Jump to content

Common Sense Christianity


Guest wayfarer2k

Recommended Posts

Ross's nuts and bolts approach works well here. Good study material for new member or new Christian class or anyone else looking to make a new commitment.

Being the hypocrite I am I wish Ross would draw us forward into faithful living monetarily without condemning the monetarily challenged.

 

His Note #1 contains a problem which Ross says pivots on how much to sacrifice. I think the problem pivots on how to minster most effectively. The ability to minister to the poor, the outcast, those people on the -- you know - way out there - where we don't want to go - the ability to minster in some cases depends on meeting them face to face, life to life. This can be achieved relationally sometimes - and sometimes that is not enough. I once worked with a woman for whom the difference between my home and hers was a problem. Living with people in need sometimes is the most effective. Mother Teresa was an example. The call is not for all of us, but the question is the effectiveness of our actions and not the sacrifice.

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Chapter 18 -

Does anyone else want to turn this book discussion into a debate about capitalism and socialism? I am hesitant, although I think it would be very timely :-)

 

My lastest conclusions are that generous, responsible, capitalism is the best, and I'm not sure the government will be able to legislate morality, making people less greedy. I'm saddened that this is where our country has journeyed - into the class divisions and selfishness associated with amoral capitalism. I agree that people are better motivated when they gain the rewards of their hard work. We have seen the results.

 

Most of my hope lies in spirituality. I think it is up to faithful people to help bring about a spiritual reformation where most people (including the rich) feel called to share their hard earned pay with their less fortunate brothers, and where most people do not believe they are entitled to a handout but are very appreciative of a "hand up."

 

I hope this great experiment of a nation does not fail! :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Janet,

 

I don't know enough to debate capitalism and socialism as financial systems.

 

One idea I did hear that makes sense is that we need to see two kinds of capitalism: primary capitalism and secondary capitalism. Primary capitalism funds real businesses, factories, organizations that employee people, make things and earns some for the investor. Secondary capitalism is using money to make money without adding to the productivity of society. I would guess that speculation in food and oil as we saw in the last couple years would fall under this secondary capitalism.

 

For the wealthy who live out of a strict father framework, want to protect their own wealth, and believe that handouts do not help people grow up, that the school-of-hard-knocks does. For these wealthy the first message should be one of self interest: if the "masses" are able to learn a modest income and unemployment rates are kept down there will be more stability and less property crime. The positive side of this argument is that the wealthy are indebted to the people who produced their wealth.

 

There would be arguments from a nurturing mother framework also.

 

I think financial systems are amazingly complex and when well intentioned people moved often by sentimentality try to take action often it has unintended consequences. Buying food and other items made within 100, 200, 500 hundred miles from home, for instance, threatens food growers in 2nd and 3rd world countries. On a global scale the "evil of capitalism" is easy to find. Last year when a spokesperson for the World Bank? was asked what was his response to the fact that the Bank's policies would mean certain ruin for small farmers in Africa he said, "We will have to have a safety net for them." Depending on your POV that is a "good" or a "bad" policy.

 

I am naive about the oppression of financial systems and without a book or books to study you know everything I know - and no capital or wealth was created :lol:

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess I should have read Chapter 18 first.

 

I would probably enjoy conversations with Ross. He so likes a grand organization of ideas.

 

His break down of democratic and despotic capitalism, etc. allows him to paint "free enterprise capitalism" into corner with good light and to push the others out into the shadows. He tries to keep democratic free enterprise capitalism away from the accusation:

 

"Capitalism is responsible for the vast disparity between the rich elite and the poor masses, and so is responsible for much of the injustice and suffering in the world." (bottom of page 3 in my print out.)

 

Unregulated capitalism is always so, whether it is in America or else where. In a democracy we can always work and lobby for a nurturing mother view: appropriate regulation of enterprises, support for the poor, undereducated, the hungry , the .... and I think that is the way of love.

 

Class divisions are developing faster than Ross probably imagined when he wrote the book.

 

"If any of these people make or carry out a decision to cheat, steal or pollute . ."

 

Someone said "10% will always do the "good" thing whether anyone is watching or not. 10% will always do the "bad" thing. The job is to push the middle under the influence of the people who do the right thing always."

"The challenge of equipping and training those on government assistance is an old challenge which we have yet to meet."

 

Ross places part of the blame for this on polarized politics but I heard a story on NPR that suggests it is also in how we attack the problem. Someone (i don't remember the name.) with money (where did she get the money? :D ) and committed to success began focusing not on the unemployed or marginally employed parents of new born, but on the children, teaching the parents how to raise children: to talk to them, to read to them, to care for them, to provide appropriate stimulation. The parents attend baby school often and regularly This projects seems to point in the right direction. In a sense the parents lay down their own aspirations so that their child might lifted up.

 

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last Chapter! Whew! Mostly this was a summary of what Ross said before, but I liked what he said about respecting individual methods of prayer. I recently did an online Bible study called, "Morph - Love God", and the most important thing I got from it was an understanding that there is no prescribed way to connect with God. I was never very good about getting up early and reading the Bible, or committing to a particular prayer time every day. I just felt like a failure. But if I see making music as an opportunity to connect, or I pray during my morning run it honors my own personal way of coming to God.

 

I also liked what Ross said about making our interactions at work sacred.

 

I think that's all I have to say about this book. I thank Bill for starting us out, because reading this book has challenged and enlightened me (especially with his thoughts about the resurrection story). I still disagree that Christianity is "Common Sense," because I believe having Jesus as our compass calls me to be more than I am, and Jesus often proves my common sense to be folly. However, I'm glad that Ross agrees I don't have to check my mind at the door to follow Jesus!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently did an online Bible study called, "Morph - Love God", and the most important thing I got from it was an understanding that there is no prescribed way to connect with God.

 

I often get just as much (if not more) from your comments as I do from the book, Janet! :) I confess, I got bogged down in the middle of the book because I am so undecided as to how "political" or "social" my faith should be. I do believe it should be public, evident to the world, and striving towards making a difference, but I am rather uncomfortable when religious faith takes on a certain political agenda. And I simply haven't worked this out yet. But I certainly appreciate the conclusion that connecting with God is not a "one size fits all" approach. I find it ironic that as much as my early Christian training spouted the words "a personal relationship with God", that if MY relationship with God didn't follow the guidelines, my relationship was questioned.

 

I was never very good about getting up early and reading the Bible, or committing to a particular prayer time every day. I just felt like a failure. But if I see making music as an opportunity to connect, or I pray during my morning run it honors my own personal way of coming to God.

 

I feel much the same. I "feel" the closest to God when I am playing my music (secular also), or when I am doing a family activity, or walking outdoors, or enjoying a good novel. It is usually at these times that my mind is the quietest and when I feel the most connected to what IS.

 

I also liked what Ross said about making our interactions at work sacred.

 

I really need to reread this chapter, but this thought, for me, is key. I no longer define "spirit" or "spiritual" as "other-worldliness" or "non-material" or some sort of nebulous, ambiguous metaphysical existence. To me, spirit and spiritual is all about interconnectedness, about interactions. This is why, IMO, the apostle John could say that we can't claim to love God and hate our brothers/neighbors. And I am personally challenged, at the start of each day, to ask myself, "How am I going to meet God in others today?"

 

This is quite a shift from the typical Christian approach of "meeting God" in morning Bible study and prayer and then, essentially, going without meeting God until the next quiet time. So I am challenged to meet God in ALL of life, to see all of my interactions with others as encounters with the Sacred. This, to me, is very freeing.

 

I think that's all I have to say about this book. I thank Bill for starting us out, because reading this book has challenged and enlightened me (especially with his thoughts about the resurrection story). I still disagree that Christianity is "Common Sense," because I believe having Jesus as our compass calls me to be more than I am, and Jesus often proves my common sense to be folly. However, I'm glad that Ross agrees I don't have to check my mind at the door to follow Jesus!

 

What a great conclusion! Yes, we all know that "common sense" changes from age to age, sometimes from decade to decade! And I certainly agree that the way of Jesus sometimes goes against common sense, especially the common sense of our culture that seems to be all about personal fulfillment and profit.

 

What this book has taught me, more than anything else, is that the way of Jesus needs to be re-translated into every age and culture. We can't just take first century Jewish customs and expect them to automatically make sense to 21st century people. Nor can we do that with the theology of the creeds or the Reformation. To me, God must (and indeed does) become incarnate in each one of us every day. This is the only way that the timeless truth of the Spirit can be made manifest today in a real way in our world. It's not about spitting out some centuries-old verbage of how people experienced God in the past and hoping that it will somehow connect with them today. It's about embodying the very Life of the Spirit today and actually making the connections ourselves. Yes, we have to use common sense to do that. But common sense is only the current pipeline for the Life, not the Life itself.

 

Well, I've drifted afar in rambling. I so appreciate your and other's interactions on this book, Janet. I've read all the posts and learned much. And I've often keep silent because God has spoken to me through what you and others here have said. It's nice to find a place where we can examine meaningful "modern scripture" and neither call for burning or deifying it at the end of our considerations.

 

bill mc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What this book has taught me, more than anything else, is that the way of Jesus needs to be re-translated into every age and culture. We can't just take first century Jewish customs and expect them to automatically make sense to 21st century people. Nor can we do that with the theology of the creeds or the Reformation. To me, God must (and indeed does) become incarnate in each one of us every day. This is the only way that the timeless truth of the Spirit can be made manifest today in a real way in our world. It's not about spitting out some centuries-old verbage of how people experienced God in the past and hoping that it will somehow connect with them today. It's about embodying the very Life of the Spirit today and actually making the connections ourselves. Yes, we have to use common sense to do that. But common sense is only the current pipeline for the Life, not the Life itself."

 

Your summary is even better than mine. I very much like the way you put this. One reason I was so happy to find that there were "progressive Christians" out there was that I was tired of feeling like I was the only one who couldn't fit into the traditional Christian mold. I just finished reading a book today that said we should "find our own Jesus", instead of trying to use someone else's, but then it was just as you said in your early religious experience -- multiple ways of experiencing God were not tolerated. Sad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service