Friday, February 29, 2008
Friday past-due fundy undo fun day
Hello. My name is ER. I'm a fundamentalholic. And I need a new "desire chip" -- 'cause I sure tied one on last night.
Hoo boy. I went into total post-traumatic fundamentalist diabetic shock at EL's Fundy Candy Store. (EL sells even stronger fundy candy than Neil!) Blech!
See this?
(|)
Yep. It's my ass. I showed it over there. Even ol' fellow traveler Dan, at Payne Hollow felt a need to ask me to cool it. :-)
Frederick Buechner (bless you, GKS, for introducing me to him) is helping me get that terrible taste out of my mouth today:
... Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). He didn't say that any particular ethic, doctrine, or religion was the way, the truth, and the life. He said that he was. He didn't say that it was by believing or doing anything in particular that you could "come to the Father." He said that it was only by him -- by living, participating in, being caught up by, the way of life that he embodied, that was his way.
Thus it is possible to be on Christ's way and with his mark upon you without ever having heard of Christ, and for that reason to be on your way to God though maybe you don't even believe in God.
A Christian is one who is on the way, though not necessarily very far along it, and who has at least some dim and half-baked idea of whom to thank. ...
AND ...
We are all of us judged every day. We are judged by the face that looks back at us from the bathroom mirror. We are judged by the faces of the people we love and by the faces and lives of our children and by our dreams. Each day finds us at the junction of many roads, and we are judged as much by the roads we have not taken as by the roads we have.
The New Testament proclaims that at some unforeseeable time in the future God will ring down the final curtain on history, and there will come a Day on which all our days and all the judgments upon us and all our judgments upon each other will themselves be judged. The judge will be Christ. In other words, the one who judges us most finally will be the one who loves us most fully.
Romantic love is blind to everything except what is lovable and lovely, but Christ's love sees us with terrible clarity and sees us whole. Christ's love so wishes our joy that it is ruthless against everything in us that diminishes our joy. The worst sentence Love can pass is that we behold the suffering which Love has endured for our sake, and that is also our acquittal. The justice and mercy of the judge are ultimately one.
(--from Frederick Buechner, Listening to Your Life, George Connor, comp., ed. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992): 57-58.
Is there any hope for me in ever learning to stay out of the fundy candy stores?
--ER
Hoo boy. I went into total post-traumatic fundamentalist diabetic shock at EL's Fundy Candy Store. (EL sells even stronger fundy candy than Neil!) Blech!
See this?
(|)
Yep. It's my ass. I showed it over there. Even ol' fellow traveler Dan, at Payne Hollow felt a need to ask me to cool it. :-)
Frederick Buechner (bless you, GKS, for introducing me to him) is helping me get that terrible taste out of my mouth today:
... Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). He didn't say that any particular ethic, doctrine, or religion was the way, the truth, and the life. He said that he was. He didn't say that it was by believing or doing anything in particular that you could "come to the Father." He said that it was only by him -- by living, participating in, being caught up by, the way of life that he embodied, that was his way.
Thus it is possible to be on Christ's way and with his mark upon you without ever having heard of Christ, and for that reason to be on your way to God though maybe you don't even believe in God.
A Christian is one who is on the way, though not necessarily very far along it, and who has at least some dim and half-baked idea of whom to thank. ...
AND ...
We are all of us judged every day. We are judged by the face that looks back at us from the bathroom mirror. We are judged by the faces of the people we love and by the faces and lives of our children and by our dreams. Each day finds us at the junction of many roads, and we are judged as much by the roads we have not taken as by the roads we have.
The New Testament proclaims that at some unforeseeable time in the future God will ring down the final curtain on history, and there will come a Day on which all our days and all the judgments upon us and all our judgments upon each other will themselves be judged. The judge will be Christ. In other words, the one who judges us most finally will be the one who loves us most fully.
Romantic love is blind to everything except what is lovable and lovely, but Christ's love sees us with terrible clarity and sees us whole. Christ's love so wishes our joy that it is ruthless against everything in us that diminishes our joy. The worst sentence Love can pass is that we behold the suffering which Love has endured for our sake, and that is also our acquittal. The justice and mercy of the judge are ultimately one.
(--from Frederick Buechner, Listening to Your Life, George Connor, comp., ed. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992): 57-58.
Is there any hope for me in ever learning to stay out of the fundy candy stores?
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
Wow...clearly none of them are Presbyterians, or Reformed Christians of any stripe. Actually if I didn't know better I'd think they were damnable papists ... er, Catholics. :)
In our denomination, the Elders, Deacons and the Minister are chosen by the congregation. We nominate commissioners (not delegates, not representatives, but commissioners) from the elders of each Presbytery to our General Assembly. They make the decisions for the denomination, not some group of clerics.
We Presbyterians have this odd notion that the Holy Spirit moves though our assemblies at every level, from individual church Sessions all the way up to GA. That is, on the whole, we believe that the decisions made by these groups were arrived at through listening to the Holy Spirit. Clearly we're not perfect at this discernment process, so we make mistakes. But it's a helluva lot better than appointing some Pope to make all our decisions for us poor, stupid sheep. To paraphrase Churchill, it's probably the worst way to run a church, except for all the others.
In our denomination, the Elders, Deacons and the Minister are chosen by the congregation. We nominate commissioners (not delegates, not representatives, but commissioners) from the elders of each Presbytery to our General Assembly. They make the decisions for the denomination, not some group of clerics.
We Presbyterians have this odd notion that the Holy Spirit moves though our assemblies at every level, from individual church Sessions all the way up to GA. That is, on the whole, we believe that the decisions made by these groups were arrived at through listening to the Holy Spirit. Clearly we're not perfect at this discernment process, so we make mistakes. But it's a helluva lot better than appointing some Pope to make all our decisions for us poor, stupid sheep. To paraphrase Churchill, it's probably the worst way to run a church, except for all the others.
I'll bet your Mama taught you not to track mud into the house. Especially other peoples' houses.
Lapse of memory?
The conversation was of interest at first, but it did rely on a false premise. Very few churches are theocracies and almost none are democracies. So to argue those specific points leaves out the real dichotomy underlying the original thought.
In America today the two models of "churches", "denominations", or "religions" are those that spring from, and are controlled by, an "Apostolic" hierarchy/tradition and those that function based on the autonomy of the believer. In a short hand version: the Pope versus the Person.
The first are highly structured and the latter are really messy.
In one, access to God is through the structure and in the other access to God is direct and unregulated.
The danger of the first in abuse of power and authority and the danger in the second is radicalism (conservative or liberal).
In the first the "Church" is the construct of authority, in the latter the individual is his own authority and the "church" is a gathering place of like type believers. Their "Church" is an ephemeral current Kingdom of God.
Whether these "churches/Churches" are ruled by direct heavenly edicts or Robert's Rule of Order is a matter of governance, and not their real differences.
Lapse of memory?
The conversation was of interest at first, but it did rely on a false premise. Very few churches are theocracies and almost none are democracies. So to argue those specific points leaves out the real dichotomy underlying the original thought.
In America today the two models of "churches", "denominations", or "religions" are those that spring from, and are controlled by, an "Apostolic" hierarchy/tradition and those that function based on the autonomy of the believer. In a short hand version: the Pope versus the Person.
The first are highly structured and the latter are really messy.
In one, access to God is through the structure and in the other access to God is direct and unregulated.
The danger of the first in abuse of power and authority and the danger in the second is radicalism (conservative or liberal).
In the first the "Church" is the construct of authority, in the latter the individual is his own authority and the "church" is a gathering place of like type believers. Their "Church" is an ephemeral current Kingdom of God.
Whether these "churches/Churches" are ruled by direct heavenly edicts or Robert's Rule of Order is a matter of governance, and not their real differences.
I didn't get very far in my reading over there ... my gorge starts to rise after only a few minutes of reading that kind of thing. But were they arguing for the only Biblical method we're given for running the Church: casting lots?
I don't know of any church that picks it's leadership by casting lots. Does anyone know if that actually happens?
I don't know of any church that picks it's leadership by casting lots. Does anyone know if that actually happens?
I feel rather honored: ER referred to a rather "focused" post of mine months back when I told him he couldn't keep his fingers out of the candy.
I even was bapped about the head for it and other transgressions -- and I admit to those, ER -- which is why I haven't "attempted" to tell ER how to live.
Well, maybe telling him to gel a post or two ago, but that was on the "depression" post, and I still think he needs a mind-relaxant.
Nonetheless, his recalling the candy store brings tears to my aging eyes. Thanks, ER.
I even was bapped about the head for it and other transgressions -- and I admit to those, ER -- which is why I haven't "attempted" to tell ER how to live.
Well, maybe telling him to gel a post or two ago, but that was on the "depression" post, and I still think he needs a mind-relaxant.
Nonetheless, his recalling the candy store brings tears to my aging eyes. Thanks, ER.
Oh, feel free to tell me how to live. Just don't tell me how to blog. :-)
And I have always thought of you as honor-y.
Yer my friend, dude. Seems like it cemented, really, that time I tried to call Alan Greenspan. :-)
And I have always thought of you as honor-y.
Yer my friend, dude. Seems like it cemented, really, that time I tried to call Alan Greenspan. :-)
Sober.
I point that out because a now-deceased friend of mine, about two-thirds deep into a bottle of Old Granddad, tried to call Ted Koppel one night about 20 years ago. And we dang near got through -- but we started gigglin'.
I point that out because a now-deceased friend of mine, about two-thirds deep into a bottle of Old Granddad, tried to call Ted Koppel one night about 20 years ago. And we dang near got through -- but we started gigglin'.
My tummy aches a little. First, at the inner-muscles convulsing at the thought of drunken men giggling, then at the thought of drinkin' Ol' Grandad. I was told early in life to never cut that stuff but to drink it straight outta the bottle.
I just shivered at the thought of my last experience with that evil stuff. Whew. I'm better now.
I've got a few numbers I could pass along. Don't expect to actually get through to Nolan Ryan, but you can talk to his assistant. She's a nice Texas lady.
I just shivered at the thought of my last experience with that evil stuff. Whew. I'm better now.
I've got a few numbers I could pass along. Don't expect to actually get through to Nolan Ryan, but you can talk to his assistant. She's a nice Texas lady.
Truthfully, Drlobojo, I was arguing the Ideal. The Bible supports a top-down theocracy with God as head, not a pope. We've all seen how corrupt, and corrupted, the RCC can be, and has become. And how chaotic a bottom-up democracy can be.... especially in church.
The ideal, though, is a theocracy, with grace and benevolence as the rule, not the exception.
When I fist saw this post my flesh immediately wanted to post ER's comment... the one I deleted, but that's not who I want to be.
Peace, ER. Whatever you may think of me.
The ideal, though, is a theocracy, with grace and benevolence as the rule, not the exception.
When I fist saw this post my flesh immediately wanted to post ER's comment... the one I deleted, but that's not who I want to be.
Peace, ER. Whatever you may think of me.
Oh, dude, it's ideas that rile me up. I imagine we could break bread peacefully.
Re, the deleted comment. It was seen as a taking of the Lord's name in vain. I didn't mean it vainly. The comment was rough as a cob, but I didn't mean it vainly.
And peace to you, EL, whatever thou thinkest of myself. I never was as p.o.'d at you personally the way I have been, at times, with others.
Re, the deleted comment. It was seen as a taking of the Lord's name in vain. I didn't mean it vainly. The comment was rough as a cob, but I didn't mean it vainly.
And peace to you, EL, whatever thou thinkest of myself. I never was as p.o.'d at you personally the way I have been, at times, with others.
I didn't click the link, for obvious reasons, I think. The Buechner quotes are beautiful, exactly why I think he is a far more profound theologian than any academic type - he gets to the crux of the matter without thinking he has to qualify or define or hedge or anything else.
As a member of a highly democratic denomination (the structure of the UMC is patterned after that of the country in which it was born, federalist, republican, and democratic), I think it funny that there are those who believe the Holy Spirit is somehow constrained by some millennia-old edict in Scripture. That point of view - which EL is honest enough to say is "ideal", thus revealing the underlying Platonism in his thought - is really quite tiresome. If churches function under a variety of polities, it seems obvious to me that is because that is the way God is working through them.
Like Alan's comments about PCUSA, we United Methodists have this funny idea that God uses all that dirty political stuff (which clergy do all the time, usually quite badly) to move the Divine Agenda forward. It's called grace - look for it.
ER, you really should know better. But, we all have our addictions, so I won't belabor the point.
As a member of a highly democratic denomination (the structure of the UMC is patterned after that of the country in which it was born, federalist, republican, and democratic), I think it funny that there are those who believe the Holy Spirit is somehow constrained by some millennia-old edict in Scripture. That point of view - which EL is honest enough to say is "ideal", thus revealing the underlying Platonism in his thought - is really quite tiresome. If churches function under a variety of polities, it seems obvious to me that is because that is the way God is working through them.
Like Alan's comments about PCUSA, we United Methodists have this funny idea that God uses all that dirty political stuff (which clergy do all the time, usually quite badly) to move the Divine Agenda forward. It's called grace - look for it.
ER, you really should know better. But, we all have our addictions, so I won't belabor the point.
Well, if I didn't get a rush out of it, I wouldn't do it. And, I'm crazy enough to think some good comes out of it sometimes.
ELA said:
"Truthfully, Drlobojo, I was arguing the Ideal. The Bible supports a top-down theocracy with God as head, not a pope."
In that vein, coming from a long long long line of Baptist, and before that, Ana-baptist, I do not agree that the Bible "supports" a top down theocracy. That makes God a King and the Church his Kingdom and what ever "Apostle" in charge of the church his "Regent". I see more of Constantine in that model than God. What is the saying, "One God, One Church, One King."?
I see a one to one relationship in the Bible between the believer and God, (The Priesthood of the believer if you please). Jesus set that up fairly plainly. But the Church Theocracy seems to be more of a concept developed after the fact by those that needed it. Indeed, it is a model of a "church" that is known and used throughout almost all other religions as well.
It is certainly an interesting subject.
Re: Casting Lots: Casting lots to determine leadership for the service was a common practice among 1st and 2nd century Christians. The proto-orthodox Bishops denounced it over and over.
In a way the Society of Friends behave similarly today. Where ever three or more meet in my name....I will be there.
As an aside, I have always found it amusing that the same number to make a congregation is what you need to make a mutiny, 3.
As for the re-bonding between ER and teditor: Talk about name dropping-Cronkite-Greenspan-Nolan Ryan-Willie Nelson......Man those are yesterday! Hell, those be ancient man.
"Truthfully, Drlobojo, I was arguing the Ideal. The Bible supports a top-down theocracy with God as head, not a pope."
In that vein, coming from a long long long line of Baptist, and before that, Ana-baptist, I do not agree that the Bible "supports" a top down theocracy. That makes God a King and the Church his Kingdom and what ever "Apostle" in charge of the church his "Regent". I see more of Constantine in that model than God. What is the saying, "One God, One Church, One King."?
I see a one to one relationship in the Bible between the believer and God, (The Priesthood of the believer if you please). Jesus set that up fairly plainly. But the Church Theocracy seems to be more of a concept developed after the fact by those that needed it. Indeed, it is a model of a "church" that is known and used throughout almost all other religions as well.
It is certainly an interesting subject.
Re: Casting Lots: Casting lots to determine leadership for the service was a common practice among 1st and 2nd century Christians. The proto-orthodox Bishops denounced it over and over.
In a way the Society of Friends behave similarly today. Where ever three or more meet in my name....I will be there.
As an aside, I have always found it amusing that the same number to make a congregation is what you need to make a mutiny, 3.
As for the re-bonding between ER and teditor: Talk about name dropping-Cronkite-Greenspan-Nolan Ryan-Willie Nelson......Man those are yesterday! Hell, those be ancient man.
BTW, I'm with you on the "priesthood of the believer" thing. And not just 'cause I was raised with that understanding.
It's because I was raised with *this* understanding: Salvation means FREEDOM to have a relationship with God. Period. Through Christ, but: Period.
And here we go again, but to see the record, such as it is, of the early church as it was, as THE way that the current church should be NOW -- it's ludicrous.
Holy God help is! Scriptures teach us more about what NOT to do, and how NOT to be than it teaches us, under God's grace, what TO do and what TO be!!!
Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and forever, yes, yes. But the Church? Hardly!
It's because I was raised with *this* understanding: Salvation means FREEDOM to have a relationship with God. Period. Through Christ, but: Period.
And here we go again, but to see the record, such as it is, of the early church as it was, as THE way that the current church should be NOW -- it's ludicrous.
Holy God help is! Scriptures teach us more about what NOT to do, and how NOT to be than it teaches us, under God's grace, what TO do and what TO be!!!
Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and forever, yes, yes. But the Church? Hardly!
On the whole "the same yesterday, today, and forever" thing. I'll buy that.
But. . .
That means that what he does, who he is, what his life and death and resurrection mean for us is inexhaustible, an unfathomable mystery, a deep well of life that never runs dry (St. John's Gospel). It most definitely does not mean that some words scratched somewhere in a dead, dying, or temporarily living language carry the entire weight and sum total of the meaning of the Christ-event for all peoples in all times and places.
The constellations change. Stars move. Our solar system revolves around the center of the galaxy. The perspective, over time (in which we live and move and have our very transient being), is always changing. I see no reason why we should arbitrarily trap ourselves - or believe ourselves trapped - in centuries and even millennia-old interpretations. It's not only unbiblical, it is nonsensical on its face.
But. . .
That means that what he does, who he is, what his life and death and resurrection mean for us is inexhaustible, an unfathomable mystery, a deep well of life that never runs dry (St. John's Gospel). It most definitely does not mean that some words scratched somewhere in a dead, dying, or temporarily living language carry the entire weight and sum total of the meaning of the Christ-event for all peoples in all times and places.
The constellations change. Stars move. Our solar system revolves around the center of the galaxy. The perspective, over time (in which we live and move and have our very transient being), is always changing. I see no reason why we should arbitrarily trap ourselves - or believe ourselves trapped - in centuries and even millennia-old interpretations. It's not only unbiblical, it is nonsensical on its face.
Right! Perceptions of God change. They have to. If they didn't, we'd be hiding from God in the woods in the cool of the evening.
I think the sameness yesterday, today, etc., might be the very thred of God that ties all *this* together, which I dropped over at EL's place awhile ago, for his perusal after he said he hoped I hadn't bought into "this Sophia nonsense," or something like that:
http://www.encyclopedia.com
/doc/1G1-15861175.html
I like.
Post a Comment
I think the sameness yesterday, today, etc., might be the very thred of God that ties all *this* together, which I dropped over at EL's place awhile ago, for his perusal after he said he hoped I hadn't bought into "this Sophia nonsense," or something like that:
http://www.encyclopedia.com
/doc/1G1-15861175.html
I like.
<< Home
