The gauntlet is thrown I await all challengers.

Are you trying to pick a fight in love? Or to demonstrate that the middle ground is devoid of love as well?

Saul_now_Paul,

Hi,

You wrote:

Are you trying to pick a fight in love? Or to demonstrate that the middle ground is devoid of love as well?

Taste and see.

Grace and peace to you.

John

John - I got this e-mail, which I will repost without attribution, because I do not have the permission of the sender. I think it addresses your point. Tell me if it does not. My response is below it.

*************************

Subject Why do you stay in the UCC
Message Dear fellow Wondercafer,

Just out of curiosity, after reading your posts and thoughts concerning the United Church and the Emerging Spirit campaign in particular, why do you remain in the United Church, (assuming your profile is up to date)? I'm confused on what you're trying to achieve by obviously bearing false witness of the United Church, and concocting quotes and statements to further some apparent anti-UCC agenda as I would interpret it. Having said that, you like anyone else is entitled to express theirselves in this great free country of ours, and why no better place that on the site provided to you to use free of charge by the UCC through the Emerging Spirit campaign that you appear to admire so much;)

All the best pal!

(name withheld not by request, but for issues of good taste)

*************************

Hi - it might be a good idea to read up on the April 1st tradition.

As for why I remain in the United Church, I value its diversity, including the ability to function as the loyal opposition to the stuff I don't think amounts to much or is going in the wrong direction. I also hold out the possibility that I could be mistaken, and if I don't express an opinion, how will I be held to account by others?

If I am wrong show me why? Don't insist on loyalty simply for loyalty's sake. Heck, I can be the most loyal person around... I'm not kidding. But as the masthead of the Globe and Mail editorial page quotes from Junius, "The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures."

So, thanks for caring enough to chide. I am serious. But be specific or I will never learn.

Cheers,
Stuart

RevJohn wrote The gauntlet is thrown I await all challengers.

As much as I would love to challenge you, since I have not been challenged much lately, I'm afraid I can not. I happen to agree with you.

Of all the things that confound me most about some Christians is their lack of love for their fellow man. Some days it boggles my mind, other days it scares the bejeezes out of me.

For me, brotherly love is the prime directive from Jesus. Love of God had been around since Moses (probably before too, biblical knowledge has never been my strong suit), but love your neighbor as you love yourself was all Jesus. Talk about taking the Christ out of Christianity, indeed!

LB
To err is human; to forgive, infrequent. Franklin P. Adams

Yes lbmuskoka,

You said - For me, brotherly love is the prime directive from Jesus. Love of God had been around since Moses (probably before too, biblical knowledge has never been my strong suit), but love your neighbor as you love yourself was all Jesus. Talk about taking the Christ out of Christianity, indeed!

Jesus definitely was in the beginning and before.

Here is his quote from approximately 1300 BC. Wow! That's a long time before he appeared in the flesh and spoke the Word again.

" 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord. Leviticus 19:18

Jesus is Lord! Hallelulia!!

Paul

Stuart,

Hi,

You wrote:

I think it addresses your point. Tell me if it does not.

I think you put your rock in the paint friend.

Sorry for not responding earlier. Alister McGrath was affirming my point last night and I got caught up in it.

I'm not namedropping as if Mr. McGrath and I are intimates. It just turns out that he is the lead contributor in my new read, "For All The Saints: Evangelical Theology and Christian Spirituality." And he, in the opening chapter says better what I wanted to say.

If only I had started reading a day or so earlier.

You shared:

All the best pal!

Well at least he tried to be appear friendly.

You wrote:

As for why I remain in the United Church, I value its diversity, including the ability to function as the loyal opposition to the stuff I don't think amounts to much or is going in the wrong direction.

Amen and Amen!

This is what McGrath wrote that had me pumped:

As the title of this chapter makes clear, I have no hesitation in affirming that theology is of central importance to Christian life and thought. I have little time for various efforts to dumb down the preaching and teaching of our churches or simply focus on the development of new and better techniques for the care of souls and the growth of churches. But I am an honest person, and I admit from the outset that focussing simply on doctrinal affirmations is seriously deficient. Theological correctness alone is no balm for the wounds of our frail and sinful humanity. We cannot nourish the mind while neglecting the heart. Like its political counterpart, an obsession with theological correctness can simply engender the kind of harsh, judgmental personality that is eager to seek out and expose alleged doctrinal errors and cares little for the fostering of Christ imaging relationships. (For All The Saints: Evangelical Theology and Christian Spirituality pg 12).

What McGrath notes is something that pops up here among the fundamentalists of the theological left and right. They have subtle differences in how they communicate that eagerness towards seeking out and exposing alleged doctrinal errors but both extremes do not hesitate to engage in that activity.

You wrote:

Don't insist on loyalty simply for loyalty's sake.

Indeed. Theological patriotism is not the worship of God so much as it is the idolization of doctrine. My dogma right or wrong has no place in the Christian Church and, as noted above, it is not a mistake made by people only on one end of the theological spectrum. It is just classically more noticeable on that one end.

If you haven't seen the book I commend it to you. If only because McGrath recounts a charming anecdote of Wesley complimenting Whitefield. There is also quite a bit of patting Calvin on the back which is not why I purchased the tome but in no way detracts from my enjoyment of it.

Grace and peace to you.

John

So, thanks for caring enough to chide. I am serious. But be specific or I will never learn.

Tentmaker,

You have any brotherly love then extends to people of other faiths? How about your Jewish brothers and sisters, of which Jesus was one?

Your belief that Jesus is the Word and the Word is God and that Leviticus is Jesus speaking is all well and good.

For you.

It is also not what the Jews believed or what they believe the Levitical code was about.

You might look that Jesus never once said "I said in Leviticus" He used Father language and God language, whether he was God or not. Wonder why? Perhaps sensitivity? Respect? Brotherly love?

You may desire to proseltyize Jewish people and make apostate Jews of them. You may even hold that up as the right thing to do and holy. Yet, you do not do so in love.

I guess I should say "I believe, you do not do so in love"

Yet, as you have so often said Jesus is fact and the Gospel is the proof.

So, it is what it is. You don't see Jesus saying "this is what I said before I was on earth". So, it ain't very Christ-like. It also doesn't seem to meet the criteria for what the Bible says love is. So....

I will then hold up 2 Corinthians 6:3-6 and ask where is this understanding, patience and kindness? Galatians 5:22?

To make such a statement, not the message but the way it was delivered in the manner which you did, shows a lack of brotherly love and Spirit and not a fullness of it.

1 Corinthians 13

Stevie G

stuart_lyster wrote upthread: { As for why I remain in the United Church, I value its diversity, including the ability to function as the loyal opposition to the stuff I don't think amounts to much or is going in the wrong direction. }

I could not agree more with this statement. I am also in agreement with RevJohn's suggestion that the polar ends of the theological spectrum have certain commonalities.

Gretta Vosper is arguing in With or Without God that her point of view is the way of the future. I confess to holding the same idea about my own middle of the road theology :)

StevieG,

You said - You have any brotherly love then extends to people of other faiths? How about your Jewish brothers and sisters, of which Jesus was one?

I'm not sure why you look at my statements with such a jaded eye. I love everyone. I have no problem with religions or race. The greater percentage of my friends are non-Christian. Many Jewish friends. I love the Jewish traditions and celebrate many of them. We worship the same God regardless of what you say!

You also said - So, it is what it is. You don't see Jesus saying "this is what I said before I was on earth". So, it ain't very Christ-like. It also doesn't seem to meet the criteria for what the Bible says love is. So....

Well my scriptures tell me that Jesus did.

"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
John 8:57-58

The Jews said, "You're not even fifty years old"”and Abraham saw you?"
"Believe me," said Jesus, "I am who I am long before Abraham was anything."
John 8:57-58 (Msg)

I will pray that your eyes are opened up and that you will see Jesus all through the Old Testament. I feel you may be rebelling against Jesus' words.

Paul

"Son of man, you are living among a rebellious people. They have eyes to see but do not see and ears to hear but do not hear, for they are a rebellious people.
Ezekiel 12:2

RevJohn: I recognize how thoroughly outdated and unattractive Calvinism is around here.

Actually John, its through your extensive posts from this perspective, and my experience of a number of very good and faithful people that i have known but who could not express their faith as you have, that I have retreated just a tiny bit from totally dismissing "traditional" Christianity as totally incompatible with the message of Christ.

I'm reasonably sure I'm one of those on the polar opposite from blackie, tent/ib, geo and company that you consider lacking in "brotherly love". I acknowledge the charge when it comes to extending "love" to some. Luckily, agapé is not love.

I also acknowledge that I do not see a place for reconciliation, or even co-existence, in the two extremes. For me, its rather like reconciling with a murderer. It may be possible if they have stopped murdering. But the current state requires reconciliation with those who choose to continue in their ways. that I cannot do, any more than tent/ib can stop cackling like a Ferengi (cheap shot, yeah I know -lol)

In fact, I will go so far as to say that it is in attempting to accommodate that group that the great majority of struggling congregations have failed the majority of people who would join them. In allowing those would exclude and denigrate to continue without opposition (not "gentle persuasion over decades") they demonstrate their, as you put it, lack of resolve.

Calvinism, at least as you deomonstrate in the cafe, is a powerful perspective. I don't think its so much outdated as it is more difficult to explain than most are willing to engage for. Which is unfortunate.

GoldenRule,

Hi,

You wrote:

Actually John, its through your extensive posts from this perspective, and my experience of a number of very good and faithful people that i have known but who could not express their faith as you have, that I have retreated just a tiny bit from totally dismissing "traditional" Christianity as totally incompatible with the message of Christ.

Yay! I'm holding the line! I'm holding the line! Who will help me hold the line?

You wrote:

I'm reasonably sure I'm one of those on the polar opposite from blackie, tent/ib, geo and company that you consider lacking in "brotherly love".

I wasn't thinking of you specifically but if you want to testify to that who am I to argue?

Magnetically speaking opposites attract. Even though they are opposites they must still be magnetically charged. Every single oppositional pair does not, as a matter of fact, attract the other (specific gravities notwithstanding).

You wrote:

I acknowledge the charge when it comes to extending "love" to some. Luckily, agapé is not love.

It has been argued, by brighter minds than mine (I run at 40watts), that agape is the highest expression of that ideal we call love. It is a state that is prepared to sacrifice self rather than others. It is true that there are other definitions of agape. None of which refer to one standing with their mouth slightly open.

If the dialogue becomes characterized by the need to attack character rather than argument neither love not agape are in play.

You wrote:

I also acknowledge that I do not see a place for reconciliation, or even co-existence, in the two extremes.

Fair enough. If one extreme could be magically erased from existence. What would its opposite do? Do you believe it would suddenly disappear or start hunting for new opposites?

You wrote:

But the current state requires reconciliation with those who choose to continue in their ways.

That, my friend is a double edged-sword is it not? Do not both choose to continue in each their own way? East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet.

You wrote:

In fact, I will go so far as to say that it is in attempting to accommodate that group

I'm afraid I'm not sure which group you are singling out. Is it fundamentalists of a certain stripe or fundamentalists as a rule?

You wrote:

In allowing those would exclude and denigrate to continue without opposition (not "gentle persuasion over decades") they demonstrate their, as you put it, lack of resolve.

That is as much a sin of the theological left as it is the theological right.

You wrote:

Calvinism, at least as you deomonstrate in the cafe, is a powerful perspective.

Thank you for that.

You wrote:

I don't think its so much outdated as it is more difficult to explain than most are willing to engage for.

Maybe. It might also be that there are certain representatives that others have allowed to paint the picture of Calvinism.

The Reverend Fred Phelps claims to be a Calvinist.

Apartheid is a system of government implemented by Calvinists.

The Servetus affair is used extensively to colour a theological perspective.

Calvinism can be cold. It can be brutal. It can, in a word, be utterly human.

Calvinism has an eye on grace like none other and the above notations indicate exactly why that would be so.

When we screw up we rewrite whole books about the totality of depravity.

On the odd days we get things right. We shine like the stars.

No different really, than anyone else.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Which is unfortunate.

Tentmaker, my eyes are open even if I do not see what you see. That is the primary problem. You cannot recognize that. Those who do not see what you see are blind to you.

I recognize that as we stand in the same footprints someone can see something vastly different than me and not be blind. I am even willing to admit that I may have been blind to what they see. I have even been able to sometimes see what they see once they point it out to me.

BTW Yes, my eyes are sometimes jaded.

One grows weary and exhausted fighting supercessionism.

One gets worn out trying to highlight that those who read "The Pagan Christ" as insulting to their faith should be sensitive to the insult heaped on Jews by Christians inferring their Jesus is the Jew's Yahweh.

It can get pretty tiring when your person or the faith of your family is the meal to satisfy others hunger for justification.

Yes, I am cynical about some posters and some theology. You and yours are included and I have no problem saying so. I also strive to read posts without bias (though that may or may not be possible) and I strive to treat those posters and their theology with respect. Even when I have no respect for their words, actions, behaviours, thinking... I try to maintain respect for them based on them being a fellow human being worthy of decency.

I am cynical of many poster's theology who will not say I have been anything but kind to them. It is only those who I am cynical of the way they present that theology or the words they choose or the actions they take... that are the few who might say I have not been gracious.

I can be quite callous, as in toughened, emotionally hardened, but it is not shown often nor is it unjustified.

If it makes you feel better to think I am denying Jesus or His message, go for it.

It certainly makes me feel better when I think you are way off who Jesus was or what Jesus' massage was. I just try to avoid saying it to you because it seems a tad insensitive...

Stevie G

Stevie, what kind of a back massage did Jesus give. tee Hee

Posts like this make me uncomfortably aware of how little I fit in a box.

I know that many people would consider me to be young, progressive and liberal. But there are many things that make me believe I am more conservative than I at first seem. I like traditions. I like doctrine and scripture, as long as it is free for interpretation. I like labelling things intelligently, but not locking them into only one box.

At the same time, I feel very young and ignorant. I don't really know what Calvinism is, RevJohn. Wondercafe has taught me, well, wonders about the different terminology like Agape and panentheism and intelligent design - I'd never heard of them before. The very first bible study I've ever attended was last Tuesday, and I am learning loads. (Someone asked me what my background with bible study was and was shocked to hear it was "I read the illustrated version a couple times when I was younger". Add 4 years of archaeology, and it's fair to say my perspective is slightly different than most.)

When I read this thread, I feel like there's a line being drawn. There are those that see traditionalists as stuck in an unrelenting position. Granted, we may be slow to change, but we are still very accepting of differences. Then, there are those who see the exodus as a retreat. They are simply people who do not feel comfortable in their community of faith. It is unfortunate that they feel that difference divides them... but what can we do? It should not feel like a personal rejection. It should not be drawn as one either. Those who are blaming traditionalists for their leaving do not truly understand why they've left.

As was mentioned before in a RevJohn post (and I paraphrase), if you draw a line, you have to live with it. If you wish to sow division, be prepared for the line to become a wall. And the wall to have moats and trenches. And no community should live as an island. Simply let our differences become borders.

Faerenach, I really like the idea of just letting our differences be borders. We don't need to force the other to be like us anymore than forest tries to convert the neighbouring meadow into forest. In ecological terms a lot of the really interesting stuff happens on borders. So much so that there are people who only study borders.

Some examples are tide pools, (in fact shore lines in general) the entry to caves, the eaves of a forest. I could go on and on.

Theological borders also give us the most interesting stuff. It is on the border that i need to think and feel most clearly how I relate to the God who owns me. I need to be able to hear the language of the people next to me, and understand the nuances and metaphors that are not mine, but may also belong to God. It is on the border that I am least comfortable, and stand most naked to truth.

But you can't live on the border without love. Not the emotion, but the careful, ricky decision to treat ever person you meet as a child of God, even when they treat you as a child of the devil.

I too agree that there is far too little love in the church (never mind the world). Much of the so-called discussion is like a Professor I had in a Romantic Poetry class. He would, when asked a question about his interpretation of the poem of the moment, simply stop his lecture with a finger on the pages in front of him, read the last couple of sentences again, and go on with the lecture, moving his finger carefully lest he lose his place. I don't think he ever realized that he had lost his class.

RevJohn said I doubt I will ever be able to clear this point sufficiently enough for those who identify as evangelical, conservative, traditionalists to agree with me still, as one who will proudly wear all three of those labels and do them justice I have to say the notion is a crock.

Rizz's post "In this way I can better understand how this type of thought is creeping in and chasing so many evangelicals and conservatives and traditionalists from the UCC. "

I do not believe that the idea of liberalism chasing conservatives away from the Church is a crock.

It is true that as the polar opposite gains influence it demonstrates, for all appeals to loving, inclusivity a propensity to be as narrow-minded and cold as ever it has accused evangelical, conservative, traditionalists to be.

I agree with that. However, I will go one more (as in poker) and say that the fundy left is much more scary than the fundy right.

We are all human and we have all fallen short.

I will even buy that because HUMANS are running both sides of the polarity that there are problems on both sides because with the except ion of "Serena" humans are not perfect. :)

I recognize how thoroughly outdated and unattractive Calvinism is around here. It would appear, however; we take the human condition a bit more seriously than those who have no time for Calvin's doctrines of grace.

My side of the discussion is not going to include Calvanism because I have not studied Calvanism enough to discuss its merits or downfalls.

That does not mean that evangelical, conservative, Christians are being routinely rounded off and routed out.

Like a planned witch hunt? It has not gotten that serious yet.

Many are choosing to leave it is true. Those many are pointing fingers and claiming that they are being made to feel unwelcome. In that they are making excuses and not offering reasons.

The big things I think that are separating both camps (liberals and conservatives) are: The divinity of Christ, abortion, pre-marital sex, homosexuality and evolution. This is not the place to debate both sides of these issues but I would say these are the issues that cause the most division.

They are no less of a Christian for their limitations. Neither is the opposition demoniac for pushing them to their limits.

Why are these limitations? Parhaps they don't feel like they are a part of a Church that has gone so far left field?

Riznatts also wrote:

It seems like the few that are remaining are those people who are searching for a spiritual experience designed and delivered in their own image and context suitable only to themselves in a safe and non-judgmental way with someone in a perceived authority of God and the Church admonishing their feelings with an open-minded attitude that will only affirm.

Rather than take responsibility for the decision to leave and admit that their departure is the result of them having reached their limit they seek to lay the blame on other.

You are guessing as I am guessing and Riznatts is guessing the reason for leaving. I would submit that all three are educated guesses.

I mean that seriously. Most evangelical, conservative, traditional Christians are devoid of the history of Christianity (not that the polar opposites have higher test scores in that regard--their awareness of the history of the faith is also, for the most part, brutally ignorant).

If I understand this statement correctly you are stating the the Conservative, traditional, and evangelicals do not know the history of Christianity like the liberal Christians do?

In order for the evangelical, conservative, traditional Christians to be truly comfortable everyone would have to be just like them

Some may believe this. To say that ALL the conservatives, traditionalists, et al believe this is a geegeralization. If we find even one conservative, calvin, fundamentalist, etc. who does NOT believe this we prove that statement wrong.

However, there is much more diversity among Churches now and due to the ecumencial movement people who have differing beliefs about the age of baptism, type of baptism (full submersion vs sprinking) communion, the day of worship, etc. are all working together. This is all a type of fundamentalism and people from within other Churches are finding common ground. Previously, this did not happen, In my town for example about three different Churches get together once a month for Youth Services. These Churches are Lutheran, Baptist, and Open Bible. All three have a Youth Pastor. This did not happen when I was a teenager. These people who are working together have different beliefs but are all Christians.

Is it not possible that these fundamental, evangelical, traditonal, conservative, Christians are finding more common ground in other Churches and then get to leave the whole liberal/conservative polar opposites?

and that, in my opinion, would be the demise of the Christian Church.

Would it? Or would they finally just stop fighting and work together.

The problem is cowardism.

What do you think the conservatives, liberals, fundamentals etc. are afraid of?

I would say that these five changes (evolution, divinity of Christ, abortion, pre-marital sex, and homosexuality) are big changes. Some people may have chosen to go to a Church that is more closer to their belief system and that is not cowardice. That is doing what is right for them. Some may just be leaving because to them the above five mentioned changes are not something they are willing to support.

Hi Serena,

You wrote:

I do not believe that the idea of liberalism chasing conservatives away from the Church is a crock.

Fair enough. You are aware that liberalism (as a wide target) has been responsible historically for the developments of positions and theologies which are now being labelled "conservative" aren't you?

The most devout and hardline protestant Conservative theologian is the Roman Catholic Church's most extreme liberal.

The question in a liberal/conservative context is who is giving up and who is holding on.

In a theological discussion the liberal is moving away from traditional forms and expressions of the Christian faith--that does not equate necessarily with an abandonment of the Christian faith so much as it may equate to a repackaging.

In a theological discussion the conservative is holding onto the traditional forms and expressions of the Christian faith--that does not equate necessarily equate to a holding on of Biblical doctrines so much as it may equate to holding on to human institutions and traditions.

Geographically the picture looks different. The liberals are attempting to expand and gain ground whereas the conservatives are retreating and giving it up. Based solely on the allegation that the liberals are chasing the conservatives out.

It may be that the Conservatives are strategically retreating to muster their forces and launch a counter assault. By and large that is not happening because the language employed is always other based, "You did this . . ." or "Because of them . . ."

The other based language, particularly when ascribing fault is not the sign of courage it is a sign of cowardice. It is not taking responsibility for ones own decisions it is laying the blame at the feet of the other.

You wrote:

I agree with that. However, I will go one more (as in poker) and say that the fundy left is much more scary than the fundy right.

As one who sits in the middle I have to disagree. Neither extreme is any less scary than the other. Both are marked by sounding brass making demands and suggesting threats of the wrath of God if those demands are not met. Both extremities invoke fear of what is to come which stands, as far as I can tell, in direct contrast with God's love which drives out all fear.

I submit that anyone who is attempting to use fear to get their way is not living courageously, they are running scared and the threats are a bluff to get their own way so they can be more comfortable where they are.

You wrote:

I will even buy that because HUMANS are running both sides of the polarity that there are problems on both sides because with the except ion of "Serena" humans are not perfect. :)

To voice the exception is to invite others to demonstrate how it is not an exception. You might not find that to be in your best interests. :)

You wrote:

My side of the discussion is not going to include Calvanism because I have not studied Calvanism enough to discuss its merits or downfalls.

Fair enough. Admitting ignorance is one thing. Operating out of it is quite another. I bring my Calvinist faith with me into every thread, it may be more noticeable in some than in others.

You wrote

Like a planned witch hunt? It has not gotten that serious yet.

Are you arguing for a future that will be or one you imagine will be?

You wrote:

The big things I think that are separating both camps (liberals and conservatives) are: The divinity of Christ, abortion, pre-marital sex, homosexuality and evolution. This is not the place to debate both sides of these issues but I would say these are the issues that cause the most division.

I will agree that this is territory where division rears up. That is not the result of liberalism or conservatism. It is the result of extremism which insists upon "must be this" and "cannot be that"

You wrote:

Why are these limitations? Parhaps they don't feel like they are a part of a Church that has gone so far left field?

They are limitations because they are the ossisification of a living faith. The extreme end of conservatism is a body that is all bone and no muscle. It is unflinchingly rigid and it goes nowhere. The extreme end of liberalism is a body that is all muscle but no bone. It is a dense puddle which also goes nowhere. The middle is a healthy balance of bone and muscle and we have the ability to go wherever we feel we need to go.

If one can only go left or right one travels in circles. Like any lost person.

You wrote:

You are guessing as I am guessing and Riznatts is guessing the reason for leaving. I would submit that all three are educated guesses.

Fair enough. Show me how my challenge falls short.

You wrote:

If I understand this statement correctly you are stating the the Conservative, traditional, and evangelicals do not know the history of Christianity like the liberal Christians do?

You do not understand this statement correctly.

I have said that both sides of the theological spectrum are equally ignorant of the history of Christianity. Both sides make serious errors in trying to rectify their ignorance. One extreme posits that what is is what has always been. That tends to be the extreme conservative position. The other extreme takes first generation discards and says that they are what the real faith would have looked like and assumes it isn't still that way because human jealousy got in the way. That tends to be the extreme liberal position.

Both are wishful thinking that doesn't challenge the core of their faith.

You wrote:

If we find even one conservative, calvin, fundamentalist, etc. who does NOT believe this we prove that statement wrong.

Find one that does not believe it and show me that they are leaving and I will gladly recant my statement.

You wrote:

This is all a type of fundamentalism and people from within other Churches are finding common ground.

It is not a type of fundamentalism at all Serena. It is, as a matter of fact, an indicator of liberalism, in that folk are willing to lay aside doctrinal tenants to cooperate rather than demand sameness before cooperating. It is a moderate move.

You wrote:

These people who are working together have different beliefs but are all Christians.

Because while the polar extremities were bashing away at each other saner heads prevailed and more opted to be moderate.

You wrote:

Is it not possible that these fundamental, evangelical, traditonal, conservative, Christians are finding more common ground in other Churches and then get to leave the whole liberal/conservative polar opposites?

Even if it is that way that is their choice to leave and not them being chased away correct? Their decision not somebody else's. To blame somebody else to to justify their decision. If it is their decision to make what justification do they need other than to say, "this is where I want to be?"

You wrote:

Would it? Or would they finally just stop fighting and work together.

Rigid body on one side of the room going nowhere. Cannot even bend its arm to feed itself. Limp puddle on the other side of the room, cannot even bend its arm to feed itself. Both die within the week.

You wrote:

What do you think the conservatives, liberals, fundamentals etc. are afraid of?

Each other.

You wrote:

that is not cowardice. That is doing what is right for them.

That is cowardice unless it is a strategic retreat. Those who leave never counter with an attempt to take back lost ground. They hide behind walls and hurl insults which is hardly sharing God's good news.

You wrote:

Some may just be leaving because to them the above five mentioned changes are not something they are willing to support.

One does not have to support them to stay.

Grace and peace to you.

John

RevJohn said Fair enough. You are aware that liberalism (as a wide target) has been responsible historically for the developments of positions and theologies which are now being labelled "conservative" aren't you?

Please list some.

The most devout and hardline protestant Conservative theologian is the Roman Catholic Church's most extreme liberal.

I suppose. Believe it or not I was considered a liberal in many Christian circles before I came here.

In a theological discussion the liberal is moving away from traditional forms and expressions of the Christian faith--that does not equate necessarily with an abandonment of the Christian faith so much as it may equate to a repackaging.

I am not so sure about that. I see how liberalism could both be a repackaging and to an extreme an abandonment.

In a theological discussion the conservative is holding onto the traditional forms and expressions of the Christian faith--that does not equate necessarily equate to a holding on of Biblical doctrines so much as it may equate to holding on to human institutions and traditions.

I will agree with this sometimes.

Based solely on the allegation that the liberals are chasing the conservatives out.

By outnumbering and scaring the other side with their liberalism.

It is not taking responsibility for ones own decisions it is laying the blame at the feet of the other.

For example if one said "I left because you guy are prochoice and I disagree with that position because it is murdering a life" That both lays the blame on the other (because it is their fault for making such a liberal position paper) and clearly says why one left.

As one who sits in the middle I have to disagree.

I do not sit in the middle so I cannot share your perspective.

Are you arguing for a future that will be or one you imagine will be?

I certainly see the possibility. Historically, Christianity is good at that.

Find one that does not believe it and show me that they are leaving and I will gladly recant my statement.

OK so I know about 10 UC people (no less) and I can't remember how many former ones. The ones who I talked in the '80s I have lost track of. I am not in a position to do that.

Even if it is that way that is their choice to leave and not them being chased away correct? Their decision not somebody else's. To blame somebody else to to justify their decision. If it is their decision to make what justification do they need other than to say, "this is where I want to be?"

But they want to be there because the liberals gained a majority and changed some pretty big things.

That is cowardice unless it is a strategic retreat. Those who leave never counter with an attempt to take back lost ground. They hide behind walls and hurl insults which is hardly sharing God's good news.

Maybe they think the fight is lost. No point in going down with the ship.

Some may just be leaving because to them the above five mentioned changes are not something they are willing to support.

One does not have to support them to stay.

Why not?

I wonder if the real problem is that evangelicalism, conservatism, and traditionalism get confused with fundamentalism. I believe that there can be huge differences in these labels.

I know for a fact that evangelicalism dos not mean fundamentalism (although it does seem that many evangelicals are also fundamentalists).

I am not so sure that in practice what the differences are between conservatism and fundamentalism, but I don't think that they have to be the same thing. Religious conservatism does not also automatically mean social conservatism. Political conservatism in both Canada and the US seems to mean fundamentalism.

I am not sure what traditionalism really means, although I don't think that it really has anything to do with fundamentalism.

I also am not sure that fundamentalism and bigotry need to be related, although in practice they seem to be strongly associated.

Hi Serena,

You wrote:

Please list some.

Protestants deny the ability of the Pope to ever speak with infallibility.

Protestants, for the most part, accept two sacraments as opposed to the Roman Catholic seven.

Protestant Clergy may marry.

Protestant women may hold ecclesial office.

That is four off the top of my head.

You wrote:

Believe it or not I was considered a liberal in many Christian circles before I came here.

Heck depending upon the thread at WonderCafe I am either a mistrusted as a liberal or mistrusted as a conservative. That I can so easily upset the extremes on both sides testifies to my commitment as a moderate.

You wrote:

I am not so sure about that. I see how liberalism could both be a repackaging and to an extreme an abandonment.

You are arguing relativism.

You wrote:

I will agree with this sometimes.

It becomes more obvious as the extremism grows as does the sense of abandonment.

You wrote:

By outnumbering and scaring the other side with their liberalism.

See, you posit fear "scaring" you are proving my cowardism point. Thank you.

You wrote:

That both lays the blame on the other (because it is their fault for making such a liberal position paper) and clearly says why one left.

True. It is still laying blame and not taking responsibility for leaving.

You wrote:

I do not sit in the middle so I cannot share your perspective.

Fair enough. Does that make me automatically wrong though?

You wrote:

I certainly see the possibility. Historically, Christianity is good at that.

Not as a whole. There are some branches of the Christian family that are two busy reading revelation in one hand and the daily news in the other. They are living in fear of judgment and not the hope of resurrection.

You wrote:

But they want to be there because the liberals gained a majority and changed some pretty big things.

Which means that they want to be comfortable whether or not God wants that for them. They are running away, they are abdicating the witness that has been given to them. You are proving my points for me Serena.

You wrote:

Maybe they think the fight is lost. No point in going down with the ship.

That is the language of fear. Peter sank when he became afraid. Christ was there to catch him. Do they think that Christ would not be there for them in the same way? If that is the case they are operating out of fear.

You wrote:

Why not?

Because neither of the things you have mentioned are a part of our faith statements. We are not forced to abide by any of the above. We are asked to respect that those five things are a part of the world in which we are moving and to respond lovingly and gently to folk wrestling with those issues.

I didn't have to go abort several foetuses before I was ordained.

I didn't have to call an ape Grampa.

I do not have to, nor have I ever denied the divinity of Jesus, nor his bodily resurrection.

While there are some who in the past suggested that I am not a good fit for the United Church there are others who have suggested that God generally knows what God is doing and if God put me here it is probably to help build Gods church not tear it down.

Some will allege that because I do not take a stand against I am compromising with the world.

Fair enough.

Jesus compromised with Peter to something less that what Jesus initially strived for. If the Christ can compromise for the sake of one who could not do what was required then the Christian (meaning one who is similar to Christ) has permission to compromise.

Noting that Christ did not make compromise routine I don't have to make it routine either.

And I don't.

But I have that freedom to move that way.

The Extremes don't.

Grace and peace to you.

John

RevJohn said Protestants deny the ability of the Pope to ever speak with infallibility.

Many Catholics believe the Pope is fallible and don't listen to him. I agree this is definitely not the official position.

Protestants, for the most part, accept two sacraments as opposed to the Roman Catholic seven.

Many protestants say marriage is a sacrament too and use the other sacraments.

Protestant Clergy may marry.

They are trying to get that changed that the priests cannot marry.

Protestant women may hold ecclesial office.

They are also trying to get that changed. This is why the pope is not that popular.

That is four off the top of my head.

By outnumbering and scaring the other side with their liberalism.

See, you posit fear "scaring" you are proving my cowardism point. Thank you

Just because one is scared does not mean they are a coward..

That both lays the blame on the other (because it is their fault for making such a liberal position paper) and clearly says why one left.

True. It is still laying blame and not taking responsibility for leaving. Why are they responsible for leaving when they were driven out by the liberals?

Does that make me automatically wrong though?

Does it make you automatically right?

But they want to be there because the liberals gained a majority and changed some pretty big things.

Which means that they want to be comfortable whether or not God wants that for them.

So you are saying that the liberals are speaking for God? I could make the same argument about the liberals. They want everything wishy washy whether or not God wants it to be wishy washy.

They are running away, they are abdicating the witness that has been given to them.

They are taking a stand by leaving saying they will have no part of it.

That is the language of fear. Peter sank when he became afraid. Christ was there to catch him. Do they think that Christ would not be there for them in the same way? If that is the case they are operating out of fear.

Possibly. Maybe Jesus would tell them to jump on another boat.

Some will allege that because I do not take a stand against I am compromising with the world.

Have you not heard the song with the words "You have to stand for something or you will fall for anything?" I have always taken that literally.

Jesus compromised with Peter to something less that what Jesus initially strived for. If the Christ can compromise for the sake of one who could not do what was required then the Christian (meaning one who is similar to Christ) has permission to compromise.

What was that compromise?

RevJohn said Because neither of the things you have mentioned are a part of our faith statements. We are not forced to abide by any of the above. We are asked to respect that those five things are a part of the world in which we are moving and to respond lovingly and gently to folk wrestling with those issues.

How can we have respect for things we do not believe in and not speak out against what we strongly believe to be evil?

Hi Serena,

You wrote:

Many Catholics believe the Pope is fallible and don't listen to him. I agree this is definitely not the official position.

It is still Catholic Doctrine.

You wrote:

Many protestants say marriage is a sacrament too and use the other sacraments.

Many? Are you thinking individuals or denominations?

You wrote:

They are trying to get that changed that the priests cannot marry.

Until it is changed it is still a difference.

You wrote:

They are also trying to get that changed. This is why the pope is not that popular.

Until it is changed it is still a difference.

You wrote:

Just because one is scared does not mean they are a coward..

If it is a matter of fight or flight running away is typically cowardism. Again, if it is a strategic retreat it is only a strategic retreat if there is counter action. Hurling abuse and blaming others doesn't count as action--it is too weeny.

You wrote:

Why are they responsible for leaving when they were driven out by the liberals?

Because they are not driven out. They have made a choice to leave. If I leave a building it is definitely different from me being thrown out of a building.

You wrote:

Does it make you automatically right?

Of course it doesn't. If you want to prove me wrong you are going to have to work harder than that.

You wrote:

So you are saying that the liberals are speaking for God?

Please stick with what I am actually posting instead of trying to guess at where I am going. I am not advocating for liberal theology, I am saying it has a place. Nor am I discounting conservative theology because it also has a place. What I have attacked consistently is extreme versions of both which are, all things considered, seriously out of whack with the message of the gospel.

You wrote:

I could make the same argument about the liberals. They want everything wishy washy whether or not God wants it to be wishy washy.

You could. However the debate is about why it is that conservatives are leaving and not about how we can take potshots at the liberals. That is way to easy anyway. You should also note that though I am professing to be moderate (as opposed to extreme) I am not the liberal poster boy for WonderCafe. I'm taking shots at the courage and conviction of those on the theological right who are blaming others for their decisions to run away.

You wrote:

They are taking a stand by leaving saying they will have no part of it.

Try this experiment for me Serena, nail some slip-on shoes to the floor. Slip into them. Now run. That should illustrate for you the difficulty of taking a stand and running at the same time. It just doesn't work.

Leaving is not taking a stand it is running away so that one doesn't have to take a stand.

You wrote:

Possibly. Maybe Jesus would tell them to jump on another boat.

Try this experiment for me Serena. Go to a public swimming pool, the deep end should be well above your head. Step into the deep end. When you start to sink jump back to the deck of the pool. That should illustrate for you the difficulty in jumping anywhere while trying to walk on water.

You wrote:

Have you not heard the song with the words "You have to stand for something or you will fall for anything?" I have always taken that literally.

I have heard the song and the sentiment. It is a false choice.

You wrote:

What was that compromise?

Huge. Jesus asks Peter if he loves (agape--enough to die for) him. Peter says, I love you like a brother. Peter doesn't technically answer the question he pretends another one has been asked. So Jesus repeats the question and again Peter dodges the question and answers one not asked. Finally, the third time Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus as if he was a brother. That is the only question Peter answered.

It spares Peter the ignominity of denying Christ 3 more times--it is not Jesus giving Peter a chance to even the score (which by the way for those keeping track at home is 5 denials to 1 affirmation--post upper room brag of course).

Grace and peace to you.

John

RevJohn Is it not possible that some people leave because they believe in the beginning of creation, so when evolution is preached from the pulpit it makes those who believe in God creating the heavens and the earth uncomfortable,and dont want to listen to what they believe that evolution is not what the Bible teaches. Some people do go to church to hear the
Word of God preached and how to apply it to their daily lives.

RevJohn said Because neither of the things you have mentioned are a part of our faith statements. We are not forced to abide by any of the above. We are asked to respect that those five things are a part of the world in which we are moving and to respond lovingly and gently to folk wrestling with those issues.

How can we have respect for things we do not believe in and not speak out against what we strongly believe to be evil?

If it is a matter of fight or flight running away is typically cowardism. Again, if it is a strategic retreat it is only a strategic retreat if there is counter action. Hurling abuse and blaming others doesn't count as action--it is too weeny.

What if it is neither strategic retreat or running away? It could be just leaving and allowing the liberals to defeat themselves?

Because they are not driven out. They have made a choice to leave. If I leave a building it is definitely different from me being thrown out of a building.

They are made to feel uncomfortable and like their opinion/voice does not count. If one had "family meetings" and outvoted one's spouse constantly because they control the bank account or because they bribed the kids (if they get a vote) or because one could just yell louder how long would the spouse stay around. Add to that one is outvoting the spouse and then telling them constantly how stupid, uneducated, and outdated their opinion is. That is driving out.

Try this experiment for me Serena, nail some slip-on shoes to the floor. Slip into them. Now run. That should illustrate for you the difficulty of taking a stand and running at the same time. It just doesn't work.

I have tried this before on wood not an actual floor. I am able to get the shoes unstuck and run. Granted they now have round holes in the toe part. :)

Leaving is not taking a stand it is running away so that one doesn't have to take a stand.

Psalm 1:1 "Blessed [is] the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful"

Doesn't this verse say "you have to walk away from sin, not listen to people who are sinners, do not hang around with sinners, not sit with sinners?

Try this experiment for me Serena. Go to a public swimming pool, the deep end should be well above your head. Step into the deep end. When you start to sink jump back to the deck of the pool. That should illustrate for you the difficulty in jumping anywhere while trying to walk on water.

Very well I shall rephrase this. Maybe Jesus would tell them to CLIMB onto another boat.

Have you not heard the song with the words "You have to stand for something or you will fall for anything?" I have always taken that literally.

I have heard the song and the sentiment. It is a false choice.

Why is it a false choice?

Huge. Jesus asks Peter if he loves (agape--enough to die for) him....

I should have studied Greek. I missed the meaning of this scripture before.

dreamywinds,

Hi,

You wrote:

Is it not possible that some people leave because they believe in the beginning of creation

It is very possible.

Choosing to leave is not the equivalent of being forced to leave.

Grace and peace to you.

John

revJohn maybe some of these people feel they are getting a spiritual uplift in the church or even feel guilty at times for falling short of the mark through a sermon a minister preaches. So they seek a church that will feed them spiritually and exhorts the people to keep from backsliding. So if people arent spiritually fed, then a hunger sets in for the Word of God.

Hi Serena,

You wrote:

How can we have respect for things we do not believe in and not speak out against what we strongly believe to be evil?

There is a difference between respect and agreement. I do not have to agree with something in order to respect it.

For example, I am not always impressed with the person who is the Prime Minister of Canada. At the same time the office of the Prime Minister is one that commands a great deal of respect from me as a Canadian Citizen. One might even go so far as to say that my high regard for that political office often inspires me to not be impressed with individuals who appear to seek its power to stroke their own egos.

So, I have very little respect for Mr. Stephen Harper. I still respect the office of Prime Minister of Canada.

You wrote:

It could be just leaving and allowing the liberals to defeat themselves?

It could be just leaving. If it is just leaving it is their decision and not them being forced out.

You wrote:

They are made to feel uncomfortable and like their opinion/voice does not count.

Been there and done that. Still there as a matter of fact and my voice/opinion do count. They do not always prevail. I feel no need to keep score.

You wrote:

That is driving out.

That is a lot of ifs. That level of hostility is, in the context of the United Church, a very rare exception if it happens at all.

You wrote:

I have tried this before on wood not an actual floor. I am able to get the shoes unstuck and run. Granted they now have round holes in the toe part. :)

You are very proficient at running away then and not so good at taking a stand. :)

You wrote:

Doesn't this verse say "you have to walk away from sin, not listen to people who are sinners, do not hang around with sinners, not sit with sinners?

Nope it says do not walk in sinful ways and do not stand in the way of the sinner.

If we are not going to hang around with sinners we won't be spending much time in Christ's company will we?

You wrote:

Very well I shall rephrase this. Maybe Jesus would tell them to CLIMB onto another boat.

Why would then not walk with him on the Water?

You asked:

Why is it a false choice?

It presupposes only two extremes exist.

You wrote:

I should have studied Greek. I missed the meaning of this scripture before.

You aren't alone. The second chance perspective works so long as you only use an English translation. The only problem is that the theology that flows out of the English translation is inferior to the one that comes from knowing that there was a difference in questions.

Grace and peace to you.

John

RevJohn Is there not a great difference between a minister fresh out theological college and a minister who has lived and served among the people for years. A lot coming out of theological college, seem to think they are going to change the world, Wisdom only comes with age. :-) no disrespect to any minister who is a servant of Christ.