Respecting Differences

[Fish and Bread]

I posted this in a thread over on OBOB and thought it might be of interest to some over here on STR as well. Like most of my postings, it's more of a theory than a heartfelt belief -- something I'm throwing out there because it was an interesting thought -- not as a dogma. :)

While I wouldn't categorize myself as a student of history, because my knowledge is too limited to truly claim expertise, it is something that I try to learn about and pay attention to. What I see historically is when one group of people try to impose their will on others in matters of morality beyond what is required to keep the citzenry safe, bad things result. To cite just a few examples, one of the largest persecutions of Christians came in ancient Rome when the Emperors fed them to the lions because of what were in their eyes immorality. In later days, the Protestant English Kings from the Church of England, from which my own Episcopal Church sprung, killed great saints such as Thomas Moore because of their heartfelt moral beliefs. In return, Bloody Mary, who aligned herself with the Vatican, killed Protestant saints such as Thomas Cramner for the same reason.

In the end, I don't believe that morality is a subjective thing entirely. There are certainly elements of it which are objective truth. I don't think it's our place to be the judge of the living, though. Rather, it is Christ who declares himself the judge of the living as well as the dead.

Our job here on earth, quite simply, is to try to love. That's what I think is the genius of Christianity and what it ultimately points to. That's why I'm Christian. I think we get a lot of the details wrong, but we get the crux of the matter right.

In the end, I'm not certain enough of the details to impose my values on others, nor would I want to be. I think even when we impose the right values, we act improperly because they are indeed imposed values and people have God given free will to choose and to learn and to grow. And in taking on the role of judge, we take on a power that is neither properly ours to exercise nor wise to exercise, because we can exercise it well.

We're all fellow travelers in life and some of us deal with the pain and confusion that is part and parcel of existence in different ways. It's a gift from God that we are free to choose a diversity of ways to do so. There are some that are less wise than others, granted, but it is for each of us to find our path, and to respect our fellow travelers in the journey. We are given our ability to reason so we can question and so we can challenge the assumptions we've made as a group in the past, to improve the right assumptions and to move beyond the mistaken ones. I am convinced that Christianity is not quite "there yet" as a religion, but is the beginning of where we're going to wind up if we follow a path to light. At least, that's my two cents. I'm probably wrong. :)

[Inside Edge]

Our job here on earth, quite simply, is to try to love. That's what I think is the genius of Christianity and what it ultimately points to. That's why I'm Christian. I think we get a lot of the details wrong, but we get the crux of the matter right.
I think pretty much the exact same thing.

In the end, I'm not certain enough of the details to impose my values on others, nor would I want to be. I think even when we impose the right values, we act improperly because they are indeed imposed values and people have God given free will to choose and to learn and to grow. And in taking on the role of judge, we take on a power that is neither properly ours to exercise nor wise to exercise, because we can exercise it well.
Yeah...no argument there, either.

I am convinced that Christianity is not quite "there yet" as a religion, but is the beginning of where we're going to wind up if we follow a path to light.
Which is ok, from a certain point of view. Do you think that, regardless of the institution (the Church), that Christ Himself was/is "there?"

[Fish and Bread]

Do you think that, regardless of the institution (the Church), that Christ Himself was/is "there?"

I used to. Recently, I've begun to doubt that. One of the things that leads me to question is the fact that if we are to believe that Jesus was intended to be the final and definite revelation of God, and wanted us to be clear on who he was, than it follows that he'd have left a church organization capable of fully preserving that truth, and of interpreting it. It's almost nonsensical to say God did what he did to definitively reveal himself and then allowed his words to be almost completely twisted and forgotten within a few generations.

That's why I tend to think if we take all of these things literallly, Roman Catholicism makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, I simply can not accept their God's morals in some respects. Hence, if I am to be Christian, I'm almost forced into viewing a lot as metaphor in order for it to make sense to me intellectually.

[SirTimothy]

John, I'm not sure how you can be a Nicene Christian and still believe that. From the creed:

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God"

[gtsecc]

That's why I tend to think if we take all of these things literallly, Roman Catholicism makes a lot of sense.
Or Eastern Orthodoxy, or conservative Anglo-Catholics.

[ContraMundum]

From alaurie's signature:

"But although a difference in opinions or modes of worship may prevent an entire external union, yet need it prevent our union in affection? Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? " John Wesley

[karen freeinchristman]

There's something about that phrase.. that it 'makes a lot of sense'...

I think that is a very subjective thing, don't you?
What makes sense to one person, doesn't always make sense to another. You will now say, 'That is why we listen to the Church as a whole', and I would then counter-argue that yes, the Church as a whole is saying something different now regarding some aspects of doctrine and interpretation in the light of what God has made known to us through science and intellectual means.

Can't we stretch ourselves to see that what people find out through thorough research over time is a part of God's revelation to us of his creation?

[Wiffey]

Exactly. I don't believe that God delivered something to us and then withdrew...and I think that a thriving Faith cannot be static. Our understanding deepens over time as we grow in Christ.

In order to communicate, it takes 2 parties. At the time of Christ there was
1. God, unchanging and perfect.
2. Human beings. In all their subjectivity.

The humans at the time were products of their era and culture. And while they has God present, the Gospels are filled with stories of how their limited understanding at times prevented them from fully comprehending the person and the mission of Christ. Like each prior and successive generation, their personal experiences shaped how they perceived the world.

And 1st century Judea was a very particular environment. Hierarchical, very focused on the law and potential violations of purity, and a highly patriarchal society where women were very repressed. Slavery was permitted, and xenophobia was part of daily life.

So it was hard for that society to fully grasp what Jesus was telling them about purity being about more than what one ate, that the mighty and wealthy would be cast down, that God loved the poor. It was hard for the men (even some of His followers), to accept that He taught women as well as men and allowed them to touch Him (His annointing by Mary, etc).

So if communication was hampered, I do not think it was any fault of God's. He revealed Himself...but it was up to the humans then (and the humans now), with all their foibles, to understand Him. And therein lies the struggle, as we all perceive imperfectly.

So I think God reaches out to us still, in each culture and time period. He seeks to draw each generation nearer to Him, into the fullness of life in Christ. The challenge for us is to truly see and hear what He is showing and telling us. And to also respect that our brethren who also love and seek Christ may perceive Him differently.

[gtsecc]

There's something about that phrase.. that it 'makes a lot of sense'...

I think that is a very subjective thing, don't you?


No.
I'll take my college philosophy professor for example. He doesn't believe Christianity, but he will tell you that of all of the confessions of Christianity the Eastern Orthodox are the ones with the most consistent and systematic theology.

Did Jesus commission the Disciples to establish a church with authority or a book?

If he did establish a faith and commissioned the disciples to have authority over it, and we unmoor ourselves from that historic church, we have removed ourselves from the system and church Christ established.

[karen freeinchristman]

No.
I'll take my college philosophy professor for example. He doesn't believe Christianity, but he will tell you that of all of the confessions of Christianity the Eastern Orthodox are the ones with the most consistent and systematic theology.

Did Jesus commission the Disciples to establish a church with authority or a book?

If he did establish a faith and commissioned the disciples to have authority over it, and we unmoor ourselves from that historic church, we have removed ourselves from the system and church Christ established.

I think this boils down again to the differences between ECUSA and the Church of England. Or maybe not.
The Church of England is my authority, but I accept the present Church's authority, which is not the same as the early Church, but it is still the Church.

[ContraMundum]

No.
I'll take my college philosophy professor for example. He doesn't believe Christianity, but he will tell you that of all of the confessions of Christianity the Eastern Orthodox are the ones with the most consistent and systematic theology..

Give him a copy of Vernon Staley's "The Catholic Religion" or Charles Gore's "The Religion of the Church" and let him see the light of Anglicanism! They will gel well with his Western mind. :thumbsup:

[Fish and Bread]

John, I'm not sure how you can be a Nicene Christian and still believe that. From the creed:

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God"

Well, I'm working my way through some things theologically. But at the very least, I would accept the trinity as a metaphor if not literal reality, which would mean that I'd technically be accepting the tennants of the Nicene Creed.

[AngCath]

metaphorical Trinity? I don't think that counts as accepting the Creed.

[Fish and Bread]

Or Eastern Orthodoxy, or conservative Anglo-Catholics.

Actually, from my perspective, if everything is taken as literal fact in scripture and tradition, I don't know how it would support Eastern Orthodoxy or conservative Anglo-Catholicism given the existence of Roman Catholicism. The basic assumption we'd be going from is the God meant to reveal himself definitively in Christ and to preserve that revelation (perhaps adding, but not changing or substracting) some things, or perhaps just preserving a desposit of faith).

So, at that point, we must ask the question: What was his method of preservation? His method would certainly have been something identifiable to the faithful and that preserved the truth and defending it against heresys. I think the assertatation of the Eastern Orthodox and conservative Anglo-Catholics is that the method thereof is ecumenical councils. So, where have the eccumenical councils been in the last 1,000 years or so, according to those traditions? Where is the ecumenical council condemning the idea of the Pope as vicar of Christ and his monarchial authority, for example? Where is the council addressing Protestantism?

In fact, the only tradition which has continued holding ecumenical councils is Roman Catholicism. So, if indeed the councils are the method of preserving the faith, one would almost have to be Roman Catholic, even though Roman Catholics would probably say the faith is preserved through the Pope first and foremost. And there is actually a fairly good case to be made for the Papacy as they perceive it as being a developed doctrine, which is to say something that was there form the beginning to a degree and which had implications that only begun to be worked out over time, and which took a while to be universally adopted.

I'd like to be proven wrong, but at this point my intellect only permits one of three conclusions:

1. Roman Catholicism is right.
2. Some basic traditional Christian doctrines are wrong, but there are some solid foundations in Christianity and it's the closest thing to God's will.
3. Christianity is mistaken

Right now I am leaning towards option #2.

[Fish and Bread]

From alaurie's signature:


"But although a difference in opinions or modes of worship may prevent an entire external union, yet need it prevent our union in affection? Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? " John Wesley

I've always liked that quote. :)

[Fish and Bread]

There's something about that phrase.. that it 'makes a lot of sense'...

I think that is a very subjective thing, don't you?
What makes sense to one person, doesn't always make sense to another. You will now say, 'That is why we listen to the Church as a whole', and I would then counter-argue that yes, the Church as a whole is saying something different now regarding some aspects of doctrine and interpretation in the light of what God has made known to us through science and intellectual means.

Can't we stretch ourselves to see that what people find out through thorough research over time is a part of God's revelation to us of his creation?

Yes, we can, but, again to a certain extent it comes down to the question: Was Christ the definitive revelation of God and did God mean to preserve that revelation? If the answer is yes, then there must be what akin to what the RCC calls the deposit of faith, protected against error. Otherwise, how can one say "Oh, we were mistaken about hell.", "Oh, we were mistaken about the sacraments", "Bishops should not have real authority", "Salvation is now by faith alone", or "It is perfectly okay to create a church outside the visible institutional church"? In order for me to believe in a God that I think is good, I have to answer the initial question about Christ with a "no".

[gtsecc]

Actually, from my perspective, if everything is taken as literal fact in scripture and tradition, I don't know how it would support Eastern Orthodoxy or conservative Anglo-Catholicism given the existence of Roman Catholicism. The basic assumption we'd be going from is the God meant to reveal himself definitively in Christ and to preserve that revelation (perhaps adding, but not changing or substracting) some things, or perhaps just preserving a desposit of faith).

So, at that point, we must ask the question: What was his method of preservation? His method would certainly have been something identifiable to the faithful and that preserved the truth and defending it against heresys. I think the assertatation of the Eastern Orthodox and conservative Anglo-Catholics is that the method thereof is ecumenical councils. So, where have the eccumenical councils been in the last 1,000 years or so, according to those traditions? Where is the ecumenical council condemning the idea of the Pope as vicar of Christ and his monarchial authority, for example? Where is the council addressing Protestantism?

In fact, the only tradition which has continued holding ecumenical councils is Roman Catholicism. So, if indeed the councils are the method of preserving the faith, one would almost have to be Roman Catholic, even though Roman Catholics would probably say the faith is preserved through the Pope first and foremost. And there is actually a fairly good case to be made for the Papacy as they perceive it as being a developed doctrine, which is to say something that was there form the beginning to a degree and which had implications that only begun to be worked out over time, and which took a while to be universally adopted.

I'd like to be proven wrong, but at this point my intellect only permits one of three conclusions:

1. Roman Catholicism is right.
2. Some basic traditional Christian doctrines are wrong, but there are some solid foundations in Christianity and it's the closest thing to God's will.
3. Christianity is mistaken

Right now I am leaning towards option #2.
whoa...
I am not sure where to begin, but if you are curious, read the Primacy of Peter, and see how the people who were Bishop of Rome held as their position. You will conclude that Anglicans and the EO are holdign to the original idea, NOT Roman Catholics.

[Fish and Bread]

whoa...
I am not sure where to begin, but if you are curious, read the Primacy of Peter, and see how the people who were Bishop of Rome held as their position. You will conclude that Anglicans and the EO are holdign to the original idea, NOT Roman Catholics.

Is that online somewhere?

[gtsecc]

Is that online somewhere?

The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0881411256/sr=8-1/qid=1139514374/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-7729036-4187023?%5Fencoding=UTF8) by John Meyendorff

[Inside Edge]

Was Christ the definitive revelation of God and did God mean to preserve that revelation?
You're going to have to clarify your definition of "definitive," I think. What do you mean when you say "the definitive revelation."

I tend to think Christ was the definitive revelation of God. However, I also think that revelation was/is, at its core, fairly simple.

[Fish and Bread]

The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0881411256/sr=8-1/qid=1139514374/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-7729036-4187023?%5Fencoding=UTF8) by John Meyendorff

I guess you missed the thread about me nearly being homeless last week. I can't exactly afford to buy expensive books from Amazon.com. :) I'll try to see if I can find it at the library or a used book store, though.

[Fish and Bread]

You're going to have to clarify your definition of "definitive," I think. What do you mean when you say "the definitive revelation."

I tend to think Christ was the definitive revelation of God. However, I also think that revelation was/is, at its core, fairly simple.

Well, the bible was complete or nearly complete within 100 years after Christ's resurrection. We'd have an awfully inefficent God if he came down to earth as the person Jesus, told us all these important things, and then with a century, a blink of the eye in terms of the span of history, we'd already muffed it up so completely that you have these officially sanctioned accounts of Jesus' life where he says things that he didn't really say and a church teaching things that he didn't really teach. Let's face it, the church has been fairly consistant on issues like women priests, homosexuality, and even episcopal authority, the authority of church councils, how one is saved, etc.. The church is either an entity guided by God against error following his complete revelation of himself or it's a community of believers in God who are yearning towards a truth they don't quite have yet, a developing a faith.

[Inside Edge]

The church is either an entity guided by God against error following his complete revelation of himself or it's a community of believers in God who are yearning towards a truth they don't quite have yet, a developing a faith.
But even if it is the most wishy-washy version of your final statement...how does that preclude Christ as a definitive revelation?

you have these officially sanctioned accounts of Jesus' life where he says things that he didn't really say and a church teaching things that he didn't really teach.
Well, again, what content are you referring to? The "officially sanctioned accounts" are scant, as far as normally recorded history is concerned. Christ as God's ultimate revelation to mankind was likely a fairly basic revelation.

We may well be a community of believers trying to hash out and discover the truth, always in motion (i.e. never quite getting it right). But this doesn't mean Christ was/is anything less than God's most particular, intended revelation to man.

[Fish and Bread]

But even if it is the most wishy-washy version of your final statement...how does that preclude Christ as a definitive revelation?

Well, again, what content are you referring to? The "officially sanctioned accounts" are scant, as far as normally recorded history is concerned. Christ as God's ultimate revelation to mankind was likely a fairly basic revelation.

We may well be a community of believers trying to hash out and discover the truth, always in motion (i.e. never quite getting it right). But this doesn't mean Christ was/is anything less than God's most particular, intended revelation to man.

Well, let's put it this: If Jesus is God made flesh in order to share his message with us, then would God allow that message to become lost by the time the New Testament was drafted? Would he allow it to be lost by the middle ages? By 2006?

[Inside Edge]

Well, let's put it this: If Jesus is God made flesh in order to share his message with us, then would God allow that message to become lost by the time the New Testament was drafted? Would he allow it to be lost by the middle ages? By 2006?
What do you consider lost?

[Fish and Bread]

What do you consider lost?

I'm not sure anything was lost. But I do think we can see that nearly immediately the early church decides against women presbyters and for salvation that involved a works component and for the concept of hell. In fact, if Jesus did not believe in hell, than the New Testament writers would have had to have taken huge liberties with the text. So, if Jesus is indeed God in the most literal sense, then it's probably a safe assumption that he would have guided the early church to preserve the revelations he had suffered so hard to bring to us. So we are left with a Jesus who is literally God and intended for his revelations to us to be preserved and thus Roman Catholicism (Possibly with Eastern Orthodoxy as a darkhorse), or a Jesus who is more an image of God and not quite literally God himself, which opens the flood gates for us to grow beyond those scriptures in an even greater sense of love and inclusion. At least, those are some of the concepts I'm playing with. I can't say that I'm 100% sure of the matter by any means.

[Inside Edge]

...or a Jesus who is more an image of God and not quite literally God himself, which opens the flood gates for us to grow beyond those scriptures in an even greater sense of love and inclusion.
I guess I don't agree with the idea that it has to be one or the other. Just because Jesus is fully God doesn't mean that a perfect institution for perfect preservation would be set up on Earth. Following that logic, I would say that if perfect preservation of a littany of details was God's intention - against all of man's faults, imperfections, and history - then there would be no Church at all. All God needed to do was rework the universe and call it a day. In other words, just get on with "bringing the Kingdom," because nothing less will provide the proper infrastructure to allow for perfect preservation of God's will and revelation.

It doesn't make any sense at all (to me) that if Jesus is fully God, God would have "ensured" some kind of perfect preservation. A big (huge) point of Jesus sacrifice is that we're not perfect, and simply cannot do anything perfectly. That's the whole reason we need Him, the whole reason He was sacrificed in the first place.

I don't think there was ever an assumption or expectation by Christ or God that some institution, over millenia, would preserve "perfectly" the kinds of details you describe.

I think there are only a few very important, very revelatory, and very salvific "things" that God intended to accomplish and preserve. I think He's done a remarkable job at it, too.

Whether one instution has it right or all of them have it a little bit wrong, I believe, has nothing to do with Christ's divinity.

What you're asking for (as it sounds to me), John, is more definitive information out of Christ than He ever intended or expected to give. I think it's good - and for many people, necessary - to try to figure "everything" out. But I think we have to be cautious not to miss the point while we search, sometimes frantically, for more structure, framework, and detail.

[karen freeinchristman]

I guess I don't agree with the idea that it has to be one or the other. Just because Jesus is fully God doesn't mean that a perfect institution for perfect preservation would be set up on Earth. Following that logic, I would say that if perfect preservation of a littany of details was God's intention - against all of man's faults, imperfections, and history - then there would be no Church at all. All God needed to do was rework the universe and call it a day. In other words, just get on with "bringing the Kingdom," because nothing less will provide the proper infrastructure to allow for perfect preservation of God's will and revelation.

It doesn't make any sense at all (to me) that if Jesus is fully God, God would have "ensured" some kind of perfect preservation. A big (huge) point of Jesus sacrifice is that we're not perfect, and simply cannot do anything perfectly. That's the whole reason we need Him, the whole reason He was sacrificed in the first place.

I don't think there was ever an assumption or expectation by Christ or God that some institution, over millenia, would preserve "perfectly" the kinds of details you describe.

I think there are only a few very important, very revelatory, and very salvific "things" that God intended to accomplish and preserve. I think He's done a remarkable job at it, too.

Whether one instution has it right or all of them have it a little bit wrong, I believe, has nothing to do with Christ's divinity.

What you're asking for (as it sounds to me), John, is more definitive information out of Christ than He ever intended or expected to give. I think it's good - and for many people, necessary - to try to figure "everything" out. But I think we have to be cautious not to miss the point while we search, sometimes frantically, for more structure, framework, and detail.

I think this is a good way of looking at things. :)

[Fish and Bread]

I guess I don't agree with the idea that it has to be one or the other. Just because Jesus is fully God doesn't mean that a perfect institution for perfect preservation would be set up on Earth.

I am not saying the institution would be perfect, but it would be an institution and it would get the major details right. Let's look to the bible, at little bit. Jesus talks of the church as if it is an institution ("And if he still doesn't listen to the church itself"....). Then, in Acts 15, we see the Apostles gathering together because of what's happening with the baptism of the uncircumcized in some farflung communities. When the Apostles have made their decision, all are expected to go along with it. A few Apostles or rougue elders didn't go around requiring circumcision or, if they did, the bible henceforth assumes they don't exist or at least aren't part of the church peroper. There is an assumption in the bible that the church is one community, in a very literal sense. And it seems to me that's what Jesus was getting at when he appointed Peter a steward and the Apostles as his representatives on earth.

We can dance around these elements in the bible, and around hell and this, that, and the other, and say that they were not in fact accurate depictions, but if 50% of the New Testament is inaccurate, one wonders what the point of Jesus coming in the first place was. We're confused, so God reveals himself, and let's us have a false account that leaves us just as confused. I don't really see the point.

Now, if Jesus were only an image of God and major things were quickly lost or change, it'd all make better sense. So in a sense my liberal theology along with logic is leading me to question traditional assumptions. It's not surprising, really -- historically liberalism on a few points has always led to deconstruction on a lot of things -- look at some of the Quaker groups out there nowadays and the Unitarian Universalists.

What you're asking for (as it sounds to me), John, is more definitive information out of Christ than He ever intended or expected to give. I think it's good - and for many people, necessary - to try to figure "everything" out. But I think we have to be cautious not to miss the point while we search, sometimes frantically, for more structure, framework, and detail.

I don't want to believe Roman Catholicism or such. That much should be obvious. When intellectually faced with the idea of becoming Roman Catholic or giving up a literal trinity, I'd prefer to consider it all metaphorical. That should tell you something. The idea that I'm coming to these conclusions because I'd really really like to Roman Catholic is simply untrue. My own internal logic forced the evaluation that literal belief in the bible and in tradition leads inevitably to Roman Catholicism. Since I can't accept their values as my own on such issues as hell, wordly suffering, birth control, some marian excesses, homosexuality, and so forth -- I've been forced to become more liberal in how I view the meaning of the Christ figure and early Christian history. I've become to feel that it's pointing to something greater.

[Inside Edge]

Well, it seems you're still missing my point. If not the point.
We're confused, so God reveals himself, and let's us have a false account that leaves us just as confused. I don't really see the point.
IWe're confused. We'll always be confused, no matter what God does, this side of Kingdom Come. So God reveals himself in Christ to facilitate forgiveness, salvation, and guidance.

We'll still be confused. But henceforth, we're reconciled as we search about for truth.

[Fish and Bread]

Well, it seems you're still missing my point. If not the point.

IWe're confused. We'll always be confused, no matter what God does, this side of Kingdom Come. So God reveals himself in Christ to facilitate forgiveness, salvation, and guidance.

We'll still be confused. But henceforth, we're reconciled as we search about for truth.

It's odd that for some reason I just can't seem to see things as I used to see them. I'm not sure why. It's disturbing to me.

[karen freeinchristman]

It's odd that for some reason I just can't seem to see things as I used to see them. I'm not sure why. It's disturbing to me.John, don't worry, and don't rush things. Wait on the Lord. People go through desert places all the time in their faith, I know I have. Don't worry too much about it.

[Inside Edge]

It's odd that for some reason I just can't seem to see things as I used to see them. I'm not sure why. It's disturbing to me.
I told you already. :) You got spooked on the mountain climb somewhere. Trust God, don't over-react, and you'll get your bearings. :)

[Fish and Bread]

I hope that's all there is to it.

[Wiffey]

Christ told us that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church...he didn't say "the Church will be perfect".He didn't say, "I will inspire a Book that is inerrant, and that is how you will know I am the Lord".
He loves us and the point is He is with us and upholding and loving us despite our individual and corporate imperfections. He is with us during our darkest times, just as He also shares our joys. Even when we struggle and cannot perceive His presence...He is by our side.