OK, so I have been contemplating the scope of my life thus far, and wondering about something. Since coming to faith sometime back in 1998, and beginning to walk in that faith sometime in 2001ish, I have been pretty deeply enmeshed in the Christian culture that surrounds me here in North Texas. What strikes me, however, is how nominal many people's Christianity is. Now don't get me wrong, I am not exactly criticizing or judging. But, as a student of Christian history, I know that there have been times in the life of the Church when doctrinal disputes were a big deal. When proponents of one theological interpretation or another came up with catchy slogans to promote their perspective, slogans that were on the lips of normal people going about their daily lives. There were times when people killed and died for what they perceived to be truth. When people dug up the bodies of heretics, then burned, and scattered the ashes and bone fragments. And again, don't get me wrong, it is not like I am pining for a good old-fashioned modern-day Spanish Inquisition, either.

(continues after the break...)

One of my close friends is of the opinion that what the Church in America needs is some genuine persecution in order to get us back on track. I don't know if that is right, but it is an intriguing idea. They wound up recently quitting the theology program at seminary. They are experimenting with an emergent church right now, but knowing them, and having been down that road, I don't think this will be the end of their faith journey.

Another of my close friends with an seminary education in Christian education in who has been full-time ministering to children for as long as I have known them, has recently decided to leave their perceived calling, and take a secular job. Because they simply cannot see a way to reconcile what is expected of them by churches with Jesus' calling. It has become all about programs. And they just can't do it anymore.

I have been observing how the vast majority of church people I know are more ready to jump to their feet for patriotism than for any matter of faith. Truly, for many, there is a better understanding of and commitment to the sacred when it comes to the symbols and cultus of nationalism, than the sacred symbols and cultus of Christianity. When it comes time to take a principled spiritual stand, I have seen time and again that the church will not. It eats at me.

Anyway, to tie this together a little, I have been pondering why it is that the majority of Christian people have such a different perception of faith, church and ministry. For a long while, I had assumed it was because the Church has so failed to educate people for so long, that it was a matter of people simply not knowing better. But even as I have embarked on my own journey of self-education and training, I have found it virtually impossible to bring those around me along. For the most part, they are happy where they are. I mean, people are respectful of me. But that was never the point. I don't want respect, I want to challenge people to think and learn and grow and ponder the deep things of God. I want people to care.

I recently came across this article about a book written in 2005. I halfway think it was from a comment on /., actually. I can't recall ever discussing it on X., but here are some of the choicer quotes from the reviewer, Scott Korb:

They [American teenagers] are not running away. They are not rebelling. They may not actually know, or be able to articulate, what they believe, but almost every one of them -- ninety-seven per cent -- believes in God. The vast majority of them -- like the vast majority of us -- are Christians. Very few are what might be called spiritual seekers; hardly any of them know what it means to say (or be) "spiritual but not religious." When prompted, nearly all of them speak positively about religion, yet with each other they hardly ever talk -- much less argue -- about it at all. They are conventional [...]

The authors conclude that American Christianity is "either degenerating into a pathetic version of itself or...is actively being colonized and displaced by a quite different religious faith." When asked to articulate their faith, not one of their interviewees mentioned self-discipline, working for social justice, justification or sanctification, and 112 of them described the purpose of religion in terms of "personally feeling, being, getting, or being made happy" (using the "specific phrase to 'feel happy' well more that 2,000 times"). [...]

The instrumentalist parasite of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is killing off the "historically key ideas in America’s main religious tradition, Christianity": "repentance, love of neighbor, social justice, unmerited grace, self-discipline, humility, the cost of discipleship, dying to self, the sovereignty of God, personal holiness, the struggles of sanctification, glorifying God in suffering, hunger for righteousness." And this is lamentable.

Maybe it's just me. But this article just hit me between the eyes, putting into words what has been rattling around in my head for years. But see, the really scary thing is, this isn't just teenagers...

Comments

Search

PineHall  - What to do?   |2009-08-04 11:12:44 It hit me hard too. The classification does clarify things for me too. Consumerism, individualism, and relativism, I think, is affecting us in a bad way. I agree that it is not just teens that believe this but many adults. I suspect there are many sitting pews that believe this? How should the Church respond? Do we need more judgement messages to convince people of their sin? Or do we need to better explain grace to them? Or is there something else we need to do? Or maybe only persecution will set sift out the chaft. What needs to be done? PS It was my comment on the article below that pointed you to this article. http://theophiles.org/index.php?option=com_cont...

metallurge   |2009-08-05 10:41:18 Thank you for the proper reference, and for posting the link to that article. I had it open for several days ruminating on it, and when I went back to try and find where I had come across it, I couldn't. As to the the meat of your question, I think the key is in this quote: FTA wrote: The authors conclude that American Christianity is "either degenerating into a pathetic version of itself or...is actively being colonized and displaced by a quite different religious faith." To a certain extent, it is inevitable that things degenerate. The first generation has the personal experience and remembers firsthand what happened and why. By the time a couple more generations have passed, only the stereotype remains. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, as the proverb goes. Well, I think this is true, and inevitable, when it comes to church doctrine as well. The subtleties of the original debate are lost, and schism solidifies. I think this is a significant part of the problem. Schism prevents the Church from speaking with one voice. That's on one level, the meta-level, as it were. On a different level, I think people have a "feel-good" relationship with God when they have a distant relationship with God. It's much harder to have a false doctrine of God when one is actively on the altar, offering oneself as a living sacrifice. God is then very much not distant. On this level, I think the problem is very personal and very individual. People are thinking like consumers, they want a side of God with the entree of their life. So all this is to address the "pathetic version of itself" angle. This had been my primary focus. But what if it is the "active colonization and displacement by a quite different religious faith"? What if the Moralistic Therapeutic Deism (MTD) is the real problem? If so, then the problem is no longer outside, but within. I have more to say, but no more time to say it at present.

PineHall   |2009-08-07 10:16:29 If Moralistic Therapeutic Deism (MTD) is within the church with Deists sitting in the pews, then education is a possibility if people will listen. It looks like from your experience people don't listen and/or are not willing to commit to a deeper relationship and understanding with God. And if they are truly MTD Deists there is no real faith and they are not really a part of the true invisible Church. I have experienced some of the same lack of interest that you have. It is frustrating because they don't respond and you don't know if their faith is just stunted or if they are not really Christian. I am still hopeful for God's Spirit can work in them. I need to remind myself to just be faithful to God and continue to reach out and encourage them. I admit I am frustrated and would like to forget about many of them but that would be wrong. It looks like we have lots opportunities for witnessing even in our churches.

metallurge   |2009-08-11 21:35:49 You know you are in trouble when you are doing most of your evangelism to the people who show up on Sunday morning...

CoffeeZombie   |2009-08-04 15:31:00 I suspect the problem, overall, is secularism. And I'm not talking about "Them people is sayin' Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas". Secularism can, in fact, be very 'spiritual.' I'm not very good at explaining it, but check out Father Alexander Schmemann's For the Life of the World; he addresses the topic in there. Father Stephen Freeman, on his blog, Glory to God for all Things, has, I think, a very accessible way of discussing secularism. He refers to it as the "Two Storey Universe". Essentially, the two storey universe has us here on the "first floor" where everything goes along as usual, following the laws of physics, and so on. God, the Saints, the angels, etc. are all on the second floor. Much discussion and hand-wringing, of course, centers around whether there is, in fact, anybody on the second floor, or whether there is a second floor at all. The truth of the matter, however, is that the universe is only one storey, with the world, us, God, angels, Saints, etc. all on this first and only floor. He's basically expressing a sacramental worldview, like Father Alexander, and how secularism is opposed to it (while still often appearing religious). Note that modern atheism is not properly called a one-storey universe; it is, rather, a two-storey universe with the second floor ripped off. Anyway, check those two things out, and let me know if they speak to your question at all.

metallurge   |2009-08-05 10:54:55 I appreciate the references. I will have to check out Schmemann again. I was so blown away by his exposition of the Lord's Supper that I may have not been paying proper attention to the later contents of the book. I am in the middle of huge changes in my life right now. Schmemann is at least 30 days from my reach right now. Going by your description, I agree that the problem is definitely one of intentional separation of the spiritual from the physical. That may sound vague, but I definitely mean it in the sacramental sense you are talking about. I definitely will investigate your references further, and I appreciate your thoughtful response.

CoffeeZombie   |2009-08-05 11:53:56 I will note that, while Kristen read FTLOTW straight through while we were first exploring Orthodoxy, I picked up up a few times and couldn't make it through the chapter on Liturgy. It wasn't until after having been received into the Church, and having had some time to become accustomed to the Liturgy itself that I was able to process any of the information (and even then, there's a lot I still don't understand). It may be because I came across Fr. Stephen's posts on the One-Storey Universe later, but I think the language he uses is perhaps a bit more accessible. Then again, this is partly because he was specifically aiming at writing in a way that would be accessible to the average American, whereas Fr. Alexander was giving a lecture to a group of Orthodox.

emperorbma   |2009-08-05 12:07:56 Oddly enough, despite not having read anything of the "one story universe," I find the basic gist of it rather impressive.

laika   |2009-08-04 18:19:04 i'm afraid i don't understand the question.

metallurge   |2009-08-05 11:11:40 Things are dreadfully not right in the Church. The referenced article puts words to what I have been observing. To be completely blunt and succinct, the church seems to be mostly filled with mostly nice people who do not seem to know God much. I have been very reluctant to go that far. And I am not saying that hatefully or pridefully, I had been thinking the problem was one of education. But it is deeper than that. Education does not remedy the problem. It's as though they have a different worldview. Thus the reference to Moral Therapeutic Deism, and the referenced article.

PineHall  - The Edge   |2009-08-05 22:53:16 metallurge wrote: Things are dreadfully not right in the Church. ... the church seems to be mostly filled with mostly nice people who do not seem to know God much. I agree that this is a serious problem. So what should be done? Gather like-minded people and ... Create a new denomination? Create a group within the denomination? Stay with the denomination and work within its structures? Despair? I don't have an answer but I believe that we do have an influence on those around us. Maybe we need to be more intentional in our faith and be on the "edge". I recently opened a box and found a book I had read about 10 years ago. The name of the book is "Complexity, The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos". It is a popular science type of book that deals with mathematical models that if tweaked one way or the other you end up with chaos or with order and stability, but on the edge it can model many different things. (From memory, I have not reread the book.) That got me thinking about how many good things happen in the Church at the "edge", Sisters of Charity, Habitat for Humanity, etc. Our churches for the most part are in that stability region. I have been thinking maybe we need to get to the edge of the Church and of society. We need to be intentional about our faith, take some risk, and get on the "edge" wherever that may be for you. That is something I am wondering about now.

metallurge  - re: The Edge   |2009-08-11 21:31:01 PineHall wrote: So what should be done? Gather like-minded people and ... Create a new denomination? Create a group within the denomination? Stay with the denomination and work within its structures? Despair? I don't have an answer but I believe that we do have an influence on those around us.  Maybe we need to be more intentional in our faith and be on the "edge". [...] That got me thinking about how many good things happen in the Church at the "edge", Sisters of Charity, Habitat for Humanity, etc. Our churches for the most part are in that stability region. I have been thinking maybe we need to get to the edge of the Church and of society. We need to be intentional about our faith, take some risk, and get on the "edge" wherever that may be for you. That is something I am wondering about now. Well, I must admit to a certain predisposition toward revolution. But keep in mind that every eventually-corrupt movement started out as something that people thought was a good idea. Making it personal, am I really better, or is it simply that I am blind to my own corruptions, and therefore proportionally to the degree I am in charge, I become proportionally blinded. Ambition, I have come to understand, is not a good thing. As far as the comments about being at the edge... Well, is it a matter of there being no room at the center, so all that is left is the edge? Is edginess inherently good? Just an off-the-cuff first pass at this...

PineHall  - Love at the Edge   |2009-08-12 10:39:35 Institutions fail because of us sinful humans, so there is no utopia this side of heaven. Yet institutions are not all bad. God uses institutions and returning to God is needed when an institution becomes corrupt, as it will, because we are corrupt. I am still thinking about this edge stuff and I am not certain how to define it. But being comfortable and safe in your homes and churches (likely with a therapeutic god), I think, most likely is not where God wants you. I think he wants you to trust Him and take some risk and reach out to others in this world. Love involves risk and we are called to love.

metallurge   |2009-08-13 11:18:31 I certainly wasn't taking a stand on institutions per se. And we do have a theology of the Body of Christ to support some sort of organization. Yes, love is risk and we are called to love. The consumeristic impulse to seek comfort above all else must be denied. But what worries me about this notion is that it is well-possible to be edgy without doing what God wants you to. Edgy can become a fashion choice. Not saying that's how you intend it, but I have seen edginess go bad.

PineHall   |2009-08-13 22:23:58 Yes, You are right. Edginess can go bad. I think if the serving at the edge is based on love I think it would be hard for it to go bad. Love brings you to the place to serve. Love is part of a three-some, faith, hope, and love. Faith and hope along with love may need to be apart of any Christ-centered outreach. Maybe these three are the three legs that support good church/mission and its members. You are making me think and I am postulating some ideas that may not be on target.

laika   |2009-08-05 23:39:33 metallurge wrote: To be completely blunt and succinct, the church seems to be mostly filled with mostly nice people who do not seem to know God much. what does it mean to "know God much"? how would this knowledge manifest itself in a way that you would recognize?

holmegm  - re:   |2009-08-06 13:58:06 metallurge wrote: To be completely blunt and succinct, the church seems to be mostly filled with mostly nice people who do not seem to know God much. laika wrote: what does it mean to "know God much"? how would this knowledge manifest itself in a way that you would recognize? I like this question.

metallurge  - re:   |2009-08-06 16:26:12 laika wrote: what does it mean to "know God much"? how would this knowledge manifest itself in a way that you would recognize? It was a quick and dirty summary, not a major theological treatise. But bottom line, to kinda answer your question, God is firmly in His second story in their minds. If this were easy to define, I would not have jumped at the turn of phrase Moral Therapeutic Deism. Sometimes, it takes naming something to be able to think more clearly about it. I am still thinking about all this. I may revisit here at some point later when I am not quite so pressed for time. As to how it would manifest itself, I would refer you to the linked article. What it spends so many words talking about is precisely what I mean. It's like you have a bunch of people who have decided to become members of the church, but they really have no idea what that means. Church in their minds is fundamentally no different from any other organization they may belong to. I would expect to see more Spirit-led decisionmaking. And no, I do not mean decisionmaking more like me, or decisionmaking I like better.

metallurge  - re:   |2009-08-09 01:44:44 laika wrote: what does it mean to "know God much"? how would this knowledge manifest itself in a way that you would recognize? I have been thinking about this some more. The best I can come up with at the moment is an awareness of and genuinely repentant attitude toward one's personal sins.

laika   |2009-08-05 16:39:10 metallurge wrote: It's as though they have a different worldview. as though? you're looking out from Orthodox Christianity over the consumerscape of the American Religion and you suspect that they have a different worldview? what was your first clue?

metallurge   |2009-08-06 16:28:58 Well, I have many non-Orthodox friends and acquaintences. On some level, "Christian" ought to be sufficient. Orthodox ought not be required for what I am talking about. Well, little-o orthodox, maybe. :-)

Shenango   |2009-08-11 21:32:23 laika wrote: metallurge wrote: It's as though they have a different worldview. as though? you're looking out from Orthodox Christianity over the consumerscape of the American Religion and you suspect that they have a different worldview? what was your first clue? For what it's worth, I agree with metallurge 100%...about the worldview of Western secular culture...about "not knowing God much"...yup, yup, yup! All excellent stuff in a well-written piece! I found myself nodding in agreement throughout. I actually stopped by and read his piece some days back and had a long response written out but then I lost due to accidentally hitting a button my browser. Arrgghhh...anyway. In any case, metallurge's thoughts reminded me of a post I made some time back in another thread about what the Qur'an calls "taqwa", or the concept of God consciousness or God awareness, an uber spirituality if one wills that I see and feel as completely absent in general in Western culture, even among diehard evangelicals, but present among most fellow Muslims, ultra-Orthodox Jews and on occasion some Eastern Christians. Metallurge's phrase "do not know God much" struck a deep chord of harmony with me as referring to the spiritual depth or maturity of people's character. Different worldview? Absolutely! Years ago, after having come of age and spent a few years as an adult in the working world in America, I begrudgingly came to the grim, painful realization that as a result of my being a practicing Muslim my mindset/worldview was forever going to be at odds with that of people I'd have to call my neighbors, friends and colleagues for the rest of my life. No wonder my co-workers, a few of whom profess to be "church going", openly ask me: "why can't you be more like us?" inspite of my flawless American English, and having born and raised amidst American culture. I'm not without my spiritual faults of course, and not that I'm anywhere near being perfected, but I know that even where I am now, it's become fairly clear to me that I'm at a level where I see and understand God and spiritual reality of life in exceedingly superior fashion than do the overwhelming majority of my non-Muslim colleagues. And with that realization has come a feeling of being so lucky to be able to understand this reality, that the word "lucky" itself is massively understating things. I'm beginning to understand what it is the Qur'an is referring to when it says that "most men understand not" and "most men know not". Along with those feelings, of course, come ones of pity and guilt. You venture it be a problem in the Church, this popular faith of superficial depth. I'd go much futher than just the Church, as far as saying the problem extends to every culture that is not Muslim in nature or was not influenced heavily by Islam's ideology. As I've observed, non-Muslim Indians, Asians and Hispanics, all of whom come from ostensibly more spiritual backgrounds than mainstream White Americans, seem to have no problem assimilating beautifully into this secular, atheistic culture, even if they go so far as to become the superficial Christians you complain of. Even the Maronites I see having come here from Lebanon fall in line with the rest on this. All these groups have one thing in common, and it's their origin in a geographic region that lacked exposure to or resisted against Islam and its ideology and values. And if you see spiritual depth that you lament the lack of in America in parts of the Eastern Orthodox church or other more ancient Middle Eastern churches it owes to their illumination in the light of Islam over the centuries. As for the problem of secularism, I don't think this is going away anytime soon. Allow me to share this hadith: Muhammad (PBUH) prophesied of a far off time for his nation (Muslims) when they would number very many among the world population, but be "like the foam of the sea", that is, weak in political strength. He said the Muslim ummah's enemies would gather round it with hungry eyes, and would no longer fear the collective strength of Muslims. Asked why this would happen, he said it would be because of the Muslims' fear of death and love of this earthly life. If this doesn't describe the worldwide situation of Muslims today, especially after 9/11, I don't know what does. So if we are having problems with the encroaching disease of secularism, which he called "wahn" in Arabic, how much worse is it going to be in Western countries where secularism rules the day? If Islam is the best faith to inspire fearlessness of death and love of the hereafter rather than the earthly world, which I sincerely believe it is, and we are having problems, then no offense, but you guys are up a creek without a paddle.

metallurge   |2009-08-11 21:16:25 Thanks, Shenango, for your thoughtful comments. It is good to hear from you again, much more so with such a meaty comment. Of course, I can not agree that what is good about Eastern religious worldviews is their exposure to Islam. But I am sure that comes as no surprise to you. :-) But otherwise, I see much in your response which looks familiar to me. At the risk of misusing an unfamiliar term, this notion of "taqwa" does indeed make sense to me. The thing is, for as strongly as I despise the damage secularism does to the Church, I would have to say that I despise corrupt fundamentalist authoritarianism as much. Neither is compatible with taqwa, it seems to me. As far as being up the creek without a paddle, I could be momentarily cynical and observe that some form of "Christianity" seems better suited to adapting itself to the seemingly-inevitable secular world. I appreciate your taking the time to comment on this so thoughtfully, my friend.

Shenango   |2009-08-12 00:32:42 No problem...I wouldn't expect you to agree with everything I said. :-) Thank you for the compliments, and I'd like to second them to you as well.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2009-08-11 21:58:14 first things first, always nice to hear from you. Hope all's going well by you. That said, I think what you're noticing is much less a matter of exposure to islam, and much more a matter of resistance to "enlightenment" western secularism. It doesn't make much sense to say that a world-view that predates Muhhamad, and was rather prevalent for that matter, depends on exposure to him. Especially since you list ultra-orthodox jews amongst those who share this perspective, and much of this perspective has been fostered in Eastern European Jewry, heavy exposure to islam really can't be the determining factor (let alone the difficulty that presents in understanding Turkish secularism, for example) ) I don't mean to be a pest, but the logic you present on that point just doesn't follow.

Shenango   |2009-08-12 02:56:06 WebbedFeetOfClay wrote: first things first, always nice to hear from you.  Hope all's going well by you. Thank you, I'm doing well, and I hope likewise with you. Quote: doesn't make much sense to say that a world-view that predates Muhhamad, and was rather prevalent for that matter, depends on exposure to him. This is a fair point that I anticipated being raised, if not from you from another poster. There was more to say, but I didn't feel the context appropriate to explain in the original post. I don't know that I can agree that the Western Enlightenment this massive void in spiritual character in people. If there's anything it accomplished it was to enshrine secular deism as a faith on par with the previous greats like Islam and Christianity. In that sense I see the Enlightenment and the societies it birthed as the extreme end of the problem at hand, but I believe non-Western cultures suffer from it as well, if perhaps to lesser degrees (emphasis on that "perhaps"). I've come to believe that God's light touched the Middle East in a special and unique way in which it did not any other part of the world. The divine light came down with God's revealed texts. The Torah can be said to be illuminated with the light of the divine, even the Qur'an admits, and that's where the ultra-Orthodox Jews who stick by their faith derive their taqwa, but Israel was given a much smaller proportion of this divine light or mercy than we Muslims were. The Torah accomplished what it needed to in its primitive era in the development of human spirituality. So while I do see this phenomenon among Jews and even some of the ancient Christians, comparing them to Muslims in this regard is like having a 1910 Model T Ford versus a 2009 Lincoln Towncar. Our version is a hundred times bigger, better, more modern and more powerful. The Qur'an reveals to us things Jews and Christians didn't know previously or knew only in underdeveloped fashion, and being the last and universal revelation to humanity, one that would have to take mankind to the epitome of his earthly spiritual development (and thus must be able to unlock its full potential) and to Judgement Day itself, was infused with much, much more of the divine light of guidance than any previous revealed text. I've never underestimated the power of Islam or its ideology, but something I've come to realize over the past few years is wow did God go out with an awesome bang with this book! I used to skim over the verses of the Qur'an that call out to Jews and Christians offering its message as a "clear light" over what they have. After having studied Christianity and Judaism and dialogued with Christians these past few years, these verses now have chest-tightening force and depth. Many Jews may have taqwa, and some Eastern Christians might, but it took the coming of Islam and the message of the Qur'an to land the word in the dictionary. It's just like how Islam, meaning submission of one's will and existence to God, has always been, in one form or another, the one religion of all the prophets, but it took the message revealed to Muhammad (PBUH) to flesh it out in full, final form.

Entity   |2009-08-12 10:01:33 I would say that it is probably more a case of parallel evolution and for the Christian world begins before the Enlightenment with the Reformation. When there is a singular strong centralized religion, such as Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or Islam, there is immense pressure through the church and society to not allow dissent in theology or praxis. Once dissent is permitted, even the adherents of the strong centralized religion begin to dissent and weaken that religion. Both Orthodoxy and Islam have enjoyed a support from the state that Catholicism has not in many places since the Reformation. Instead, in Europe and the United States, dissent has been encouraged or even required. In Muslim countries, dissent can be fatal and Orthodox countries are often hostile to the spread of Catholicism or Protestantism. In Central and South America, one does see the more pious and devoted form of Catholicism as there is not the diversity of belief brought about by the Reformation. I don't know that there are any countries that are a single monolithic Protestant denomination, but a denomination born of dispute and dissent may have a more difficult time reigning in dispute and dissent among its members. So, I don't think exposure to Islam or its ideology is the driving factor, although the exposure to the close church and state relationship and the prevention of dissent found in Islam could be.

emperorbma   |2009-08-13 19:50:03 I don't think that Islam is the defining influence for Christianity either, but I don't believe that the loss of Medieval Christendom and the church's ability to coerce the state into punishing dissent is the cause of our present loss. If anything, I believe it should be considered a positive acquisition despite its warts. Consider that the earliest Christians had neither Islam nor the benefit of the state's coercive capacity.  Instead, we were operating with only the grace of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ as our strength against the forces of both Caesar and the Gnostic heretics. The settlement in Europe between our Catholic and Protestant forebears was a hard won settlement, at that, and it probably has a few warts that both Protestants and Catholics do well to dislike, but I don't believe that the notion of eschewing religious tolerance is the way to ensure religious devotion. (Theoretically, Islam should say something similar since it does have that passage about not coercing in matters of religion... but I digress) After all, the effects of not having the present settlement amounted to the cascading effect of wars emanating from the (Second) Defenestration of Prague. (Not that the first was any pushover, the Hussites put up a strong defense too... even though they were largely annihilated in the end) If anything, the problem is that we keep trying to second guess ourselves and find ways to cheat each other instead of relying on the strength of the Word of God that we are proclaiming. Of course, we already know we are not perfect people and this is what Christ came to redeem us from.

emperorbma   |2009-08-13 19:51:44 P.S. The warts are something we've all been fighting against... even the Orthodox.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2009-08-13 07:45:04 I need to back track a bit because I think some things have blurred a bit. I'm not entirely comfortable with descriptions of whole groups having "taqwa" or not in generalized terms because I think talking about God, or even thinking about God, don't at all mean the same thing as any real God-consciousness. Societies can be full of God-talk or thinking in terms of God, but to be truly conscious of God necessitates active relationship with God, personally, not just verbally or conceptually. (along those lines, I seriously question Entity's state-religion assesment as well.) The real question on the one-story/two-story point is one of immanence. Awareness of God's presence and participation in our lives and in the world we live in (not simply being aware that He's taking notes for later). It's also on that level that a serious difference in our understanding is particularly underlined. God is actively and personally present in our lives in this world (which is continuous with the "next") In no way is this more clearly and magnificently shown than in His incarnation. No revelation could ever be so glorious as He who reveals all. While I won't claim that "Christian" society is by any means necessarily aware of this, it is fundamentally intrinsic to the theology they claim to profess. (particularly for Eucharistic christians, the antithesis should be absurd) (on a less serious note, I would be much more impressed with a still drivable 1910 Model T, other than being worth a lot more at this point in time, it's shown itself to be reliable over the 2009 that hasn't proven itself yet, and could be turned in any year now for a newer fancier model. but then again, I don't drive, so it's all hypothetical.)

metallurge   |2009-08-13 11:07:01 Mmmm, yes. Personal. Immanence. Incarnation. Right. Well-put. Agreed that God-talk and verbal/conceptual is not equal to relationship/God-consciousness/taqwa. One does not need to look far in today's America for that difference to be quite plain. Part of the problem, I think, is that to someone in a two-story world, God-consciousness is something highly unusual, strange, and not-for-everyone. It's like, because of their very view of the world, they give up on taqwa as something achievable by only a few. It is interesting also to consider the story of preChristian Judaism in light of the one-story/two-story metaphor. Judaism, I would say, permitted more permeability between the second story and the first. But it does seem as though ancient Judaism would have seen the world as two-story, perhaps with a well-defined obvious stairway between. Clearly, after Jesus, everything changed. But was the change in the world, or in people's perceptions of the world? Or both? Lastly, let's speak of the role of the indwelling Spirit. How is it even possible that Spirit-filled believers could have the two-story worldview? This is what probably eats at me the most.

holmegm  - re:   |2009-08-14 10:11:24 metallurge wrote: Lastly, let's speak of the role of the indwelling Spirit. How is it even possible that Spirit-filled believers could have the two-story worldview? This is what probably eats at me the most. For one thing, if we are being conformed, then we are not fully conformed yet.

emperorbma   |2009-08-14 13:54:16 Quote: For one thing, if we are being conformed, then we are not fully conformed yet. Yup, the issue is that we are becoming, and not yet being what we are intended to be. (I use these words because there's some important and relevant Platonic philosophy attached)

metallurge   |2009-08-14 14:08:43 Sorry, I guess I was unclear what I was getting at. Let's try again. OK, so being indwelt with the Holy Spirit is an essential part of being Christian. But the Holy Spirit is not simply conscience or something, the Holy Spirit is God. So, if one is indwelt with God, how can one possibly have the worldview that God is distant, that God is way off in the second story? See what I am getting at?

emperorbma   |2009-08-14 14:30:43 I wonder if the average pew warmer considers the implications of the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost == God" equation or whether they are simply following along with something that sounds okay because that's the way their church has always done things.

laika   |2009-08-14 15:34:19 metallurge wrote: So, if one is indwelt with God, how can one possibly have the worldview that God is distant, that God is way off in the second story? hmmm... you might as well ask if one is indwelt by God, how could one have any ailment of mind or body? why would the corrective experience of this indwelling be limited to one's worldview?

metallurge   |2009-08-14 15:46:02 Nah, not the same, not what I am talking about. Of course, sanctification/theosis/whatever-you-want-to-call-i t takes time, a lifetime and maybe more. No question. And the flesh remains. The temptations and failings of the flesh remain. But I guess I'd say that there are some basic essential things that one ought to just know. If God is within you, it is so hard for me to imagine that this is some kind of secret. Might be an interesting Barna question: "Is God within you?" Giving as little context as possible, just looking for a reaction.

emperorbma   |2009-08-14 18:29:20 Quote: Might be an interesting Barna question: "Is God within you?" Giving as little context as possible, just looking for a reaction. The thing about it is, there's the other extreme problem that comes from this sort of question: pantheism. Some people don't just recognize God's presence with them (regardless of whether they are Christian or not), but believe that God is everything including the thousand-armed abominations of the Hindu pantheon.

metallurge   |2009-08-13 11:31:47 WebbedFeetOfClay wrote: to be truly conscious of God necessitates active relationship with God, personally, not just verbally or conceptually. I agree. But I wonder what the Muslim/modern Jewish take on this is.

Shenango   |2009-08-16 14:03:05 Depending on how "active relationship with God" is meant, the answer, at least from this Muslim's perspective may be "non-applicable". Jews and Muslims have certain common terminology and conceptualizations of God and his relationship to mankind that Christians differ from owing to their conception of God having taken human form and entered material existence. I'm quite certain every faithful Muslim and Jew likes to consider his or her relationship with God active and "personal", yet the way Christians describe that type of relationship borders on the idolatrous, if not worse, to these people. It may well be the case that "personal" means different things to different people. And that's all well and good. I, for one, am unwilling to allow Christians to hold a patent or trademark on the phrase "personal relationship with God" (as many of them seem to think they do) whereby they have exclusive right to define what the statement means.

laika   |2009-08-14 18:53:54 WebbedFeetOfClay wrote: on a less serious note, I would be much more impressed with a still drivable 1910 Model T... i'm glad someone pointed this out. all things considered, it could be argued that the 2009 Lincoln doesn't at all represent a healthy going forward. when we look at the totality of what it takes to justify the existance of something like that Lincoln... gads, where do we start? that Model T makes a lot sense, really.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2009-08-15 05:48:44 I've an eccentric Anglo-Catholic Socialist priest friend who swears by his Henry J. He says it represents a certain ideal in auto manufacture with a company striving to simplify and be affordable for the average person rather than cars getting larger and larger and becom status symbols etc. He gets pretty passionate about it (I'm not quite as much, especially because traveling for 2 hours in the back seat on highways was a very interesting, but not particularly pleasant experience.)

laika  - re:   |2009-08-07 23:48:12 metallurge wrote: ...I had been thinking the problem was one of education. But it is deeper than that. Education does not remedy the problem. It's as though they have a different worldview. Two-Storey Universe wrote: ...in our dominant cultural metaphor the God we believe in is removed from our everyday affairs. Often what we are left with is a collection of doctrines to which, for one reason or another, we have given allegiance. (my emphasis) if we agree that the metallurge/Fr. Freman worldview is a better worldview, then maybe education is the remedy if the problem is something as fundamental as the way one thinks about the world. that's a very difficult thing to address.

PineHall  - One-Storey Universe   |2009-08-08 12:22:28 A worldview is hard to change and people need to want to change. However I am hopeful because the Holy Spirit can change hearts. I like the one-storey universe description. It fits. God is not just out there on the second storey but here with us and active in our world. We need to get the Gospel message out because many people don't have a clue any more about what the Christian Faith is about (as the article we are discussing implies).

metallurge   |2009-08-09 01:53:21 Well, I don't intend to be either argumentative or depressing, but don't you think you could tell the difference between people who are animated by the Spirit and people who are not? I also think that the roots of some of these problems go back to the intentional desacramentalization of the church which arose from the Reformation.

PineHall   |2009-08-09 09:52:49 I admit it is not easy to tell the difference. Do they have the desire to follow God? Or do they only give lip service? Those questions are not easy to answer as you probe what their worldview is.

metallurge   |2009-08-11 21:18:00 By their fruits shall they be known.

PineHall  - Wheat and Tares   |2009-08-13 23:35:08 metallurge wrote: By their fruits shall they be known. Yes, but to look at the other side, I don't want to snuff out a smouldering wick. It is not easy to separate the wheat from the tares/weeds without hurting some wheat. So I want to be very careful. Though not dealing with MTD people, this concern is brought home by the book I am currently reading, Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "Life Together". From that book I am getting that you are in fellowship with all Christians. They are part of the Body. So we rejoice in it and deal with it as a spiritual fact. The community exists and God, not us, has created it. Even if there are some who are less desirable, we are still in fellowship with them. For me it is a different way to look at Christian Community.

emperorbma   |2009-08-09 14:16:15 Quote: I also think that the roots of some of these problems go back to the intentional desacramentalization of the church which arose from the Reformation. (I'm probably talking to someone who already knows but...) Not all the Reformers, of course, had that intent... most notably Luther himself emphasized the importance of the Lord's Supper and Baptism as Sacraments and means of grace.

CoffeeZombie   |2009-08-10 10:20:08 Having two or seven sacraments and being sacramental are not the some thing.

emperorbma   |2009-08-10 13:09:50 Not sure I caught your meaning here...

CoffeeZombie   |2009-08-10 14:41:43 One could say that these (2,7) sacraments are protocols by which we who are on the First Story communicate with the Second Story. Outside of those (2,7) events, though, the First and Second Stories are still as distinct as ever. To put it in another way, drawing from Fr. Alexander Schmemann, creation, itself, is a sacrament of God's presence. Our eating and drinking were communion with God. We, as priests, took what God had created, and offered it back to God, and through this eucharistic life, communed with God. I don't mean that everything became the Body and Blood of Christ; the Eucharist is certainly a singular event. And it was precisely the reversal of this that was involved in the Fall. Man ceased to see the world as sacrament, and saw creation as an end in itself. When the water is blessed at Theophany, it is not seen as somehow changing the water into something it was not, but, rather, revealing it for what it truly is (as Fr. Stephen, again, notes elsewhere on his blog, a common custom for those parishes with a large body of water nearby, is to have the blessing of the waters at that large body of water; Orthodox have been blessing lakes and rivers and seas for centuries). I'm not sure if I'm putting this well, since I can't claim I understand much of it, myself. It is, perhaps, a little cheap in conversation to put off explanation with a book reference, but I really would recommend reading Fr. Alexander Schmemann's For the Life of the World for a better explanation of this. Regardless, the idea of "7 Sacraments" is not truly native to Orthodoxy; it is an example of Orthodox taking on Western vocabulary for various reasons, but we do not limit the "number" of Sacraments in any case.

emperorbma   |2009-08-10 18:26:40 In short, are you implying that the ideal is sort of like a Pan-Sacramentalism?

CoffeeZombie   |2009-08-11 09:46:18 I think I'd hesitate to embrace that term, since I don't know all the connotations and I'm not familiar with its meaning. Sort of like (and this is, I think, on a related note) a friend of mine wanted to knew if the term panentheism would be an accurate descriptor of how we view the relationship between God and the world. Of course, in the pagan sense, there is still the confusion of the Divine with the material. However, the Wikipedia article actually does have a section specifically referring to the Eastern Christian view which seems accurate to me. It, in short, acknowledges that we maintain there is an inherent difference between the created and the uncreated (God); however, God's grace upholds all existence. I say this is related, because it comes down to the one vs two storey universes. Again, two storey universe means God, the angels, the Saints, etc. exist on some second storey, above and away from us. This story, though, just operates as normal, according to natural law; occasionally, God intervenes in this story, sometimes in a way that seems contrary to natural law, and we call this a miracle. Sacraments are possible, probably categorized in a similar way. But, in the end, these are all exceptions to the way things normally happen. If a tornado were to hit the house, and the second storey were removed, the first storey would largely operate as normal. Most people wouldn't even notice. The one-storey universe is not like this. There is no second storey, not because it has been ripped off (athiesm), but because it exists on the first storey. God, the angels, the Saints, etc. are all here, with us. Speaking of Heaven as a separate place is metaphorical, not literal. All things exist in God, and if God were to stop causing Creation to exist, everything would disappear. Of course, again, forgive me if my explanation falls short. I can only try to re-present what I have read or been taught; obviously, I cannot speak from much experience, myself.

emperorbma   |2009-08-11 10:21:16 Quote: acknowledges that we maintain there is an inherent difference between the created and the uncreated (God); however, God's grace upholds all existence. It might be just me, but I've been aiming for that sort of understanding myself... The thing about this is that I have been thinking recently that the distinction between the miraculous and non-miraculous that is presently used is actually doing an unintentional disservice. The main reason is because I think that the word "supernatural" is equivalent to "logically impossible" for many people in modern society and the miraculous is instantly conflated with "supernatural." If something happens, then it is automatically deemed "natural" even if it is a rare and unusual suspension of the normal order. As a result, the miraculous is automatically excluded from the realm of "this reality." The thing about it is, the miraculous is probably not even best described as "supernatural versus natural." Would we, as Christians, consider an evil spirit using its powers to be a miracle or merely a false sign? A demon's ranting is no less supernatural, however, than walking on water but they demonstrate a very different character.  I am starting to think that the real distinction we are meant to draw for "a miracle" is that a miracle is something demonstrates the character and Spirit of God, regardless of whichever vehicle God chose to deliver it. In that case, even a natural event that demonstrates God's justice or grace can be considered a miraculous one and not all miracles must involve the suspension of the normal order even if they can, at times, do so. The Sacraments themselves are a specific type of miracle performed by God through the authority of the Gospel and the preaching of the Church to sustain the faithful in God's grace. However, to an outside observer they are merely natural acts or a ritualistic people with no further significance.

metallurge  - re: re:   |2009-08-09 01:40:35 laika wrote: if we agree that the metallurge/Fr. Freman worldview is a better worldview, then maybe education is the remedy if the problem is something as fundamental as the way one thinks about the world. that's a very difficult thing to address. Well, here is how I have come to understand the problem. If people who profess to be believers want to put God into the second story, then really what we are saying is that those people don't have a personal faith experience that teaches them that, no, God is here, with us. Understanding/belief is not at all the same thing as faith/praxis. I simply do not see how it is possible to educate one's way out of this problem. The education that truly matters the most to a living faith is a personal, ongoing experience of God. It's like Nietzsche was saying when he proclaimed that God is dead. God neatly contained in the second story, convenient if we need Him, but also conveniently distant, well that's not the sort of experience of God that Christianity is really about.

laika   |2009-08-09 12:33:23 metallurge wrote: If people who profess to be believers want to put God into the second story, then really what we are saying is that those people don't have a personal faith experience that teaches them that, no, God is here, with us. are you certain that they "want" to put God upstairs? isn't it more like they've been trained since birth to picture reality that way, that they're laboring under the weight of what Fr. Freeman calls the "dominant cultural metaphor?" and how would someone choose to have this mountaintop "personal faith experience" that would obliterate once and for all the thought patterns that are the their cultural inheritance?

metallurge   |2009-08-10 00:24:37 Thoughtful questions, as always, my friend. I guess I figure that the whole relationship-with-God thing is a little less cultural and a little more personal. Do you think God really permits people to suffer under the illusion that they are culturally "in"? Last time that happened, with a different "in" group, it didn't work out so well... No, I believe that evangelism and faith are more individual than that. I believe that people will be individually accountable come Judgment Day, and that we each will individually be without excuse. The dominant cultural metaphor, the consumeristic materialistic individualistic thing, surely dovetails nicely with the two-story model. But even as an agnostic, before I knew anything much about who Jesus was, I could see that the dominant cultural metaphor was morally bankrupt. What I guess worries me the most about the two-story model is that, for the thinking non-Christian, it is a barrier to faith. Plainly, a distant God whom we can choose to involve in our affairs, or whom we can invoke as needed in a semi-magical way to solve our problems, well such a God is perhaps appealing to people's needs, but is not really intellectually respectable. So, what I see is that people who would actually be susceptible to faith and to the Gospel, people who already care about righteousness, well these people look at the two-story God that is being peddled, and just say no. It is a far harder thing to turn away from a God who makes Himself personally and unmistakably known to you. As far as your "how" question, I would simply point back to "seek, and ye shall find". I think it is a matter of finding Christian people who live in the one story world, and hanging out with them a little while. I figure living a life of intentional closeness to God cannot help but produce fruit which others can see. Just a few thoughts from someone who has crazy things going on in his world right now, and might be a little mentally distracted. Take them for what they are worth.

laika   |2009-08-11 21:18:40 metallurge wrote: Do you think God really permits people to suffer under the illusion that they are culturally "in"? does being a Christian increase your intelligence or self-awareness? metallurge wrote: It is a far harder thing to turn away from a God who makes Himself personally and unmistakably known to you. ah, back to a "personal relationship with the Lord." i thought you left that kind of language back at the SB convention :-)

metallurge  - re:   |2009-08-13 11:26:31 laika wrote: does being a Christian increase your intelligence or self-awareness? Not sure where you are going with this. Being a Christian ought to mean being Spirit-filled, no? laika wrote: ah, back to a "personal relationship with the Lord." i thought you left that kind of language back at the SB convention :-) Hee Hee. The usage was intentional, I assure you. Kinda like how in mixed company I refer to the Eucharist as the Lord's Supper.

laika   |2009-08-13 16:42:07 metallurge wrote: Not sure where you are going with this. Being a Christian ought to mean being Spirit-filled, no? OK, then, is being "Spirit-filled" proof against "illusion" as you refer to unhelpful and unfruitful worldviews? for example, did being Spirit-filled keep the very disciples of God Incarnate from illusions like their notions of the End Times? you and PineHall seem to be enjoying direct interaction with God Almighty in a personal way, but you might want to remain open to the possibility that God might not be purging every other Christian of their "illusions", cultural or other, at the instant of Baptism. be open to the idea that some of the two-storey folks are pining for the one-storey experience. but, of course, maybe all the two-storey folk aren't really Christians...

laika   |2009-08-09 00:23:13 PineHall wrote: I like the one-storey universe description. It fits. God is not just out there on the second storey but here with us and active in our world. what kinds of difference do you think you'd see if more people had the one-storey outlook?

PineHall  - The one-storey difference   |2009-08-09 09:46:27 People with a two-storey universe keep God distant. One-storey people recognise God is not distant and have a personal relationship with Him. They live their life recognising God and His desires, rather than believing an uncaring god is up there somewhere.

laika   |2009-08-09 12:44:45 PineHall wrote: One-storey people recognise God is not distant and have a personal relationship with Him. They live their life recognising God and His desires... maybe the two-storey folks just don't know how to recognize the one-storey relationship?

PineHall   |2009-08-09 23:14:15 It is possible that two-storey people don't know how to recognize a one-storey relationship. They would have relationship problems. I think many people though like to keep God at a distance and a two-storey belief fits in with that desire.

metallurge  - re:   |2009-08-11 21:20:07 PineHall wrote: I think many people though like to keep God at a distance and a two-storey belief fits in with that desire. Yup.

laika   |2009-08-11 21:24:12 metallurge, replying to PineHall wrote: yup so y'all think the two-storey folk choose to live there?

metallurge   |2009-08-13 11:27:45 I don't think it's quite as well-considered a decision as your question implies.

laika  - re:   |2009-08-11 12:14:34 emperorbma wrote: I am starting to think that the real distinction we are meant to draw for "a miracle" is that a miracle is something demonstrates the character and Spirit of God, regardless of whichever vehicle God chose to deliver it. interesting line of thought, and it reminds me of what you were saying in another thread about the "prayer death" case - the father in that case was holding out for a supernatural intervention, in effect perhaps restricting God's action through means of "everyday" miracles.

laika  - re:   |2009-08-14 20:24:21 metallurge wrote: Nah, not the same, not what I am talking about. i really don't see the difference. discounting the flesh doesn't seem helpful, especially if it requires flesh to be capable of any worldview in the first place. metallurge wrote: But I guess I'd say that there are some basic essential things that one ought to just know. If God is within you, it is so hard for me to imagine that this is some kind of secret. maybe it goes back to education again. maybe some folks need to learn how to cultivate the conditions favorable to an encounter with God within.

holmegm  - re:   |2009-08-15 13:52:09 emperorbma wrote: The thing about it is, there's the other extreme problem that comes from this sort of question: pantheism. Some people don't just recognize God's presence with them (regardless of whether they are Christian or not), but believe that God is everything including the thousand-armed abominations of the Hindu pantheon. Yeah, that's the alarm bell that keeps going off for me in this discussion. As with so many things, it depends on what you mean. In one sense, God is distant. There is an unimaginable gulf between Creator and created. God is holy. We are grass. That's why something as unimaginably severe as God needing to become man, suffer and die and rise again had to happen.

emperorbma   |2009-08-15 15:23:53 Quote: O Lord, what is man that you are mindful of him, or the son of man that you take account of him?  Man is like a breath; his days are like a passing shadow. (Psalm 114:4-5)

laika   |2009-08-16 02:12:18 holmegm wrote: As with so many things, it depends on what you mean. yeah, i think maybe i don't know what we're talking about anymore. yikes, maybe i never did!

Shenango  - re:   |2009-08-16 13:23:47 Greetings Entity, I don't believe the relationship between a faith and the state has at all much to do with it, as I'm describing a very individual, personal phenomenon of faith.

Entity   |2009-08-16 14:30:22 Shenango, hope you are doing well. I guess my thought is that a supportive state that does not obstruct the practice of religion or sow debate and dissent among the religious is more conducive to the individual and personal phenomenon of faith than a state that encourages everyone to interpret God for themselves and stifles religious expression. IOW, societies where religion is encouraged to be a 'personal thing' are the societies where it is most difficult for religion to be a personal thing.

laika   |2009-08-16 15:17:50 Entity wrote: I guess my thought is that a supportive state that does not obstruct the practice of religion or sow debate and dissent among the religious is more conducive to the individual and personal phenomenon of faith than a state that encourages everyone to interpret God for themselves and stifles religious expression. i'm glad you clarified your position a bit, because above it sounded a bit scarily like you might be in favor of a state religion.

Entity  - re:   |2009-08-16 15:56:24 laika wrote: i'm glad you clarified your position a bit, because above it sounded a bit scarily like you might be in favor of a state religion. Only at the Vatican! It is sort of tricky though in that what I see now is state secularism, which seems to tend more towards state atheism. I don't think this is good at all. The state seems to be saying "We aren't in the business of morality" in certain circumstances and "We are in the business of morality" in others, so there will always be some form of state 'religion', but we have elevated men to the status of gods. We only fool ourselves into thinking that the state can not show bias towards some form of religion, whether it be Christianity, Islam, secular humanism, feminism, or environmentalism.  The state has a pantheon of gods fighting to be the ruler of the governmental Olympus and to have their ideology as prime morality of the people.  The state appears to worship at the altars of environmentalism, redistribution, and 'reproductive freedom' and heretics are not treated well.

emperorbma   |2009-08-16 18:49:33 Quote: The state appears to worship at the altars of environmentalism, redistribution, and 'reproductive freedom' and heretics are not treated well. I would hope that this mistreatment is a sign we're doing at least something right... Quote: If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. (John 15:18-19)

Shenango  - re: re:   |2009-08-16 15:20:57 Greetings Entity, I'm doing well thak you, and likewise hope you are as well. I think I understand what you're saying now, and yes, I'd agree that societies ruled by the church-and-state separation principle are more conducive to piety. The separation of church and state is, I think, a major contributing factor to the secularism everyone here would lament in the West. Nevertheless the effect of separation of church and state on the practice of a faith and the spirituality and ethos that faith's own texts and traditions engender are two different things, I believe.

Shenango  - re: re: re:   |2009-08-16 15:23:18 Shenango wrote: I'd agree that societies ruled by the church-and-state separation principle are more conducive to piety. Sorry, "more" should rather be "less" there.

laika   |2009-08-16 15:29:47 Shenango wrote: Nevertheless the effect of separation of church and state on the practice of a faith and the spirituality and ethos that faith's own texts and traditions engender are two different things, I believe. hey Shenango. i agree with what you say here and i was just about to ask if you were making this kind of distinction, but i also thought that you were looking forward to a day when Islam and state were seamlessly fused?

emperorbma   |2009-08-16 19:20:52 Quote: I think I understand what you're saying now, and yes, I'd agree that societies ruled by the church-and-state separation principle are [less] conducive to piety. The separation of church and state is, I think, a major contributing factor to the secularism everyone here would lament in the West. Not so sure I would concur with the first part.  The church and state separation principle is, in and of itself, not the problem in my opinion.  What it says is that the government won't compel people in matters of religion. (A thing hard won for the Christian west, mind you...) It is when the state begins a campaign to eradicate all religiosity within its public elements that it begins to infringe upon religious freedom as a whole. This is, unfortunately, what is going on under the guise of this clause and it is spearheaded by a new class of secularists who have lost respect for other peoples' religions. The state being "separate from religion" is intended to be used to keep the state from telling a church or a mosque what it can or cannot do. It says that a Christian leader cannot demand a Muslim must worship Christ and that a Muslim cannot force a Christian to deny Christ's deity.  That is not to say that no person in the government may have or practice a religion, but that they may not abuse their influence to force others to practice their religion. I think secularism, which was at one time respectful of religion, is basically taking on a life of its own and starting to become an anti-religious monstrosity. One need only read the comments of modern atheists when a religious topic comes up to see that there are many that are grinding an axe against religion. (... although, most people in these same movements seem to think that their anti-religious views owe solely to the presumed evils that religions have done now and then, and they obviously ignore any positive contributions...) The irony is that the secularist believes that he or she is doing the religious person a service by slamming the adherent's religion...

Shenango  - re:   |2009-08-16 13:47:21 WebbedFeetOfClay wrote: ...but to be truly conscious of God necessitates active relationship with God, personally, not just verbally or conceptually. Right, no problems with anything you've said thus far... Quote: In no way is this more clearly and magnificently shown than in His incarnation. No revelation could ever be so glorious as He who reveals all. Well, the idea of bringing God Himself into the earthly, material world, is fundamentally different so to change the entire underpinnings of the framework of what I am talking about, that in this discussion I'd consider it a non-starter. However, were I to humor you on a strictly face-value basis, I'd still assert that the Qur'an, being the literal word of God, is still more glorious than any record Christians have in the New Testament of the verbal teachings of the Word or however else he might reveal himself to his flock.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2009-08-16 15:17:36 For you I understand it seems a non-starter,for me, I can start nowhere else. It is, in some capacity, the beginning and end of all. So, of course, while this point kind of breaks down the dialogue on some levels, it's really not optional, but fundamentally necessary (in more ways than one.) However, that said, we're having a bit of an apples and oranges thing going on hear as NT isn't presented as the same sort of thing as the Qur'an. Again it's a dynamic of revelation v. He who reveals. Scripture, for however great and true a revelation it is, can never match the substantive immediate presence of God, which we believe is fundamentally here and now, in the dwelling of the Holy Spirit with the Church and in the physical body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Words of scripture are excellent and great gifts but will never be so glorious, so instructive and enlightening as the Word Himself, who is in our midst. That does bring up a certain personal curiousity. If you don't mind me asking (and I think you may have discussed this a bit a long time back but my memory is going hazy) What is your take on New Testament as revelation? You seem to acknowledge some revalatory element to it, but I would assume don't fully accept it. (as, for the sake of openness and clarity, I don't believe the Qur'an to be revealed.)

Shenango  - re:   |2009-08-16 16:01:09 WebbedFeetOfClay wrote: Words of scripture are excellent and great gifts but will never be so glorious, so instructive and enlightening as the Word Himself, who is in our midst. I got what you were saying the first time, and here you're essentially re-stating what you said earlier. It still doesn't change any of what I've said or asserted. Ultimately, the true test of how gloriously enlightening something is the faithfulness it inspires in its adherents. Quote: What is your take on New Testament as revelation?  You seem to acknowledge some revalatory element to it, but I would assume don't fully accept it. I don't accept the New Testament as divinely inspired overall, and anything that isn't that, of course, isn't revelatory. Specifically, I reject the all the Pauline epistles, Hebrews, the cathoic epistles, Revelation and Acts. As for the Gospels, I accept the parables attributed to Jesus (PBUH) in the Synoptics as authentic divine revelation, the Gospel, in so far as their content doesn't contradict the spirit or letter of the Qur'an (and 95% of it doesn't). Basically, I believe in Jesus' Gospel as authentic revelation from God, but don't believe everything attributed to Jesus (PBUH) in the New Testament as his Gospel he actually taught.

Shenango  - re:   |2009-08-16 18:45:59 laika wrote: i also thought that you were looking forward to a day when Islam and state were seamlessly fused? Yes, I do look forward to it. Does something in what I said not follow? If you could please clarify, I'd address it.

Only registered users can write comments!

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.20

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."