Orthodoxy, Orthopraxy, Reflection. A question for Conservative Christains.

[Glass*Soul]

I ran across this quote in a blog today. The silly page won't load properly, so I have no idea who I'm quoting. So, I apologize to the author:

"Reflection on orthodoxy leads us to action. Our actions lead us back into reflection."

I've been reading your wiki (particularly noting your emphasis on correct doctrine and morality) as well as reading some of the comments that have been made in threads. I'm curious. As Conservative Christians, how do you balance:

Orthodoxy: conforming to established doctrine.
Orthopraxy: conforming to proper actions.
Reflection: one's inner life.Also in regards to orthopraxy, what role do positive actions (do this) versus prohibitions (don't do this) play for you? Particularly in light of Jesus' teachings.

By the way, if you feel my definitons are faulty, feel free to rework them. I don't mean to put words in your mouths. I simply wanted to let you see how I tend to use these terms.

[GreenMunchkin]

Also in regards to orthopraxy, what role do positive actions (do this) versus prohibitions (don't do this) play for you? Particularly in light of Jesus' teachings.I'm interested in other aspects of your question, but the part I've quoted appears to be somewhat loaded... not in an overly negative way, but "Particularly in light of Jesus' teachings" seems to imply we're somehow going against His teachings? Please forgive me if I misunderstood something there.

I will say, when we initially discussed our wiki, it was very important to us that we focus on positivity instead of prohibitions we were making... if our wiki no longer reflects that, it's because of unpleasant experiences since the forum opened. It received a lot of traffic early on :)

Our wiki is still in a state of flux, as many of us disagree what technically constitutes "conservative Christianity." Is it Biblical adherence solely or do church traditions and doctrine play a part. Perhaps that's one issue with being a multi-denominational forum. We're getting there, though, and this forum for the most part is very supportive, and wonderful.

As to orthodoxy and orthpraxy... I'm not sure a balance is necessary, because they are inextricably linked. I don't think any one of us can speak for everyone because we're all coming at it from different angles, but for me, orthodoxy isn't something I think about so perhaps I'm not even in a place to respond. And I'm non-denominational, so orthopraxy isn't hugely relevant, in terms of strict adherence to certain rituals, ie, communion, etc.

Reflection is what I would call prayer and meditation on the Word. It can be related to our actions (although, not necessarily orthopraxy) but it's a fundamental aspect of being in a relationship with Christ and doesn't require adherence to doctrine.

Those are my initial thoughts :)

[Glass*Soul]

Originally Posted by Glass*Soul http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=37165903#post37165903)
Also in regards to orthopraxy, what role do positive actions (do this) versus prohibitions (don't do this) play for you? Particularly in light of Jesus' teachingsI'm interested in other aspects of your question, but the part I've quoted appears to be somewhat loaded... not in an overly negative way, but "Particularly in light of Jesus' teachings" seems to imply we're somehow going against His teachings? Please forgive me if I misunderstood something there.



I didn't mean to imply a failure among conservative Christians in following Jesus' teachings.

I tend to see Jesus' teachings as being very positive (do this) oriented. I also understand that some Christians find prohibitions to be of pressing importance and wondered how those two aspects of orthopraxy balance among conservatives.

But, yes, the way I phrased that was probably loaded towards favoring positive actions. :)

It's very difficult to ask an entirely open-ended, unbiased question. :sorry:

[GreenMunchkin]

Double post :sorry: Am sorry.

[GreenMunchkin]

[/color]

I didn't mean to imply a failure among conservative Christians in following Jesus' teachings.

I tend to see Jesus' teachings as being very positive (do this) oriented. I also understand that some Christians find prohibitions to be of pressing importance and wondered how those two aspects of orthopraxy balance among conservatives.

But, yes, the way I phrased that was probably loaded towards favoring positive actions. :)

It's very difficult to ask an entirely open-ended, unbiased question. :sorry:For sure :D

Hmm... well, you're right, in that conservative Christians seem (forgive the broad brush-stroke) more concerned with sin, and its pit-falls than many liberal Christians. So, yeah, there is perhaps more focus on "Don't do that..." but it's good practise, as sin really is sin, and nowadays, people seem to think being a Christian means tolerating sin to the point you almost support or endorse it, which is a mistake.

That being said, I'd say the primary focus is still on Jesus as Saviour, and His Grace, and His exhortations to love, and to forgive. We all go wrong, because we're flawed, but that's not specific to conservative Christians... although, I know that's not what you're saying.

I think post-modern Christianity almost has it down as a form of cuddly hedonism, and that's always going to appear more positive on the surface; conservative Christianity is perhaps more open to its nuances and the reality of it.

[Voegelin]

I ran across this quote in a blog today. The silly page won't load properly, so I have no idea who I'm quoting. So, I apologize to the author:

"Reflection on orthodoxy leads us to action. Our actions lead us back into reflection."



The quote is from Michael Kruse's review of R. Paul Steven's "The Other Six Days: Vocation, Work, and Ministry in Biblical Perspective"


The review is here:

http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/other_six_days_series/index.html (http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/other_six_days_series/index.html)


Kruse serves on the denominational board for the Presbyterian Church (USA).

[Glass*Soul]

The quote is from Michael Kruse's review of R. Paul Steven's "The Other Six Days: Vocation, Work, and Ministry in Biblical Perspective"


The review is here:

http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/other_six_days_series/index.html (http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/other_six_days_series/index.html)


Kruse serves on the denominational board for the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Thank you Voegelin. That is indeed the site.

[Lisa0315]

Orthodoxy: conforming to established doctrine.
Orthopraxy: conforming to proper actions.
Reflection: one's inner life.Also in regards to orthopraxy, what role do positive actions (do this) versus prohibitions (don't do this) play for you? Particularly in light of Jesus' teachings.

Interesting questions. I think the answer is that there are two central ideas in Conservative Christianity. 1)Absolute Truth, and 2) Love

When you combine the two, what you get is the three points above. We have a very literal interpretation of Scripture but we allow the love of God move us with compassion towards those we are called to speak the truth to.

I wish I could give you a good example of this in action. Can anyone think of a good example of speaking truth in love?

I suppose it is not crossing the street, or being elitist, or casting stones, something like that. I just wish I had a real life story to give to you to really illustrate it for you.

Lisa

[Voegelin]

Thank you Voegelin. That is indeed the site.

My pleasure. Thank you for the head's up on this book. While I have theological differences with Kruse and Stevens, the intent is admirable. Reminds me of Dietrich Bonheoffer's vision of a post war Christocentric Europe.

[Voegelin]

I wish I could give you a good example of this in action. Can anyone think of a good example of speaking truth in love?


"Be not afraid."

[Lisa0315]

"Be not afraid."

Opposed to what? What would be "speaking the truth without the fruit of love" in this context?

Lisa

[Voegelin]

Opposed to what? What would be "speaking the truth without the fruit of love" in this context?

Lisa

Liberation theology.

[Lisa0315]

Liberation theology.

Sorry, V. You are over my head on this. Can you be more specific?

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

Sorry, V. You are over my head on this. Can you be more specific?

LisaIt's about freeing the poor and the oppressed, less by Jesus as Redeemer, but more by the example He set.

They don't believe Jesus dying on the Cross was to save us so much as a ramification of His having upset the powers that be at the time.

It's a political viewpoint. A caring one, but one that twists the message of Christ.

[Lisa0315]

It's about freeing the poor and the oppressed, less by Jesus as Redeemer, but more by the example He set.

They don't believe Jesus dying on the Cross was to save us so much as a ramification of His having upset the powers that be at the time.

It's a political viewpoint. A caring one, but one that twists the message of Christ.

Okay, but I still do not understand how that is an illustration of speaking truth with love. It would be the opposite, I think. Speaking love with lies, perhaps.

Lisa

[Miss Shelby]

Orthodoxy : Right thinking

Orthopraxy: Right acting.

For me, it's a constant struggle. I am thankful to have the Catholic Church, as I believe the totality of truth can be found there. So it's easy for me to know what is right from what is wrong. Still my desires are at war with my conscience but I have found that the more I act in accordance with Church teaching, my attitudes and conscience is formed by that. Much moreso than the opposite.

[GreenMunchkin]

Okay, but I still do not understand how that is an illustration of speaking truth with love. It would be the opposite, I think. Speaking love with lies, perhaps.

LisaI think maybe it was an example of orthopraxy? :scratch:

It's not that they believe lies... they don't categorically state Jesus isn't God; they just don't affirm it.

[Voegelin]

Okay, but I still do not understand how that is an illustration of speaking truth with love. It would be the opposite, I think. Speaking love with lies, perhaps.

Lisa

Pope John Paul II told the Polish people, "Be not afraid", be who you are", not who you are told you are. In its effects, it was the most powerful sermon of the 20th century. There was another way to go here and some within the faith, some Liberation theologists (but not all) were going that way. JPII's second, Cardinal Ratzinger made it clear (http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/ratzinger/liberationtheol.htm) that way, despite its appearance of love was not true love because it was based upon a material view of man and class warfare.

GreenMunchkin....your comment "It's a political viewpoint. A caring one, but one that twists the message of Christ." is referring to exactly who in the comments I have made? Who here is "twisting" the message of Christ?

[GreenMunchkin]

GreenMunchkin....your comment "It's a political viewpoint. A caring one, but one that twists the message of Christ." is referring to exactly who in the comments I have made? Who here is "twisting" the message of Christ?:sigh: Dude, you've got a personal problem with me beause I didn't want this to become a political forum, and it's beginning to grate me slightly.

No-one here is twisting it. And nothing I said even implied it in a round about sort of way.

Liberation theologians are unsure of Jesus' divinity, and instead focus on His works in caring for the poor and outcast, believing that to be the focus of His ministry. Works for the poor, not Grace for all.

That's twisting the message.

[Voegelin]

:sigh: Dude, you've got a personal problem with me beause I didn't want this to become a political forum, and it's beginning to grate me slightly.

The OP is about living the faith in everyday life. I refered to a man who was shot and almost died for telling an entire country to do exactly that. In replying to Lisa and to illustrate the difference between that love and what appears to be love but isn't, I provided a link to Cardinal Ratzinger's comments on Liberation Theology.

If you believe that doesn't belong in a "conservative" Christian forum, if you believe that is too "political" I don't know what to say.


No-one here is twisting it. And nothing I said even implied it in a round about sort of way.

You were not clear. I didn't know who you were referencing. I did not accuse you of anything. I only asked to whom you were referring. I didn't think you were referring to me because I ventured no opinion. I only cited what JPII, Cardinal Ratzinger and some others in the Catholic church believe.




So you believe Liberation theology twists the meaning of Scripture.

Fine. You, me and Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, agree.

(although some Liberation theology does not, of course. Christianity, as Ratzinger wrote, is a religion of liberation)

[Lisa0315]

Mark 4:37 And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full. 38 And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish? 39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

[nyj]

Orthodoxy = Right Thinking
Orthopraxy = Right Acting

Orthodoxy begets Orthopraxy. Orthopraxy creates a yearning for Orthodoxy.

You cannot separate the two.

[Lisa0315]

Orthodoxy = Right Thinking
Orthopraxy = Right Acting

Orthodoxy begets Orthopraxy. Orthopraxy creates a yearning for Orthodoxy.

You cannot separate the two.

That sounds similar to Grace generates Faith which generates Works which generates more Grace which generates more Faith....and so on. I like that!

Lisa

[WarriorAngel]

[/color]

I didn't mean to imply a failure among conservative Christians in following Jesus' teachings.

I tend to see Jesus' teachings as being very positive (do this) oriented. I also understand that some Christians find prohibitions to be of pressing importance and wondered how those two aspects of orthopraxy balance among conservatives.

But, yes, the way I phrased that was probably loaded towards favoring positive actions. :)

It's very difficult to ask an entirely open-ended, unbiased question. :sorry:

I see Jesus being like a 'father' figure....
Where He will hand us the rules, forgive us when we ask, but punish us or reward us by determination of how we kept what He wanted us to do....and by how much He gave us to follow them.

Just my own thoughts. :wave:

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

There is no doubt in my mind that orthodoxy must lead to orthopraxy.

The fundamental doctrine of Christianity is the gospel, the good news, euangelion, which means the declaration that a new Caesar has ascended to the throne. The gospel is the declaration that Jesus Christ is risen and he is thus Lord. His triumph over death is his victory over the great enemy, his resurection to confirmation of his lordship and the return of Israel from exile, and his ascension his ascent to his throne.

Through this Jesus Christ has begun the renewal of all creation, beginning with the very flesh of his body. Matter itself, creation itself, begins its pilgrimage in Christ and continues through us. The good news is good news for body and soul. It brings the foregiveness of sins and renewal of all creation.

Thus this orthodoxy should compel us to orthopraxy. This gospel, this good news, should be good news for the poor as well. When we dedicate ourselves to the Christ-like mission of renewing the world, we are dedicated to a cause that includes spreading this declaration that Jesus is Lord (the gospel), but also that ergo Caesar is not. No portended tyrant of this world my impinge upon the freedom of the awanim, the poor of the Lord. They are his and we must lift them up against the Nietzschean 'Superman' and the Marxist 'New Man,' for we know that the renewal of humanity only comes in the form of the Cosmic Man, the Last Man, the Second Adam, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

This compels us to a ministry of social justice, ethnic reconciliation, peacemaking, and environmental stewardship.

Now look at my political icon.

Yes, I am a Republican. I believe that the federal government (though perhaps state governments) ought have a minimal, even nonexistent role in the redistribution of wealth, maintaining welfare programs and social safety nets, instituting programs of social engineering desired to make a more equitable and charitable society, and protecting the planet. I believe in a minimum state and a strong defense committed to securing general global freedom and American hegemony.

But the church must. Indeed the only reason government should ever need take up these tasks is because the church has failed a society in its vocation to be salt and light. Where the government should never demand businesses give preference to minority employees, we should welcome the marginalized and oppressed to our declare and offer them the basic necessities and fellowship of community. Where the government should rarely offer unemployment benefits and welfare programs, the church should clothe and feed the downtrodden, fulfill our mission to care for the orphan and the widow. Where the government should never mandate emission caps on fossile fuels, we as Christians should invest in green alternatives as part of our mission of environmental stewardship.

That good news of Jesus Christ (orthodoxy) can be good news to the poor (orthopraxy), done through private charities and most importanly, the church (conservatism). That, I think is our broad evangelical (euangelion = gospel) conservative vision.

[Glass*Soul]

There is no doubt in my mind that orthodoxy must lead to orthopraxy.

The fundamental doctrine of Christianity is the gospel, the good news, euangelion, which means the declaration that a new Caesar has ascended to the throne. The gospel is the declaration that Jesus Christ is risen and he is thus Lord. His triumph over death is his victory over the great enemy, his resurection to confirmation of his lordship and the return of Israel from exile, and his ascension his ascent to his throne.

Through this Jesus Christ has begun the renewal of all creation, beginning with the very flesh of his body. Matter itself, creation itself, begins its pilgrimage in Christ and continues through us. The good news is good news for body and soul. It brings the foregiveness of sins and renewal of all creation.

Thus this orthodoxy should compel us to orthopraxy. This gospel, this good news, should be good news for the poor as well. When we dedicate ourselves to the Christ-like mission of renewing the world, we are dedicated to a cause that includes spreading this declaration that Jesus is Lord (the gospel), but also that ergo Caesar is not. No portended tyrant of this world my impinge upon the freedom of the awanim, the poor of the Lord. They are his and we must lift them up against the Nietzschean 'Superman' and the Marxist 'New Man,' for we know that the renewal of humanity only comes in the form of the Cosmic Man, the Last Man, the Second Adam, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

This compels us to a ministry of social justice, ethnic reconciliation, peacemaking, and environmental stewardship.



I agree. When Jesus said that the first will be last and the last will be first, he said it in the context of his exhortation to the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and give it to the poor and Peter's subsequent inquiry as to what would be left for those who had already reliquished everything for the sake of the kingdom. (Matt. 19)

This isn't about pie in the sky by and by. It's about decision making that turns all ideas of status upside-down by bringing the least of the least to the head of the table, everytime we make a decision, with the very real intent of asking how what we are about to do will effect them -- with the faith that if we are building a society that truly enobles the least of the least, then things will be most certainly be OK for the rest as well.

Now look at my political icon.

Yes, I am a Republican. I believe that the federal government (though perhaps state governments) ought have a minimal, even nonexistent role in the redistribution of wealth, maintaining welfare programs and social safety nets, instituting programs of social engineering desired to make a more equitable and charitable society, and protecting the planet. I believe in a minimum state and a strong defense committed to securing general global freedom and American hegemony.

But the church must. Indeed the only reason government should ever need take up these tasks is because the church has failed a society in its vocation to be salt and light. Where the government should never demand businesses give preference to minority employees, we should welcome the marginalized and oppressed to our declare and offer them the basic necessities and fellowship of community. Where the government should rarely offer unemployment benefits and welfare programs, the church should clothe and feed the downtrodden, fulfill our mission to care for the orphan and the widow. Where the government should never mandate emission caps on fossile fuels, we as Christians should invest in green alternatives as part of our mission of environmental stewardship.

That good news of Jesus Christ (orthodoxy) can be good news to the poor (orthopraxy), done through private charities and most importanly, the church (conservatism). That, I think is our broad evangelical (euangelion = gospel) conservative vision.

Here I have to disagree. Christian charity and activism are best done by Christian individuals working as part of a secular system. Heaven help the poor when they are required to go to the organized church for needed services. The price extracted will too often be too high and of exactly the wrong sort.

My father can no longer see to his own care. I am, right now, in the process of attempting to convince my mother that certain of my father's care must be removed from an individual who sees himself as providing his services as part of a church ministry. I simply won't allow my father to be harrangued and preached to any longer in exchange for services that can be obtained through secular means.

If you want further details, PM me.

[ContentInHim]

Happy Birthday, Glass*Soul! :clap:

[Glass*Soul]

Happy Birthday, Glass*Soul! :clap:

Thank you.

[Simon_Templar]

I think, from my experience in conservative/fundamentalist churches that it is relatively common for conservatives and fundamentalists to get caught up in Orthodoxy, and a certain form of orthopraxy, but to ignore ideas like reflection and the inner life.

In charismatic circles, it is common for outward manifestations that are easy to produce without actual spiritual depth to become the focus. I think the same is basically true in conservatism and fundamentalism. It is relatively easy to focus on doctrine and 'legalistic' practices but many have no interest or at least no experience with the deeper aspects of the faith.

That was certainly true of me.

On the issue of right practice, people often focus on morality issues and defending truth etc, but forget that James says God's acceptable worship is to aid widows and orphans, and that it is a sin to show partiality in honoring rich people above the poor, and speaking ill of your brothers, etc.
The whole book of James basically needs to be re-introduced to much of the church.

another aspect of that is that reflection, and inner life is an integral part of orthopraxis.

When Jesus was in the house of Lazarus, Martha was busy getting everything ready.. she was doing her duty, what she perceived to be orthopraxis. Mary on the other hand simply sat at the feet of Jesus and talked with him and listened to him etc.
Martha said to Jesus "don't you care that my sister has left me to do all the work!" and Jesus replied "Martha you worry about many things, but only one thing is necessary..."

Only one thing is necessary, and that one thing is something very few of us ever really do, or show much interest in. Just sitting at the feet of Jesus and fellowshipping with him, communing with him.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Here I have to disagree. Christian charity and activism are best done by Christian individuals working as part of a secular system. Heaven help the poor when they are required to go to the organized church for needed services. The price extracted will too often be too high and of exactly the wrong sort.

Perhaps I haven't made myself entirely clear.

1. I am absolutely against government-sponsored health care for economic reasons. It is often of a lower quality with far longer waits for access. Also, the Constitution does not allow the federal government to establish a national healthcare system, nor existing programs like Medicare and Medicaid. It does a disservice to the ill or infirm to trap them in a cycle of socialized medicine which, as in Britain, will provide breast implants to a fifteen year old girl while allowing a woman waiting for cancer treatment to die after months of bureaucratic delays.

2. I am absolutely for Christians providing medical care through the construction of free clinincs and standard-payment hospitals. I also think larger church organizations (international evangelical alliances, the Anglican Communion, the Catholic Church) might effectively finance insurance payments to its elderly and impovrished parishoners.

3. I am absolutely against, however, what you have described regarding your father's situation. There's an excellent book out by Christian historian Rodney Stark called Cities of God, which described Christian social services in the first centuries of the common era. In a Roman world with little in the way or public or private healthcare, Christians provided basic goods and services for many people. But they came before the world with a free offer apart from proselytizing efforts; renewing creation through service was simply part of their mission. Therefore, they largely gave aide where they could without preaching at the people they serviced; they might explain why they felt so compelled if asked, but largely it was this combination of silence and service that transformed urban centers into Christian cities. The difference is that were many modern evangelicals providing chairtable services see this program as a means to the end of conversion, these first Christians saw social charity as an end in itself. So do I.

4. At the same time, I don't mean to disparage what you call 'secular means.' Plenty of hospitals was privately financed but have no religious affiliation, just as many human rights workers are propelled by classic Enlightenment ideas about universal dignity instead of Christian committment to the renewal of creation. I am not at all opposed to the services provide by the secular marketplace; it is only national socialized healthcare I opposed because our poor and elderly deserve better than that.

Hopefully that offers something by way of clarification of my points. I hope your father's situation, both medically and in relation to my overzealous brothers in faith, improves.

And happy birthday.

[nyj]

Here I have to disagree. Christian charity and activism are best done by Christian individuals working as part of a secular system. Heaven help the poor when they are required to go to the organized church for needed services.I don't agree.

Where the Christian goes, the secular* departs. The Christian should live his faith, practice his faith, preach his faith. It isn't about forcing people to attend your church in order to receive help ... in all my time as a Catholic I have never seen this in my church, nor the other Christian faiths we've collaborated with. But to say that help should be done without a Christian focus ... I disagree. People need to know that God loves them. That can only happen when someone praises His name.

*Defined as "not overly religious".

[Criada]

Responding to the OP (because i haven't read all the rest - sorry!)
Reflection has to be the most important here.
Beacause it is only as we spend time really listening to God and meditating on His word that right actions become possible.
We don't know what right actions are until God reveals it to us - and for that to happen, reflection and prayer are required.
Time spent with Him will lead us into orthopraxy inevitably, as we seek to do His will.

Orthodoxy is another matter.
Are we talking about the word of God or the traditions of the church here?

Because if it is the former, it will again come from reflection.
Church tradition is harder, because it differs from denomination to denomination, and derives from man rather than God.

Um - sorry - what was the question?....

[Simon_Templar]

Responding to the OP (because i haven't read all the rest - sorry!)
Reflection has to be the most important here.
Beacause it is only as we spend time really listening to God and meditating on His word that right actions become possible.
We don't know what right actions are until God reveals it to us - and for that to happen, reflection and prayer are required.
Time spent with Him will lead us into orthopraxy inevitably, as we seek to do His will.

Orthodoxy is another matter.
Are we talking about the word of God or the traditions of the church here?

Because if it is the former, it will again come from reflection.
Church tradition is harder, because it differs from denomination to denomination, and derives from man rather than God.

Um - sorry - what was the question?....
Orthodoxy in the context its being used here, I think, is being taken to mean simply 'right belief'.

I would agree in many respects with your point, but I think that Orthodoxy, to some degree is pre-requisite to reflection.

Unorthodox reflection leads to deception. Orthodox reflection leads to actualization of truth.

I read a statement recently that I think is fundamentally true.

'christianity is primarily a mysticism, not a morality'.

The idea behind the statement is that the real point of christianity is to partake in the life of Christ, which is essentially the same thing as the love of God. All of the moral teachings etc, are just means to that end. Thus reducing christianity to a moralistic teaching is really missing the point.

[Criada]

I read a statement recently that I think is fundamentally true.

'christianity is primarily a mysticism, not a morality'.



I love that!

This may be a very stupid question - but, what do you mean by 'unorthodox reflection'?

[Glass*Soul]

I don't agree.

Where the Christian goes, the secular* departs. The Christian should live his faith, practice his faith, preach his faith. It isn't about forcing people to attend your church in order to receive help ... in all my time as a Catholic I have never seen this in my church, nor the other Christian faiths we've collaborated with. But to say that help should be done without a Christian focus ... I disagree. People need to know that God loves them. That can only happen when someone praises His name.

*Defined as "not overly religious".

My father, who is not a Christian, and my mother who is, had to bear over half an hour of being harrangued on religious topics while a provider who considers his services a ministry, provided those services to my father. My father is unable to complain on his own behalf, but my mother was confused and upset by it, so I can image how it must have struck him.

There are other aspects of this particular situation that are even more upsetting, but I don't feel I can discuss them here.

Once you take away the option of receiving services through a secular means, however good your church may be at avoiding the temptation, there will be those who make the recipients of their "services" pay and pay and pay in ways no human being should have to pay.

It is one of my nightmares that in my final days I will be turned over to the sorts of people I want to protect my father against, but there will no one to speak up for me. :(

[Glass*Soul]

It may not be appropriate for me to say this here, but in the short time since I began this topic, a good deal has happened on CF and in my small community that has left me more disillusioned and frightened regarding Christianity. My sense that a significant number of Christians regard me and others they deem flawed as they would a dangerous animal, a criminal, or even a supernaturally evil being.

The thought of being at the mercy of religious organizations for basic services is terrifying to me right now.

[nyj]

My father, who is not a Christian, and my mother who is, had to bear over half an hour of being harrangued on religious topics while a provider who considers his services a ministry, provided those services to my father. My father is unable to complain on his own behalf, but my mother was confused and upset by it, so I can image how it must have struck him.You have my apologies. I think there is a clear line between evangelization and proselytization, and one should also be cognizant of the situation and the feelings of the people one is ministering to.

When I was a Vincentian (Society of St. Vincet de Paul), when people would call us for help, or be referred to us for help ... we'd call them, let them know who we were (Hi, I'm Tom from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul with <name of parish>) and why we were calling. So they knew they were speaking to a Christian. That was the extent of the religious talk until I was done, and I told them to be blessed and that I'd pray for them. No brow beating, no questioning (other than financial details so I knew how best to help them), no haranguing.

Once you take away the option of receiving services through a secular means, however good your church may be at avoiding the temptation, there will be those who make the recipients of their "services" pay and pay and pay in ways no human being should have to pay.I never said to take away the option of receiving services through a secular means. I disagree with funneling all Christian services through secular means. There is a difference as I'm sure you know. My own experiences are anecdotal, but I'd say regarding some secular services ... they leave plenty of things to be desired as well.

[Criada]

It may not be appropriate for me to say this here, but in the short time since I began this topic, a good deal has happened on CF and in my small community that has left me more disillusioned and frightened regarding Christianity. My sense that a significant number of Christians regard me and others they deem flawed as they would a dangerous animal, a criminal, or even a supernaturally evil being.



If Christians are giving you this impression, then it is very sad. Because that is not how Jesus sees people!
We are all flawed, the wonderful thing about Christianity is that God loves us despite the flaws!
The only difference between Christians and non-Christians is that we have accepted His sacrifice and forgiveness.
That doesn't make us better people!
And God's love is inclusive, not exclusive - ours should be the same!

[Simon_Templar]

I love that!

This may be a very stupid question - but, what do you mean by 'unorthodox reflection'?
I'm going on the assumption that orthodox and unorthodox in our conversation here are being used to refer to doctrinal beliefs primarily.

Thus when I say orthodox reflection I mean reflection based upon true doctrinal beliefs. When I say unorthodox reflection, I mean reflection based upon false doctrinal beliefs.

[Criada]

OK.
I was thinking of Bible based reflection - but again, i suppose there are interpretation issues!

[Glass*Soul]

I never said to take away the option of receiving services through a secular means. I disagree with funneling all Christian services through secular means. There is a difference as I'm sure you know. My own experiences are anecdotal, but I'd say regarding some secular services ... they leave plenty of things to be desired as well.

GratiaCorpusChristi had suggested that initially. My comment that you initially quoted was in response to that proposal from him, but I do see that you didn't reiterate it.

Sorry about that. :sorry: I could have been clearer.

And also, let me be a little clearer in what I was trying to say. I did not mean to propose that all services that Christians wish to offer be funneled through secular means, but that their best work is going to be accomplished in that manner. We need the checks and balances that a secular framework allows. If the only people being served are those who feel comfortable approaching the members of a certain denomination, the community as a whole will suffer. If a single person bends his knee, despite the fact that he cannot bend his heart, for the sake of a bowl of soup, then the community suffers.

And thank you for your kind words. I really am rattled and scared.

[magdiel]

And also, let me be a little clearer in what I was trying to say. I did not mean to propose that all services that Christians wish to offer be funneled through secular means, but that their best work is going to be accomplished in that manner.
And thank you for your kind words. I really am rattled and scared.
I disagree with your first statement. Services should be funneled through God not any secular means. Nor interpretation.

Why are you scared? :( Because the thread/


cf or something else.

[Glass*Soul]

If Christians are giving you this impression, then it is very sad. Because that is not how Jesus sees people!
We are all flawed, the wonderful thing about Christianity is that God loves us despite the flaws!
The only difference between Christians and non-Christians is that we have accepted His sacrifice and forgiveness.
That doesn't make us better people!
And God's love is inclusive, not exclusive - ours should be the same!

Certainly not all Christians. Certainly not most. I find many loving, kind, caring people among Christians. But I also find a significant number who respond to me and to others they find suspect in a way that truly frightens me.

Of the three: orthodoxy, orthopraxy and reflection, orthodoxy scares me the most. It seems most likely, when out of balance with the others, to morph into something dangerous.

I hope I'm not crossing the line into being insulting or debating. I do want to express how things look to me right now, and how I feel -- to lay it out on the table so we can talk about it. If anyone feels I am crossing the line let me know. I'm happy to edit.

One of the things I find remarkable about Jesus' message is that he went beyond loving people despite their flaws. He actually saw strengths where others saw flaws. When he singled a seemingly insignificant person out from among those he encountered, it wasn't simply to make that individual feel loved and important. He often managed to elicit the most wonderful confessions of faith from those whom his society valued least.

We don't bring the least of the least to the head of the table merely because we are generous and it will do them good to be ritually honored, but because we desperately need them there. We won't get things straight until we have properly consulted them.

[Glass*Soul]

I disagree with your first statement. Services should be funneled through God not any secular means. Nor interpretation.

Why are you scared? :( Because the thread/


cf or something else.

I've been frightened by the way that some members of CF have responded to me since the reforms, and also by some events that have taken place in my community.

I have no idea how one would funnel a service through God. Can you explain?

[magdiel]

I've been frightened by the way that some members of CF have responded to me since the reforms, and also be some events that have taken place in my community.

I have no idea how one would funnel a service through God. Can you explain?
Glass*Soul I do welcome you here at CF. With the recent changes at CF last month the whole forum is open to you and all others that are non-Christian. But CC is our congregation forum, not a place for discussion forum like the Theology forums. Please respect. It is our friendly place to visit each other. You are more than welcome here to fellowship with us and I so hope you do!

[magdiel]

I've been frightened by the way that some members of CF have responded to me since the reforms, and also by some events that have taken place in my community.

I have no idea how one would funnel a service through God. Can you explain?
I am so sorry any one at CF has caused you any grief, or worse since the changes took place. :( :( :(

What I mean the services being funneled by God, was opposed to you saying with a secular side.

The "service" is based on Scripture and so based/funneled through God.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I've been frightened by the way that some members of CF have responded to me since the reforms, and also by some events that have taken place in my community.

I have no idea how one would funnel a service through God. Can you explain?
I think it's because a lot of people can't understand your ideals, so, in the face of igorance, they turn toward something more comforatable- standard defense used against atheists

Perhaps certain threads could be a maked with a "I want to talk about your area but aren't part of it" so they know theyve come to the right people, but no one needs to participate either way

EDIT: Forgive the truly awful grammar and babbling of this post. I was on heavy doses of sleeping medication at the time. Regardless, the sentiment remains thus.