Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

83 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

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

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

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

Hi, this is my first post here.

The reason I chose this title is because I often feel we are tempted to become so overly engrossed in study of the bible, and in particular in those tantalizingly partially veiled topics such as the tribulation, 2nd coming, judgment day, etc, that we forget the need to ensure that we try to live our everyday lives according to the teachings of Christ.

I find it quite disturbing to see how so many people generally claim the right to call themselves “Christian” and to declare that they are followers of “Christianity”, whereas in reality their views and opinions vary immensely and are often totally incompatible with one another. What exactly IS a "Christian" anymore? A typical example is the question of who is saved. Some claim it is but a few, others claim it to be many, whereas still others claim it is everyone. Can all of these views be accredited to following Christ?

In Revelation, Jesus gives a strong rebuke against those that He sees as lukewarm in their faith. However, in many ways in our so-called Christian-based societies, we do not fully follow Christ’s teachings, only in part or to some degree, and sometimes not at all. Is this because we fool ourselves in order to avoid a harsh life or public embarrassment, or is it because our society structure does not allow us to live according to Jesus’ teachings? And to what extent can we be sure that those teachings are aimed at us, anyway?

These are issues I would like to discuss and the reason why I posted this topic.

For starters, in Luke 18.22 Jesus tells the enquiring rich man that he should go and sell everything and give it all to the poor. However, in Luke 19:8, Zacchaeus stood, and said to Jesus “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore [him] fourfold.” – and Jesus is apparently happy with that, as He replies: “And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. (Luke 19:9)

So just how much IS enough? And is it equally wrong to earn wealth, or just to keep (too much of) it, once one has got it?

Markus

Edited by - markus on 06/10/2002 09:14:38 AM

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 6/10/2002 4:43 AM (GMT -6)

Markus-

Welcome to the site and thanks for the first post!

Blessings,
Tom

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

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 6/10/2002 8:57 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
So just how much IS enough? And is it equally wrong to earn wealth, or just to keep (too much of) it, once one has got it?

Hello Markus. Welcome on board. Your question parallels the rich man’s question to Jesus. Be careful what you ask for—do you think you can handle Jesus’ “answer” any better than he could?

The rich man’s problem was not that he was rich, but rather that he thought he had fulfilled the law. Jesus’ answer to his question shows exactly how much is required of us: it is enough to confess that you are a sinner in need of grace.

Electra

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
…in him, lost in him and his love…

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 6/11/2002 2:31 AM (GMT -6)

Thank you so much,Tom and Electra for your welcome. I hope my postings here are not too childish, I confess I am blinded by the general high level of input to this site

Electra, you have gone straight to the issue that I raise here, when you say “do you think you can handle Jesus’ “answer” any better than he could?”. This is indeed the question that could be thrown in a very loud voice towards the whole of the affluent parts of this globe. Maybe the issue is not just CAN we handle, but do we WANT to even handle it? Isn’t it so much more comfortable just to ignore it and justify our attitude with the fact that most other people seem to ignore it, too? It is certainly a very old chestnut, but is nonetheless still valid, to ask how do we accept the vast disproportionate distribution of wealth that exists upon the earth today. It presents a chasm so wide that on the poor end thousands of kids die daily just from lack of food. Still more from lack of basic medicines and fresh water. The question is, who’s failing is this due to?

Is it those countries’ own fault through angering God, who similarly rewards those countries that carry a label of Christianity?

Or is it that God provides for all, but relies on us fulfilling our obligation to love one another to take care of the fair distribution of what He provides – and we fail miserably to achieve it?

Are we not intensely guilty of limiting our area of focus solely to our own environment such that our nearby neighbours become the peer group with whom we compare our own status? Are we only too ready to turn our gaze away from the incredible continual, intense suffering from hunger, disease, and abuse that blights the majority part of the human race?

It is surely an essential part of our belief to ask ourselves if we can answer to Jesus any better than the rich man. But I fear that only too often we do not even listen to the question, let alone be prepared to stand up and be measured against the requirements to qualify as sheep rather than goats.

I do not personally believe that there is anything wrong with maximizing our potential with good, honest work, or with realizing the reward that is available from this work. But, in the same way that the opportunity for reward is a gift from God, so surely are the rewards only on loan from God. The question therefore arises, do we honestly always ask God for His guidance with what we should do with our reward?

God is no respector of mankind, we are all equal in His eyes. And so all mankind equally shares God’s love. But if we truly love God then surely we must also love all that God loves. How can we then love all mankind through our love of God, and yet still stand and accept their intense suffering whilst we enjoy the fruits of our own excess?

Is not love the key point here, and which leads to the next link in this issue? It is yet another “chestnut” in the form of faith and/or works. I believe the Bible is clear that when we talk of just salvation then belief and faith in Jesus is enough, which automatically should lead to confession as a sinner who is in need of grace. However, it is equally clear that works ARE taken into account and registered on the Day of reckoning. The question is whether works have value in their own right, independent of faith - or are works such an integral part of true faith that they are used as a yardstick against which the real authenticity of our faith is truly measured?

However, as James’ epistle shows when forcing us to search the very depths of the sincerity of our faith, what is faith without works? Faith and love go hand in hand, and love is an active verb. It doesn’t lie down and let life roll on by, rather it is one of the most powerful driving forces behind most of our achievements (alongside pride, selfishness and ambition). It maybe is the number one force in achieving things that we would never have dreamt ourselves capable of. And yet we still ponder over the value of works through faith!

When leaving home for work in the morning, how many people would nonchalantly just step over a near dead, naked, starved child that happened to be lying on their doorstep? And yet, we are happy to avoid the mental image of thousands of them just because they are some greater distance away. Does love have a geographical range? Does love dissipate like radio signals as its target distances itself from the source? Would we be happy if God’s love equally diminished as we move further away from him through our sin? I doubt it!

So when we really look at what we do for our fellow mankind, I mean, REALLY look, are we the hypocrites that only justify our lack of action because it is the norm in our society – or can we truly look Christ in the eyes and answer that “Yes, I have done all that you have asked and expected of me”.

There is this false sense of security that comes from belonging to a crowd. We can bury our guilt very easily under the equality that we can perceive between our own actions and those of our group whom we convince ourselves are fulfilling Christ’s requirements in general. But if we are brave enough to stand alone and answer to Christ, whether we have given our all, or have we simply given a token out of our own excess – not even denting our own needs and desires – are we still so certain of our authenticity, or are we also lukewarm?

When most of the world lies bleeding in the gutter, are we truly the passing Samaritan, or are we just playing a sham of good gestures to create for ourselves a good conscience when set against our own criteria instead of that of Christ?

I’m sorry if this is a kind of non-friendly subject, but it is one that I find at the core of living faith.

Markus

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 6/11/2002 8:14 PM (GMT -6)

Welcome to the board Markus!

You said:

quote:
How can we then love all mankind through our love of God, and yet still stand and accept their intense suffering whilst we enjoy the fruits of our own excess?

Ever read much from Saint Francis? You sound like a Franciscan my friend. I'm a Franciscan myself and would love to chat about it with you sometime if you're interested.

quote:
However, it is equally clear that works ARE taken into account and registered on the Day of reckoning. The question is whether works have value in their own right, independent of faith - or are works such an integral part of true faith that they are used as a yardstick against which the real authenticity of our faith is truly measured?

Now this is sounding like good old traditional Roman Catholic theology! I love it because it takes the book of James seriously and the stories of Jesus' judgment based on our works. Yes, we must understand these texts through the eyes of faith, but many of us are guilty of not taking such texts seriously.

quote:
Is not love the key point here, and which leads to the next link in this issue?

"If I have not love I am merely a noisy gong or a clanging symbol."

quote:
When most of the world lies bleeding in the gutter, are we truly the passing Samaritan, or are we just playing a sham of good gestures to create for ourselves a good conscience when set against our own criteria instead of that of Christ?

I’m sorry if this is a kind of non-friendly subject, but it is one that I find at the core of living faith.

Your concern is at the core of living the faith, and it is the question we must ask ourselves honestly at the end of every day. Nothing else matters in a very real sense when it comes to living the faith.

You sound like you've got quite a sermon here! Any chance you'll get to preach it at some point?

Tell us more about yourself!

Peace,
Empiress

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 6/11/2002 8:15 PM (GMT -6)

Welcome to the board Markus!

You said:

quote:
How can we then love all mankind through our love of God, and yet still stand and accept their intense suffering whilst we enjoy the fruits of our own excess?

Ever read much from Saint Francis? You sound like a Franciscan my friend. I'm a Franciscan myself and would love to chat about it with you sometime if you're interested.

quote:
However, it is equally clear that works ARE taken into account and registered on the Day of reckoning. The question is whether works have value in their own right, independent of faith - or are works such an integral part of true faith that they are used as a yardstick against which the real authenticity of our faith is truly measured?

quote:
Is not love the key point here, and which leads to the next link in this issue?

"If I have not love I am merely a noisy gong or a clanging symbol."

quote:
When most of the world lies bleeding in the gutter, are we truly the passing Samaritan, or are we just playing a sham of good gestures to create for ourselves a good conscience when set against our own criteria instead of that of Christ?

I’m sorry if this is a kind of non-friendly subject, but it is one that I find at the core of living faith.

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 6/12/2002 3:12 AM (GMT -6)

Hello Empiress… and thank you for such an encouraging reply

I am fascinated by your remark that my writing sounds Franciscan in content. I confess I have never read anything from St Francis, but I think from what you said, that maybe I should! Would you have some suggestions where to start?

To be honest, I am just an ordinary guy on the street, not any kind of learned theologian or expert in any kind of school or field. In fact I have somewhat tried to avoid precisely that, as I fear greatly that as soon as I can put a label to my faith I would become, to a lesser or greater extent, consciously or sub-consciously, a slave to that label, and therefore vulnerable to distraction from the true source of inspiration, i.e. Christ Himself. But basically I am just very much a novice and simpleton in terms of faith!

As I mentioned previously, I have even dropped calling myself a Christian as I no longer understand what that label means today. As I understand it, the term Christian was first introduced in Antioch to distinguish between those (mainly) Jews that accepted the Gospel of Christ and those that didn’t. That seemed pretty clear to me until I realized how many different opinions there are as to what the gospel message actually is. As a result, although the term “Christian” requires belief in Christ, it does not give a very clear picture of what the belief actually means and, at least for me, leans towards becoming a mere empty cliché.

The book of James is perhaps my favourite book of the Bible as it challenges us so strongly to justify our faith to ourselves. A good example lies in the following verses:

If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit? (James 2:15,16)

The penetrating, even accusing, question that I hear in these verses concerns our tendency towards self-deception regarding what we do for others. I am sure we all pray for help for those suffering in the world, and feel good about doing so. But these verses slice straight through to the heart of this self-deception and ask me to justify exactly what value is it to the sufferer that I might include them in my prayers, if I do not also act as far as I am personally capable of?

Of course, God could just answer our prayer and put everything right for us immediately. But the fact that He does not, shows that this is not what He is looking for. So what exactly IS He looking for? Well, as I understand it presently, He is looking for His will to be fulfilled via humankind. If so, then praying for help for those suffering without also doing as much as one can oneself is actually praying for one’s own buck to be passed to someone else – and the fact that so much suffering still exists only proves that there are a whole lot of people not actually doing their own bit and just passing the buck round and round the same block, for as much as there is suffering, there is also the remedy to remove it - if only we would be prepared to apply it and not keep it to ourselves.

Of course, the obvious remedies are money and food, and the obvious targets are poverty and starvation, but these are only two of the more immediately visible tragedies that surround us. But it is not just money and food that we hoard for ourselves, but love, kindness, consideration, and even our faith! If we really look carefully around us we could ask ourselves, are the people of our wealthy, developed nations actually any richer or happier or more fulfilled than our suffering neighbours? Are they actually any nearer to God than anyone else?

The interesting thing about our type of society is that we hide so much of the unsightly and convince ourselves that it doesn’t exist. Helping others as an “on-the-street” believer means (to me) seeing through modern society’s wrappings to the rot and the pain that lies within it. Do we need to look much farther than the extent and increase of drugs, drink, loneliness, divorce, crime, neglect, mental illness, abuse, etc. to see that all is far from well even in our own back yard, let alone in the under-developed world? How much do we know of what suffering lies behind the closed doors even in our own street? How much are we ourselves willing to reveal of our own sufferings to others? How often does our pride stand in the way of accepting help from those who could and would help us? And what do we actually do about these things? That is the question we should all ask ourselves every day – and which James even demands of us to ask as proof of our faith.

For sure, there are no standard rules that apply to everyone, and we certainly should never stand in judgement of what others may or may not be doing. It is surely for each individual at their particular stage of their own journey to ask God what He wants of them. The issue then is, are we too scared of the possible answer that we find reasons not to ask - or having asked, do we say "yes" and then not do it?

Many times I hear the lament that giving to charity is a waste of resources as there is no guarantee that the money ever gets to its intended target. But whenever I hear of a disaster happening somewhere in this world, I never fail to be staggered at the efficiency of organizations like the International Red Cross, who are usually there in hours, with all kinds of equipment and aid, and with people that spend their lives helping others in the most dangerous and difficult conditions – where does it all come from? How do they do it? If any corporation or company could work only half as efficiently as the IRC it would surely be a top profit-earner year after year!!

One interesting aspect of works is that we are only expected to make the effort – that is the end of our task. There is no requirement for success, or reward for it. It is not our concern whether our efforts are effective once they are beyond our own reach. For sure, these problems will not go away, but what does it say about ourselves individually before Christ if we say that we didn’t bother because we didn’t feel our effort would achieve anything? Isn’t that a bit like burying the talent until the master returns? I believe our own input is limited to small increments anyway. This, in order that we do not risk granting ourselves the credit for our works and achievements – what quicker way to distance ourselves from Christ than to assume personal pride and ego in our works!

The sad thing is that much of what we can do is free and in unlimited supply. There are many ways in which we can say that a candle loses nothing of itself in lighting another. And love is perhaps the greatest of these assets. But even love can be so self-deceptive. There is possessive love and selfless love. In quiet moments I enjoy speculating on how this world would be if everyone only loved like Jesus loves. One fine example would be turning up late for a theatre show and finding that only the very best seat is left, as all the other worst seats are already taken! Similarly, if we are given flowers by someone, we would be so pleased to see that they are old and fading, as this would show that the person buying them had left the best flowers for someone else!! – kind of turns our own world on its head!!

But I sincerely hope that I do not appear to be preaching here, for I am as bad an example of our failings as anyone else might be, I just feel this is an important element that we all should keep aware of, as loving one another is not only the second most important commandment of the NT, but incorporates no less than 60% of the OT commandments - which leads to another interesting thought: The ten commandments of the OTcertainly prevented us from doing wrong to others, but how far did they go towards actually binding people to actively do good for others?

Markus

Edited by - markus on 06/12/2002 08:31:55 AM

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 6/12/2002 7:37 PM (GMT -6)

Markus wrote:

quote:
I am fascinated by your remark that my writing sounds Franciscan in content. I confess I have never read anything from St Francis, but I think from what you said, that maybe I should! Would you have some suggestions where to start?

Sure! "Francis: The Journey and the Dream" by Murray Bodo is a good book to start. Also, the Little Flowers of St. Francis are a collection of stories from Francis' life and some of them are real gems.

I have a new webpage up about Francis and Franciscanism under my Franciscan name "Angela Margaret" here:

www.geocities.com/franciscan_reflections/Francis.htm

quote:
As I mentioned previously, I have even dropped calling myself a Christian as I no longer understand what that label means today. As I understand it, the term Christian was first introduced in Antioch to distinguish between those (mainly) Jews that accepted the Gospel of Christ and those that didn’t. That seemed pretty clear to me until I realized how many different opinions there are as to what the gospel message actually is. As a result, although the term “Christian” requires belief in Christ, it does not give a very clear picture of what the belief actually means and, at least for me, leans towards becoming a mere empty cliché.

I actually dropped the term "Christian" too at one point...which is one reason I began calling myself a "Panentheist" and a "Franciscan" instead of "Christian," because the term had lost all meaning! I certainly understand that impulse.

quote:
If we really look carefully around us we could ask ourselves, are the people of our wealthy, developed nations actually any richer or happier or more fulfilled than our suffering neighbours? Are they actually any nearer to God than anyone else?

Exactly...I believe we in the wealthier nations are not only not happier or more fulfilled, but often less so because we've lost our focus about the truly important things in life. We're totally out of touch with the basics of life, spirituality, and the joys of God's creation in addition to our wrong focus.

quote:
For sure, these problems will not go away, but what does it say about ourselves individually before Christ if we say that we didn’t bother because we didn’t feel our effort would achieve anything? Isn’t that a bit like burying the talent until the master returns?

I think that's exactly what it is...we bury our talents with our justifications. I'm guilty of this too. And so we must make this a priority in order to overcome it and combat it every day. And sometimes we enjoy small victories.

Thanks for you offering and sharing.

Peace,
Empiress

Edited by - Empiress on 06/13/2002 12:38:40 AM

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 6/16/2002 7:52 AM (GMT -6)

Markus, if you can not be my Daddy or BIG BROTHER

; you have just made me, a best friend; will you be my Mommy or BIG SISTER Empiress

, if you can not, we are best friends also, OK, Amen.

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 6/16/2002 9:43 PM (GMT -6)

Tim said,

quote:
will you be my Mommy or BIG SISTER Empiress , if you can not, we are best friends also, OK, Amen.

*giggles*

For some reason that strikes me as the cutest thing.

A brilliant friend of mine who can write essays and short stories that would knock your socks off has this great introduction to his online Journal scribbled in crayon:

"Hi I'm Pete. I like the internet. I love to chat. I am friendly. Will you be my friend?"

Somehow, getting back to that child-like innocence and vulnerability of saying "will be my friend?" is so refreshing and profound in it's own way!

And yes Tim, we can definitely be friends!

That's very cool.

Peace,
Empiress

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 6/16/2002 10:53 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Tim and Empiress,

Tim, I guess, seeing as we already have the same greatest dad we could ever wish for, I’ll settle for being brothers in Christ

This issue of works and giving is probably a very unpopular topic for most people – not because they are not interested, but because it is one of the hardest for anyone to be able to apply personally with any confidence! The result is that we are usually happiest to turn our backs on it and try to ignore it. But if and when we DO face it, there really is a great difficulty in knowing what one is supposed to do.

I am very grateful, Empiress for your recommendation to take a look into the world of St Francis. He certainly provides a good example of how this issue can become a problem for many, I think!! I read your site and liked it very much. I have ordered some books already and, whilst I await delivery, I have started reading the online version of the liitle flowers. I think there is a lot of work that can be done (if not already done in those books I ordered!!!) in interpreting St Francis' values to fit life in our modern society. Afterall, I'm not so sure that it would be a very good beginning if we all were to dump everything, including one's clothes, and walk out the city gates..... :-)

But, on the other hand, there is an incredible alloy to be discovered here, blended from simple purity and profound intensity, which is embedded in the works, thoughts and values of people like St Francis (little that I know of him so far!) and the early Church Fathers like Polycarp and Ignatius. These people inspire me beyond words, and it becomes an almost fanatical challenge to seek the same depth of reality in our faith today concerning the unseen world, and how to apply it in our modern daily lives.

It certainly IS possible to know our role in fulfilling God’s will, and perhaps the greatest of tools we are given for this purpose are the spirit of truth and God’s law written on our hearts. I have no personal doubt that we can rely on the spirit of truth to always provide us with the answer, and to be the arbiter of the many disputes that arise on our journeys. This, surely, is as it should be in ALL things - in church, discussion, and in understanding the Bible - the spirit acts as a filter, helping us to reject and/or ignore all things that attempt to penetrate, distort and waylay our belief - if we are only prepared to allow it to function as such, and cut through our barriers of self-pride, opinion and ego!

I have to confess that when I look around me and try to see this world through God’s eyes, it certainly appears that many self- termed Christians are only wearing their Christianity as lapel badges that only function as an excuse for their conscience, thus allowing them to ignore the need to seek true faith. These are truly the "cake-and-eat-it brigade". These are they who do not really wish to face God, and are happy to pretend they are worthy of God's love purely though an acknowledgement that "there must be a God" and by living what they call (and self-define as) a "decent life"!

But, there ARE many true believers who are entirely sincere in their faith and have taken that huge first step of facing God and having Him tell us how wretched and miserable we really are. Unfortunately, it so often requires personal suffering of some kind to trigger this initiative. How sad, that it is often only when all else is lost that we finally turn to God as a last resort! But, God's grace and mercy is such that no one is turned away in spite of their years of neglect.

But these same people also rejoice in their realization that, instead of the rejection they know they deserve from God, He surely DOES forgive us when we finally accept His truth and repent. And then there follows the bittersweet process of repairing and improving, through which we gradually come closer to God and the Truth that would otherwise remain so distant from us. This process is bittersweet because we realise we are miserably helpless in achieving anything on our own, but equally joyous in our conviction that God WILL work His will within us and will never desert us. That conviction, combined with the sheer relief that we are not required personally to achieve the impossible, is exactly why people DO and CAN find peace and happiness in resting on the security of God's salvation through true faith alone, in spite of recognising their own worthlessness. Therein lies the formula for true humility both before God and before each other. These people have good reason for rejoicing and extreme happiness through relief at realising all is not lost afterall - and it would be a mistake to misinterpret that joy as a sign of non-repentance - it is the joy of having thought one was alive, only to realise one is dead, and then to find that one can live afterall - that is surely a priceless cause for joy!

But one of the greatest forces diverting people from this simple purity of faith, I feel, is often the church itself – or rather those people that comprise the decision-making heart of any church. How many churches actually preach the whole gospel and plead for people to open their heart to Christ and truly let Him take control? How many churches preach only the “good news” and the “Mr Softee” syrup, that they believe their congregation want to hear?

But, I feel, Jesus' church IS still alive and healthy, it is just very hard to see anymore, as it's so tarnished, battered and stained from years of work amongst nothing but sinners - but, there again, isn't that just what Jesus would have wanted and expected from his church?

There is no way of telling just how great or widespread the congregation of Christ's true church really is, but we could ask how many people nowadays carry a faith so strong that they would risk death for it, as did those in the immediate generations after Christ? Is this just something that belonged to an era nearly 2,000 years ago? No, it certainly isn’t! There are many people, both ministers and believers, during the communist years in the old USSR (for example), who continued to illegally hold services and worship, and were deported to Siberia and other desolate areas. Families were split apart, fathers disappeared during the nights and never seen again. Many died through their refusal to drop their faith. These are relatives of people still alive today in those regions.

We see great advances in our own society in technology and medicine and social services which make life easier, more comfortable, more pleasurable. But at what price? Does God also become more soft? more distant? more unnecessary? How we must struggle to keep our faith hard, whilst life becomes soft!

Otherwise, how will we ever learn what God really wills of us?

Markus

Edited by - markus on 06/17/2002 04:06:28 AM

Edited by - markus on 06/17/2002 04:06:55 AM

Edited by - markus on 06/17/2002 04:38:55 AM

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 6/18/2002 4:38 AM (GMT -6)

Is patience to be considered old-fashioned? Does it have any value any more in today’s society? Is it that we no longer need it, or that we can no longer afford it?

As our timeframes reduce with e-mail, internet, cell phones, live coverage, and multimedia, is there still any allowance for perusal and contemplation? Is a delayed response, instead, now a sign of ignorance, complacency or uncertainty?

As patience gives way to instantaneous, does our focus also narrow in scope and curl itself inseparably around the present, with ever shrinking tentacles reaching out lamely towards a past and future that both grow continually less significant, less real, less important?

Does our today take on an over-proportionate importance in our time passing?

Where in this modern world, is the anchor of our soul embedded?

The wonderful thing about trees is their patience. They can often stand there for longer than anyone can live and still find such enthusiasm for life. If an old tree could talk, it would have far more to tell about its life experiences, whilst standing on his patch, than we could ever match. We run around all day, and still run out of time. But the tree stands still, his work all done, still time to feel the warm spring breeze through its leaves.

As I look back at all those major crossroads in life that determined where I am today, it is strange to think of that same tree having been standing throughout it all, on that same spot, unmoved.

Jesus stands like a mighty oak, never changing, never moving. Whilst anchored firmly to Jesus, as much as we feel the need to run and fuss about, we always know where to find Him. Patience helps us stay with Him, be like Him, love like Him. Patience brings the peace which lets you stand still while moving……..

Markus

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 6/18/2002 8:08 PM (GMT -6)

Markus wrote:

quote:
I think there is a lot of work that can be done in interpreting St Francis' values to fit life in our modern society. Afterall, I'm not so sure that it would be a very good beginning if we all were to dump everything, including one's clothes, and walk out the city gates.....

*smiles* Yes! I think there a good number of Franciscan communities today that are applying St. Francis' values and life to our current situation. I have been inspired by so many of them. I've been apart of such a community for several years. And then there are all the books that have been written....*sighs happily*

quote:
This, surely, is as it should be in ALL things - in church, discussion, and in understanding the Bible - the spirit acts as a filter, helping us to reject and/or ignore all things that attempt to penetrate, distort and waylay our belief - if we are only prepared to allow it to function as such, and cut through our barriers of self-pride, opinion and ego!

I agree, but how do we help people (and ourselves) tell the difference between when the Spirit speaking and when our current prejudices, cultural biases, egos, or pride are speaking? I find that the hardest part. So many people defend their beliefs as Spirit-lead when clearly they are not. For instance, the Bible and "theology" has been used to support and defend racism and sexism throughout history.

quote:
it certainly appears that many self- termed Christians are only wearing their Christianity as lapel badges that only function as an excuse for their conscience, thus allowing them to ignore the need to seek true faith. These are truly the "cake-and-eat-it brigade". These are they who do not really wish to face God, and are happy to pretend they are worthy of God's love purely though an acknowledgement that "there must be a God" and by living what they call (and self-define as) a "decent life"!

*nods* I think it's called "hypocrisy" and it's rampant...always has been! It's what Jesus spoke against most vehemently in the Gospels.

quote:
But, God's grace and mercy is such that no one is turned away in spite of their years of neglect.

Hallelujah and thank you for saying that! Yes, yes, yes...that is the heart of the Good News isn't it!?

quote:
But one of the greatest forces diverting people from this simple purity of faith, I feel, is often the church itself – or rather those people that comprise the decision-making heart of any church.

Ummm...yeah. I've said this so much I'm tired of saying it. I left the church for awhile because of it. It's such a tragic irony that the very group that has been charged with delivering the Good News is so guilty of twisting it and preventing people from finding it so often.

quote:

But, I feel, Jesus' church IS still alive and healthy, it is just very hard to see anymore, as it's so tarnished, battered and stained from years of work amongst nothing but sinners - but, there again, isn't that just what Jesus would have wanted and expected from his church?

Yes, I believe it too. And they are not necessarily in the "institutional" church either.

quote:

As I look back at all those major crossroads in life that determined where I am today, it is strange to think of that same tree having been standing throughout it all, on that same spot, unmoved.

Hey you Franciscan, have you ever read the children's story: "The Giving Tree" ? It illustrates this point splendidly.

Btw, I haven't posted your essay yet to my site. I am in the midst of re-doing and expanding the site as the focal point for a Franciscan community that I and a few others are developing. But I'll let you know when it's up!

Peace,
Empiress

Terry_Baxter
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187

Posted 6/19/2002 3:54 AM (GMT -6)

Rich Mullins wrote a musical about St. Francis. Well, it's actually more like "what if St. Francis' life had taken place in the old west?"

It's called "Canticle of the Plains" and I find it very beautiful.

Rich and his friends called themselves "The Kid Brothers of St. Frank" because of their desire to emulate him and their realization that they would probably never come that close.

For those who don't know, Rich wrote "Awesome God" and "Sometimes by Step," which are sung in many churches today. He could have been quite wealthy, but had his money managed such that he only received the average working class salary in any year.

Empiress and Markus, if you're interested, Brennan Manning (whom the gatekeepers view as a bit unorthodox) wrote an unorthodox biography of Mullins that is more of a meditation on 'how shall we live'. It's called "An Arrow Pointing Toward Heaven" I believe.

To y'all's point about the church-as-obstacle, Mullins felt basically the same way. Yet, he loved going to church because it was through interaction with other lost and messed up believers that he experienced God. In other words, he didn't judge them for being imperfect or even lukewarm in their faith, and certainly not for most doctrinal gaffes (although he hated the "Prosperity Gospel"). The opportunity of interaction with the Body, despite all its warts and wrinkles, was holy to him.

Putting it another way: when he was a teenager at a Saturday night party asked him "why do you want to go to Church to be with all those hypocrites?" He replied, "why would I want to stay here with all you hypocrites?"

His point, and this is a quote that has stuck with me, "saying you're a hypocrite is like saying you're human."

Do we trust that God is working through His Body if nowhere else? Is it by God working through the mess that is His Body that we get closest to Him? Perhaps most challenging to our buffet-line mentality: is it only certain churches that God can work through, or are we as likely to see Him in Methodist, Southern Baptist and Oneness Pentecostal churches?

Every time I'm in church with a christian who is morally lazy and doctrinally inept--and my church's response to my questions about Openness have not been great--I am confronted with the lazy, selfish, and inept side of me.

Edited by - Terry_Baxter on 06/19/2002 10:38:14 AM

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 6/19/2002 3:55 AM (GMT -6)

May I say at the outset that the following is entirely my own opinion, and is not meant to influence and challenge anyone else’s views – that is never my intention.

Empiress raises the issue:

quote:

but how do we help people (and ourselves) tell the difference between when the Spirit speaking and when our current prejudices, cultural biases, egos, or pride are speaking?

This is a very good question! It is certainly true that many people argue that they possess the “truth” and yet differ from each other quite radically in their views. Surely, there IS only one absolute Truth in each issue and we cannot possibly ALL be right ALL the time – somewhere, to some degree, we are all going to go astray in some of our conclusions, and we need to be aware of this and accept it’s inevitability before we can listen to the Spirit.

In principle, I believe that the Spirit works in us through creating “realisations” in our minds that are also echoed in our hearts as they are confirmed by God’s law written inside us (as the Bible tells us), and often further confirmed by the Bible. Three witnesses to the truth found in our heart, mind and in the Bible.

However, we are also heavily influenced by external factors, experiences, fears, desires, and (for those who believe also in Satan [I do]) those forces which try their hardest to oppose and block our path to God. So how DO we hope to keep on the right track?

I think an important starting point is to accept that ultimately our views only comprise a personal set of components that we ourselves have decided to accept. We are then able to maintain an open mind that is receptive to change. Once we shut our minds in order to protect our belief set, we also shut out any further communication and development through the spirit.

A second important point is that we must decide we actually WANT to hear more and therefore pray intensely for continued enlightenment. I think it does take some effort to accept that we may have to change opinions that we have previously defended rigidly. It is a measure of our humility how readily we are prepared to be flexible. However, one warning is due here regarding readiness to change:

[Although Jesus warns us heavily not to judge others (how can we judge others when our own burden of sin is so great?), he also exhorts us to always be wary, and assess what we are being told. We should not allow ourselves to be blown here and there in the draught of any and every new angle that is thrown at us. He warns us of false prophets, and it is very human to always wish to change and develop things. Readiness to amend our beliefs should only be within the overall context of the desire to become closer to the unchanging truth of God Himself – not to form a personal portfolio of opinions that conveniently lean on our own interpretation of the truth.]

A third point is that people are generally more influenced by example than by argument. By setting a good example in the way that we actually live out our daily lives, we are more likely to encourage others to seek truth and a yearning to become more Christ-like. In particular, non-believers cannot be “given” faith, we can only try to spark their curiosity through our good example and enthusiasm. Once their spark is lit, then the spirit can start to work in them, too. Setting a good example includes showing compassion and thoughtfulness towards others, honesty in all dealings, tolerance, considerateness, courtesy, gentility, and a refusal to be drawn into, or initiate, gossip or slander (there are many others!!).

A fourth point is to be ready to actually leave issues open where one is not sure. For example, the Bible tells me that there IS a hell and that non-believers will suffer in hell for all eternity. But I find this too harsh a punishment to accept for any sin in this world. Also, since heaven is a place of pure love without tears or sorrow, how could anyone there bear being aware that many others are suffering for all eternity in hell, separated from God, without hardening their own heart towards them in the process? This for me is a terrible paradox, but since I cannot “create” my own interpretation, I leave it as an “open issue”, trusting that when the time is right, the spirit will reveal to me the truth.

And maybe the hardest point is accepting the price to pay:

– Oh how difficult it is for men and women of intellect to accept that there actually is no need to try to understand everything! (faith is all we are asked for, the yoke is indeed so light)

- How embarrassing we find it to have to admit to someone “I don’t know”!

- How desperately we need to have a ready answer to everything, even if it is wrong!

- How humiliating it is to accept that we should be as a little child in our faith.

But ignorant is what we all truly are before God. Sure, we are blessed with brains, logic, reason, curiosity, tenacity, drive, restlessness, etc. And we are certainly meant to use these gifts in our search for God and deepening our relationship with Him. But that does not mean we have to pretend and invent those parts we have not really understood yet. Once we can accept that we have been graced with some things, whilst others have been graced with others, we can then openly share beliefs and thoughts without getting into animosity or denial of another’s faith and integrity.

At the end of this world, it will not be important how much we swayed or influenced others during our conversations, debates and arguments. Our judgement is on how much we loved God and each other. It will not matter one iota what we all thought, provided our faith is truly authentic.

And that is perhaps the simplest way to stay with the Spirit – just stay with God in prayer and in your heart. Patience, honesty and openness will reward itself with answers – whilst always remembering:

“If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.” Rom 12:18 (NKJV)

Markus

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 6/19/2002 4:36 AM (GMT -6)

Dear Terry,

Thank you so much for your posting, which contains many important insights, especially regarding the church and "hypocrites".

Actually when I said that:

quote:

it certainly appears that many self- termed Christians are only wearing their Christianity as lapel badges that only function as an excuse for their conscience, thus allowing them to ignore the need to seek true faith. These are truly the "cake-and-eat-it brigade". These are they who do not really wish to face God, and are happy to pretend they are worthy of God's love purely though an acknowledgement that "there must be a God" and by living what they call (and self-define as) a "decent life"!

I wasn't actually really pointing at hypocrisy (which to me infers knowingly acting superficially), rather I intended the idea of people that don't actually know any different - that actually fully believe this is sufficient.

This is going to sound really controversial - and it is only my own opinion, again! - but I believe that the evil in Satan's plan is not always so overt as we think. His sole aim is to divert us away from God, and it surely is no coincidence that God's influence seems to diminish in direct relation to social progress. At the same time as missionaries make strong headway in ,for example, countries emerging from communism where the populace suffers from a sorry mix of poverty, crime and a spiritual vacuum, the wealthy nations are seeing a turning away from God. Why is this, I wonder?

We have a strong perception of safety and welfare in our developed societies. We basically trust in our law enforcement and justice systems, our social services, health facilities, food and shelter. The majority believe life for today is OK. Crime and injustice happens to others and even death is usually clinically hidden in hospitals. The more this is so, the less we need God today. The need to seek true faith (manifest in true works) is happily postponed until a tomorrow which we are extremely confident we will still see.

In the early days of Christianity, people were prepared to even suffer terrible deaths for their faith. Nowadays, we do not have to even think of martyrdom. But the more people neglect their church, the greater the problems of the church become in maintaining their position - even their survival.

How can a "church" stand up and martyr itself for its beliefs? It cannot because it comprises many people whose separate influence is too little and their own jobs are at stake. So the churches are forced into adapting their profile to suit their congregation instead of the other way round.

What a wonderful mechanism from Satan! By giving us the comfortable life that we gratefully accept, he succeeds in diminishing the need for God and thereby reduces the attendances at church. Since the church cannot be a martyr, if its attendances drop it is forced to also leave God and follow after its congregation.......

One example of this is currently being felt in my own local church, where the church leaders are adamant followers of the Bible. They are currently undergoing major difficulties regarding the refusal to bless marriage of people of the same sex. They are receiving all kinds of insulting phone calls and even death threats - all attempting to make them yield to placing secular law above God's own law. Will they be spiritual martyrs, or succumb to external public pressure of society and lead their church further from the Bible?

Again, I emphasise, this is only a personal speculation, but interesting!!!

But there ARE those who, regardless of the churches, DO continue to seek direct contact with God, as signified by the tearing of the temple curtain at the ratification of the New Covenant. As Empiress says, these are the true members of the spiritual Church of Christ whether they attend denominational churches or not.

Thanks once again Terry, for your thoughts :)

Markus

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 6/19/2002 7:19 PM (GMT -6)

Churches - Part II!

The above is not to say that I shun church-going. On the contrary, I am an active church attender, and encourage everyone to participate as fully as possible in church community life.

As Terry describes above (and also Jesus!)it would be wrong to judge those that one sees as insufficient, inadequate or negligent in their faith, or to avoid those that one sees as deviating from the core truth of Christ. Firstly, who is anyone to judge the integrity of another's faith, secondly it is amongst the weak and faithless that our God can shine strongest through ourselves.

I think it is also important to consider what we really mean by "church". Surely, it is not just a Sunday service. As I understand it, the churches established by Paul were Christ's spiritual centres of their communities. They provide the focal point and infrastructure for private and communal worship, moral example, voluntary care for those in need, scripture study, community fellowship, and, not least, spreading the gospel (both at home and abroad).

I believe it is an indispensible role of any follower of Jesus to support the church structure as much as one can in its broadest application. I feel it is an inseparable part of human spiritual fulfilment. And participation in church can be equally on the giving as the receiving side. The church should just as actively go to the people as the people should go to church.

But within it all, our relationship with God is one-on-one. The new covenant promises us a direct relationship with him. There is no longer such need for priests to come between man and God. The church "elders" are servants, helping others find their way. There is only one mediator between God and man, in the form of Christ Jesus.

Within the Church of Christ, we are all equal and all equally unworthy. Helping those whose need is greatest is the greatest help that we can give. And he that would wish to be greatest before Jesus should try to be the greatest servant before all others - which is a fascinating problem if you think about it:

In all other walks of human endeavour, success is the hardest thing to achieve. But in walking with Jesus, coming last is almost impossible.....

Markus

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 6/20/2002 11:25 AM (GMT -6)

Terry,

Thank you so much for the information on Rich Mullins! I knew nothing about him, but it's very inspiring! I want to find out more.

Terry said:

quote:

To y'all's point about the church-as-obstacle, Mullins felt basically the same way. Yet, he loved going to church because it was through interaction with other lost and messed up believers that he experienced God. In other words, he didn't judge them for being imperfect or even lukewarm in their faith, and certainly not for most doctrinal gaffes (although he hated the "Prosperity Gospel"). The opportunity of interaction with the Body, despite all its warts and wrinkles, was holy to him.

I agree with Mullins here. For awhile I wasn't too sure and that's why I left the Church for a time. But truly, I can't live without the fellowship and support of other believers and I really need the Sacraments to sustain me!

Terry said:

quote:

Putting it another way: when he was a teenager at a Saturday night party asked him "why do you want to go to Church to be with all those hypocrites?" He replied, "why would I want to stay here with all you hypocrites?"

I agree that in as much as we are all sinners, we are all hypocrites. However, I do believe Jesus demonstrated that those who claim to be without sin and hypocrisy (as the church often does), are guilty of a greater sin. And that is why Jesus' harshest words were for the "relgious" and not just ordinary folks, ie the ordinary hypocrites!

Terry said:

quote:
Perhaps most challenging to our buffet-line mentality: is it only certain churches that God can work through, or are we as likely to see Him in Methodist, Southern Baptist and Oneness Pentecostal churches?

And I would take that one step farther. I would say that if we DON'T see God at work in every community, even those who don't claim to be Christian, then something is wrong with our vision! Because God is at work among all people in different ways.

Terry said:

quote:

Every time I'm in church with a christian who is morally lazy and doctrinally inept--and my church's response to my questions about Openness have not been great--I am confronted with the lazy, selfish, and inept side of me.

Hallelujah! It is only when people begin doing what you do that we'll ever see change! Thank you for this offering.

Peace,
Empiress

Edited by - Empiress on 06/20/2002 4:27:14 PM

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 6/20/2002 11:39 AM (GMT -6)

Markus said:

quote:

I think an important starting point is to accept that ultimately our views only comprise a personal set of components that we ourselves have decided to accept. We are then able to maintain an open mind that is receptive to change. Once we shut our minds in order to protect our belief set, we also shut out any further communication and development through the spirit.

I couldn't agree with you more. Yes!

Markus said:

quote:

A second important point is that we must decide we actually WANT to hear more and therefore pray intensely for continued enlightenment. I think it does take some effort to accept that we may have to change opinions that we have previously defended rigidly. It is a measure of our humility how readily we are prepared to be flexible.

Absolutely.

quote:
A third point is that people are generally more influenced by example than by argument. By setting a good example in the way that we actually live out our daily lives, we are more likely to encourage others to seek truth and a yearning to become more Christ-like.

We are so on the same wavelength. I get to quote St. Francis for the second time today: "Preach always. Use words if necessary." Yes, we must live by example...living the faith is much more effective then talking about it or quoting it at people. That seems so obvious...yet it's so rarely practiced.

quote:
A fourth point is to be ready to actually leave issues open where one is not sure./[quote]

Awww...that is music to my ears. This is both humility as well as allowing for mystery. I think we tie ourselves up in knots over doctrine and dogma and end up arguing over such nonsensical things when we fail to do this.

I agree with everything you wrote. (And that's quite a shock since I rarely agree with everything people write!) But I also feel that what you described is very difficult and challenging for most people. I raised my question originally as a bit open-ended in that perhaps it is more of a challenge to keep in mind than one we can ever fully satisfy or answer. What do you think?

[quote]Firstly, who is anyone to judge the integrity of another's faith, secondly it is amongst the weak and faithless that our God can shine strongest through ourselves.

Hey Markus...get out of my brain!

The whole issue of judgment, that Semeia has so beautifully spoken about on this board, is one that is really on my heart right now. And the fact that God uses the weakest among us is so true...and so Franciscan. *big smiles*

Blessings,
Empiress

Terry_Baxter
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187

Posted 6/20/2002 1:53 PM (GMT -6)

Empiress and others,

Thanks for the kind words. May I extend and challenge your response a bit?

quote:
I agree that in as much as we are all sinners, we are all hypocrites. However, I do believe Jesus demonstrated that those who claim to be without sin and hypocrisy (as the church often does), are guilty of a greater sin. And that is why Jesus' harshest words were for the "relgious" and not just ordinary folks, ie the ordinary hypocrites!

I've seen this thought several times lately, and it always seems to come from the people who've posted on the board regularly. Is it a Boydian thought that has been popularized here or in his church?

Several things come to mind (and I don't mean to attack you--I'm perhaps unfairly lumping your post with those of Semeia, Iconoclast and others in the rebuke thread):

--"Those who claim to be without sin" in this day and age are much more likely to be the unchurched, inclusivist, agnostic crowd. They think, "I'm a good person, at least, good enough to get in to heaven!" Therefore, they don't need a savior. I think the caricature of Christians who believe they are sinless is just that. In fact, the popular bumper sticker is "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." Many Christians are smug about their 'forgiven' status, but very few have the blase attitude about sin and an unassailable sense of their own Sinlessness that the generic unchurched have.

--In much of America, the Stuart Smalley attitude has replaced the protestant ethic--"I'm good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, God likes me!" When these same people go around comdemning their neighbors for playing the stereo too loud, they are the embodiment of the pharisaic attitude. That is: "I'm good enough to get in to heaven, but woe to these people around me."

--I see Jesus and the other NT writers comdemning a lot sins with about the same severity at different times. I appreciate the 'hierarchy' of sin idea, but it was in the OT where society meted out death for some sins and sacrificing grain-pennance for others. That was in large part about social order.

So is it really as simple as "Jesus' harshest words were for X" therefore "X is a greater sin"?

For one thing, how does that square with

quote:
It also assumes that God will love us more based on our DOING, when in fact he loves us completely already in our BEING.

I would argue if God doesn't raise us to a higher circle of heaven for our works, he likewise doesn't condemn us to a lower level of hell for certain sins, a la hypocrisy. In other words, who ya gonna believe, the Bible or Dante? I tend to believe we’re all equally sin-riven in the eyes of God, even the person who only sinned once. Some sins may have worse social or personal consequences (and thus God treats them differently), but I don’t know that one is ‘more sinful.’ Having a ‘more sinful sin’ is like being ‘more pregnant’ than someone else.

-Looking in the OT the wisdom literature, I do see sins that God "despises" but religious hypocrisy isn't among them. However, pride is. I tend to believe this is the sin of both Adam and Eve as well as Matthew's Gospel's pharisee's. Pride is an equal-opportunity sin, not a church-only problem, isn't it?

--Finally, I think the "Jesus was harshest on the pharisees" story is only one of many you could tell from the gospels. It's easy to use narratives as proofs of theology because you can draw so much out of them. Before I'd concede that Jesus was more angry with the hypocritical pharisees than anyone else I'd want to ask a few questions (some I already know the answer to, but indulge me in the rhetorical moment...):

-Would adulterous women or homosexuals have been the main foil for Jesus' ministry at this time in Israel? In other words, from whom would you expect the strongest opposition to his messiahship and his ministry? Whose apple cart was he upsetting the most? Who had the most power in Jewish society in the first century? Who ended up eventually getting him killed (and how angry was Matthew about it)?

-What do we do with the rich young man who had "kept the full law" to be saved? Jesus didn't point out some hidden sin OR hypocrisy, so I assume his claim to be sinless (via the Law) was pretty valid. Instead, Jesus points out that his wealth will keep him out of heaven. If, as you say, claiming to be sinless is such a heinous sin, why didn't Jesus go Medieval on this guy? Or is being wealthy a worse sin than even hypocrisy? (don't answer that, I'm being flippant)

-What do we do with this story about Jesus (quoted here from Mark, who didn't have nearly the same axe to grind against pharisees as Matthew did)?

quote:
When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they said to His disciples, "Why is He eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?" And hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Note: Jesus is basically calling the pharisees "healthy" and “righteous”! That is, they aren't the ones in need of his attention--they didn’t need to repent, by the law. Yes, they had their blind spots too, but Jesus apparently still pointed out to certain people that they were sinners …or do you think his dinner companions enjoyed being called "sick"?.

(By the way, I’m not sure I’d want to base a theology about how much Jesus “especially disliked” or held his harshest words for “the JEWS” because of the way that group is portrayed in John’s gospel.)

--If we use the logic that people use to indict the pharisees as Chief Sinners, we could easily make being rich, being faithless, or being a money changer, the “Worst Sins”. After all, Jesus never attacked the pharisees, but he did rampage against the temple moneymen.

Given (a) in Jesus’ culture the pharisees might hinder people coming to him, make his ministry dificult, and potentially even squash the fledgling religion; (b) that the pharisee’s particular sin was of a kind that called for public rebuke, partly because they challenged him in public (whereas the woman at the well, et. al., didn’t); (c) that Jesus generally dealt with the sins of society’s powerless more gently; (d) a lot of this image comes from Matthew’s particular Gospel which, if it were a special on Fox, would be subtitled “When Pharisees go Bad” (e) Jesus in several places supported--rather than railing against--people’s claims to “be without sin”…. the whole notion that hypocrisy about one’s sin is the Worst Sin seems pretty precarious.

To me, honestly, this reasoning works well in the American Culture of Therapy where eveyone wants, above all else, to feel good about themselves . Thus, the worst sin is being a buzzkill and actually being smug while pointing out people’s sins. If anything, I think Jesus may have been particularly annoyed with the pahrisee’s pride. That would explain why the ‘sinless pharisees’ get lambasted but the ‘sinless but humble rich young man’ gets a gentle rebuke.

But in any other culture or time to say “cheating on your wife or killing someone ain’t so bad, but God sure is angry at you hypocrites!” would just cause people to shake their heads. (Again, I’m off in to hyperbole to make a point. I know you never justified killing or compared it to hypocrisy.)

Am I making sense or just fooling myself?

Edited by - Terry_Baxter on 06/20/2002 10:52:01 PM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 6/20/2002 7:31 PM (GMT -6)

Terry_Baxter:

Several things come to mind (and I don't mean to attack you--I'm perhaps unfairly lumping your post with those of Semeia, Iconoclast and others in the rebuke thread):

Iconoclast:

So…does this mean that you do mean to attack me? Which is fine of course. But attacking my wife Semeia! Now them’s fighting words.

Terry_Baxter:

First, mad encouragement to hand_carved for his willinging to discuss this issue and get disparaged and devalued by his brothers and sisters. Brother, you’ve raised an important issue, to which I’ll give a brief reply.

Iconoclast:

Terry, we have never interacted before, but suddenly I feel paranoid that perhaps the above (from your post on the “Knowledge of Good and Evil and Rebuke” thread) was in some way directed toward me.

I will of course continue to assume that I am just being oversensitive but if you would like please feel free to provide me any negative feedback or disagreement that you deem appropriate.

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

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 6/20/2002 9:31 PM (GMT -6)

A response for Terry...

Terry said:

quote:

I've seen this thought several times lately, and it always seems to come from the people who've posted on the board regularly. Is it a Boydian thought that has been popularized here or in his church?

*lol* I don't know, but it does seem there are a number of like-minded folks on this board. I don't know Boyd's thoughts on this issue and I'm not apart of his church so I can't really speak to your question adequately.

quote:
--"Those who claim to be without sin" in this day and age are much more likely to be the unchurched, inclusivist, agnostic crowd. They think, "I'm a good person, at least, good enough to get in to heaven!" Therefore, they don't need a savior. I think the caricature of Christians who believe they are sinless is just that. In fact, the popular bumper sticker is "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." Many Christians are smug about their 'forgiven' status, but very few have the blase attitude about sin and an unassailable sense of their own Sinlessness that the generic unchurched have.

Yeah, I think the difference in opinion on this may be a matter of personal experiences. Most of the un-religious folks I've known don't claim to be "good," while most of the Church folks I've known seem to have a lot of trouble admitting their faults. Of course, it can't ever be emphasized enough that we can't make generalizations about entire groups of people because there are always exceptions. I do wonder though if those from my generation (Gen X), who tend to be concerned with being "real" and "honest," may be less prone to making claims of being "good" then those of other generations. This could partly be a generational or cultural difference that we're running up against.

At any rate, I'd like to affirm your experience as a valid one.

quote:
So is it really as simple as "Jesus' harshest words were for X" therefore "X is a greater sin"?

I don't think anything is really that simple, no. But I do think we can observe some kind of pattern or theme in the Gospels.

quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It also assumes that God will love us more based on our DOING, when in fact he loves us completely already in our BEING.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would argue if God doesn't raise us to a higher circle of heaven for our works, he likewise doesn't condemn us to a lower level of hell for certain sins, a la hypocrisy.

I agree, I don't think it's an issue of varying levels of punishment or reward or levels of "hell" or "heaven."

quote:
I tend to believe we’re all equally sin-riven in the eyes of God, even the person who only sinned once. Some sins may have worse social or personal consequences (and thus God treats them differently), but I don’t know that one is ‘more sinful.’ Having a ‘more sinful sin’ is like being ‘more pregnant’ than someone else.

I agree that when it comes to people, we're all just sinners in God's sight without distinction. I'm not sure that doesn't make certain sins more greivous to God though.

quote:
-Looking in the OT the wisdom literature, I do see sins that God "despises" but religious hypocrisy isn't among them. However, pride is. I tend to believe this is the sin of both Adam and Eve as well as Matthew's Gospel's pharisee's. Pride is an equal-opportunity sin, not a church-only problem, isn't it?

Sure. I think the reason people take issue with hypocrisy within the religious community, and why Jesus did too, is because the religious community has been bestowed with the responsibility to convey God's love and grace in the world. One of the worst ways we can fowl that up is by living hypocritically.

quote:
--Finally, I think the "Jesus was harshest on the pharisees" story is only one of many you could tell from the gospels. It's easy to use narratives as proofs of theology because you can draw so much out of them. Before I'd concede that Jesus was more angry with the hypocritical pharisees than anyone else I'd want to ask a few questions (some I already know the answer to, but indulge me in the rhetorical moment...):

Can I ask if you see Jesus focusing on the sins of another group or using harsh words on other groups in the Gospels?

quote:
-Would adulterous women or homosexuals have been the main foil for Jesus' ministry at this time in Israel? In other words, from whom would you expect the strongest opposition to his messiahship and his ministry? Whose apple cart was he upsetting the most? Who had the most power in Jewish society in the first century? Who ended up eventually getting him killed (and how angry was Matthew about it)?

Well I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this. It seems in my read of the Gospel, it was the religious leaders of his day.

quote:
What do we do with the rich young man who had "kept the full law" to be saved? Jesus didn't point out some hidden sin OR hypocrisy, so I assume his claim to be sinless (via the Law) was pretty valid. Instead, Jesus points out that his wealth will keep him out of heaven. If, as you say, claiming to be sinless is such a heinous sin, why didn't Jesus go Medieval on this guy?

My read on Jesus' response to the rich young ruler is that Jesus used the command to sell his riches to point out that the man's heart was in the wrong place. It's not enough to "keep the law" if your heart is not with God. In other words, it was an indictment on the rich young ruler and it did reveal his hypocrisy in a deeper way.

quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they said to His disciples, "Why is He eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?" And hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Jesus is basically calling the pharisees "healthy" and “righteous”! That is, they aren't the ones in need of his attention--they didn’t need to repent, by the law. Yes, they had their blind spots too, but Jesus apparently still pointed out to certain people that they were sinners …or do you think his dinner companions enjoyed being called "sick"?.

Again, we have quite a different interpretation of this. I think we need to interpret Scripture in light of all of Scripture. It seems to me that Jesus is saying he has come for those who know they're sick. The Pharisees, who were indeed "sick" as we all are, thought that they were righteous and "healthy." But it is always the case, what will keep up from Jesus is our belief that we don't need him. As Jesus explained, it is the tax collector who beats his chest before God and says, "God have mercy on me a sinner" and NOT the Pharisee who is grateful that he is not a "sinner" like the tax collector who is JUSTIFIED before God, (Luke 18) ie the one who knew he was "sick."

quote:
(By the way, I’m not sure I’d want to base a theology about how much Jesus “especially disliked” or held his harshest words for “the JEWS” because of the way that group is portrayed in John’s gospel.)

It is not an indictment against the Jews, it is an indictment against religious hypocrisy. Race is not this issue, it applies equally to the Christian church today.

quote:
--If we use the logic that people use to indict the pharisees as Chief Sinners, we could easily make being rich, being faithless, or being a money changer, the “Worst Sins”. After all, Jesus never attacked the pharisees, but he did rampage against the temple moneymen.

Rather, I think it is simply the recognition that in every Gospel, time and time again, Jesus speaks out against the sin of religious hypocrisy among the religious leaders. Do you not see this pattern in the Gospels?

quote:
Given (a) in Jesus’ culture the pharisees might hinder people coming to him, make his ministry dificult, and potentially even squash the fledgling religion; (b) that the pharisee’s particular sin was of a kind that called for public rebuke, partly because they challenged him in public (whereas the woman at the well, et. al., didn’t); (c) that Jesus generally dealt with the sins of society’s powerless more gently; (d) a lot of this image comes from Matthew’s particular Gospel which, if it were a special on Fox, would be subtitled “When Pharisees go Bad” (e) Jesus in several places supported--rather than railing against--people’s claims to “be without sin”…. the whole notion that hypocrisy about one’s sin is the Worst Sin seems pretty precarious.

Yeah, I'm not sure there is an argument being made that hypocrisy is the "worst sin"...I don't know. The only thing I can affirm is that religious hypocrisy was certainly one which Jesus spent a lot of time speaking out against in very harsh terms.

quote:
To me, honestly, this reasoning works well in the American Culture of Therapy where eveyone wants, above all else, to feel good about themselves . Thus, the worst sin is being a buzzkill and actually being smug while pointing out people’s sins. If anything, I think Jesus may have been particularly annoyed with the pahrisee’s pride. That would explain why the ‘sinless pharisees’ get lambasted but the ‘sinless but humble rich young man’ gets a gentle rebuke.

Yeah, I think pride is the cousin of hypocrisy...because a humble person would know they were sinners and wouldn't claim to be otherwise. I've heard a lot of theologians say that pride is the worst sin because it is thought to be the cause of Satan's fall. I think it's an interesting theory!

Hope that contributes to the discussion!

Peace,
Empiress

Terry_Baxter
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187

Posted 6/21/2002 5:04 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

A response for Terry...

Is that like flowers for Algernon?

quote:
Yeah, I think the difference in opinion on this may be a matter of personal experiences. Most of the un-religious folks I've known don't claim to be "good," while most of the Church folks I've known seem to have a lot of trouble admitting their faults.

No doubt everyone has their own experience. I’m more thinking about my reading and work in apologetics. Barna and others have studied attitudes toward sin. (Q: What studies? A: Some study I’m pretty sure I’ve read. Q: Who did these studies? A: Don’t worry. Top men. [Didn’t I see this scene in _Indiana Jones_?]) They show that most Christians will admit they are sinful or very sinful while most unchurched answer that they have some sin or little sin to repent. It’s a major concern to evangelistic ministries who follow the Campus Crusade model (step 1, admit you’re a sinner…).

But I guess that’s not the crucial part. Lets assume even a few of these agnostic folks I’ve described exist. Can you imagine Jesus calling them ‘vipers’, proclaiming woes to them, and pointing them out publicly as examples to be shunned?

My point is, that Jesus’ reaction to the pharisees had mostly to do with their position in society, their very public debates with him, and the fact that people were using them as behavioral models. I’m not sure that it was the sin itself that inspired his rebukes, and I’m really skeptical that their sin was any worse qua sin, than anyone else’s.

In other words, mere hypocrisy from the religious is probably as common as it is from the un-religious and both grieve God. If people from either group (a) get a lot of social power, and (b) use that power to publicly expound on their sinlessness and other’s sinfulness, and (c) the masses try to emulate their leaders and begin to think that doing so obviates the need for a savior, I can see why this would call for public rebukes.

Compare 1st century Pharisees to a similar group, with social power, arguing that “we’re all sinners so let’s all sin a lot and enjoy worldly pleasures because that’s all we have and all there is”? One group contains (religious) hypocrites, the other does not. Both sins lead people away from Christ and impair the tenderness of their conscience toward the Spirit. The major difference is that there weren’t any (organized groups) of the latter in Israel. Paul, of course, ran in to them in the Greek cities and confronted them strongly like Jesus did the pharisees.

quote:
I think the reason people take issue with hypocrisy within the religious community, and why Jesus did too, is because the religious community has been bestowed with the responsibility to convey God's love and grace in the world. One of the worst ways we can fowl that up is by living hypocritically.

I (mostly) agree with you. Yay! (I’m a conflict-avoider by nature so I love it when I agree with someone.)

I would add that God is a jealous God. Looking in to Acts, he did some pretty rough things to those who lied to the Body (I bet Annanias and Sapphira wished they’d only received a verbal rebuke), and to magicians and spiritists. So the overall evidence doesn't convince me that hypocrisy is far and away worse than other such sins.

Again, hypocrisy is one sin that messes with the Body and impairs its witness, but it’s not the only sin on that list.

quote:
Can I ask if you see Jesus focusing on the sins of another group or using harsh words on other groups in the Gospels?

Very good question. My answer: Not really, no.

But again, this doesn’t bother me too much. It’s difficult to prove a negative, so I don’t think we can say there certainly weren’t other groups. I have however argued that there’s a big set of reasons for Jesus to harsh on the pharisee that don’t entail a “worse” sin. There’s also good reason for Matthew’s ‘gospel to the jews’ to highlight that group over others. We get a slightly different picture in, say, John’s Gospel.

Terry asked

quote:
-Would adulterous women or homosexuals have been the main foil for Jesus' ministry at this time in Israel? In other words, from whom would you expect the strongest opposition to his messiahship and his ministry? Whose apple cart was he upsetting the most? Who had the most power in Jewish society in the first century? Who ended up eventually getting him killed (and how angry was Matthew about it)?

Empiress responded

quote:
Well I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this. It seems in my read of the Gospel, it was the religious leaders of his day.

Yes! This is my point. If there was an organized group of socially powerful adulterers or homosexuals publicly debating him and asserting their own moral rectitude, Jesus might well have treated them as he did the pharisees. Jesus didn’t have them, but we do in America today.

quote:
My read on Jesus' response to the rich young ruler is that Jesus used the command to sell his riches to point out that the man's heart was in the wrong place. It's not enough to "keep the law" if your heart is not with God. In other words, it was an indictment on the rich young ruler and it did reveal his hypocrisy in a deeper way.

Again we (mostly) agree. Remember the premise tho: God hates it when people claim to be sinless and aren’t, more than almost any other sin. If that is true, why did the R.Y.R. get off without being called a viper, hearing a string of “woes to you”, and a warning to those around to beware his kind of sin? I think it was (a) because he didn’t have disciples as the pharisees did, (b) didn’t try to publicly debate Jesus, and (c) was humble about his state, despite his claim to righteousness according to the law.

The mere proclamation of righteousness apparently was not enough to draw Jesus’ ire. (By the way, Jesus didn’t launch in to an excurses on “having a right heart” after the R.Y.R. left, he talked about wealth specifically, so I’m not sure I fully agree with your interpretation of that passage.)

quote:
The Pharisees, who were indeed "sick" as we all are, thought that they were righteous and "healthy." But it is always the case, what will keep up from Jesus is our belief that we don't need him.

Amen!

What I saw on the rebuke thread (not from you necessarily) (or you Iconoclast!) was the idea that sins rarely needed to be confronted. On the contrary, one valid point that I think Hand_carved raised was “how can we know we need God unless we see our sin?” Think of all the volumes of self-help literature aimed at Americans trying to show them (a) how to improve themselves (without God) or (b) how they’re ok just as they are. American sin consciousness in the 21st century is dull and with certain strong caveats (see my post on the rebuke thread) can be sharpened with confrontation or rebuke. That goes for sins of pride and adultery as well as hypocrisy.

My belief, if Jesus didn’t publicly rebuke adultery, it’s partly because there was already wide Jewish consensus that it was wrong! Why bother? (Although John the Baptist apparently did this, and he was a pretty godly guy, wasn’t he? He “prepared the way” for Jesus’ ministry and called people to repent! Perhaps there’s another reason we don’t see Jesus doing much of it.) Jesus attacked the sins that people didn’t think were sins, thus the whole Sermon on the Mount.

I’m just resisting the idea that because sin X in people Y got a lot of attention while sins A – C didn’t, sin X and people Y must be worse. Thanks to Moses, the Jews already knew what God required viz adultery, rape, homosexuality, murder, etc. For the most part, they didn’t understand it; they kept the letter but not the spirit, etc. etc.

quote:
I think it is simply the recognition that in every Gospel, time and time again, Jesus speaks out against the sin of religious hypocrisy among the religious leaders. Do you not see this pattern in the Gospels?

Yes I do see it and I agree with you. I’ve just given an alternate interpretation for it, and pointed out that it is much stronger in one particular Gospel-for good reason-than others.

A thread on the pharisees would be interesting because I think they get a very bad rap in Christian circles today.

Edited by - Terry_Baxter on 06/22/2002 08:50:14 AM

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 6/24/2002 4:08 AM (GMT -6)

It seems we have an issue here on how or whether to classify differing grades of sin. Personally, I don’t think the issue is to actually categorise sin itself, but to focus on the spiritual condition of the sinner who commits the sin. What if we have the same sin committed by two different people? One may be truly repentant, beaten to the ground, and yearning for God’s help in avoiding repetition. Whilst the other is perhaps content to have confessed, assumed receipt of God’s forgiveness, and then simply forgets the whole issue. Is there any difference in these two people before God, having committed the same sin? I think so.

I don’t think Jesus appears to be more severe with the Pharisees because their sins were harsher, but for other reasons relating to their inner spiritual attitude, which could not allow them to receive the basis of the new covenant. They represented precisely the wrong spiritual condition that Jesus wanted to change, i.e. that provided the outside of the cup was clean, it didn’t matter what the inside looked like.

For this reason, I don’t believe that, in the following story, Jesus is calling the pharisees "healthy" and “righteous”.

quote:

When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they said to His disciples, "Why is He eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?" And hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

I am sure the only reason Jesus was not also sitting with the Pharisees was because they refused to acknowledge their need for Jesus’ teachings, not because Jesus thought they were already spiritually healthy.

One reason why the practices of the Pharisees are especially emphasized as wrong is because of the principle of not putting new wine in old wineskins. The new covenant brought by Jesus cannot be mixed with the principles of the OT practices. But it was clear to Jesus, and confirmed by many of Paul’s letters, that there would inevitably be a powerful tendency to want to wrap the old familiar rules and laws around the new covenant and choke them both. As Paul states, why, when you are freed from the law, would you wish to re-enslave yourself to it? And as Jesus says, no one used to old wine would readily accept the new, thinking that the old was better.

The new covenant demands a totally new approach - and the Pharisees were the powerblock that would prevent it being accepted, if it were not exposed that their attitude was all wrong. I believe this is the same reason why God, in the interim, took the Gospel to the Gentiles (the wild olive branches) to be grafted onto the home root before the original branches would also be willingly grafted back to the home root. It seems to me that Christianity survived through Paul’s work amongst the gentiles - not through the efforts of the original disciples of Christ amongst the Jews themselves.

And so, we come back to the key issue, which for me relates to our internal spiritual health. Therein lies any scaling regarding sin, not the nature of the sin itself. One who has true faith feels the real shame and agony of not being able to live a life in Christ. And this leads to an iterative process of improvement: Sin ->repentence->forgiveness->humility->less sin, and so on. Without the humility resulting from realizing God’s love manifest in His forgiveness, one is not likely to grow out of sin.

This reminds me of a description from one friend, that to know Christ is to realize that with every sin you commit you bang another nail through the hands of Christ. When you realise the hammer is in your own hand, and the point of the nail is against the palm of your loved one, you are less likely to cause the blow to be struck.

When we remember that life in heaven is based solely on a universal innermost craving for love, fairness, and total respect for all others before oneself – and not just 100% compliance with exernal rules - we can see the huge relevance of the sinner’s attitude towards sin, rather than the sin itself. The actual sin becomes totally irrelevant as it does not even exist in God’s Kingdom - but our attitude does.

Again, these are only my own simple ramblings. I expect no one to take them seriously or to feel offended if I contradict their own beliefs.

Markus

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 6/28/2002 3:55 AM (GMT -6)

I have been trying to understand the basic idea behind Open Theism, which is a new, and very complicated subject for one of so little brain.

It appears to divide the unfolding story of humankind into those events that God determines and those where God allows us free choice - but still accepts that the end result was already predetermined by God at the very beginning.

This sounds very sensible to me to the extent that it adds meaning and purpose to our existence here, but I struggle to understand how God can also be without foreknowledge of our future decision-making - or why He even needs to be.

I cannot see how one can separate into separate, watertight, independent compartments, those events that God determines and those which are given to us to freely decide. Every single action that we take on our own initiative is not a simple, one-off act, it has untold repercussions that affect the whole chain of future events that interrelate with it. For example, if our freely chosen action involves spatial movement, it affects everyone that is in close proximity - which then has a knock-on effect in their lives too, and so on. It brings to mind a film (was it called Sliding Doors??)which traced the two entirely different lives that a young woman would have led, depending on whether she caught or missed her train home. Both lives were entirely different and affected thousands of other lives and snowballed on into the future for ever. There is no way even a single small action can be isolated from enormous impact on everything else thereafter. Therefore, the only way that God could still guarantee the predetermined end-result would be to counter or somehow undo any effects that led in the wrong direction - but He could not predict if they actually were going to end up affecting the end result if He were to still be unaware of the outcome of other future events. So the end result cannot surely be corrected until the very last minute, i.e. after the last freely granted decision.

However, I do accept that God allows us enormous freedom in decision-making, but, only with His own foreknowledge of what we will decide. That is not the same thing as determining our decisions - He just knows them even before we make them. Kind of the ultimate in educated guesswork, but where the guesses are 100% accurate. If God IS omniscient, omnipotent AND omnipresent, there is no reason to doubt His ability to know every single piece of data there is AND to know our very own person so well that He knows how we will react in every possible situation. How can there be anything about our hearts and minds that God is UNaware of? And that includes our decision-making as well?

God allows us to make decisions to show or prove our worthiness, our attitude, our potential, our faith, or whatever it might be - but the effectiveness of that is not undermined by the fact that God already knows the outcome.

There is much in the Bible that gives the appearance that God does NOT always know beforehand, and describes in "real-time" His reactions to humankind's behaviour. But, for me at least, that is easily explained by the fact that the Bible is written for us, not for God. God would indeed have felt such feelings as disappointment, anger, frustration as He worked though the foreknowing of the eventual outcome - but it is only recorded in the Bible for our benefit at the time the events actually happen, not necessarily at the time that God actually felt those reactions - which would have been before the whole started anyway.

I cannot accept, for example, that God really thought that anyone would obey the commandments of the OT and got it 100% wrong. The lesson there is for us to learn something very important about ourselves, not about God's ability to make mistakes in assessing human readiness to obey Him. It is we that are on trial in this world, not God.

Similarly, I cannot accept that God really thought He had rid the world of sin by the flood, and got it wrong - and then had to think up another approach leading to the concept of a new covenant. The Bible is written as a narrative for us as readers to be able to identify and realise how we have, and are, interrelating with God. Therefore God's reactions to humanity at each stage throughout its history is recorded for our benefit at the time each event occurs so that we can easily follow the changing nature of our relationship.

I can and do believe that God directly intervenes in this world, and that He also allows some, if not most, action to be our own decision - but I cannot find a way to understand how God can also be unaware of the future actions we will take, or of the incredibly vast and chain-linked implications that continue beyond them.

But I am not very competent at working these things out alone and I would appreciate some guidance how God could work in such a manner that He remains omniscient, but, at the same time, still ignorant of future events - or have I misunderstood the whole concept (very possible!)?

Markus

Edited by - markus on 06/28/2002 08:57:13 AM

Edited by - markus on 06/28/2002 09:02:01 AM

83 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:37 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual