not because he was unwilling, but rather, because they perceived themselves to be too righteous. They were self-excluded. If we take offense at the Body of Christ and excuse ourselves from it, how are we any different? Electra
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8 | | Back to Top | | |
|
kerygma
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2002
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 10/2/2002 5:40 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Jesus didn’t seem to be too concerned about identifying himself with people who had sordid histories, or too eager to cast stones at those caught in the midst of shameful acts, or too righteous to break bread with his betrayer and a bunch of people who would deny and desert him. These are the people he trusted his mission to—both victims and victimizers—in other words: human beings. Why should we be so shocked and offended that he has chosen to identify with such a community? This community you call “nothing” and “worthless” is the very community Christ identifies as his own body and bride. Electra
To me, the bottom line is you can't condone the behavior. It's strictly against Christ's doctrine.
And this is one of several things that separates Christianity from other religions, including Islam, since Islam can certainly find justification for this type of behavior within it's doctrines. Christians cannot. And those who break God's law, brought to us by Jesus and His followers, are simply wrong and sinners.
In His peace,
Scott
"And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus" Philippians 4:19 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 10/2/2002 5:50 PM (GMT -6) | | kerygma: To me, the bottom line is you can't condone the behavior.
Electra: Of course not. I believe I made the need for confession of sin very clear. This is very different than condoning evil behavior.
kerygma: And this is one of several things that separates Christianity from other religions...
Electra: There is nothing unique to Christianity about its refusal to condone evil behaviors. There is something unique to Christianity in the forgiveness it offers through Christ.
kerygma: ...including Islam, since Islam can certainly find justification for this type of behavior within it's doctrines. Christians cannot.
Electra: I think the history Doc cited shows that Christians are more than capable of justifying evil behavior within it's doctrine.
kerygma: And those who break God's law, brought to us by Jesus and His followers, are simply wrong and sinners.
Electra: Agreed.
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8 | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/2/2002 6:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Electra makes an awesome point.
Christ was NOT selective, having a "bent" toward the victims and not the victimizers. He had compassion for both.
Could we not say that the same "generosity" that Greg extends to "nothing" is the very thing he may be guilty of?
Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War | | Back to Top | | |
|
kerygma
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2002
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 10/2/2002 6:21 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
kerygma: And this is one of several things that separates Christianity from other religions...
Electra: There is nothing unique to Christianity about its refusal to condone evil behaviors. There is something unique to Christianity in the forgiveness it offers through Christ.
Sorry, let me be clearer. We must be very emphatic that Christians have and continue to do many shameful things in the name of Christ, BUT the issue is this:
Christians who use violence in the name of God to destroy their enemies have no justification for their actions from Jesus Christ, his life and teachings as found in the New Testament. Whereas, Muslims who are engaged in violence and destruction of anyone who opposes Islam, have ample justification for their actions from the Qur'an and the life and sayings of prophet Muhammad.
Now, just because historically some Christians have tried to justify it, doesn't make their justification right, and certainly does not square with or abide by Christ's doctrine. And their attempts condemn them, not Christianity.
quote:
kerygma: And those who break God's law, brought to us by Jesus and His followers, are simply wrong and sinners.
Electra: Agreed.
As this illustrates, I guess I shouldn't have quoted your post, since I really wasn't specifically replying to it, but the general gist of this whole thread.
In His peace,
Scott
"And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus" Philippians 4:19 | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/2/2002 6:32 PM (GMT -6) | | BBB: And it could be that IN THEIR EYES they did some things from a sincere and genuine heart. They honestly believed they were pleasing God through such barbarism.
Doc: I don’t doubt that many if not most thought they were doing God’s service in murdering. This much is true of all religious groups that kill. The only thing that makes this group especially heinous in my mind is that they do it in the name of Christ.
Jesus said (in John somewhere) that his followers would be persecuted by people who believed they were doing God’s will. I suspect this has often been true – even by those martyred BY the institutional church.
Electra: …In the interest of proving ourselves to be loving, it is much easier to distance ourselves from (division), rather than identifying ourselves with (unity), members of the body throughout its long life and myriad expressions who have not exhibited loving behavior.
AL adds: Electra makes a mighty point, Doc. And it is that call to identify that must be heard. But it is "inflamatory" to merely incite to "division", rather than the "identifying" Electra spoke of.
Doc: I’m not trying to prove anything – certainly not that I’m loving. I’m sorry if I come across as inflammatory. And I’m not trying to divide anything. But I AM wondering why a follower of Jesus should identify with an institution that has engaged in mass murder, simply because it claimed to represent Christ in the process. Are we automatically to align ourselves with everyone who names the name of Christ? Are we to repent of everything everyone who says they followed Jesus has ever done?
More questions: Is the TRUE church identical with the Institutional Church? Why identify with the Institutional Church and not those whom the Institutional Church put to death? If one believes that it is of preeminent importance to love like Christ loves, do not those who were martyred by the church represent the tradition one is aligned with more than those who martyred them?
The question is somewhat along these lines: would you identify your faith as the same as the Jehovah’s Witnesses? Would you repent for what Jehovah’s Witnesses did in the past (though they have an exceptional record – but if they HAD)? Probably not. Why? Because their view of Jesus is not orthodox.
What I’m WONDERING about on this thread is why a group’s view of Jesus (or baptism, or the filioque clause, or whatever) is MORE important to our assessment of their "orthodoxy" than their love – especially when Paul and the rest of the NT. suggests that one’s beliefs are "a noisy gong" and "nothing" without love.
IF LOVE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT, WHY IS IT NOT ALSO A "TEST OF ORTHODOXY"? Why is it not THE MOST IMPORTANT test of orthodoxy?
Why is it NOT "divisive" to not identify with a group because of their beliefs, but it IS "divisive" to not identify with a group because of their practices… especially when the NT. seems to put the shoe on the other foot, and especially when those practices are mass murder? Seems like a fair question.
Electra: Jesus didn’t seem to be too concerned about identifying himself with people who had sordid histories, or too eager to cast stones at those caught in the midst of shameful acts, or too righteous to break bread with his betrayer and a bunch of people who would deny and desert him.
Doc: True. He loved all. So should we. But, at the same time, he certainly "distanced himself" (to say the least!) from the institution and tradition that killed God’s prophets (Mt 23:29-39). I love to fellowship with murders, even Christian murders. But I’m puzzled by the claim that I should stand in and under and in solidarity with the tradition of the historic Institution of Christendom.
Electra: The reason he didn’t fellowship more frequently with the Pharisees was not because he was unwilling, but rather, because they perceived themselves to be too righteous. They were self-excluded. If we take offense at the Body of Christ and excuse ourselves from it, how are we any different?
Doc: Seems to me, Electra, that Jesus DID "excuse himself" from the tradition of the Pharisees because he perceived that they were opposed to God’s will (see above). He loved them, for sure. But he certainly did not place himself under their authority or in solidarity with them. He did not take responsibility for what THEY did – even though they represented the "best" of the Judaism he was part of.
My issue, Electra (and Al) is why we should not view the institutional tradition in the same light. Why should we feel the need to defend IT, or repent of IT, any more than we would feel the need to defend or repent of the tradition of Islam – or the Pharisees.
If it is by FRUITS that we know the nature of trees, is not the fruit of this tradition somewhat telling?
Does the mere fact that someone murders in the name of Christ make them more closely aligned with us than if they had murdered in the name of someone else? Might one not argue that it actually makes them FURTHER from us?
Okay, enough for now. Thanks for the feedback. I want you all to know that I’m simply processing out loud. This is what this board is for. And I know this is controversial. But they seem like fair and necessary questions.
In his love
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 10/3/2002 4:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Yo Doc,
Your battles have made you strong. Godspeed.
peace and love, don
"It's time to wipe the tears from our eyes time to stop questioning why, 'cos every clipped birds gonna fly the Healing has begun" T.S Taylor | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 10/3/2002 5:20 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
BBBC:
I don't think the atrocities have much bearing on the truthfulness or legitmacy of what these church fathers taught.
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.
It's not about burning their work, or judging them, it's about discernment. Why do we automatically give them such authority? They had wordly 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.
Springs
| | Back to Top | | |
|
brandi
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118
| Posted 10/3/2002 5:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc quote:
I want you all to know that I’m simply processing out loud. This is what this board is for. And I know this is controversial. But they seem like fair and necessary questions.
This is what I appreciate about you as a pastor, Doc. This is what I appreciate about the posters on this thread too. It is so sweet to have a board where we can all throw out our questions and process!
Doc quote:
Why is it NOT "divisive" to not identify with a group because of their beliefs, but it IS "divisive" to not identify with a group because of their practices… especially when the NT. seems to put the shoe on the other foot, and especially when those practices are mass murder? Seems like a fair question
Here's a thought: since actions are a direct result of the beliefs one holds IF we identify ourselves with a group because of their practices (actions) than indirectly we are also aligning ourselves with their beliefs, don't you think?
I have a question that I presented on the Clarification of Terms: "Love" and "Evil" thread that I am still processing and I think it fits here. If we are NOT to eat of the knowledge of good/evil than WHO ARE WE TO JUDGE ANOTHER PERSON'S BELIEFS THUS ACTIONS? I believe there are definitely times that we SHOULD judge them and intervene but how do we decipher what is "right" beliefs and actions? And who are the "we" that decide this? The majority rules? The ones in power?
If your answer to this is to look at the person of Jesus or to use the bible as a compass than this presents a new set of problems because "we" Christians can't even agree on whether a person should speak in tongues, whether we can raise people from the dead, and a BIG division in the church is that Christians can't even agree what our stand on abortion should be.
Yes, many people have been killed by the institutional church and this is HORRIBLE! Yet, some followers of Christ TODAY sit by and take a "pro-choice" stand on abortion or a "no voice" stance on abortion. What about that? We want to use Jesus as our example yet I HIGHLY doubt that Jesus would be walking around this earth today without making a stand against the killing of ALL these innocent, precious lives. Jesus LOVED the little children, even the unborn ones. So, if we want to be consistent in looking at the person of Jesus in the bible as our guide than we also need to take a hard look at the murder that many followers of Christ are tolerating today? The bible speaks against murder (and against harming a fetus in the womb) yet this is not too alarming to some. My question is WHY? How come we might get so upset with the murder that has been done in the past by the church fathers but not the daily murder that is being done? I really don't get it! I'd like to get it but I don't.
In God's love and peace,
~Brandi~
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/3/2002 6:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandi said:quote:
My question is WHY? How come we might get so upset with the murder that has been done in the past by the church fathers but not the daily murder that is being done? I really don't get it! I'd like to get it but I don't.
I love Brandi. I know you are married, but...I love you. 
Why identify with the modern day church today for that matter? Electra's point is still pivotal.
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 | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/3/2002 7:18 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
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.
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.
quote:
It's not about burning their work, or judging them, it's about discernment. Why do we automatically give them such authority? They had wordly 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.
Most lay Catholics may give them "automatic" authority. But I doubt they even do this. 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. 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.  Still, many Protestants today, don't give automatic authority to these church fathers. Some theologians are saying that tradition is one authority among others.
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 | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/3/2002 9:27 AM (GMT -6) | |
Might-Be-Don: Your battles have made you strong. Godspeed.
Doc: Or stupid. Either way, I may needs God's speed to run for cover.
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/3/2002 9:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Nother thing that's interesting. You read Luther against the Catholics, the anabaptists, and even Zwingli, and you'll find stuff that makes my "inflammatory" observations look absolutely timid. So with Zwingli against the Catholics, Luther and especially the anabaptists. So with Calvin againt the Catholics, Luther, Zwingli, the anabaptists, and dozens of other "dirty dogs" (he speaks like this) who disagree with him. So with the Catholics against everybody.
So, which "tradition" are we to align with? The founders don't align with each other. We usually say, "with the tradition you believe most strongly with." But if LOVE is the only thing that makes any belief more than worthless, why not "with the tradition that loves the most"?
There IS such a tradition. It was never the majority. Indeed, it was a big minority. Most of them were put to the flames, or sword, or drowned. It consists of people who believe many different things... though its hard to tell what many of them believed because their writings were used as fuel. But they evidence the fruit of Christ-like love. Some managed to stay within the Institution, but others were outside it.
I'm think here of the quiet heros of the faith throughout history. St. Francis, Peter Waldo (martyred) and his followers, most anabaptists, Huss, Wycliff, St. Catherine, Julian of Norwich, the Albigensians, the Cathars... While some of these were accused of heresy (manicheism is the most common -- a point I think is at times demonstrably false) and perhaps even believed peculiar things, they at least got the central thing down. Most lived lives of incredible sacrifice. Some (such as Waldo) gave away all his possessions to the poor. And, the little we know of their martryrdom, it seems many died a Christ-like "father-forgive-them" type of death.
I have much more to do here. But the little I've read, I feel AT HOME in this remnant tradition. It has a spirit I love. It has heros I want to emulate. It has a set of priorities I agree with and would like to live up to some day.
Roger Forester (Ichthus) calls it "The Radical Tradition."
I like it.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 10/3/2002 10:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc: But I AM wondering why a follower of Jesus should identify with an institution that has engaged in mass murder, simply because it claimed to represent Christ in the process.
Electra: Jesus inaugurated the New Covenant on the night in which he was betrayed. As representatives of Christ, we will not refuse to extend the same forgiveness we have received.
Doc: More questions: Is the TRUE church identical with the Institutional Church?
Electra: Not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will be saved. But it is not our job to decide who is part of the so-called TRUE church and who isn’t.
Doc: Why identify with the Institutional Church and not those whom the Institutional Church put to death?
Electra: Why make a distinction? Love is long-suffering. It keeps no record of wrongs.
Doc: If one believes that it is of preeminent importance to love like Christ loves, do not those who were martyred by the church represent the tradition one is aligned with more than those who martyred them?
Electra: The cross reminds us of the great debt we have been forgiven—we martyred the Lord of love. If we love like Christ loves, we will forgive sinners as we have been forgiven. We will not fear being associated with sinners; though it may cost us a lot, we give cheerfully because we know that Love never fails.
Doc: Why is it NOT "divisive" to not identify with a group because of their beliefs, but it IS "divisive" to not identify with a group because of their practices… especially when the NT. seems to put the shoe on the other foot, and especially when those practices are mass murder? Seems like a fair question.
Electra: Whether exclusion is motivated by beliefs or practices (and historically there are plenty of examples of both), it is divisive. On the cross, Christ exposed all expulsive violence for what it was. It is not the solution, it is the problem. It has nothing to do with love.
Doc: [Jesus] loved all. So should we. But, at the same time, he certainly "distanced himself" (to say the least!) from the institution and tradition that killed God’s prophets (Mt 23:29-39). I love to fellowship with murders, even Christian murders. But I’m puzzled by the claim that I should stand in and under and in solidarity with the tradition of the historic Institution of Christendom.
Electra: On what basis would you justify rejecting it? How would this be any different than what Jesus accuses the Pharisees of doing: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous, and you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets’?” (Matt. 23:29–30). And Jesus makes it very clear that in spite of his harsh criticism of the Pharisees, he still longs to embrace them as his children—but they were unwilling: “How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” (Matt. 23:37).
Doc: Seems to me, Electra, that Jesus DID "excuse himself" from the tradition of the Pharisees because he perceived that they were opposed to God’s will (see above). He loved them, for sure. But he certainly did not place himself under their authority or in solidarity with them.
Electra: In the incarnation, Jesus placed himself in solidarity with Pharisees and every other sinner. In the crucifixion, Jesus placed himself under their authority. In both these actions, Jesus did not “excuse himself” from the tradition of the Pharisees—rather, he fulfilled it. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful.
Doc: He did not take responsibility for what THEY did – even though they represented the "best" of the Judaism he was part of.
Electra: He took responsibility for what THEY—and every other sinner—did on the cross, so they—we—could be forgiven. If Jesus hadn’t taken responsibility for it, even the “best” representatives of righteousness among us would still stand condemned. Loves bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Electra
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8 | | Back to Top | | |
| 285 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:51 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 |
|
|