cunninglily

...except that we probably have different understandings of "the fires of hell", if not what constitutes "Christ-like living", which is okay...diversity of belief within Christianity is as old as Christianity itself. The problem with that, and consequently in responding to this post, is that it begins to feel pointless to debate creed. Catholicism is well established in its sacrament of infant baptism and most Catholics have heard all the arguements against it before. I, personally, feel that the sacraments are oaths and dedications as well as celebrations and infants can't take oaths. See, I think the Cross covered that. I think the sacraments are for those who consciously and willingly come to the Cross as called, and again, one can't really say that infants consciously and willingly receive the sacrament. I feel that the blood of Christ or the Crucifixion accomplished the adoption of all humanity already. Babies are covered. The sacraments are for those who become awakened to or seek awakening of the fact of redemption, so that they can yield to the deeper and higher implications of that Truth, ie, be changed by it. The taking of an oath in the days of Jesus was a very serious thing. A "man's" word meant something then. I think my last few posts are really about that; returning the gravitas and the mystery to the decision to be Christian, and to renew the sacraments fresh and vital and alive again for those who don't find the conventional or conservative ways of administering them sufficiently "moving" anymore, or for the many who don't see the point of honoring them at all. I don't agree. I think baptism is the first sacrament that marks you as one of Gods' "peculiar people". I do not consider it all-inclusive. Everything else you say in the above passage I do agree with and I see no contradiction in that. Gods' steadfast love is new every morning and eternally flowing out to ALL creation, but this is true whether you are Christian or not. Therefore the sacraments are a unique oath taken by those who are called to be disciples of Christ, which is, in case you haven't noticed, not everybody. Well, I think a good point to consider here is whether or not the sacraments are for man or for God. I've been baptised three times. Once as an infant, again at age seven, and then again at age 35. Excepting the first, which couldn't be as I was not yet aware, each time was uniquely meaningful for me. I mean, when you boil it all down, you can get dunked a million times and it means nothing unless it does. Ideally, I agree with you. Ones decision to follow Christ never leaves you. Once you've taken the oath, you're "held" to it in some mysterious way and He never leaves you alone or at peace unless you are honoring it...or so has been my experience. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, I agree, but "believing with all thine heart" is not a small thing. Thanks for the discussion Carl. lily

Well, we can start by studying the Great Commission itself. The call is to make disciples, not to invite people to a fellowship; <{POST_SNAPBACK}> When I read back over my own posts the tone of some seem a lot more uncompromising than I really feel. But I take this tone to make points that seem important to me, and to strengthen the impact of what I think needs to be questioned, such as why are we concerned more with "span" then we are with "depth"? with more people rather than with more people genuinely changed? with attendance rather than attainment? At the risk of an over-generalization, there seem to be two types of people drawn to spiritual and religious groups or organizations: one type seeks fellowship or companionship with like-minded individuals who share common interests, values and mores; they want to raise their kids in a moral environment where the basics of religious teaching is available; they want to attend church on Sunday, maybe participate in a few charitable efforts the church sponsers throughout the week, or a bible study,and for the rest they want to be left to live their lives as they see fit without too much interference from "the church" itself. This type is probably the majority (and this type is not exclusive to Christians, as Pagan groups can roughly be divided into these two types as well). The other type of person is seeking a direct encounter with God; to be changed and transformed; to experience the promises of God in Christ leading to enlightenment, empowerment, and a radical revisioning of what humanity is and what the world can be in God. These two types have been with us always. I could even go so far as to say that the split between the orthodox and the so-called heretical movements is characterized by these two types. The one is happy to put the responsiblity of their salvation into the hands of those who are ordained according to the apostolic succession or other chain of command and the other is aware that they stand alone before God accountable to Him alone. The two are not going to envision "church" the same way. I could venture to say, that by all accounts, Jesus and the movement he began was more of the second type than the first. There was no "business as usual" in Jesus's ministry or in his message. There were no half-way measures, no accomodations to the comfort, stability and security of the status quo. It was, "let the dead bury the dead and follow Me". Period. In my mind, religion by its very nature is a radical departure from business as usual. Siddhartha forsook everything to experience Buddha nature; Odin hung himself from a tree; Jesus, of course, gave up his life unto death...None of these was satisfied that by being "good" that He could attain to the Truth. A decent life; an orderly life; a moral life is a good life, but its not a transformative life and it won't change the world. In our tradition it is written that only those who give up their lives will experience the Christ life and become mediators of Gods Will to the world. Only the Sons of God can work true miracles of transformation and healing and regeneration. The rest of us are biding our time in hopes that heaven awaits us in the afterlife and that hell is for everyone else. But how will we see heaven if we are not changed? How will we see God if we are not transformed into his likeness? How will we vanquish death if we do not die in this life to experience resurrection into life everlasting now? As a political and social construct church is fine, except insofar as those within them claim superiority over those who are not. But as a vehicle of transformation most are found wanting. At least from where I sit. And so I grieve the trend to make "church" palatable to the masses, even though I know the trend will continue. And I grieve even more that there are those among us who feel in a position to condemn and to judge and to dominate while being nothing more than "whitewashed tombs" who don the appearance of holiness without sacrifice. The world will no longer hear these. Jesus never denied the reality of sin or ignorance among us. He never turned his face from the reality of suffering and injustice. But he ALWAYS turned the pointed finger back at the one pointing and until we realize that WE must be changed, all our moralizing and condemning and smug assurances are as sounding brass...and THIS is what I feel the church needs to be focused on, NOT herding in more "sheep" to bump around in the aisles together. lily

Well, we can start by studying the Great Commission itself. The call is to make disciples, not to invite people to a fellowship; then, AFTER a period of discipleship they are to be baptised, and then further instructed and taught in the Way of Jesus the Christ. There were steps in place at the time the original commission was sounded, initiations which those who were committed to discipleship were expected to take. There was a choice involved. One didn't just go to church; one submitted to spiritual direction, initiation, and the ordeals of leaving behind ones past life and beginning life anew as a Christ One. The early Christians literally gave up all property and private financial holdings and shared all equally with those in the community. The Call was a radical departure from "business as usual". It was a literal call to lay down ones life and embrace the Life of God in Christ. These days, the Great Commission is nothing more than getting people to profess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord, granting them eternal salvation based on this verbal acquiesence, and setting them loose upon the churchs and the world. I too am short of time right now...but, there is a lot of meat for discussion here and I hope others will join in. lily

Very interesting. One of the things that struck me while I was still participating in "church" was the general dis-ease of the brethren. The lack of connection with the rest of the world, with their own bodies and imaginations, as well as an abject fear of acting outside the "Will of God" to the point of moral paralysis, resulted in a loss of vitality that I found palpable. Perhaps the church I last attended was more extreme than some of you are used to. Small, non-denominational, spirit-filled and pastored by a man not formally educated who believed that he had the mind of God for his members, it may not represent "church" as most of you know it. Still, I have observed that those who maintain a radical split between "the saved and the unsaved"; who maintain that the "world" is intrinsically evil, including their own bodies, and await nothing more passionately than escape from both, are generally not any better for themselves than they are to the world around them. If we follow the lead of Jesus and judge all manner of spiritual manifestations by their fruit and not by whether or not the bible says it or brother so and so preaches it, then we'll have to admit that some of the fruit of the teachings of "popular religiosity" are indeed rotten. lily

Right...and I'm not talking about hiding any lights under bushels or anything. I am very outspoken in defense when I feel that our tradition is being unfairly heaped upon its lowest common denomination. Jamake Highwater said somewhere that it is only the worst and the best in a culture, society, religion that defines it; the good, decent, middle-of-the-roaders don't really affect that much. Currently, in popular opinion, Christianity is generally defined by its worst manifestations, and we can cry foul all we want and bemoan the injustice, but we still have to face it squarely and take responsiblity for it. My concern is that we will act out of a self-consciousness that comes from a hyper-awareness of Christianities image and water down the tradition in an effort to appease the world and end up losing all that is vital and powerful and life-changing within it. I think we find ourselves in a unique time where bold and radical revisioning can take place. But before this can happen we may have to let go our persistent need to be the worlds dominant religion and instead focus on becoming a religion of substance for the world. lily

Sounds good. I can't argue with a single word you've said...and yet, I'm troubled by something vaguely exasperating about what you've said nonetheless. There is an oft-times huge gap between what we are called to do and what we can authentically do. Ideally, people of faith would reach out to everything in love; our every move would be drenched in it; the Christ-Life should burn so bright in us that doing the "right" thing at the "right" time should come as natural as breathing. But we both know that this is rarely the case. We've forgotten that this Grace comes after trials and testings, after weaning and winnowing, after initiations, and after countless little deaths and resurrections, and the church, from where I sit, would be best served by focusing there; on providing an adytum, a sanctuary, a community for people who are committed to this process that God initiates and furthers within them. There is ample evidence to suggest that this is what the early church took upon itself...training the called in the Way, facilitating those who are called by providing guidance with knowledge of the "ordeals" of transformation; empowering by way of transmission; and providing nurture through the sacred rituals of our tradition. Then, it seems to me, that the fruits of the Spirit would overflow within and through us, and all our "reaching out in love" would come with the authority of Christ who alone saves. In my opinion, evangelism too often runs the risk of arrogance. It too often claims to know the right way while saying far too little about the awareness from which this right way springs. It is also way too self-protective in its insistence that this right way is the only right way, and thus offers "salvation" too cheaply and superficially in order to "save some" from damnation....and then, worst of all, it will often sit in your living room for hours arguing with you....sheeesh. When Jesus ushered the directive to go out into the world to proclaim the good news the good news was news. When the word rang out it rang out with the authority (a word that shares the same root with the word "authentic" btw) of Justified men and women; profoundly changed men and women who amazed the largely pagan populace of the time because they demonstrably loved one another; not by going around proclaiming some idea of unconditional love, but by living it, and being it. I know that Cynthia will say that I am preaching to the choir again, and I'm sure that she'd be right if she did, but it is important to acknowledge at this point in my diatribe that I refuse to ignore the fact that Christianity has struck a sour note on many levels in the maws of the world. And I must be completely honest in saying that in many cases I find this justified. And I know that the we've been warned that the world would not understand us, but the fact is that the world understands too many of us far too well. It understands arrogance, judgementalism, religious naivete, smugness, irrelevance, injustice and the lot quite well. Dying before you die? so that not you, but Christ lives through you...nah, most "materialists" or "muggles" don't understand this at all. Pity too...because this is the only good news we've got. lily

Good thoughts. Do you have a vision of what these "new churches" would look like? How would they be different; how the same? I attempt this sometimes...to envision what would constitute a church I could commit to. Even on the small scale of my own personal preferences it's a daunting task. I'd like to hear more of what you have to say on this topic Xian. Maybe when you have the time you could start a new thread where we may focus more on this. lily

Both "The Road Less Traveled" and "People of the Lie" were very important books for me at an early stage of working to become more conscious and aware. I've always thought that his treatment of the subject of evil in his "People of the Lie" to be very insightful and useful. There are some riveting examples of both individual and group evil in the book that are unforgettable. It's been years now since I've read either one, but copies of both are around here somewhere... Thanks for letting us know of his passing... lily

I heartily and respectfully disagree. Everyone knows that we're here. They've heard the message. Down here we even have billboards with pithy sayings signed by "God". I don't understand the urge to evangelize at this point in the church's life; I don't understand the emphasis on growth of population. It seems that energies are needed elsewhere now. Maybe I am in possession of a highly subjective slant here, but from where I sit there are way too many already "saved", already faithful to whatever degree or way to the Christian tradition, who are not in church; who are disenfranchised, disillusioned, and despairing, bereft of community and struggling to maintain their connection to God in Christ, while trying to make sense of the contradictions, assimilate the truths of other traditions not there own, and on top of that, trying to reconcile the "unconditional love of God" that our tradition proclaims with the atrocities and absurdities commited in the name of Jesus everyday. I hear most of you being very reasonable by stating that it is totally unrealistic to "start a new church". I just wish someone would lose their mind long enough to risk it...or at the very least, draw some of that evangelizing energy in and use it to strengthen the foundations before adding a new floor to the tower. But then I don't believe that people are going to go to hell and suffer eternal damnation if they don't come to one of our churches. So I don't "get" the urgency to grow in population. I also don't believe that more Christians automatically guarantee a better world. So? What gives? Why evangelize? Why not instead build a church that is a genuine crucible of transformation? Why not teach the really good news? that Life begins after you die TO THIS LIFE and enter into eternal life with Christ, as a Christ One yourself? that ALL of us are called to be mediators of Gods Good Pleasure here and now? Oops, I'm preaching...my apologies. Why not focus on building a stronger church? If we could only do that, then believe me, they'd come... ...my own little "field of dreams" I guess. lily

hehe I'm glad you guys liked this. It just goes to show how ridiculous it is to blame any one segment of our society for natural disasters, or to state that "God" is punishing the people of the Earth by sending hurricanes, tornados, and earthquakes and etc. The "rain falls on the just and the unjust alike" and it is suffering that unites us. There is not a one among us who does not have dreams and who will not die. There is not a one among us who will not endure something terrible in this lifetime. If you invest in the blame game you will soon be asking God, "Why me?" Even Pat Robertson will suffer and die. Don't pray for this to happen, just sit back and watch. lily

Do Gays Cause Hurricanes? by Janis Walworth Do "Unnatural" Acts Cause Natural Disasters? Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, recently warned Orlando, Florida, that it was courting natural disaster by allowing gay pride flags to be flown along its streets. "A condition like this will bring about ... earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor," he said, apparently referring to his belief that the presence of openly gay people incurs divine wrath and that God acts through geological and meteorological events to destroy municipalities that permit gay people the same civil liberties as others. (Robertson also warned Orlando about terrorist bombs, suggesting the possibility that God may also employ terrorists.) Before Pat and his Christian cronies get too carried away promulgating the idea that natural disasters are prompted by people who displease God,they should take a hard look at the data. Take tornadoes. Every state (except Alaska) has them - some only one or two a year, dozens in others. Gay people are in every state (even Alaska). According to Pat's hypothesis, there should be more gay people in states that have more tornadoes. But are there? Nope. In fact, there's no correlation at all between the number of gay folks (as estimated by the number of gay political organizations, support groups, bookstores, radio programs, and circuit parties) and the annual tornado count (r = .04, p = .78 for you statisticians). So much for the "God hates gays" theory. God seems almost neutral on the subject of sexual orientation. I say "almost" because if we look at the density of gay groups relative to the population as a whole, there is a small but statistically significant (p < .05) correlation with the occurrence of tornadoes. And it's a negative correlation (r = -.28). For those of you who haven't used statistics since 1973, that means that a high concentration of gay organizations actually protects against tornadoes. A state with the population of, say, Alabama could avert two tornadoes a year merely by doubling the number of gay organizations in the state. (Tough choice for Alabama's civil defense strategists.) Although God may not care about sexual orientation, the same cannot be said for religious affiliation. If the underlying tenet of Pat's postulate is true - that God wipes out offensive folks via natural disasters - then perhaps we can find some evidence of who's on God's hit list. Jews are off the hook here: there's no correlation between numbers of Jews and frequency of tornadoes. Ditto for Catholics. But when it comes to Protestants, there's a highly significant correlation of .71. This means that fully half the state-to-state variation in tornado frequency can be accounted for by the presence of Protestants. And the chance that this association is merely coincidental is only one in 10,000. Protestants, of course, come in many flavors-we were able to find statistics for Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, and Other. Lutherans don't seem to be a problem-no correlation with tornadoes. There's a modest correlation (r = .52, p = .0001) between Methodists and tornadoes. But Baptists and Others share the prize: both groups show a definite correlation with tornado frequency (r = .68, p = .0001). This means that Texas could cut its average of 139 tornadoes per year in half by sending a few hundred thousand Baptists elsewhere (Alaska maybe?). What, you are probably asking yourself, about gay Protestants? An examination of the numbers of gay religious groups (mostly Protestant) reveals no significant relationship with tornadoes. Perhaps even Protestants are less repugnant to God if they're gay. And that brings up another point - the futility of trying to save the world by getting gay people to accept Jesus. It looks from our numbers like the frequency of natural disasters could be more effectively reduced by encouraging Protestants to be gay. Gay people have been falsely blamed for disasters ever since Sodom was destroyed by fire and brimstone (we have been unable to find any statistics on disasters involving brimstone). According to a reliable source, the destruction of Sodom was indeed an act of God (see Genesis 19:13) and was perpetrated because the citizens thereof were, according to the same source (see Ezekiel 16:49- 50), "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned [and] did not help the poor and needy" - not because they were gay. Now Pat would have us believe that gays are the cause of tornadoes (as well as earthquakes, meteors, and even terrorist bombs) in utter disregard for evidence showing that Baptists are much more likely to cause them. I say "Kudos!" to Orlando. Despite Robertson's warning that Orlando is "right in the way of some serious hurricanes" (hardly a revelation), note that it was not struck by the very destructive Hurricane Andrew a few years ago. And amid the recent conflagrations (that's fires) in central Florida, which occurred just after Pat sounded his alarm, Orlando was spared. Keep those flags waving! As any statistician will tell you, of course, correlation doesn't prove causation. Protestants causing tornadoes by angering God isn't the only explanation for these data. It could be that Baptists and Other Protestants purposely flock to states that have lots of tornadoes (no, we haven't checked for a correlation between IQ and religious affiliation). But if Pat and his Christian crew insist that natural disasters are brought on by people who offend God, let the data show who those people are. Janis Walworth - July 16, 1998 Sources: Tornado Occurrence by State, 1962-1991; 1990 Churches and Church Membership; Population by State, 1990 US Census; Gay & Lesbian Political Organizations, Support Groups, and Religious Groups from Gayellow Pages, National Edition, 1987. Permission is given to all to reprint this article in its entirety on a not-for-profit-basis.

Please tell me that you are joking. lily

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, even if you could, there is no place to run to...as people in the Houston area are finding out and as those of us here, in Lafayette, are pretty much resigned to. We are all essentially trapped in one hurricane disaster within another...Most of our family and friends who live out of town live in either Houston or New Orleans, or parts in between, and this is true not just of my family but a significant portion of the Lafayette population, and so, unless you have the means to travel to Tennessee or Georgia or Oklahoma, the nearest cities with available accomodations, then theres nothing much to do but ride it out. Many Houstonians are, of course, here, as well as upwards of 40,000 or so New Orleanians who have been here since Katrina. "Our" evacuees, who have been camped in a trailer in our driveway, decided to head for a suburb of New Orleans (Metarie) reasoning that Rita could do no more damage to that area than has been done (that's proven already to be an incorrect assessment). We have made all possible preparations here. My instinct is that the storm will lessen in strength well before landfall and that shortly after landing will quickly lose force...giving us big icky rains and winds, but less devastation. But this whole mess is driving home the fact, after all political rhetoric is over and finger pointing done, that there is only so much preparation that can be made...the rest is a prayer... New Orleans though....hate to see it...what can I say? lily

To what purpose? If the "correct beliefs" leave the person who holds them "loathsome", then the beliefs held are already called into question, if not held of no consequence at all. We are judged by our fruit, DC, not according to the "correctness" of our beliefs. What?! "Borrowing capital"?! Is it now considered thievery for any who do not profess Christ to be inspired by the philosophy and humanitarianism of Christianity and to emulate it? This is just the sort of double-bind fundamentalists impose on others. "How dare you be good, you're not saved and you're still going to hell, in fact, you're not even good, only God is good..." And Christians do? This is debatable. In fact, many of the eastern teachings concerning mankinds suffering and the law of karma are of great comfort to a great many people. Christians, on the other hand, and I generalize for lack of an option, as there are as many different "flavors" of Christian as there are eastern teachings (not to mention that Christianity itself is of eastern origin) are more apt to impose their beliefs upon suffering individuals than are those of "other" beliefs. ... Yes, and we are ALL made in the image of God DC. lily

My partner subs regularly at a local high school, so I hear the stories. Who DOES work at the middle schools? I know that Michael was coming home feeling like he'd been run over by a mack truck when he spent several weeks at one of our local middle schools. He equates it to a day of riot control...90% of the energy, apparently, goes to restraining the "piss and vinegar" of the student and the rest is left for teaching... ...still, I'm proud of the work he does and I think "you guys" make more of a difference then you know... lily