darby

I wanted to do this on the "debate" forum...I'll steer clear of the one going on in the pc forum. I will say, Fred, I appreciate your ability to avoid labeling and categorizing people. I'm sure most of you hate (dislike, abhor, distrust, you pick the word) President Bush. I voted for him, but I can understand why some of you wouldnt'. We disagree, but I can understand. But I think Fred brings up some great points in the other forum--how easy it is to take disagreement and turn it into labelling, etc. And I know, it happens on ALL sides. I did not particularly like some of President Clinton's policies, and I had a major problem with his personal actions. But I think many on the right need to repent for their vitrilioc attacks on him, his family, etc. I don't think he's a devil worshipper, I don't think he's a communist, I don't think they killed Vince Foster, etc. Those types of attacks are ridiculous, and un-Christian. I feel the same about some of the ridiculous posts on Bush and evangelicals. I see someone like Beach write, and I think, "that's not at all how I think/feel/etc. She has no clue." Because I voted for Bush I'm a racist? I've got two sons from Guatemala, having two homeless African-American guys over for dinner tomorrow night, my kids have hispanic, mixed race and A-A friends and I'm racist? Don't think so. In the Time mag. issue that named Bush "Man of the Year" there was an article entitled "The Benetton-Ad Presidency" that points out that Bush has appointed the two most diverse Cabinets in U.S. History. Some quotes from the articl: "With respect to the A-A guys in class, he got along very well with them" and "George's little Texas group was more friendly than their Northern counterparts"--an A-A roommate at Andover "A Hispanic General Attorney--that means something. And even Commerce Secretary--that's a job that usually goes to a white businessman. These aren't tokens. This is real."--Congressman Robert Menendez "He doesn't talk to a woman as if he's talking to a woman. He doesn't trivialize or condescend. "--Kay Bailey Hutchinson There was also a story from an Indian-American congressman whose contractor father met Bush after a hurricaine in Florida. They took pics, and he says, "the two of them (were) standing there, with their hands in their pockets, laughing about something like they're best friends. My dad is wearing his baseball cap, and I asked him why hed didn't take his cap off and show more respect. 'I forgot he was the president' my father said. 'He just seemed like a regular guy.' A lot of immigrants like my dad just simply feel comfortable with the man." I pass all of this on not to get into a political discussion, but more to reinforce what Fred said--let's debate issues, and scale back the venom and labels.

Both It's our beliefs that cause us to do. No need to choose between beliefs or actions. Likewise, why do we have to choose between the teachings/actions of Jesus and those of Paul? Where does Paul contradict Jesus? Paul loved Jesus, and spent his life in His service. Look what he went through in 2 Cor. 11 on behalf of the gospel--shipwrecks, imprisonment, beatings, etc. Not exactly a guy who was just about thoughts. This was a man of action and great sacrifice. I would also hope that ALL Christians, not just liberals, would attempt to act like Jesus...not only in compassion, but in mercy, forgiveness, calling people to repentance and obedience, praising God, etc.

Des, I agree that this shouldn't be a liberal/conservative issue. I've not heard anyone, regardless of political stripe, who agrees with this ruling. The U.S. Constitution was set up to, among other things, protect the individual against an over reaching government. I heard one view that rang true--"So if I had a house that I wanted to leave to my heirs, now the government can take that house to give (sell) to a developer, who can eventually pass the asset on to his heirs." Amazing.

Been off for awhile, but a few things prompted me to respond. Lilly--I get frustrated as I sense you do...where is the change in people, etc. But the religion (Christianity) can be (and I certainly believe is) perfect, and yet it's followers not be. What does it mean? It means that even though we are "new creatures," we have an unredeemed part (the flesh) that still wars against everything good and righteous we should do. We're changed, but still imperfect. And some (Hitler, others) perhaps aren't even "new creatures," rather they're just using Christianity to push an agenda. Heartbreaking, but no way to stop it except expose it. All that to say, it doesn't mean Christianity, as God meant it, is wrong, ineffective, etc. We've still got free will. As Fred said, every movement, belief system, political party, school group, etc. has fakers, abusers, selfish people, etc....cause they're all made up of imperfect people. I do disagree somewhat with Fred that our religion (Christianity) always stands in need of reformation. Rather, I think, we just need to follow it more deeply, more closely, more seriously, more humbly. As a side note... while I agree that we need to expose the faults of individual Christians (hypocrisy, lying, etc.) and the church (sexual abuse, justifying slavery, etc.) we also can feel good about the many, many great works done in the name of Christ. How many hospitals in each of our cities were originally built by Christians? How many universities? What other religion compels people to give up lives of ease to serve in Africa/Indonesia/China and the outmost parts of the world? I just heard of a young couple with 3 kids moving to China to minister. And our church just helped send a successful doctor and his family off to Chad (one of the harshest environments in the world) to help set up a hosptial. Who is often first on the scene during earthquakes/tsunamis/hurricaines/Sudan? Samaritan's Purse, SBA (I know, bad word around here), many other Christian organizations. Look what "Food for the Hungry" and "Compassion Intl." among others do to feed children around the world. And there are thousands of smaller, lesser known, sometimes "mom and pop" organizations around that do the same. Where people have given up everything to follow Jesus and serve others in His name. IMO, the key is not to brag, or stop exposing Christianity gone awry, but to feel confident that there are MANY examples of lives transformed, outlooks changed, hope given, people fed/clothed, prisoners freed, alcoholics and prostitutes set free, hospitals opened, etc., in the name of Christ....by Christians. It DOES work!

Des- Since you're blaming me for getting you started down this road, I figured I should respond. I also waited because I wanted to really think about this. I think the main points of agreement are going to be the grace and ministry issues. Completely believe in God's great gift of grace to us. As I've shared before, I'm also all about the ministry to the hurting, poor, etc. I want to walk as Jesus walked. (As an aside, I'm going to try and post the link to the other Tony Campolo story I mentioned a while back). It's the doctrinal issues where there is probably too great a gulf for us to find much agreement. I'm not debating, just being honest. For example, I can't find much agreement with "The Bible is a guide." For me, it is the Word of God. I know you didn't mean it this loosely, but my mind thinks, "I've got how to books and philophy books on my shelves that are guides....they aren't in the same category as God's Word. I think the same goes for the issues of atonement, divinity of Jesus, resurrection, etc. I found myself reading them and saying, "yeah, but...that needs to be stronger" And I realize you were trying to make the issues as open as possible, but I think that's probably too wide for most of us conservatives. As to whether it is hard for us to be inclusive....I would reply that I think I'm inclusive where the Bible is inclusive--"Be at peace with all people"...love your neighbor"..."encourage one another"..."God so loved the world"...etc., and exclusive where the Bible is exclusive--"For those that call on the name of the Lord"...."If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth"...."that whosoever believes in Him will not perish"..."I am the way, the truth, the life...no man comes to the Father except through me"...etc. Again, not trying to convince anyone....just letting you look through the lens of one man who loves Jesus and tries (so imperfectly) to mimic His love, concern, compassion, etc.

:-) In love, grace, mercy, racial/economic diversity, reaching out to the "least of these", etc.....YES (BTW, you know it's my desire that these issues not be "progressive" issues, but just plain ole' Christian issues) But in fairness to any newcomers, in theology/doctrine, compared to most on this board, no, I would not ever be called progressive.

I post this as an observation, not "debate", since I'm normally confined to the "debate" forum: From the outside, it appears the big challenge for the "progressive" movement is, "Where do we go for our foundation, when we disagree on certain things?" It's been said that where you go looking for your answers says everything about what answers you'll come up with. Our evangelical, conservative, diverse and socially concerned church is a beautiful melting pot of people from all kind of backgrounds (socially, economically, racially, church history, etc.) So there are alot of views and opinions. For us, as a body, however, the Bible is the foundation to figure out which way to go. We certainly also take into account the prompting of the Holy Spirit, books which can help explain things, etc.....but the Bible is always the base, the foundation. And that's understood and accepted. As people come in, and join, we're very clear that that is how we operate, make decisions, etc. In love, when there is disagreement, we're going to break out the Bible, and "reason together", as best we can. I would think the challenge for the progressive movement is what is that "agreed" foundation? What views are acceptable, and which ones are grounds for breaking fellowship, if any? Is it the 8 points? If not, who will come up with the foundation? What gets in and what gets left out? I guess that's what I hear some of you saying....Is the 8 points enough?

I can't find anything I disagree with in the "liberal" view...except that it is incomplete. Jesus' teachings did not begin and end with lessons on compassion, service, etc. He talked about his death/resurrection. What do we do with that? Peter spent as much time with Jesus as anyone...saw his healing, service, foot washing, compassion, etc. He, more than anyone, knew Jesus' heart for the poor, downtrodden, etc. But when he is boldly preaching in the beginning of Acts, he is not preaching about compassion, etc. (although he certainly believe it). He's preaching about a risen Jesus. In chapter 2, verse 32, he says, "This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses." Fred, you came pretty close to voicing my opinion. It's not, nor ever has been, compassion, love, service, etc. OR crucifixtion, resurrection, etc., but BOTH. IMO

But isn't a LITERAL resurrection foundational to Christianity (whatever brand you adhere to) ? Above all other miracles we might debate about? If Christ is not raised from the dead, then as Paul said, "our preaching is in vain." Satan and death are not conquered. Christ is not risen, sitting at the right hand of the Father. All of the Peter and Paul's teachings, as well as most of the rest of the NT is a lie, is it not? If He is not resurrected, literally, then I certainly have no hope of being resurrected. And His promise to go and prepare a place for me can't be true as well. To me, the Bible literally falls apart, or I have to discard huge parts of it, is Christ is not raised, literally.

I know, Alethia...I've been reading some of your posts for the last month or so and pretty soon you're going to get lumped in with the rest of us conservative nuts!

Josh McDowell focuses on the resurrection miracle. Prior to the crucifixtion, the disciples were scared, afraid they were losing their earthly leader, even denied knowing Jesus (Peter). Soon after, they were boldly preaching about a RISEN savior they had seen with their own eyes--at a personal cost of great persecution, even to the point of death, as DCJ pointed out. The question is why? I believe it is because they had indeed seen their savior risen--touched Him, walked and talked with Him. He goes on to say that it is hard to imagine any reason men would boldly preach about something that they KNEW was a lie. It certainly did not bring them a life of power, comfort, fame, riches (some reasons men would promote a lie). Conversely, it brought them shame, mockery, prison, and death. His book "More than a Carpenter" is a great, easy read.

Alethia- I won't speak for the Catholic view, but for the evangelical, in my terms.... A foundational verse is Eph 2:8-9--For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. Works don't save....works are evidence of salvation. Put another way, we don't do works to get saved, we do works because we're saved. Put a third way, I don't do works to earn favor, I do them out of joy because I have favor. You get the point. I do firmly believe their is a DOING aspect of Christianity...taking up our cross daily, etc. As Paul said, grace is not a license to sin.

Banned to the "Debate and Dialogue" forum..ahhhhhh!!!! (Just Kidding) That makes enough sense to me. If I see anything on the other ones, I'll sit on my fingers.

Des- So sorry. With all the advances in medicine, it seems to be normal now that people are living decades with serious illnessess. This can put great stress on adult children. And regardless of the family, it usually unfairly falls on the adult daughters--the sons often seem to slide out of it somehow. I read somewhere how the cycle nowadays for a woman is that she cares for her children, and then later in life, she cares for her parents, who have reverted in some ways to childhood. I'll pray for the whole situation.

I know this item has gone off topic, but I have to say, Lilly and Alethia, I agree with very much from both of you. While heaven (eternity) is certainly the end goal, the most important to me, I very much believe I have good works to do on this earth, a purpose, designed for me by God before I was formed. It's awesome to think that as all-powerful as He is, He uses US to be his hands and feet. Re milk/meat--totally agree. I hate to always say, "at my church we do this..." but it's true--we try to get into the deeper things of the faith. I think the fact that we are non-denominational is huge--we don't have certain things we have to teach on certain Sundays, etc. As my pastor says, "let's just open the Bible, listen to the Holy Spirit, and do church." Very freeing--not caught up in traditions of men. We just have to be careful--we can quickly develop man-made traditions ourselves--very easy/comfortable to fall into. Re once saved always saved. My position on this has changed. We went through a study at church, and there are many verses to back this up--verses about security of the believer, etc. Then we read many verses that talk about continuing in the faith, enduring to the end to be saved, etc. Which one is true? Both, I say. There is security for the believer, but there is a doing, enduring act of Christianity as well. The safe thing--abine in the Vine. As long as we are abiding, we're in a great place. Back to the original post--anyone read "Agnes' birthday?"

I wouldn't agree that he was a conservative. To this board, maybe, but not in the whole spectrum. I read his recent book, and there's quite a lot that someone of a conservative bent would have a problem with. I think he has actually had some issues with prominent conservatives. All that said...NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, who remotely claims the name of Christ, should have any disagreement with his desire to minister to the downtrodden. His radical compassion is sobering and inspiring.

I diagree with a good bit of Campolo's teaching and views. But I am in COMPLETE agreement with his desire to minister to the least of these. Search online for a similar story called "Agnes' birthday," another story of compassion from him. (Lolly, you will need your kleenex again) You guys know I'm pretty conservative, but I just want to reiterate that you progressives don't corner the market on love and compassion. My pastor said a few weeks ago, "You can be liberal in love, and conservative in doctrine." That's exactly how I feel.

While the CC doesn't necesarrily ID with one label or another, I don't think this pope is way on the extreme of the foundational teachings of the Catholic Church, and there are all these other people in the middle. Like them or not, aren't his teachings are more in line with orthodox, traditional, foundational teachings? I think it was DCJ who made a point in a similar discussion--in this debate, who moved? Is he, or the church, at fault if they are simply believing/maintaining the core, traditional beliefs of the catholic church. Why is it not ok, for example, for them not to bend on abortion, if it has been a core belief forever (I think it has). Alethia, yes the church includes the leadership and those in the pew. But as I said earlier, any group (TCPC, Unity church, SBC, Communist Party, Rotary Club) has SOME foundational beliefs that they feel quite strongly about. When we (those on the outside or inside of the group) begin to disagree with some of those core beliefs, why is it they, and not we, who need to change? Or start a different group. On the leadership issue, while I believe in the priesthood of the believer, I also believe it is biblical that there is authority and leadership in the church. I know there have been great abuses of leadership, and I know that saddens God. But good leadership, servant leadership (like Jesus) is still Biblical, and very needed in the church, IMO.

I have to disagree, Curly. I don't think Jesus just set out to change the Jewish faith, and the new tradition didn't just sort of devolop from that. He talked about believers no longer having to fulfill the law. He talked about the New covenant in His blood. He made Himself, as the Jews charged, "equal with God." This was radical stuff, completely against traditional Jewish teaching. He did much more than just make changes in his own faith. I think He most definitely set out to start a whole new movement. On another note, Curly, I understand and appreciate your desire to "work from within." OTOH, I question many in the public today who said the CC or the new Pope needed to "moderate." Why does the CC, or any group, need to change because many of it's followers, or outsiders, say it should? For example, TCPC or Unity Church were founded on certain principles. If I, on the outside, called for them to "moderate" because much of America is conservative, that would be wrong. Even if those in TCPC/Unity began becoming more conservative, would they be correct in expecting their group to "moderate" to meet the changing views? I don't think so.

I'm not Catholic, but I doubt that their ultimate goal is to "remain tenable," but rather hold to what they believe is true. IOW, I don't think they are willing to bend on ideas that they think are unbendable, regardless of public opinion. As an aside, I'm not sure those of us outside an institution should expect them to. If we don't agree with their teaching or doctrine, we should find groups (or form them) where we do. Just my opinion. We vote with our feet.

The Bible is the basis, the foundation, for me, but like Lilly, I believe the Holy Spirit also teaches, magnifies, clarifies, expounds, etc. But never contradicts the Bible. It is very easy (and enticing) to want to "update" what the Bible teaches due to our knowledge, customs, modern times, etc. But that can quickly turn to justifying sin. For example, Jesus taught that the only acceptable reason for divorce was adultery. Not "we're growing apart," not "I don't love her anymore," not "we're on different paths," etc. I coud find many other reasons, which many rational people would support, why my wife and I should divorce (hypothetically, of course--I'm happily married!). But I come face to face with Jesus' teaching to NOT DO IT. My point is, our feelings, however heart-felt and sincere they seem, are not always in line with God's teaching. As always, when I do fall short, I am very thanful for the grace that is extended to me

Panta- I understand, I think, where you're coming from now. Would you agree, perhaps, that since there is no such thing as a proof which eliminates all doubt, that all of us experience God partly through rational thoughts and partly through some measure of faith and experience? The difference might be where along the spectrum we fall. Or how we're wired. A person like you, or others I know, might need more rational proof or sophisticated arguments, where I'm probably more in the experience/faith part of the spectrum. Just curious if you agree at all with this. It's interesting, BTW, that I studied engineering in college, but the older I get I move more into the faith/experience end rather than the rational argument end.

Re:communion--It means to me alot of the things you mentioned, but mainly the ushering in of the new covenant--that Jesus was the perfect Lamb. No more sacrifices needed. As He said on the cross, "It is done." I no longer have to keep the law, He has fulfilled the law. His broken body and blood have paid a price I could not, and it was done completely out of grace, not any good work of mine. Now, I do good works because I want to, not to gain favor. Unlike Catholics, it is symbolic to me...I don't believe I am actually eating Christ's body and drinking His blood. But it is very powerful. I think many churches/Christians have gotten out of the habit of communion, and that's too bad...it's one of the two sacrements He left us with. Re:proclaiming His death--I used to focus on the resurrection during communion, but this verse has made me focus, literally, on His death. It's easy to focus on the resurrection, its glory, and all that it means...and sometimes gloss over the cruicifixtion. But my feeling is that He wanted us to know that salvation came at great cost. Whether we believe it was as gruesome as portrayed in The Passion of the Christ, it was certainly painful, bloody, etc. I've come to realize Jesus went through shame (being mocked, spit upon), scourging, humiliation, mocking, and excruciating pain on my behalf. It is very sobering to remember that. It's interesting that when Jesus was teaching on "eating his flesh" and "drinking his blood", the Bible says it was a hard teaching, and many who had been following him did not follow anymore. Re: community. I believe, more than ever, that God doesn't want any "spiritual lone rangers." If you read all the "one anothers" (confess to, love, bear burdens, serve, exhort, encourage, etc.), those can only be done when we are rubbing shoulders with each other. As good as our large gathering is on Sunday morning, it is in meeting in small groups, where people get to know my warts, my prayer needs, my strengths, etc., where my family and I really find community.

That is a GREAT verse....I may not be able to explain it sometimes, but the love of Christ feels more real than anything else I've experienced!

Panta- Guess you can count me as one of those who DOES believe those answers can be found in the Bible! (who would have guessed). Obviously, I dont' have much too add to a thread like this, but I still wonder--what would ever answer sufficiently if God cares that you exist? The Bible obviously says that He does, but I'm guessing that alone does not satisfy you. What fact, or group of facts, could ever PROVE to you that God cares about you?