Check out the new blogroll

William:

Thanks, for the updated blog-roll...


(Dennis Junior)

I'll have to make a pitch for Dr Gladys Ganiel's excellent and thoughtful blog. GladysGaniel.com has recently dealt with a broad range of current topics such as Gerry Adams on Channel 4, the Irish Bishops in Rome and the Emergent Church. I found the blog through Gladys's contributions both to this blog and "Sunday Sequence". It's a site that deserves to grow and has really made me think!

Hi Gladys - when did you change your name to Celtophile Mancunian?

William - I'm hurt - why is my blog not on your list? Even Romejellybean reads it.

Hmm...I'm a lurker on this site, and haven't commented for awhile, but I've noticed Gladys Ganiel (aka Celtophile Mancunian) seems to be using this blog (and other sites) for her own personal advertising. Gladys, if you wish to be on William's blog-roll, I would suggest asking him, instead of continually spamming forums.

MCC

Please get it right. Romejellybean reads your blog... then falls about laughing (or reaches for sick bag.)

Your latest attack on a "fat Protestant child molester" who "seems to have forgotten that he was a church elder" seems to forget that every abuser priest - every single one of them - stood in the dock with his Roman collar having mysteriously disappeared and the word "Father" having been dropped in preference for the humbler title, "Mr."

Not really in a position to criticize, MCC, are we?

Maybe if your blog was a little more balanced and a lot less wacky it could be used for reference. Anyway, just like Gladys, you managed a mention on here.

yes, but I didn't put the link in, did I?

Laughter or sick bag - that's exactly the reaction I was going for.

As for my "attack" - you miss my point - it wasn't that he had forgotten he was an elder - it was that the BBC had dropped the reference. I just thought it was interesting.

On a different note, Jellybean, something I suspect we will agree on completely - met some legionaries of christ at the weekend - scary or what? Identical hairstyles. I suspect you can't join if you have curly hair. Think I might blog on that one.

Havent met the legionaries of Christ, just the Mary ones and they were scary.

I joined the meeting halfway through and noticed that a number of the women in the hall were in tears. I sat down and listened to their guest speaker, and I quote, "The Blessed Virgin has asked that the women of Scotland are to make it their special task to pray for the conversion of...... (wait for it, I thought).... FINLAND!!"

Suddenly her microphone went dead. It wasnt God. I pulled the plug!

Regarding the BBC's dropping the 'elder' reference, I had to contend with my abuser sitting in court being referred to as 'Mr' and wearing a tie instead of a Roman collar. It was hurtful in that this particular individual was one of the most clerical individuals I ever met.

They did what they did hiding behind their collars and they should face the music in the same garb. Scores of priests have slipped under the media's radar because they have been allowed to stand trial, effectively, as lay men.

Also, it is just a fact about the written media these days, that a story must be accompanied by an up to date relevant photo. A guy wearing a suit and tie doesnt quite do it for them in clergy abuse cases.

How many moderators does it take to change a light bulb?

Apparently all of them.

Tough luck, MCC.

That was the nicest response I think I've ever given you - and it got moderated!!

Oh dear.

Threads like the one above show why I prefer to contribute and share ideas on Dr Ganiel's blog.

I recently discovered the blog 'Paper and Parchment' here is the link

https://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/

Thanks, Celtophile Mancunian. I am glad to see an expanded bloglist on the Will and Testament site (thanks, Will!), as I enjoy reading other blogs. I think the spirit of the internet is sharing ideas and discussing substantial issues, not getting worked up about whether people have their own website, etc.

Hi William

Here are a few websites I find pretty interesting and think would be relevant to regular subjects discussed here.

cheers

OT



https://www.billygraham.org/ (with interesting articles on current events)

https://www.care.org.uk/ (Inspired by the life of Wilberforce)

https://mike-core-issues.blogspot.com/ (regular on Sunday Sequence I believe!)

https://www.peter-ould.net/

This one:

https://larknews.com/

cos it makes me smile.

No why did it take so long to release jellybelly's comment?

I suppose, RJB, it depends what the person hopes to gain. There may have been a time when they thought they would gain more at trial by dressing in clericals, like the thug in the borrowed suit.

Genuine question here - was thinking about this at lunchtime today. Forgiveness is something you do yourself, with the help of God. Do you think survivors need to try and take control of their own forgiveness and not let it be dependent on statements from abusers or bishops or the Pope. I don't want to make any polemical argument here but if you think how Gordon Wilson in what can only be described as a grace-filled moment, tried to forgive the murder of his daughter - with no apology on offer from anyone - and how that helped him.

A victim of abuse, say of Brendan Smyth, is never going to get anything like an apology - it's too late - but can they start to forgive and in doing so help themselves.

Of course this is all aside for the need for justice and proper investigations and so forth.

MCC

There are a number of important points here which I'll try and respond to.

Firstly, I forgave my abusers a long time ago. My problem is not with them. My problem is with those today who have covered up, who have been in denial, who have even attacked the abused or accused them of lying or exaggerating etc.. (Up until the Ferns and Murphy report, these things were common.)

I certainly do get angry at people who say, "But what about all the good priests?" Or "What about those who are falsely claiming compensation?" Or "What about the police or the social services who failed?" Or "What about Ministers who have abused?" etc.. Such comments smack of avoiding the main issue - Catholic clergy abused children and the hierarchy covered up through FEAR. (I can forgive anyone who states genuinely, "I'm weak and I was frightened.") That is the absolute core of the human being understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Your starting point seems to be that forgiveness is from the victim (with God) to the perpetrator. This is very often not the case. While in therapy in North America there were three clergy abusers in my daily group therapy. I held no grudge against them. (It actually transpired that they attacked me, seeing me as holding the moral high ground. This was pointed out to them by the therapist.)

On my return home, this behaviour continued - "Traitor", "Publicity seeker", "Clown on a bicycle act", "Perpeptually taught with anger", "Loose cannon", "Not fit for purpose" and much more, were said about me in public or in the Press... by priests. Less well known victims were simply dismissed as "Gold diggers" or "Jumping on the band-wagon." I'm sure you are aware of the phrase, "The abused being abused all over again", but I'm not sure you understand the depth of what it means and its effect.

I moved to Ireland to get away from it all after my close priest friend hung himself in his presbytery. I suppose I was terrified that I was heading down that route. I ended up seriously ill in hospital in Cavan and was told by the chaplain as I lay with a drip in me and dosed with morphine, "You know, you should shut up about the abuse, no one actually gives a damn." In that moment, yes, I found it very difficult to forgive him. Looking back, I still do.

And I find it difficult to forgive you, MCC. I have been in church institutions since I was 11. My whole life has been lived for the Church. As a priest my parishes were always packed - not because I spoke Latin or wore lace albs or faced the wall when I said Mass - but because I reached out to so called, 'sinners.' I made them welcome and tried to build their self esteem and let them see that they were the people Jesus loved - because I loved them. And you tell me, and people like me, to get out of the Church and good riddence to us.

Yeh, sure, I get angry at that, because there is the absolute certainty in me that the Church you and your friends are re-creating is going nowhere but straight down the toilet. In that respect I think you are so shortsighted.

The name calling is now "dissenters", "liberals", "modernists" and it is such a load of tosh. These are good people who are being ostracized and what we are going to be left with is a church again fixated with celibacy, unaccountable clergy and hierarchy, extreme clericalism, no voice for women and a den for abusers - again.

Forgiveness? I've thought a lot about that recently, MCC, and "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do", has been at the heart of my thoughts.

RJB - what have you got against Finland?

"No voice for women" - you're the one who turned off the microphone at the Legion of Mary meeting cos you didn't like what she was saying - how clerical is that?

Did yousenses watch the second part of Our Man in the Vatican last night. I was watching Beaches on film on 4 so missed some of it.

MCC

As I thought, your post # 15 wasn't the result of some lunchtime metanoia after all. Just another slur on the abused disguised as a "genuine" question about their forgiveness (or lack of it).

There is quite a debate going on on the other threads about 'talking snakes' with some bloggers claiming that they dont, and never did, exist. Why dont you go over there and enlighten them?

Jellyhead, I refer you to William's intervention at #17, which, though addressed to the plural was clearly meant for you, since I had done nothing to warrant it.

I'm not sure why you feel you have anything to forgive me for since I've done nothing but engage in debate which you insist on personalising. I think you are quite proving my point about the need for people to take ownership of their own forgiveness instead of lashing out at everyone with whom they disagree, stereotyping and prejudging people because they wear lace or a collar or like the liturgy in Latin. None of this is doing you any good.

Do you seriously read my post at 18 as some sort of attack which undermines the genuine nature of my previous question?

MCC

How much more personal can you get than calling someone a blatant liar and consistently referring to him as "Jellybrain", telling him to get out of the Church and at one point making a comment which was cruel enough to warrant another blogger asking you to make an apology? - (which
you refused to do.)

However, I do agree, I have allowed it to become personal. I apologise and I shall cool it.

romejellybeen has ABSOLUTELY, NOTHING to APOLOGISE for!.

BLESS YOU...RJB.

God bless you too, John, you're a breath of fresh air!

Or should I say..

a BREATH of FRESh air ?

Can't say I understand the point of the CAPS, but I'm getting very fond of them. I figure that you're one of those artistic/open personality type,(google "Big Five Personality Test" or "Sheffield Personality Test") so it's best just to enjoy how you say things, not figure out why you say them that way. God Bless! And thankyou.

GV

RJB/McC

Are you guys mad, cos I left you out of the bookmaking on the Old Testament 3 thread? I'm sure I could give you two odds if you really want

(-;

RJB - changing your name is a term of endearment. You have a funny made up name which I enjoy changing to help lighten the moment. Least that's the plan.

The other things are part of debate and I can't remember the context for all them. The one about leaving the church is, I suppose, my wondering why people who disagree so much with the teaching of the Church insist on remaining in the Church. Being in the Catholic Church seems to make some people very unhappy and I can't understand why they continue. They're welcome to stay of course, so long as they behave.

I want to disagree. I want to be gentle. I want to have an opinion. I'd like to make a response. I'd like to say, emmmmm, hang on a minute.

But I guess if I just say what I just said people will figure it out.

Sigh.

cheer up Pete.

:)

I have noticed, Chris and RJB, that you have neither of you commented extensively on the Bible course threads, indeed a cursory glance at what you do comment on shows a hugely common overlap of interest, perhaps on one level reflecting different Protestant and Roman Catholic preoccupations, but also, I think, demonstrating your common, if widely divergent, passion for your Church, our Church, the broken body of Christ.

You may then have missed the interesting reference to Cain and Abel in lecture four. Prof Hayes points out how often the word 'brother' occurs throughout the story climaxing in "God's question, "Where is your brother, Abel?" And Cain responds, "I don't know; am I my brother's keeper?"" The prof points out that Cain's rhetorically intended question is actually at the nub of the story. All murder is in essence fratricide and we are all our brothers' keepers.

I know you both will have the good sense not to do it on-line, but I venture to suggest a Lenten meditation.

It was good to be reminded of the old REM song during the Haiti appeal, 'everybody hurts'; it's a good topic to reflect on during Lent and it's a good background thought to bear in mind when we try to know where our brother is.

RJB, say, what would it mean for you to be Chris's keeper? What might Chris think it would mean for you to be his keeper? What do you think it would it mean for Chris to be your keeper? What might Chris think it would mean for him to be your keeper? Obviously Chris you would reverse the names.

I hope you will both forgive my presumption (and even suggest appropriate penance) though fortunately it's all probably much too Anglican to be of interest to you - the blog is about ideas and we would miss the cut and thrust of your exchanges if you came over all eirenic!

Parrhasios - problem with the Cain/Abel allusion is that now each of thinks we're Abel and the other guys Cain.

It's unfair to repeat this point, but RJB cares about these issues more personally than I do and that gives the debate the sting.

I don't usually enter the Scripture debates cos I don't have time to read the lectures and it all too quickly seems to descend into creationism stuff. Anyway, Catholics don't need to debate the Scriptures - the Church tells us what it's all about -since it was the Church which wrote the New Testament.

And everyone stop calling me Chris. It's "Christopher" - called after Our Lady.

Christopher - since I don't do the faith thing I have to try to muddle by on the hope and the love stuff. I am afraid your answer (#30) represents the triumph of experience over hope. I would ask you to read what you wrote again, perhaps attempting to do so through Our Lady's eyes.

I proposed a meditation only; I do not think it will be appropriate for me to comment further on the matter so it's open season on Parrhasios.

I suspect we suffer from the propinquity paradox.

I will try to be personally kinder to RJB and others and use only words that build up like a good pretend Carmelite - as St John says, in the evening of life we will be judged on love.

post...26, mccamley, who made you "pope".

Really, at the end of the day you can't tell anyone, who stays and who goes, even in your own words "so long as they behave" and what do you mean by that statement, does that cover everything, even reporting ABUSE.

You also said "I will try to be personally kinder to RJB", why say that and in post...20, you pleaded that you had done "nothing wrong" with regards to RJB.

Lastly, I really do think you should be...KINDER... to RJB and so should also your church as well in the light of what has happen to him, which I certainly was not aware off only until recently.

I will try to be kind to John as well.

Which may be even HARDER THAN being kind to RJB.

But I would wish people would lighten up a little. Every little remark is taken so seriously like "we'll let you stay so long as you behave". Take a chill pill.

mccamleyc

A straight forward, open question.

On this blog, words are all we have to go on, at times I have been too casual, at times I have apologised, others have too. The topics we debate are, in a way, part of us and it is difficult to be objective all the time, indeed perhaps none of us are ever truly objective.

But my question is this, when you speak of letting people stay as long as they behave, is that simply tongue in cheek or are you implying something more?

I'm not asking to have a go at you or the Catholic church, the are many bastions of exclusivity in Protestantism, indeed it has occurred to me that 'exclusivity' is the definition of Protestantism, perhaps that's why we are many fractured pieces. I ask, rather because in this business of religion it is my experience that each of us 'believers' prefer our own version of religion, indeed, if we a honest, perhaps we consider our version to be just that little closer to God than another's. Perhaps we believers betray our dogmatic hearts in wanting others to be like us, others to believe in God the way we do. I don't know, I'm just curious, and while I still have my own preferences about how 'belief' should be, this blog forces me to think twice. Indeed, if I'm really honest, while my initial involvement on W&T was based on the idea that I could indeed should, 'defend Biblical Christianity' I've learned alot too, and while I'm still 'Reformed' I've gained from looking through the kaleidoscope which is this blog.

Then again, maybe I'm just a compromiser!! :-)

It was meant to be tongue in cheek - mostly. But clearly the Catholic Church, a revealed religion, has a set of clearly identified beliefs and a structure to identify those beliefs. So it does become rather frustrating and confusing when people who identify as Catholics don't actually believe what the Church teaches. Now I realise in some ecclesial communions which have a vague authority structure this is likely to happen and there is likely to be debates as to what constitutes the truths of the faith and then people split and set up their own group, which to some extent is the history of protestant churches.

But you can hardly say there is confusion about the beliefs of the Catholic Church - they are set out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and in other documents. You might not agree with the teaching, but every one knows the basic stuff, the Trinity, Christology, Sacraments and moral teaching. We know that the Church does not support abortion or contraception or homosexuality. We know the Church can't ordain women. And no amount of disagreeing or campaigning will change that - it's tilting at windmills.

At some point when people oppose these teachings in a public way they put themselves outside the community of believers.

mccamleyc

Thanks for your answer, much appreciated.

As a Protestant, here's the first problem I'm having, "clearly the Catholic Church, a revealed religion."

Why is this a problem? Well, I'm presuming you mean 'Roman Catholic Church', but that aside, in terms of revelation, I'm immediately thinking, Jesus. I'm thinking, it's not the church (any church) which is the revelation of God, it's Jesus, who he is, what he said, what he did, I'm just a follower.

Now, this might sound like a small difference, but... he is the 'authority structure', the authority is a person, not a belief system and that means that 'misbehavers' get to join in... infact he (Jesus) seemed to be saying that the 'church' (his followers) was for 'misbehavers'.

I know, I'm being deliberately risky, but what do you think?

Ah, but here's the mystery - Christ and the Church are one - "Saul, why are you persecuting ME" - the mystical body of Christ, He the head, we the members. Of course full of misbehavers, for Christ came to call sinners. From the moment he took on our flesh in his mother's womb he became one with us, at his baptism, he became one with us as sinners and died and rose, the first fruits, taking us with him already in some way.

mccamleyc

Don't disagree with that; but I think you hit the nail on the er em... with that little phrase, 'He the Head'!

You see, the way I look at it, emphasising Jesus is always a safer bet.

ST Peter was married! and Christ healed his Mother-in-law also Peter had no GOLD Ring, infact he had NO silver & Gold even going up to the temple, what a contrast to todays catholic religion.

Peter didn't have a flush toilet, nor a mobile phone, nor a website - what a contrast to today.

Parrhasios # 29

Some thoughts.

I recall someone saying (Jung I think) that self reflection is one of the most terrifying things we can undergo and that the vast majority flee from it.

The reason being, I assume, that we will come face to face with some unpallatable truths about ourselves. Without going into an "on line" confession, thanks for the invitation/reminder to do that. I had to face some things about myself. Not pretty.

A part of that self reflection may indeed be confessional, but there is also a part which is a psychological self-appraisal too. Again, not pretty. However, I move on.

I once heard a priest I respected publicly reprimand someone using the words, "You are not your brother's keeper." After that broadside, he delivered another, "Do not give someone Bed and Breakfast in your own head!!"

His intention, I think, was to show forcefully that we have responsibility for ourselves, first and foremost. We must have that sorted out above and before anything else. (It was also about disempowering others too.)

An acknowledgement of our own faults and failings should also be balanced - lest it become destructive - with an acknowledgement that we do not act and speak in a vacuum. Sometimes we are given little choice, in the moment, how to respond. Its built in, layer upon layer. Uncovering those layers, well, we are back to Jungs words again.

Rather than being a matter of holiness or sanctity, maybe its really about 'balance.'

That's generally where I've been these last few days.

Regarding you noticing no feed back from me on the Scripture course, I have been following it. I make no comment at the moment because I've been doing a bit of thinking in that department too.

The good Professor pleaded with her class to leave their prejudices/agendas/brainwashing at the classroom door. I immediately assumed that she was referring to the fundamentalists. She was referring to me, to all of us.

Whether our agenda is innerancy, literalism, or deriving some spiritual meaning, or using it as proof text, or showing how ridiculous it is, we were ALL asked to let that go for a while. Let the Bible be what it is. (I realise that's not a very good idea for a discussion forum.)

Then, everything was turned on its head, and its to do with something DK said on one of the scripture threads. While listening to one of the lectures and reading comments, the BBC 4 documentary about Zimbabwe came on TV.

A ten year old girl trying to find food for her infant sister while cleaning up the diaarhoea her Aids ravaged mother was lying in. The girl was crying and said, "This poo stinks." 800 children desperate for an education sent home on the first day of term because they didnt have the $2 fee. Children who go days on end without food, many having to work long hours doing backbreaking work for nothing. The young girl's mother eventually dying and she being left to bring up the baby. Thousands of kids who have never known what 'playing' is.

I remembered that same priest from years ago who often spoke of "bourgeois Christianity." It is something Peter Morrow has mentioned before, albeit in different language. Will our Scripture course change that young girl's life?

I actually felt really ashamed. (again.)

There are definitely people we should be being brothers to, not about some spat on a blog site, people who should be having Bed and Breakfast in our minds until they have somewhere to sleep and something to eat.

As a collection of people, whether we be religious or humanist, maybe we should consider getting together - not just for the much mooted meal - but to actually DO something for our brothers and sisters together.

I am NOT writing a song for RJB ...

GV

I think you'll do more than write a song if I've been moderated for the reason I think.

Parrhasios, the post was actually a response to your post # 29 so, just check back tomorrow/next week/next year (or if much later, through a medium) to see what it said. Dont want you to think I'm ignoring you.

RJB - have not yet seen your post - there are definitely vagaries in the moderation process. I would have been quite happy to have been ignored - there are worse things I undoubtedly deserve. I did say I wouldn't comment further on the matter so I do hope you won't think too ill of me if I stick by my word when/if your reply eventually appears.

And stick to it. Do not comment further.

Maybe?, RJB is right about somethings, it's not how we talk "BUT" how we walk.

RJB

You leave me with no option other than to respond to your post 43 there is so much there upon which to reflect.

I have mentioned in recent days two instances experienced in church these last two weeks which caused me some distress (that is not too strong a word). In short what each of the comments by different speakers did was to reduce the gospel to the extent that it became powerless and worthless. On one occasion I was offered the idolatry of a starry cross in deep space as evidence of God, on the other the idolatry of personal conversion based on and limited to belief in one’s own decision making. Not only was it ‘just believe’ as in ‘ah go on go on ya will ya will’, it was also ‘just believe’ as in that’s all that Christianity is: you believe and then tell others you believe. And the truth of the matter is this, I sat in church and thought, this is not what I believe, and this is not who I am.

You have said a number of things in your comments in #43, that we must let the Bible be what it is, that is difficult enough, but your following comments culminating in the question, ‘Will our Scripture course change that young girl’s life’, may one day be the final arrow in the heart not only of my “bourgeois Christianity”, but also of the insatiable evangelical appetite for words above all else. “You have your heads in your Bibles constantly because you think you'll find eternal life there. But you miss the forest for the trees. These Scriptures are all about me! And here I am, standing right before you, and you aren't willing to receive from me the life you say you want.” said Jesus one day to pious; am I to conclude that I do not want, for all of my believing, his life?

You may be interested to know that I tried a version of the contemplation you mentioned (although being a good Protestant I did my own version of it!), however, I saw the following: Peter, dawdling with a stick in the grey ash of a courtyard fire, shooting curious glances at his friend who had been arrested, following in his imagination, cursing with his actions.

Pete

Thamks for sharing that. I used to do the Ignation stuff all the time. The guy who was leading us would ask us to put ourselves in our favourite place. "Listen to the sound of the wind in the trees, feel the sun on your face, hear the sound of a distant tractor..."

Suitably relaxed, he'd invite us to imagine a figure in the distance walking towards us. (Jesus) Eventually you are asked to speak to this man, tell him what is in your heart. Then listen, listen as he responds.....

Reviewing the prayer session with my Spiritual Director, he asked me what Jesus' face looked like. I didnt know. I had been staring at the ground. (Guilt, shame, unworthiness...)

There is no nugget of wisdom to conclude this. Just to say, I went there today, to the place I always thought of in those prayer sessions. I actually heard the distant tractor etc.., the wind, the sun etc.. in real time. It was an incredible day. (Didnt see a distant figure or speak to anyone, btw.)

But during the day I was thinking about being my brother's keeper and my anger at MCC. (I wrote with the same vitriol against JW on the subject of America's involvement in Latin America.)

I concluded in these last few days that my anger is not solely about my past. (That was really what the invitation to reflect was really all about, ultimately.) It is directed at Christianity which is devoid of any real care for the poor and places far too much energy on stuff and nonsense. (Stroking ourselves.)

I've also said from the start on here that the Bible is not the apex of God's revelation, human history, praxis, is. The plight of that young girl in Zimbabwe trumps any passage, anywhere in the Bible.

RJB, Peter

I agree fully with you that the gospel must change our hearts in practical ways to care for the poor, here, globally.

In fact, I think everyone of all creeds and none on this website agrees, apparently, in principle that we should help those that cannot help themselves.

It is a common theme in the life of Christ, his actions, his words to his followers.

Also RJB, I fully agree, if it is what you are saying, that western Christianity is far too intellectualised. I think Peter has alluded to this previously in his comments about the Yale course, creeds, joining community and intellectual asssent.

In Hebrew thought, I understand, information only qualifies as knowledge when we apply it.

This theme and conversation are very recurrant themes on this blog.

But is it simply the case that our meaning in life is to love our neighbour, is that really our sole purpose? Can loving our neighbour really provide our ultimate meaning and purpose?

I know you have expressed your doubts before RJB about the inspiation of the bible and the Godhood of Christ, in a painfully honest posting.

But I ask myself what meaning and end is there to all this human suffering unless God came down among us and experienced it until it killed him too, but also demonstrated victory over it also, and gave us us hope that it all has an end.

Not to mention the fact that he gives us the compassion and inspiration to tackle it in the meantime.

Without all that, I think there is actually no ultimate hope for the suffering of people like this.

If this is not absolutely true then can it be absolutely true that we should help those in dire poverty? On what authority?

Is it only doubt you have about this RJB or do you have any other objections to this claim about what Christ as God coming to us in flesh and blood in history?

Im interested to understand your POV...

regards
OT

OT

You raise an interesting and important question about our practise of Christianity: “But is it simply the case that our meaning in life is to love our neighbour, is that really our sole purpose? Can loving our neighbour really provide our ultimate meaning and purpose?”

So, a few reflections on a question which has followed me most of my life.

Jesus, of course, said, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these.", and these words would seem to indicate a difference between loving God and loving one’s neighbour, not that we can choose between the two, but a difference in focus none the less. However, writing in Galatians, Paul says, “The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself.".

Now of course he isn’t saying we don’t have to love God, *but* he does seem to be saying that love for/of God is demonstrated, seen, becomes obvious, in, love for our neighbours.

And here is my dilemma, one I’ve tried to figure out for quite some time now. Why is it that almost all of my ‘love’ for God, or devotion to him, has been characterised and defined by involvement in religious meetings? What I mean is this, in the evangelical culture I am familiar with there seems to be an inordinate emphasis placed on ‘worship’ by which I mean attending worship services; this, it seems, is how we ‘love’ God: we sing, we read the bible, we pray, we listen to sermons, to choirs, praise groups and the like.

Now is it not my business here to criticise the church, rather I am trying to explain how I have come to think about things, explain what it is that impresses itself on my thinking. Can I keep on singing the same stuff, keep listening to essentially the same sermons I’ve heard all my life without those words impacting my action? Can I really say that this is how I love God when so little of my time is concerned with others, particularly the poor and my enemy (given the specific biblical focus on these groups)?

Can I really say that I have found my fulfilment in God if I remain (practically speaking) unconcerned with my neighbour? Can I really say I have understood grace if I am not gracious? And to really drive the point home to myself, I’ve been asking, based on the words in Galatians, and many, many in the Old testament, am I really, even with all my involvement in the worship programme of my local church, really loving God at all? Perhaps the ‘worship programme’ is preventing me loving God!?

And currently I’m reaching the conclusion that loving our neighbour really does provide our ultimate meaning and purpose, because loving our neighbour is what God requires of us. Perhaps to love one’s neighbour (with all that the biblical concept of neighbour entails), is to love God. To live as God intended: to love one’s neighbour (and enemy) to be active in the community of mankind, to be just and merciful, to seek shalom, is, perhaps, worship. That’s what I’m thinking anyway.

Regards

Peter

Peter, a very thoughtful post. And I would add, therefore, what exactly is God *for*? It's not as if he brings anything to the party, and you could just as easily set him aside. At very best he (by which I mean *belief* in him) might be regarded as a catalyst (I would argue not, but hey) for good behaviour, but not a sustainer. Just a mental model, a cognitive shortcut that is past its sell-by date?

OT

"God is disclosed in the historical 'praxis' of liberation. It is the situation, and our passionate and reflective involvement in it, which mediates the Word of God. Today, that Word is mediated through the poor and oppressed."

Richard P. McBrien summarized the theology of liberation in those words. I'll go with that.

Che Guevara once said that the day Christianity actually started to live the Gospel and take it seriously, there would be a revolution which would shake this world to its foundations.

I've mentioned before that our situation in the affluent West does not allow us to hear the radical call of the Gospel. Liberation theology is simply the Gospel, but heard from the perspective of the poor. Its a very different Gospel.

Hope that sheds some sort of light on my view.

OT

Also, with regard to so much of Christianity and its 'reading' of the Bible, and the notion of the Gospel being heard from the perspective of the poor, consider the following parable/story.

A group of Christians gather to discuss whether gay people should be admitted to their church or not. The meeting last for two hours and gets very heated. Every type of view is put forward from overtly homophobic to gay friendly. The meeting finishes and its decided that gay people are to be admitted to the Church.

Some walk out in disgust and say they will never be back. Others are unhappy about it, but stay. And some are happy that the Church has made this decision.

All of them go home and walk past a drunk homeless man sitting in the street.

I'm quite sure that we would all say that in our understanding of the Gospel, these so called Christians did wrong.

However, if we read the situation from the perspective of the homeless man (reading the same Gospels) we see something different. These people have sat for two hours discussing a subject which is not mentioned even once - not once - in the Gospels and yet there is page after page after page written about the poor. Its actually pretty outrageous, even disgusting, what these people have done. I could maybe even think of God's wrath in this situation.

Jesus sees people and their situation through the eyes of the poor, not the rich - they are HIS words, after all.

Peter, RJB

Thanks for your thoughtful replies.

Unfortunately I dont have time to do them justice.

I couldnt disagree with anything you have written.

I guess I am just wondering if besides all this does, the birth, death and resurrection of God in human form is of any significance for us at all? Does it matter?

OT

OT

You ask, “I guess I am just wondering if besides all this does, the birth, death and resurrection of God in human form is of any significance for us at all? Does it matter?”

Well, yes, I think it very much does and it relates to the comments made by Helio, so perhaps this attempt at a reply to him will be helpful to you too.


Helio.

Right. Flip. Goony. Eee by gum. Where to start?

“what exactly is God *for*?”

We’ve batted about the (as you love to say) chin stroking philosophical arguments for God before so I’m going to try a different tack this time, perhaps it will be a more personal one, and perhaps somewhat experimental. I’m going to try to run with no, or limited asumptions about the existence of God and that will include, at least initially, steping outside the worldview which I otherwise hold: what OT has described as the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus. Now, understand this, that phrase, used by OT is one I am very comfortable with, it is one I use myself, and it is one which I find full of meaning but others don’t find it useful at all so I’m going to have to find another way of doing this. I’m going to try and do something that I keep asking of my fellow Christians and hang some meaning on the religious phrases I use and the word, ‘God’. And I'm going to start this way.

We are Helio, I think, agreed on the value of caring for our neighbour. It is something that humans beings do. Perhaps we might also say that even in the worst of us there is a spark of love for others. Human beings are capable of deep compassion, and, relative moral interpretations aside, we all seem to understand something we might term ‘right’ and something we might term ‘wrong’. Now in using those words I’m going beyond what is beneficial or unbeneficial, if for no other reason than the examples we can point to of people benefiting others at expense to themselves. We might say that altruism as well as ‘mere’ kindness (if I can put it that way) is an observable human trait. We, as you say, *do* these things. Human beings are moral beings.



Now all of this is fine and dandy, sun in the sky and lemon pie, but, there’s a but. We also live with a terrible tragedy. Now, I didn’t say we (or some at least) face terrible tragedies, I said we live with a tragedy and this tragedy is also a human one, we’re like the “little girl who had a little curl”, when we’re good, we can be very, very good, but, when we’re bad we can be horrid.

This is a dilemma, for me, for you, for all of us. It is a dilemma for me as I sit in church on Sunday, and to be honest, some of what I hear there doesn't answer the problem adequately, and I'll go further my *belief* sure ain't going to solve the problem... I can *believe* til I'm blue in the face, I can try and *really*, *truly* and *sincerely* believe while people sing the last hymn (that's what we were supposed to do, wasn't it?), but what I *believe* is neither here nor there cos me *believing* something isn't worth a hill of beans, yet there is something in all of us which says, which nags, 'It isn't fair.'

So, we need some kind of solution to this...

Peter - # 52. A really interesting post and yet another example of how we think some really quite similar things differently. Maybe you'll indulge me if I share some of my own thoughts about Our Lord's summary of the Law. I am particularly interested that you note a "a difference between loving God and loving one’s neighbour" where I perceive an organic and inter-dependent unity between the two.

I once had to write an epitaph, to summarise in three or four words the essence of a person and the substance of a relationship. Christopher will be happy to learn that I found I could manage it best in Latin where three words conveyed everything: Amans. Amanda. Peramata. Those words say that the person was loving. They say that she was loveable, but more than that that, almost that she compelled love, that she drew it to herself as a magnet. They tell that she was loved to bits.

I venture to suggest that those three words also express the perfection of Christian love and lie at the core of the Torah: knowing we are loved to bits, we surrender ourselves to love, we love actively, and we become truly loveable.

When he designates a prime 'commandment' Jesus identifies recognising and loving God as paramount. His words are absolute. They are unqualified. If the object were anything else the imperative would be intimidating. God, however, is love: we are to love love itself. Jesus is saying that we should give ourselves wholly over to love so that it can suffuse our being, transform our person, and energise our actions. We love God by letting Him into our hearts.

Loving God then does not so much require us to love our neighbours as it prompts and enables us to do so. Falling in love with the very principle of love, critically, transforms our attitudes, not just towards our neighbours, but also towards ourselves and that is important when it comes to the second 'commandment'.

Unless we have the understanding of the first part of the summary I have outlined above, to my mind the second part is highly problematic.

We have to ask ourselves, when we look closely at the text, is there a third commandment lurking here, an embedded instruction, is Jesus saying "you must love yourself"? If so, for many people it could well be the most difficult commandment of the three. Maybe though instead Christ's giving us a get-out clause, maybe He's just saying something more like "to that extent which you find you can love yourself, that's as much as is required of you with regard to your neighbour".

I don't think the gospel writer would have left room for ambiguity on something so critical, therefore I don't think that Jesus is actually saying either of these things, indeed I don't think He was giving commandments at all.

Jesus is saying that the Torah, the teaching of the Word, is that the transformation of the person which comes from immersion of the self in the selfless, the opening of our whole being to undifferentiated love, leads to wholeness of life and that radical change of perspective which resolves separation and allows us to see self and neighbour together as codependent parts of a greater but single whole. Loving God opens our eyes to what is His image in Everyman, the capacity for love or loving which makes every person loveable.

In all our high academic pursuits of recent weeks we may have perhaps neglected somewhat the theology of Boyzone: when they sing "Love me for a reason, let the reason be love" they express (however inadvertently) a profound Christian truth!

Parrhasios

"We cannot change anything unless we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses. I am the oppressor of the person I condemn, not his friend and fellow sufferer.

Perhaps this sounds very simple, but simple things are very often the hardest to do. In actual life, it requires the greatest art to be simple. And so acceptance of oneself is the essence of the moral problem and the acid test of one's whole outlook on life.

That I feed the beggar, that I forgive an insult, that I love my enemy in the name of Christ - Is there any doubt that these are great virtues? What I do to the least of my brothers and sisters, that I do unto Christ.

But what if I should discover that the least amongst all of them, the poorest of all beggars, the most impudent of all offenders, that the person most in need of my own alms giving, lies within me myself? What if I should discover that I myself am the enemy who must be loved - what then?

Then, as a rule, the whole truth of Christianity is turned on its head. There is then no more talk of love and long suffering. Then we cry to the brother within us, 'Raca' (beast) and condemn and rage against ourselves. We hide from ourselves, we deny ever having met this least among the lowly in ourselves. And had it been Jesus himself who drew near us in this despicable form, we should have denied him a thousand times before the cock had crowed even once....

This is why modern man has heard enough of guilt and sin. He is sorely enough beset by his own bad conscience, and wants rather to know how he is to reconcile himself with his own nature, how he is to love the enemy in his own heart and call the wolf his brother." - Carl Jung.

RJB

I hope that this can be a sufficiently sensitive reply (if I should reply at all).

I am struck by these words, “had it been Jesus himself who drew near us in this despicable form, we should have denied him a thousand times before the cock had crowed even once....” and “how he is to love the enemy in his own heart and call the wolf his brother.”

The standard (Christian) answer with which I am familiar is that the antidote to the dilemma of enemy in our own hearts is ‘a relationship with Jesus’. Of course, as you point out, we can deny even this love and we are no further on. It is a dreadful problem. It is as if everyone is loveable even likeable, except ourselves. And the words ‘a relationship with Jesus’ become little more than a (failed) magic spell.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your comments but I know those who do struggle in this way, those for whom even the acceptance of a simple kindness is difficult, and the call to love others becomes only another measure of failure.

I am convinced though that it is in better understanding Jesus that hope is possible, yet, without what we might call the community of church, without, let’s just call it friendship, we might always struggle to believe that we can be loved, liked, accepted.

I guess that this is why I increasingly despair of a church life without an attempt at community, a church life which emphasises statements of faith and programmes of events. Unfortunately these are merely more opportunities to hide, from ourselves and from one another.

To love one another, others, to love God, to be loved is something we learn, we cannot do it alone, but whether or not any of us who call ourselves Christian will every be in a position to learn this together I no longer know. I am convinced however that this is what church is. Any other expression of church continues to leave me just a little hollow.

Peter

Continuing with the cock crowing imagery, I am always moved when I hear Marks account of the empty tomb and those incredible two words, "Go and tell the disciples AND PETER" that Jesus will meet them in Galilee.

In our communities, after Peter's sin, his cowardice, would he even have been allowed to stand against the back wall? Would he even have been allowed in our church?

(Your Ignation contemplation - (you dont have to be RC to do it, btw, you just have to have an imagination) - with Peter stirring the coals in the courtyard, is very relevant here.)

I would imagine that at that particular moment, Peter's self esteem was zero. His self hatred and self loathing must have been profound. But the "bitter tears" are to be transformed.

The community which you envisage would be a community centred on forgiveness, I would guess. It would be a forgiveness which 'energized.'
To paraphrase Jung (again), the beauty of reaching out to someone, blinded by life's pain, to raise them up and help them see again.

Parrhasios' "I see you."

I am always wary of those who claim road to Damascus type conversions. A blinding light, a heavenly voice... If Jesus speaks at all, surely it has always been through a third party, our brother or sister, the mediator. Community.

Hmmm

RJB, I hadnt noticed this before and it has a quare impact on me;-

"Go and tell the disciples AND PETER" that Jesus will meet them in Galilee."

Wow. That is Christ's grace, the hound of God right there...


Ref Jung and calling the wolf our brother...

I am not sure if I understand you totally, we come from different worlds I know so bear with me.

I get the impression from previous discussions that you have had prolonged and painful lectures on the sinfulness of man and that you have found this very damaging. Perhaps you might even say some of those lectures have come from me...if so , sorry, it was never my motive.

Where I can idenify with you is that I think pure condemnation from self or others IS very destructive. My understanding is that those of us willing to throw ourselves on God's mercy for our sinfulness as the publican who did not feel worthy to go to temple, are accepted by God.

The bible for me is a story of a rescue operation by God for man, not a story of condemnation of man by God.

I also think that perhaps many of us have lost sight of our dignity and worth before God... that we are all fearfully and wonderfully made, immortals in the making... made in the actual likeness of the eternal God. wow.

That would help explain, imo, why God was willing to pay such a high price for us, even though we are flawed.

Can I call the wolf my brother? I can certainly be at peace with the understanding that there is a "black dog" in me that will never be tamed in this life; and that it can only ever be destructive in one way or another. I wouldnt call it a friend but I can accept it is there and take steps to starve it and keep my eyes off it and on the shepherd.

imo as Jesus was human as well as divine he fully understands this and does not condemn us for have this as part of our nature. He was tempted in all ways that we are. imo the cross and the outworkings of it in our life give us the chance of lives free from the domination of this dog.

I am not by any means saying I have a full grasp on this experientially, but I believe I am heading in the right direction and I thank God for the cross.

I look at Christ's prayer in Gethsamane where he asked for the cup to pass him, and I think - he knew what was coming, how terrible the cross would be, and yet he submitted to his fathers will and went through with it.

In other words, it appears he dealt with sin head on, and that there was no other way.

he did not baulk from it, and neither did he ignore it in his dealings with people personally in the gospels. imo he was tender with those that fell on his mercy as Lord but challenging with those that tried to justify themselves by their own deeds.

Marx and Jung have made massive contributions to human thought and history, but none of them acknowledged sin and claimed to dealt with it on our behalf.

Has Christ not made a crucial contribution to mankind on the cross that we cannot ignore if we are to get out from under the heel and condemnation of sin?

OT

"Go and tell the disciples AND PETER" that Jesus will meet them in Galilee.

OT

I've heard it argued that the addendum, "and Peter" was indicating that Peter had lost his position as a disciple and was not to get it back until the threefold negation of his denials, "Peter, do you love me?"

I dont agree with that. I think the "and Peter" was because more than anyone else, Peter needed to hear those words. And, as you rightly say, it has the wow! factor, an incredible piece of scripture which says so much about God's relationship to broken humanity. (For wow! read unconditional/undeserving love.)

However, regarding viewing the beast within us, I think Jung's point was the opposite of "doing my best to keep my eyes off it." He did not want us to flee from it. He wanted us to look at it square in the eyes, to confront the unpallatable, embarrassing truth about ourselves. In doing so I think we become aware of God, not seeking him elsewhere where we think we are more 'presentable' to him.

We will of course disagree with the place of personal sin in the greater scheme of things. The wolf in me will emerge from time to time - I am not God - but that recognition makes me feel that I should be more accepting of the wolf in others and less judgemental. But that is a struggle on a daily basis.

cheers RJB

it sure has the wow factor. wow.

I am not sure I expressed myself clearly there.

In my experience Jesus turned out to be the "thing" that I was yearning for but couldn't define, the ultimate in being known, knowing in return and being accepted, just like Peter. wow.

To me this tends to fill me up, and tends to crowd out surrendered sin.

I think there are 2 truths here, one it is a battle, but two it is not one we can actually win through our own strength. only in his strength, imo.


I respectfully repeat my question;-

Has Christ not made a crucial contribution to mankind on the cross that we cannot ignore if we are to get out from under the heel and condemnation of sin?

If you feel you cant address this question, perhaps because of how it is contructed I would respectfully be interested to know why.

regards
OT

We will of course disagree with the place of personal sin in the greater scheme of things.


why should we RJB?

OT

The crucifixion, separated from Christ's teaching, is utterly irrelevant to humankind.

It only makes sense and becomes meaningful when we see it in the light of everything he said and did.

Going to one's violent death for others is an act which has been done by many people in history. No greater love, etc..

In the context of his teaching, it was an incredible act of love.

I think we would be different in our understanding of sin because we have both been immersed in different traditions, different environments etc.. I dont see my life as an obstacle course filled with the possibilities of sin where my job is to get through without sinning. Rather, I know I will make mistakes but, because I know I will be forgiven, I want to at least try and forgive others and maybe through that, see something of Jesus in those moments.

An over emphasis on personal sin can cloud our view of love, our relationship with and duty to our neighbour. If you are going to decide to love people, to involve yourself in their lives, personal sin is going to be a necessary part of your life. Much more so than the person who decides to sit in his house all day to avoid sinning at all costs.

RJB

I could not agree more that avoiding sin is not our mission in life - it is to positively love God and our neighbours with our hearts souls and minds, for example in addressing their poverty.

I guess I may give a different impression sometimes because of the info raised here which I choose to engage on.

The way I see it we are adopted as children of God when we accept by faith the forgiveness made possible by the cross and resurrection.

We do not earn our adoption by avoiding sin. However Christ in the sermon on the mount and Paul in 1 Timothy and Galatians make it very clear that a sinning lifestyle will disqualify us from the kingdom of God.

Paul says the law is helpful to show us how far from God we are and to point us to unmerited adoption through the cross. (Christ and James show us that we should not have needed Marx to advise us to help the poor!)

I feel it would be unloving to allow people to teach, unchallenged, that it is not possible to disqualify ourselves from God's family. The NT makes it clear there is an onus on believers to take this responsibility seriously, I believe.

Incidentally, I think John makes it clear that it is not reasonable to suggest that Christians will never sin, moreso that surrender to Christ within us we are freed from it as a lifestyle. Furthermore, the desire to sin is not a sin and we should not condemn ourselves or others for it.

I think we are not so far apart as it might have appeared at times?

:)

Am I right?

Sincerely

OT

OT

To me there seems to be a big difference between our sense of what sin is and its effects.

There is a huge distinction between the sin of the rich and the sin of the poor.

Unfortunately, Churches through the ages, right back to the Pharisees and beyond have made it their prerogative to expose the sins of the poor, to preach down to them and be guilty of employing gross double standards, hammering the poor for, say, sexual misdemeanours, while turning a blind eye to the corruption, greed and selfishness of the rich.

You are right to refer to James though. I used his reading for my ordination about the double standards church goers employ in the way they treat the rich and poor.

According to the Gospels, Jesus was angered at such hypocrisy. I dont see any change in the situation in this day and age. It consistantly chooses easy targets for its moralising and finger pointing, often using scripture passages from outwith the gospels to justify itself.

rjb

I guess i am one of the top 5 per cent richest people in the world.

I have 3 mouths to provide for and a very
average income.

What should i do different to what i do now?

Also, is there any real spirtual help for the poor as well as bread?

Is christ actually really real for us with real cleansing freedom and strength today?

Or is he just an historical figure to inspire us no different to marx and jung?

Can an unholy lifestyle devoted to the poor satisfy god? What does he want from us?

Sorry this is stilted, on a mobile.

Ot

OT

"What should i do different to what i do now?"

I have asked myself the very same question, many times.

Truth is I (as in, I on my own) can do very little. But, I am convinced that we (as in, the church) can do much much more. Actually I think we're supposed to do this together.

We are supposed to (in light of the cross) redeem one another from our many sins, including the sin of failing the poor of the world.

This seems dreadfully difficult in a society which not only counts material comfort as it chief end but in a church which thinks of ecclesiastical comfort as 'blessing'.

Another of your comments used to bother me too. You ask, "Can an unholy lifestyle devoted to the poor satisfy god?" Well, my view is that that is unlikely, but, I'm accountable for my life and what I began to realise was that my ignoring the poor (I do often) was/is as unholy as anything else. That's a real problem for me. It bothers me. I can get so much of my religious life looking right, but I'm still selfish.

There are no easy answers here, but my thinking through my attitude to the poor of the world isn't intended to be an excuse for anything else.

It's just that I think we evangelicals have thought of salvation as 'spiritual' (and it is) for so long that we have forgotten that it is also earthy.

OT

You give one sentence which really is at the heart of this - "Can an unholy lifestyle devoted to the poor satisfy God?"

A lifestyle devoted to the poor cannot be 'unholy'.

Satisfy God? That is very deep, I'm not sure about that. Would he approve? Definitely!!

RJB, Peter

Thanks for your thoughts.

I note Peter says that an unholy lifestyle devoted to the poor is unlikely to satisfy God while RJB says that a life devoted to the poor cannot be unholy.

Two very different views, but which is right, if either?

BTW I would certainly not think of proposing a private pietist faith that has no implications for single mothers, the unemployed, immigrants, human trafficking victims, the developing world etc etc.

A south American communist revolutionary might argue that his life is devoted to the poor, yet he or she may be responsible for ongoing human rights atrocities and murder of women and children and civilians. So is this holy and if not, by what standard, I am left asking myself? He is devoted to the poor, he says.

Likewise, if we look at the sermon on the mount we see Christ teach on quite a few points. He makes clear points on money and the poor, but by my reckoning it only takes up s small fraction of his time.

RJB, are you really suggesting that we only need to personally concern ourselves with the portions of these teachings which focus on the poor and we can please ourselves on the rest?

That sounds pretty dangerous to me, but maybe I have not understood what you meant.

Am interested to hear both your views.

sincerely
OT



Matthew 5-7

The Beatitudes
Be salt and light in the world
Christ affirms the Old Testament law
Unjustified anger is murder
Mental adultery will take us to hell
Divorce is forbidden except for adultery
Do not swear oaths
Go the Second Mile
Love Your Enemies
Do good to the poor in secret
Pray using the Lords prayer
Fasting to Be Seen Only by God
Dont hoard your wealth
The Lamp of the Body
You Cannot Serve God and Riches
Do Not Worry
Do Not Judge
Keep Asking, Seeking, Knocking
Few will gain eternal life, many will go to destruction
How to spot false prophets
Christ will reject many who claimed to be following him
Build on the Rock

OT

Yes you did misunderstand me. Someone who goes about murdering innocent women and children is a murderer, no matter what he thinks he may be doing for the poor.

I was thinking more along the lines of, say, a person who works for the poor but who happens to be gay.

thanks RJB

I dont want to get into a debate about sexuality, that is not what I was thinking about, but I will say this.

Most happily heterosexual males today who read through the sermon on the mount should clap their hands over their mouths

:)

Even mental adultery for them is falling seriously short of Christ's standards and that is saying a lot when we consider how sexualised our media and society is now.

You never hear this acceptable heterosexual sin preached against, but in contrast it is acceptable to condemn "homosexual practise". Those are unacceptable double standards that result in one group being stigmatised and isolated and the other "straight" sin just ignored or even tolerated with a wink and a laugh.

I honestly think we need to be more open and relaxed about the issues and look afresh at how God really wants us to deal with them. Secrecy, bondage, crushing condemnation and guilt are certainly not from God. And I think his dealings with outcast promiscious in the gospels is a good starting place. He defended, humanised, cleansed and restored them.

I dont mean this to sound like a sermon. Peter, RJB, what do you think?


Even when I go to the gym the music videos I cant avoid put only one idea into my head and it has nothing to do with my wife!

Having said that, i dont see it as sin for someone to appreciate the physical beauty of another person.

But I am looking at the sermon on the mount in its entirety and thinking, there is just no way, humanly speaking, that I can make my character confirm to what is being asked of me.

Incidentally, from what I can see, the bible is actually silent on the narrow and specific issue of "being gay" but I will be corrected. I dont see that purely owning such an identity is actually sinful in any way according to the bible. Am I wrong anyone?


But I come back to the point I was asking, who is to say that murder by a revolutionary is wrong? What standard are we using rjb?

You actually said that a lifestyle devoted to the poor cannot be unholy.

But does that actually tally up with Christ's sermon on the mount?

Can we really pick and choose what to take on board from his teachings? Can we live up to them at all and if not what has God got to say about it?

I firmly believe that Christ himself as a real person helps change our characters, not a Christ of our our theological imagination or a literary character, but as a real person. And that this, somehow has only been possible through the cross and resurrection.

Thoughts guys?

cheers

OT

PS I picked up a book last night I bought some time ago by Nicky Gumbel on Christian lifestyle and only last night realised it was based on the sermon on the mount... some very helpful constructive insights he has. If either of you are interested I could send a copy to WC for you.

Well Hallelujah (if thats not offensive to some!)

OT, you amaze me how much progress you've made. Gay people, justifiable revolutionary murder.... what next?????

There has been an outbreak of Christianity on here and it is a miracle. (okay a sign, then.)

Fundamentalists, liberals, orangemen, catholic priests, Pastors, atheists, scientists, christian atheists, Americans!!!, waifs, strays, footpads, vagabonds and the one eyed...... and hardly a bad word between us.

This is so impressive. OT, once I get over the euphoria, I'll respond (but I think you know me well enough by now to guess the kinda thing I'm going to say.)

OT

It may help if I start by saying that when I read the sermon on the mount any thought that I can measure up disappears, that there is, and was, only ever one faithful citizen of the Kingdom.

That said, may I turn your question around?

Is it possible for an otherwise 'holy' follower of Jesus ignore the poor and satisfy God?

thanks Peter

Can we be holy disciples and ignore the poor?

My answer covers many, many pages;-

https://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=poor&version1=31&searchtype=all

But perhaps an even more important question is, what is the Good News?

--------------------------------------------------


Thanks RJB :)

I dont think I have actually expressed anything new to you at all, maybe I am making progress with my communication skills????

Maybe you would clarify?

:)


Getting back - why should we trust RP McBrien more than the Sermon on the mount and NT?

The Sermon and NT was not written by wealthy 21st century westerners.....


If RP McBrien’s version of the gospel is the true one (and if Jung can deal with our sin), then surely that means that Christ has died unnecessarily?

And getting back to the NT Christ who defends, affirms, forigives and restores sinners who come to him....

....did Thomas really touch the holes in his hands?

OT

Also Peter - what does the Good News have to do with the Sermon on the Mount, if nobody can live up to it?

BTW RJB

You say you think I know you well enough to expect what you are going to say. I might have an idea but if you are surprised by my comments then why not break out a little too?

;-)

Maybe we can agree - that sex and sexual sin are biblically certainly not either at the root of man's problems nor the solution to his problems?

To me the root of all mankind's problems is our natural tendency to make ourselves and not Christ the centre of our lives....

Your view?


Shalom

OT

OT

You ask, what is good news.

I'll quote NT Wright.

"... when Jesus rose again God's whole new creation emerged from the tomb, introducing a world full of new potential and possibility.... the resurrection of Jesus does not leave as passive helpless spectators. We find ourselves lifted up, set on our feet, given new breath in our lungs and commissioned to go and make new creation happen in the world."


I suppose I could also mischievously say that the good news is that Jesus died for our sins, offers us salvation and if we would only ask him into our heart then we would be saved, but I know you wouldn't expect me to say that! ;-)

OT # 79, missed that one, sorry.

One way we can think about Sermon on the Mount and Good News.

Jesus is the faithful citizen of the Kingdom he describes, his faithfulness counts in place of my duplicity, his truth for my deceit, his meekness for my pride. Righteousness is what God does, we might think of it as God rescuing his people and welcoming them into this new creation/Kingdom.

Peter

I'll buy both of those.

ref the poverty question - this word community you keep mentioning keeps coming back. I have noted I have never been a member of a middle class church since I came to faith.

But I know a couple of middle class churches which do have strong community. One of them has been the friendliest I have seen, though not without its problems of course.

Why do you stick with your old wineskin if you crave such community? Why not seek likeminded people?

My other thought, which I think you mentioned before, was that community makes us able to tackle poverty.

UN aid, Fairtrade, Jubilee, Tearfund, Simon, and often the local church.

I am aware of several local churches actively engaged with helping people on the edge of society in many ways. And most active church members are actively supporting such measures with their offerings.

Many church members are actively involved with helping people.

Then there is also the income tax we pay, which makes a relatively good effort at supporting people through the welfare state and also internationally through national Government and the UN.

Obviously, there are many areas of the world where this makes no impact, but I think it is worth mentioning. Perhaps democratic scrutiny of how this is used and how the IMF and World Bank strangle poor countries is where we would get the best return for our time and efforts? Certinaly OXfam see to think so. RJB?

RJB - what further practical steps do you think we and the local church can take?

OT

RJB

Have I offended or hurt you in this thread? I note you have not come back. If so I would be keen to hear you.

Please note my question about Thomas and the wounds in Christ's hands was not intended to be a theological agression.

I am asking about how real can we expect God to be in meeting us where we need healing, cleansing, communion with Him, forgiveness, hope and strength.

Did Thomas really touch the holes in his hands?

OT

OT

Good questions.

For all sorts of reasons I’m not going to be specific with regard to churches but I’ll try and answer your questions this way.

You are quite right when you mention the organisations you do and the way in which many churches are involved with them, this is nearly always something good. And you are quite right when you write about friendly churches, many are, I have no concern about this either. But I suppose in all of this I’m not thinking of any particular church, rather I’m thinking of my overall experience of Christianity, and the following things concern me.

We seem to be almost completely defined by our sub-culture, everything from the ‘Jesus’ bouncy balls I mentioned on another thread, to our styles of worship, our buildings, our summer camps and conferences and the like. Poke the average evangelical and this is what comes out. Following God is almost synonymous with participation in the sub-culture. My own experience of church has been main stream Presbyterian and independent charismatic fellowship. Now the thing is this, on the surface both look different, but scratch a little and what I discovered was that both were primarily identified by their preferred style and the premise of our Christianity was, and I would say continues to be ‘people need to come to church’, with membership predicated on notion of participation in the particular sub-culture. Largely we are a people apart from the world around us.

What bothers me about all of this is that if I were to ask myself what would become of my Christianity if all these trappings were removed I don’t really have much of an answer, ideals, yes, but practical examples, few, or none. And so I note that the gulf fixed between the church and the rest of the community is wider than ever.

You ask why not try something else, but OT, honestly, almost all of the (evangelical) church is as I have described it, we operate on the basis of an organised programme, that is primarily what we do. And I’m not sure I want to do it anymore.

I will of course continue to attend Sunday worship, but my heart is sitting at a table enjoying the company of others rather than sitting in a pew. My heart is with people in the community in ordinary everyday activities. It is as if the church has forgotten that all of life: work, food, football, beer, forests, laughter, celebration all carry the fingerprints of God, and are also the focus of salvation. It is as if we Christians need to learn to be normal again before we can be the church again. It is as if we need to learn how to communicate with each other again before we can say something of value to those who don't identify with us. But one thing for me is sure I increasingly struggle with 'going to church', to 'meetings' where people never actually meet.

OT

No you havent hurt or offended me. When I was 12 a catholic priest abused me. I was moved to another junior seminary at the age of thirteen where another priest, the Rector, abused me.

I spoke out publicly about it 10 years ago and tried to get the Church to face this horrible issue. A Cardinal from the Vatican wrote to my superior (twice) and ordered him to "shut me up." The head of the Order of one of the priests who had abused me asked if it was okay to come and see me to offer help. Instead, he too went to my superior and asked if he could "shut me up", that what I was saying about the boys who had committed suicide "wasn't helping matters."

You'll understand then that my focus of attention on this blog site at the moment is not so much with theological discussion and debate.

I will get round to answering your question, but maybe not for a while.
(I picked horses today for some light relief from a subject which is in the pit of my stomach and has been there since the early seventies.) I know you'll understand.