GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: "Christianity, Then and Now"  (Read 7815 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Arkstfan

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
  • Manna: 93
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« on: Tue May 06, 2003 - 14:11:06 »
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (charlie @ May 06 2003,10:45)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I read about this website in the Christian Chronicle. I find it interesting how change agents are now in a "movement" according to this guy. Their goal is to destroy the soul of the churches of Christ. It does seem pretty obvious that there is a struggle going on over how the churches of Christ are going to be viewed. The question is, who is going to prevail?[/quote]
I consider myself part of a movement. To me the GC movement is merely reclaiming the Restoration movement from those who turned it into what it was against.

Christian Forums and Message Board

"Christianity, Then and Now"
« on: Tue May 06, 2003 - 14:11:06 »

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #1 on: Tue May 06, 2003 - 17:58:11 »
kebecerl, I, too see  more of a unity, a oneness among "denominational" churches than in the fractured wings of the Stone-Campbell Reformation; for years I've contended that if Stone or either of the Campbells came back to most mainline coC's they'd be disfellowhipped before they reached the pulpit!

I am lucky in that my church of Christ is/has been allowed by God to be instrumental in leading a non/interdenominational movement in our area in which all the churches participate (Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, church of Christ, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, nondenom., Holiness/Charismatic, etc. The ministers/pastors/priests of these churches have agreed to put partisan issues and non-essentials aside in the interest of proclaiming Christ. Dialogoue on issues where we disagree does take place, but its not center-stage. Our four marches for Jesus were awesome! All the churches covered up the denominational names on their church vans with white butcher paper and people marched with placards saying "Jesus Saves," and so forth; no issues in sight! (The pstors and organizers decided that no tracts or denominational literature from any particular tradition would be allowed.) There were no church of Christer's, no Baptists, no Catholics, no Methodists; we were just 15,000 Christians. I wish everyone could experience that just once.

Of course my church was branded "liberal" and disfellowshipped by our more conservative church of Christ brethren, but we expected this. One minister said that his church did not participate in the march for Jesus because Christians were supposed to march for Jesus everyday, not just once a year and because he couldn't in good conscience fellowship error.

I for one can say that I have learned a lot from Christians of other traditions.

Pax vobiscum.

Christian Forums and Message Board

"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #1 on: Tue May 06, 2003 - 17:58:11 »

Offline segell

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5271
  • Manna: 283
  • Gender: Male
  • segell
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #2 on: Wed May 07, 2003 - 20:23:03 »
Lee, Brant and GC folk:

Lee suggested:

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]We should all (all of us from this board) try to get together sometime.

[/quote]

Count me in.  On some other thread a little while ago, I suggested the same thing.  It would be alot of fun.  What a time of worship we diverse lovers of Christ would have.  Amen?

Steve

Offline Nevertheless

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13259
  • Manna: 427
  • Gender: Female
  • Set a guard over my mouth, O Lord!
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #3 on: Thu May 08, 2003 - 20:55:48 »
Something I received in my email today addresses our unwillingness to change firmly entrenched practices.  It is meant as a joke, but it has a definite ring of truth.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage,
hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it.
Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb
towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray
all of the other monkeys with cold water. After a while,
another monkey makes an attempt with the same result - all the
other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when
another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys
will try to prevent it.

Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage
and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana
and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all
of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and
attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will
be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace
it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is
attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment
with enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey
with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth.

Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is
attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no
idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why
they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the
remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water.
Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to
try for the banana.

Why not?

Because as far as they know that's the way it's always been
done around here.

And that, my friends, is how church tradition begins.
[/quote]

 :sarcasim:

Christian Forums and Message Board

"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #3 on: Thu May 08, 2003 - 20:55:48 »
Pinterest: GraceCentered.com

Offline memmy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11973
  • Manna: 322
  • Gender: Female
  • Blessings
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #4 on: Fri May 09, 2003 - 17:28:59 »
:clap:
I think that I am registered now. Am I accepted? Sorry if this was overlooked as something that was needed, I was unaware that it was so important.
  :doh:
Booty, could you now explain to me what you meant in the comment that you made directed at me? I am kinda in the dark as to what you were trying to say to me... :help: ......thanks!
 :thumbup:
 :) Memmy

Christian Forums and Message Board

"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #4 on: Fri May 09, 2003 - 17:28:59 »



Offline david johnson

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3518
  • Manna: 67
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #5 on: Thu May 08, 2003 - 03:40:41 »
???

ok...what did i miss?  i went there and it didn't seem all that bad.  it didn't sound any different to me than what a militant liberal would say (i.e., both poles claim the other guy is wrong).  ctn isn't near as fun as piney!!

dj

Offline Sylvia

  • Lurker
  • Posts: 0
  • Manna: 0
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #6 on: Sun May 11, 2003 - 12:43:20 »
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]kebecerl, I, too see  more of a unity, a oneness among "denominational" churches than in the fractured wings of the Stone-Campbell Reformation; for years I've contended that if Stone or either of the Campbells came back to most mainline coC's they'd be disfellowhipped before they reached the pulpit!

I am lucky in that my church of Christ is/has been allowed by God to be instrumental in leading a non/interdenominational movement in our area in which all the churches participate (Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, church of Christ, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, nondenom., Holiness/Charismatic, etc. The ministers/pastors/priests of these churches have agreed to put partisan issues and non-essentials aside in the interest of proclaiming Christ. Dialogoue on issues where we disagree does take place, but its not center-stage. Our four marches for Jesus were awesome! All the churches covered up the denominational names on their church vans with white butcher paper and people marched with placards saying "Jesus Saves," and so forth; no issues in sight! (The pstors and organizers decided that no tracts or denominational literature from any particular tradition would be allowed.) There were no church of Christer's, no Baptists, no Catholics, no Methodists; we were just 15,000 Christians. I wish everyone could experience that just once.

Of course my church was branded "liberal" and disfellowshipped by our more conservative church of Christ brethren, but we expected this. One minister said that his church did not participate in the march for Jesus because Christians were supposed to march for Jesus everyday, not just once a year and because he couldn't in good conscience fellowship error.

I for one can say that I have learned a lot from Christians of other traditions.

Pax vobiscum.[/quote]
Lee it appears that the CoC tradition of autonomy is a stumbling block to unity.  They very word itself implies uniqueness, so how can a congregation be unique and at the same time in unison with another group.  
 
Somebody needs to decide what they want, autonomy or unity, and it's rather impractical to expect to be completely autonomous while at the same time in unison with another group.  
 
I think my sect, the UMC, has the best of both worlds.  Our official position on scriptural matters serves as a guideline for the various congregations while at the same time a liberal amount of freedom is allowed for each congregation.
 
The official policy basically says this is where we are going, and the congregations decide how to get there in a way that is best for their own culture and people.  We march to the same beat in the same direction, but each group decides how far in a given day they can go.  
 
The views of the ordained minister no doubt reflect the official line of the UMC because he represents the corporate church, but I have never heard one use church policy or doctrine to supercede divine principle.  To my way of thinking the church belongs to God's people and the staff are the care takers. Each member can hold his own view of scripture and not fear repercussion from the church.
  
In truth, the corporate UMC body owns the building and other physical plants,  so if a given congregation wants to leave the sect or wants to start another congregation they must start over in the physical sense.  In a way that seems unfair, but looking at it another way it's saying the building belongs to God and is not for sale unless be mutual agreement of the congregation and the central body.
 
On occasions UMC congregations will split or simply want a new building. If as a result of splitting or wanting a new building there's not enough membership to keep the old plant going then it will in time be sold rather than let it fall into disrepair and become a liability and an eyesore.

Offline Booty

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2123
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #7 on: Mon May 12, 2003 - 08:19:56 »
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (memmy @ May 11 2003,01:50)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Booty said:

Memmy!!

Are we having an identity crisis again? Remember that strange penchant I have for remebering number patterns?  To be sure, and how would the  weather be there in Colorado this time of the year?

Would you mind registering or possibly if you just happen to have another identity here, would you mind reassuming it? Thank you love!

Memmy says:

Dear Booty,
 As I have stated to you before, I have never lived in Colorado, I have no clue what you were talking about at all......Could you please, please, please explain to me now what you are talking about? I have requested three times an explanation of what you meant here and so far no response. And LOOK I registered!!! Still nothing from you.....
Am I not worthy of a few seconds of your time to tell me what you meant here. I am hoping that "three is a charm" and you finally answer my question as to what you were talking about.   :blush: I feel that there is some riddle here that I am trying to find and no one is willing to solve it. I really would appreciate a response.......  
Thanks........   :) Memmy[/quote]
Excuse me Memmy, but I sent you a pm. Will try again.

Offline Trois

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1395
  • Manna: 12
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #8 on: Tue May 13, 2003 - 12:06:23 »
Nope, it's "Trois" because i'm the third. :D

Offline Trois

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1395
  • Manna: 12
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #9 on: Wed May 14, 2003 - 09:36:38 »
Sylvia,

Is this Sylvia the guy using his momma's name for the board or Sylvia the gal whose name is actually Sylvia? :noworries:

I'll try to answer your questions...

When you speak of disunity are your referring to disunity within a given sect or disunity between the different sects, or denominations, if you prefer?

In scripture there is only one church (Eph. 4:4). The Lord's intention and plea for that one church is oneness (John 17:21). When I say disunity I mean the mere fact that in "Christendom" there are several churches is scripturally problematic. You have to do a lot of maneuvering and gerrymandering (sp?) to get scripture to teach more than one church. When I speak of disunity I am referring to disunity within a given sect and disunity between the different sects, or denominations, or anybody else.

Yes I believe there is only one true church of Christ. I don't believe we in the churches of Christ today have the right though to tell God who is in and who is out. Jesus is lord. She's His church. He is Head.We are members.

My comment was a response to the apparent "high-horse" I see among some people here who are not coC. Many seem to want to take this as an opportunity to show their "superiority" without really understanding our movement at all. I don't know if that was your intent, but I have seen similar things over and over and felt a need to at least speak up.


When you speaking of a willingness to be ecumenical what do you mean?

Ecumenicalism is a movement toward putting everyone under one house religiously (from the greek oikos). The present ecumenical movement has some good and bad points. What I mean is that some are willing to broaden fellowship to anyone who claims to be Christian regardless of teaching for the sake of Ecumenicalism. I am not. Now I'm not as narrow as that sounds. But there are certain foundational principles that I believe in, and I'm not willing to disregard them for the sake of "getting along". Please don't misread that statement. I'm not saying only people who see it "my way" are in God's church. I'm saying that there are many false prophets gone out into the world and we need to tery the spirits whether they are of God.

I think a major difference between my sect and the Coc is that we are not of the opinion that we have the only correct view of scripture.

I have no problem with that. But I do believe there is truth out there somewhere. I believe Jesus is absolutely true. I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I believe in salvation by Grace through faith. I believe without obedience there is no faith. I believe in repentance and baptism for the remission of sins as an act of faith not a saving work.

And even more than all that I believe Jesus is Lord. When He said and "ye shall know the truth..." I don't bnelieve He lied to me or tricked me or gave me a lifelong quest of frustrating non-attainability. I believe His truth can be known.

Hope this helps...

Offline kebecer1

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 439
  • Manna: 2
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #10 on: Wed May 14, 2003 - 15:55:59 »
And aft/ 6 years of Cleveland winters, all I can add is this: If God meant for us to live in cold as a kettle climates, we'd hav been given fur!  

I'm moved, and looking to add a winter house on the Tex Gulf Coast! :eek:

Offline Trois

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1395
  • Manna: 12
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #11 on: Thu May 15, 2003 - 08:08:41 »
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] You imply that Sylvia is full of Sylvia, or that Sylvia is vain. Look in the mirror my friend, and  reconsider another part of your sect doctrine that is emphasized.  It appears that you folks take very seriously the responsibility to point out false teaching.  Great, there's basis in scripture.  Why not take it one step further and look within for false teaching?  Or are you too busy playing God or being the Lord's scripture cops?
Your message is "Do as I say not as I do." and it lacks credibility. [/quote]

Again incorrect :bangingheadagainstwall:. That's definitely a wrong assumption. There are people in the church who vigorously oppose ANY false doctrine. Sometimes to the point of witch-hunts. So instead of making assumptions, ask questions.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] There's some good upbeat articles on the front page of this site by people who are also trying to help, and some of them suffer at the like of you, so I don't lose any sleep over your rants.  They have an advantage over me in that they too are CoC people.  [/quote]

At the likes of me? Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! :D  :D  :D They ARE the likes of me!!!!


 [!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] Organization does not destroy autonomy, contrary to what some may think.  A congregation can benefit from sharing common guidlines and still enjoy the independence of autonomy.  It's like five players on a basketball team working together for a common objective.  Each should play by the guidelines or rules, but each should do what he does best.
It's called teamwork, and when someone refuses to cooperate with his teammates he hurts their chances of winning.   [/quote]

Again. Assumptions. :doh: There are huge joint efforts all over the brotherhood. There are also common guidelines. We just believe those guidelines need to be what the Holy Spirit reveals in the Word of God. We think it's a mistake to make human guidelines binding on the whole church. Autonomy doesn't mean anarchy. It means freedom of judgement. The funny thing is, you trying to attack me on this particular issue would make many who know my stances on autonomy in the coC crack-up!! :rolleyes:

Besides, from your argumentation, the UMC never had a right to exist since the Pope etc. never gave you guys permission. :announceit:

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] Folks in the first century church did answer to a central authority, the body of apostles, who were the core of the church.  As to your last sentence, you are saying "Don't confuse me with the facts.  My mind is made up."  With that attitude you need all the help you can get, and it has to come from above. So what's so strange or scary about a higher level of authority?  When we commit to Christ we willingly do so in hopes we will profit from it.  If the principle of submission works for salvation then it might work for other purposes.  Think about it. [/quote]

 :rant: Hmmmmm, let me see. First of all we STILL answer to the Apostles. Second of all your council is NOT the Apostles. Third of all my last sentence "We believe that way is the scriptures not edicts from on high (even though sometimes I wish somebody would say, "Hey, this is what it is! Now shut up and go home!" Maybe you misconstrued my intent. I was saying sometimes our lack of one person or group of persons to say that's the final decision makes our decision-making process very arduous. That really helps your argument more than showing I have a ' "Don't confuse me with the facts.  My mind is made up." attitude.' Finally, I believe in submission. That doesn't mean I have to submit to a council or system that I believe is extra-biblical at best and unscriptural at worst.  :ranting:

Any administrator who feels the need to rebuke me about my tone, please do so. :noddingsmiley: I'm really not meaning to sound as I seem to sound to Sylvia.  :moping:

Offline charlie

  • Quoted on every stupid baptism thread
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3361
  • Manna: 95
  • Gender: Male
  • Here I come to save the day
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #12 on: Tue May 06, 2003 - 11:31:53 »
This is the website. What do you folks think?

Offline kebecer1

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 439
  • Manna: 2
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #13 on: Tue May 06, 2003 - 14:25:27 »
I'm particularly intrigued by the discussions re: "Restorationist" (c of C term) history, here:  We, i.e. DoC's and the c of C both claim the Campbellite-Stoneite heritage; frankly, I severly doubt that the c of C can lay any claim to C's or S's heritage, at least directly; way too sectarian, intolerant, and divisive.  But, I think you would say the same re: the DoC's, I gather (and David Harrell certainly luvs dat argument, fawsure!).

And, so it goes.

Myself, I don't see the endless division, Ark, of which you speak.  I find in my experience of mainline Protestant churches a true and abiding common spirituality that is quite affirming, quite alive, and quite centered on Christ and the sacraments.  It's just sad that this very assertion is almost always lost on any idealogue who insists that this is just not so; it being that s/he has the "restored truth" and I/we, well, "you have nothing".

That's the gap, IMHO, Messrs C and S were attempting to span:  Not restoration of some calcified form of ecclesiology or even practice (the "Lord's Supper on each and every Lord's day" as per the faith and practice of the NT; even Mr Wesley admitted that this should be so, so Mr C was hardly unique)--but a return to Jesus the Christ and the life-giving that he gives to shattered, seared souls who are resurrected in his name.

That said, I am a Christian primitivist--in terms of a return to vital Christian spirituality.  Messrs C and S desired this; we have perverted into something like division, bickering, and sureness of the mind of God....which is blasphemy.

Offline kebecer1

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 439
  • Manna: 2
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #14 on: Tue May 06, 2003 - 17:11:02 »
Trois, as w/ Schleirmacher and Schaaf, I begin w/ experience, which is hardly post-modern, but modern.  But, let's not quibble over prepositive adjectives.  :eek:

The fact is, the mainstream Protestant churches are far, far more united in terms of a general Christian piety and outlook (which, I know, will get us slammed, it being that "in fortune and (ahem) sectarian eyes" we don't embrace an o/w uniting right-wing ideology, or a leftist one, for that matter (I am consciously being provocative, here).
 :takingpicture:

There is variety, lots of it, for which I give thanks.  But, take it or leave it:  Our folks share the Lord's Table--General Synod of the UCC and the GA of the Christian Church (Doc)--every two (2) years; we share reconciled, and reconciling, ministries.  I have served, thus far, in my pastorates two (2) congos in the UCC and two (2) in the DoC's.

Our folks, in my experience, share the Lord's Table w/o our (even) divided brethren (and sistren)--evangelicals, fundies, true churchers, and "real presence" afficionados; Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Cdn, and moi-meme (half-breed French Cdn/Kebecois and American--francophone/anglophone, fluent in both--I am more united w/i myself, than the Cdns will ever be  :eek: )--we share the Table w/ our folks far more than....sadly..the c of C which lies shattered in a score of groups (I have worshipped w/ one-cupers, who told me to keep clear of the one-cuppers' wives who don't wear head-coverings; the praise team folks v. the mainstreamers; the ICOC v. the rest of ye; the NI v. the NI pro-Florida college folks) as mainstream Protestants than most c of C ever have, or will, I fear.

As I said, I begin w/ Schleirmacher's insight that all religiously modern experience begins w/ well, experience.  This is what I know:  It is true.

You might have something else to help me to see, but--I think that the mainstream Protestant churches--given our experience in Churches Uniting in Christ, the World and National Councils, and, the singular fact of 100-plus years of ecumenical conversations and fellowship--are far more united in agreement, fellowship and a similar telos to which God is drawing us.

Peace.  :thumbup:

  • Guest
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #15 on: Wed May 07, 2003 - 21:20:50 »
:wave:
  Hi guys and gals! Has anyone read the part of this website ["Christianity, There and Now"] that has the questions and answers?  For instance, how about the one that asks about hand clapping in worship?   :clap:  I am just amazed at how it is so offensive to some to be around people who are moved by "emotions" of happiness and the Love of God.
  I can almost bet the farm [I really wouldn't "bet" that] wait, I don't have a farm,......anyways, I can just imagine these same people can sit at a game and clap and cheer and be moved by emotions at that game or other secular type event, but would rather not "show emotions" for God in this manner.
   :thinking:
  Does this not seem strange to anyone else?
  This "point" of not wanting to offend anyone else is rather rediculous IMO, because we can always go to the extreme in anything and say that someone's looks, dress, hair color, perfume or lack of deodorant could do that to someone, couldn't it?
  I bet that if more people really celebrated God and His love that we would have less people   :zzzz: ing in some of our services today.
  By the way, I always thought that when we all get to heaven we will be always worshipping. So how will we ever be able to stay awake if all we do is quiet and "reverant" only?
  I understand how some have trouble showing their emotions, but to call others who do "wrong" is beyond me.
  I think the "Restoration Movement" as we see it, is one giant pep rally that God Himself has called for   :announceit: !!!
  Surely He wants to see us celebrating what He has done for us!?   :amen: ????
    :D Memmy :rolleyes:

Offline James Rondon

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 19760
  • Manna: 1746
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #16 on: Wed May 07, 2003 - 23:22:36 »
:)



[!--EDIT|James Rondon|May 10 2003,6:42--]

Offline Booty

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2123
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #17 on: Thu May 08, 2003 - 14:56:45 »
James,

Josh has a point, would you mind editing your post?  Thank you.



Josh,

Brother Waddey has been invited here to discuss his views. I for one look forward to his arrival. While we may never agree, we can learn from each other and that is important.

Past experience though leads me to expect he will not come. It would appear the majority that complain about we Change Agents prefer not to confront us directly.  


Memmy!!

Are we having an identity crisis again? Remember that strange penchant I have for remebering number patterns?  To be sure, and how would the  weather be there in Colorado this time of the year?

Would you mind registering or possibly if you just happen to have another identity here, would you mind reassuming it? Thank you love!

marc

  • Guest
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #18 on: Fri May 09, 2003 - 19:49:09 »
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Booty @ May 09 2003,08:37)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Charlie,

I doubt he will come. It just does not seem to be the style of our critics to talk keyboard to keyboard. But I plan on continuing to invite them, perhaps one day I will be pleasantly surprised.[/quote]
You might be surprised.  John Waddy posted quite a bit on another discussion board I used to read but not post on a while back, answering all kinds of questions from people who disagreed with him.

Offline Richard

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1026
  • Manna: 35
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #19 on: Sun May 11, 2003 - 07:06:19 »
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]guess I'll stick around awhile if that's ok.[/quote]
Please do!
 :wave:

Richard

Offline Booty

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2123
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #20 on: Mon May 12, 2003 - 08:34:00 »
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Lee Freeman @ May 11 2003,9:34)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]keb, come down to Florence, Alabama-we'll work with ya! We, too, are routinely accused by our conservative brethren of a whole host of "unscriptural" practices; in our case, I just wish half of em' were true! :D

Pax vobiscum.[/quote]
LOLOLOL!!!

KEB

Don't stop half way!! Come all the way South!! Mi casa es tu casa!!

Whenever you DoC's decide to get active in the overseas mission work, let's talk!!

Offline Sylvia

  • Lurker
  • Posts: 0
  • Manna: 0
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #21 on: Wed May 14, 2003 - 12:51:12 »
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Sylvia,

Is this Sylvia the guy using his momma's name for the board or Sylvia the gal whose name is actually Sylvia? :noworries:

I'll try to answer your questions...

When you speak of disunity are your referring to disunity within a given sect or disunity between the different sects, or denominations, if you prefer?

In scripture there is only one church (Eph. 4:4). The Lord's intention and plea for that one church is oneness (John 17:21). When I say disunity I mean the mere fact that in "Christendom" there are several churches is scripturally problematic. You have to do a lot of maneuvering and gerrymandering (sp?) to get scripture to teach more than one church. When I speak of disunity I am referring to disunity within a given sect and disunity between the different sects, or denominations, or anybody else.

Yes I believe there is only one true church of Christ. I don't believe we in the churches of Christ today have the right though to tell God who is in and who is out. Jesus is lord. She's His church. He is Head.We are members.

My comment was a response to the apparent "high-horse" I see among some people here who are not coC. Many seem to want to take this as an opportunity to show their "superiority" without really understanding our movement at all. I don't know if that was your intent, but I have seen similar things over and over and felt a need to at least speak up.


When you speaking of a willingness to be ecumenical what do you mean?

Ecumenicalism is a movement toward putting everyone under one house religiously (from the greek oikos). The present ecumenical movement has some good and bad points. What I mean is that some are willing to broaden fellowship to anyone who claims to be Christian regardless of teaching for the sake of Ecumenicalism. I am not. Now I'm not as narrow as that sounds. But there are certain foundational principles that I believe in, and I'm not willing to disregard them for the sake of "getting along". Please don't misread that statement. I'm not saying only people who see it "my way" are in God's church. I'm saying that there are many false prophets gone out into the world and we need to tery the spirits whether they are of God.

I think a major difference between my sect and the Coc is that we are not of the opinion that we have the only correct view of scripture.

I have no problem with that. But I do believe there is truth out there somewhere. I believe Jesus is absolutely true. I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I believe in salvation by Grace through faith. I believe without obedience there is no faith. I believe in repentance and baptism for the remission of sins as an act of faith not a saving work.

And even more than all that I believe Jesus is Lord. When He said and "ye shall know the truth..." I don't bnelieve He lied to me or tricked me or gave me a lifelong quest of frustrating non-attainability. I believe His truth can be known.

Hope this helps...[/quote]
I can understand you being defensive about the "high horse" attitude of people like me, as I am an outsider.  Perhaps you misconstrue what I am trying to say.  It isn't my intent to be judgemental or critical but to offer my view as to why CoC people have a degree of disunity within their own sect that simply doesn't exist in my sect.  The mere fact that my sect, the UMC, has a common doctrine that is observed by all congreagations minimizes the petty quarrels I see in the
CoC movement. Hey, we are either all right or we are all wrong, but at least we are in agreement on the major points.
 
As to disunity between sects, it is my belief that, for the  
most part, that is, in the mainstream Protestant sects, such as UMC, Evangelical Lutheran, Presbyterian and Roman Catholic, just to name a few of the larger denominations, we have unity of agreement on the basic tenets of Christianity, the very ones you have listed in you post.  True, there may be slight differences in the methods or rituals, but those aren't divine principles, or salvation issues as some CoC pundits say.  
 
In American political thinking there are two main viewpoints as represented by the two major parties, and there are a number of small groups or parties who hold some unique views that are not mainstream.  Does that mean these folks are un-American?  Certainly not.  Should these people be jailed or tarred and feathered just because their views don't conform to the majority views?  Nope.
 
The same can be said of the small sects of Christianity. I have no ill feelings towards Pentecostals, Mormons, or the small independents as long as they stay out of my face.  It's not my place to judge them for what they believe although I do find some of their beliefs and practices to be rather peculiar.  
 
Guess what, the same general view is held of the CoC as is held of other small faith groups, so who's being high minded or self-righteous?
 
To my way of thinking there is only one church, the universal church, the entire body of believers.  Did Christ specify what it should look like or what it should believe right down to the last detail?  I don't think so. He was not in the habit of micromanaging his flock and I think he saw the futility of doing so. I think your problem lies in thinking there should be only one POV in Christianity, the CoC POV.  Sorry, but it isn't going to happen in your lifetime, so get used to it.
 
Your attitude that there can be only one way, the CoC way, is at odds with your desire for unity.  As one lady said, we can have unity without conformity, and she was a CoC person.If you want unity in the universal church it helps to be an example or a role model, and you folks just aren't there yet. Get your own house in order before you start on mine.
 
Rather than closing your mind to suggestions and observations from outsiders try opening you mind to the fact that there may be merit in their viewpoints.  Frankly I couldn't care less if you folks get your act together or not, especially if you persist on resisting any advice just because it's not of your own sect.  It's the old NIH syndrome and you need to be aware of that.  
 
Must we wait for the absolute truth to be revealed before we can get on with serving the Lord? Look at it this way.  There may be only one absolute truth of scripture but there are jillions of ways to serve the Lord.  So why sit an cry over some idealistic state of perfection not being at hand when we can make a difference simply by going with what we got?
 
I think of ecumenicalism as spreading the word of Christ to the entire world as opposed to restricting it to a select group, which is in effect what you are doing with your narrow viewpoints.  You may be right as can be, but if it doesn't sell then what have you accomplished, relatively speaking?  Is the Lord's mission one of being exclusive or perfect in viewpoint?
I don't think so.  As long as folks can master the basic tenets of Christianity their chance of going to Heaven are as good as the next guy's are, and there's plenty of room for all of us.
 
Might you be a little paranoid about the false prophet issue?  
Sure there's false teaching out there but give folks credit for having half a brain.  In time they will see a falsehood for what it is and will reject it.  Have a little faith in humanity for a change, because that's all there is to work with, mortal beings with hopes and dreams and failings.  
 
Remember the song "Looking for love in all the wrong places"?
We can't be looking for saints on the planet because they live in Heaven. If we were perfect then we wouldn't need divine guidance.

Offline Sylvia

  • Lurker
  • Posts: 0
  • Manna: 0
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #22 on: Wed May 14, 2003 - 17:38:17 »
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (winky @ May 14 2003,1:16)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I think your problem lies in thinking there should be only one POV in Christianity, the CoC POV.  Sorry, but it isn't going to happen in your lifetime, so get used to it.

Your attitude that there can be only one way, the CoC way, is at odds with your desire for unity. [/quote]

Um, I didn't see Trois saying this anywhere in his post.

In fact, he said

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I'm not saying only people who see it "my way" are in God's church.[/quote]

What you seem to be saying is the problem with Churches of Christ (that we insist we are the only ones who have it right and want everyone to change to be like us) is the very same thing you seem to be doing on this forum (advocating how great the UMC is and wanting to change the Church of Christ to be more like the UMC). Does that make sense?

I have not heard anyone on this board (although there might be one or two random people who believe it) claim that C of C has everything right. In fact, that's practically the whole point of this forum, examining our practices and doctrines in light of scripture and being willing to change when needed (hence the infamous term "change agents"!). But you have to understand that it is hard to accept advice from someone who is not involved in the C of C, who comes in and starts criticizing everything about it (some of your criticisms we already realized beforehand and are working on, some we don't necessarily agree with you, some we do). It does sometimes come off as superior and consdescending, although you may not mean for it to.

This is just personal opinion here, but I think you'd get a better response if you'd stay away from saying things along the lines of "here's where the C of C is wrong" or "the UMC/my sect does it this way and it works great" and just offer your personal opinions on specific topics without having the agenda of trying to point out and correct all of the problems of the C of C or apply the UMC practices to the C of C. Do you see what I mean?

Just my thoughts, for what they're worth.

Wendy[/quote]
It is not my intent to criticize the CoC in a judgemental manner or to pit one sect's beliefs against another sect's beliefs.  I'll be the first to admit that Methodists  sometimes have disunity but there is a practical way to solve such issues.
 
What I have in mind has a basis in scripture, the book of Acts it seems.  When some of the members of an outlying congregation insisted that converts must be circumcised the apostles went back to Jerusalem to confer with others on the matter.  The issue was debated and a decision was reached that circumcision was not necessary to become a Christian.
 
In principle this was a church conference and did not involve denominations because there wasn't such a thing at the time.
This is a pristine example of how the first century church operated and anyone who seeks to emulate the workings of the first century church might profit from such a system of problem resolution.
 
It appears that the principle of autonomy is at odds with the principle of unity. I don't know the basis for autonomy but the principle of unity was Christ's wishes.  It's possible to have a degree of autonomy and at the same time have a common doctrine, at least at the basic level, and it could be done with conferences that are attended by representatives from each congregation.  Issues to be decided are brought before the body and a decision is reached on what the common viewpoint should be.  This is usually done by vote of those present after hearing debate on the issues.
 
Forums are nice as sounding boards, and I cannot help but notice how much attention is given to various writers in the faith group.  Why not take the ideas presented by such people as Valentine, Shelley, and Lucado, and vote on them?
What you folks have is a defacto organization or denomination with the sect doctrine being formulated by such writers.  Take it one step further and formalize the doctrine in the interests of unity.  I think the good Lord will appreciate.

Offline Sylvia

  • Lurker
  • Posts: 0
  • Manna: 0
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #23 on: Thu May 15, 2003 - 06:39:18 »
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Trois @ May 14 2003,6:43)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Wow. Methinks Sylvia is really full of him/herself (you still didn't say which one you were) to think that you can define the coC better than the coC. Is that a UMC thing or a Sylvia thing? Also it's very interesting how you can blow off the gay thing as inconsequential, when it is a BIG issue of division even though you're not autonomous. But can't seem to see the beautiful unity that many in the coC do enjoy, in spite of our bickering and infighting. As I recall the idea of being able to think independantly without having to answer to headquarters was also a characteristic of the first century church.

You also said that
Quote
It is not my intent to criticize the CoC in a judgemental manner or to pit one sect's beliefs against another sect's beliefs.  I'll be the first to admit that Methodists  sometimes have disunity but there is a practical way to solve such issues.
Quote
We believe that way is the scriptures not edicts from on high (even though sometimes I wish somebody would say, "Hey, this is what it is! Now shut up and go home!" :rolleyes:
My proposal for councils represented a democratic way of layman to gather and reach accord on issues.
 
Where have you heard the homosexual issue is a big issue of disunity in my sect?  Most of us accept the decision that was reached, again by consensus of the members. It's not ideal but we can serve the Lord in other ways while we weather out the gay issue.

I personally don't care for gay behavior, but I really think it's a genetic problem.  A poster on another thread, who is a celibate gay, shared his views and experiences with us, which only serves to support my position that he can't help the fact he possesses the tendencies.  He's trying hard to control his behavior, and I admire him for that. Aside from his gay problem he's probably just as good a Christian as anyone, and if he truly cannot help himself on that matter then I think people should show him some compassion and respect.
 
It is a Sylvia thing.  I spent 27 years as an analyst/programmer. I worked as a consultant and was paid well to help folks unravel their problems. The spirit of autonomy took its toll on these people too, in the form of turf battles, and it cost the host corporations dearly at times, primarily in the purchasing effort.  Independent buyers simply would refuse to cooperate or to coordinate their purchases, which resulted in a fantastic waste of resources in some cases.  My experience in dealing with people's problems led my to conclude that you folks have a systemic problem.  In other words, there's traits of your methodology that prevent you from realizing the unity you labor so valiantly to have.  It's not a fault of anyone, but it is a stumbling block for everyone.  Your problems are relatively unique in the religious world but they aren't impossible to solve.
  
I have conversed with a number of CoC people who seem to be happy.  Guess what?  They too could see the problems their people faced but I don't remember them being defensive about it. There's some good upbeat articles on the front page of this site by people who are also trying to help, and some of them suffer at the like of you, so I don't lose any sleep over your rants.  They have an advantage over me in that they too are CoC people.  
 
Organization does not destroy autonomy, contrary to what some may think.  A congregation can benefit from sharing common guidlines and still enjoy the independence of autonomy.  It's like five players on a basketball team working together for a common objective.  Each should play by the guidelines or rules, but each should do what he does best.
It's called teamwork, and when someone refuses to cooperate with his teammates he hurts their chances of winning.  
 
You imply that Sylvia is full of Sylvia, or that Sylvia is vain. Look in the mirror my friend, and  reconsider another part of your sect doctrine that is emphasized.  It appears that you folks take very seriously the responsibility to point out false teaching.  Great, there's basis in scripture.  Why not take it one step further and look within for false teaching?  Or are you too busy playing God or being the Lord's scripture cops?
Your message is "Do as I say not as I do." and it lacks credibility.
 
  
It's people like you that give your movement a bad name.  I can understand your pride, but when you close your mind to well intended advice you are cutting of your nose to spite your face.  If all you want to do is to wallow in self pity then have at it, but I don't have time for it.    
 
Folks in the first century church did answer to a central authority, the body of apostles, who were the core of the church.  As to your last sentence, you are saying "Don't confuse me with the facts.  My mind is made up."  With that attitude you need all the help you can get, and it has to come from above. So what's so strange or scary about a higher level of authority?  When we commit to Christ we willingly do so in hopes we will profit from it.  If the principle of submission works for salvation then it might work for other purposes.  Think about it.

Offline Sylvia

  • Lurker
  • Posts: 0
  • Manna: 0
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #24 on: Thu May 15, 2003 - 12:36:32 »
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (winky @ May 15 2003,11:50)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]OK, I didn't realize we were debating a specific issue (congregational autonomy). I thought this thread was about the Web site and the C of C and all that. Maybe that's part of the communication glitch here.


[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]ACTS 15:1-31 portrays two facts.

Verse 2 show that Paul and Barnabas tried to resolve the issue at congregation level but failed, so the principle of autonomy did not carry the day.

Verses 2 thru 30 portray the workings of a council of peers, both apostles and elders, and the resulting decision taken to resolve the matter and maintain unity in Christ's domain.

Verse 31 should be comforting.  It portrays joy in the congregation at Antioch because of the decision.  This serves to show that decisions from higher authority aren't always oppressive.

In general autonomy is nice, and my sect also enjoys a great deal of latitude.  However, the resources of a higher authority, as demonstrated by the council of peers at Jerusalem, is also very comforting and helpful.  Higher level authority can be damaging, as illustrated by the Pharisees who had ran amuck, but local level authority can also be very destructive of people's careers and reputations.  The power of a council of peers can serve to moderate thorny issues and can serve to protect the members from unwarranted practices of unscrupulous local figures of authority.  If the councils are truly councils of peers, the decisions are not oppressive, but instead reflect the wishes of the average members, who are typically represented on the council by layman selected by the congregation at large.
[/quote]

:clap: This is more like it (using scripture and reasoning to lay out your opinion rather than criticism). But, maybe you should start a thread about this and invite others to discuss rather than just starting in on the issue in the middle of a thread about something else. Just a thought. I also hope you'll discuss with an open mind and see where others are coming from instead of just trying to prove people wrong. I hope the same for everyone else in the discussion too!

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I understand you wanting to shoot the messenger boy[/quote]

No one wants to shoot the messenger boy. We just want the messenger boy to be a bit more humble and considerate with the message. :)[/quote]
I think my thoughts I have presented are germain to the central theme of the thread in that they address some specific issues that are objects contention by the change agents and by those who prefer to maintain the status quo.
I will admit it would be better to continue this in a different thread.

Offline kebecer1

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 439
  • Manna: 2
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #25 on: Tue May 13, 2003 - 09:32:54 »
Trois:  Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!  Dunno what I was thinkin'....hmm....maybe "Trois" as in "Counselor Trois" on the SNG...or, Trois-Rivieres in Kebec, where I know a woman....

Sorry.   :idea:

Offline janine

  • Guardian-Patroller of Lee's Outer Darkness
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14000
  • Manna: 370
  • Gender: Female
  • Good Stuff
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #26 on: Tue May 06, 2003 - 11:40:14 »
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]A hundred years ago the majority of those who were part of the movement to restore original Christianity chose the same road the agents of change are now promoting.  Today they are identified as the Disciples of Christ/Christian Churches. The issues that distinguished that movement last century and the movement for change of today are virtually identical. When the digression occurred in the past, the surviving remnant, led by great men such as David Lipscomb, James A. Harding, Austin McGary and J. D. Tant had to rebuild, almost from scratch. But God blessed their efforts and today well over two million souls are identified with the Churches of Christ around the world.[/quote]
 ???  ???  ???

Seems like I usually hear bad stuff from the anti-change-agent crowd about the horrible liberalness of some of those guys mentioned.

Or maybe it's just whining about how "liberal" Harding and Lipscomb Univeristies are now.

Some take on that is how one lady always answers in Bible class.  No matter what the topic, somehow she'll tie it in to change agents / liberal schools.

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #27 on: Tue May 06, 2003 - 15:46:40 »
Stone and the Campbells were attempting to unite true believers into one church based upon a restoration of the essentials, first principles, or core doctrines of the ancient faith (what A. Campbell called "the ancient order"). Robert Richardson expressed the aim of the Stone-Campbellk Reformation in his series of articles entitled "Reformation" in the MH of 1847. In the September installment "Reformation No. IV" he wrote:

"Were we, indeed asked to define theoretically, in terms the most brief and expressive, the reformation which we urge, we should denominate it-a generalization of Christianity. It is in this character that it presents a basis of Christian union. It is in this point of view that it lays aside the differences; the peculiarities; the distinctions, which disunite and mark out sects; and retains the agreements, the universalities, the identities which secure harmony and peace."

Charlie's website was just more mainline coC revisionist history, which they accuse us change agents of. Its clear they do not really understand what the Stone-Campbell movement was all about.

Pax vobiscum.

Offline brandt

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
  • Manna: 0
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #28 on: Wed May 07, 2003 - 07:56:50 »
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Lee

Just want to say that I hope God allows me the opportunity this side of Glory to meet you, shake your hand and tell you face to face how much I've appreciated being able to see into your heart.  (Actually, there's something bright and glowing there in that heart of yours and the Source is very evident. )  A pleasure to know you in this capacity, at least.

Continued blessings, brother[/quote]
 :amen:

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]We are blessed by the gracious Lord.
[/quote]

AND  :amen:

Offline kebecer1

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 439
  • Manna: 2
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #29 on: Wed May 07, 2003 - 10:15:04 »
Christianus sum.  Et cogito Christianum alienum me!  "I am a Christian, and I think nothing alienum from me that is Christian."

That little ditty was by a contemporary of A.C.'s--Prof. Schaaf, of the Mercersberg Movement, who thought that Mr C was on to sthg, but didn't go far enough, in uniting the Church (I'd have to agree)--and was the adaptation of Terence's little ditty.

Aspera ad caelum!  Quisque me adiuviat?

Pax, mei fratre in Christo!

  • Guest
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #30 on: Thu May 08, 2003 - 07:00:46 »
may i suggest that we post in love about mr. waddey and not let our posts decline into degrading him?

Offline Sylvia

  • Lurker
  • Posts: 0
  • Manna: 0
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #31 on: Sat May 10, 2003 - 06:30:53 »
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]kebecer1,

I really think you're perspective is clouded by a post-modern bent. There is no more ecumenical harmony in the rest of Christendom than in the coC. :frowning:[/quote]
 
It may be possible that in the universal church there are differences between what denominations think and do but within my own sect we are fat dumb and happy.  Perhaps I misunderstand your use of the word ecumenical, but can you really expect the same degree of harmony between 2 billion people of many nations and of many cultures?  Is it sensible to compare  the
few million of the CoC movement to the 2 billion of the world?
 
I think you are being defensive.  Never in my life have I seen such disunity over petty issues as I have seen on the faith based forums that are dominated by CoC posters.  
 
I see so many parallel with Judaism and the CoC outlook.  The Jews claimed to be the chosen ones and thought themselves more righteous than their neighors, and yet they have struggled for thousands of years and still haven't got their act together.  I think it is so fitting to call the CoC a movement because within Judaism there are a number of movements.  
They went down hill when they started making up their own rules rather than listening to the Lord, so take a tip from the wise and profit from their mistakes.  History is repeating itself right in your faith group and you are too blind to see it.  Am I being critical.  Maybe, but I'm saying "pull out pull out", before you crash and burn.
  
Disunity can really hurt a belief system.  In modern day Israel there are roughly 25 percent of the populatlon that don't claim to be religious.  With so many splinter groups they, like so many humans with half a brain, have simply walked away from the whole shattered mess.  
 
Emperor Constantine was very interested in the Christian religion because he had so much division in his Empire in the spiritual sense and in the political sense.  Pagan idols were on every street corner so to speak and there wasn't any one faith group large enough to be chosen as the official state religion.  Christianity claimed to be monotheistic, meaning only one God, which to him facilitated unity of beliefs, so he chose Christianity to be the state religion of the Roman Empire.  The orthodox definition of the Holy Trinity was developed at his urging in order to bring even more unity to his newly selected religion.
 
What's my point?  When you have autonomy, as did the ancient Jews and the pagan believers of the Roman Empire, you will have disunity.  Cohesiveness and sameness of purpose seems to be oxymoronical to diversity, but believe it or not, the sects that allow a little wiggle room in their doctrine, such as the UMC, have been relatively successful in carrying Christ's Word to the people.  Their numbers prove it.

Offline memmy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11973
  • Manna: 322
  • Gender: Female
  • Blessings
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #32 on: Sun May 11, 2003 - 06:52:20 »
Richard, Thanks so much for the response :thumbs-up: ! I was beginning to think that I was invisible here, maybe that puts me in the same boat as Booty [?]
Sorry, I do not wish to hurt anyones feelings here at all. I was just curious about why the comments [from a moderator,] with no explanation to boot [no pun intended]  
    ;)
Oh well, thanks for the brief words anyway to try and help explain to me what was said and why, guess I'll stick around awhile if that's ok.
By the way, everyone [Moms] HAPPY MOTHER"S DAY!
[Today I get a double blessing, it just happens to be my Birthday too.] The blessing to me is that I still have my Mom and I think we should celebrate birthdays for our Mothers anyway, we didn't ask to be here, right? She is the one who chose me. All of those children out there that are blessed with a wonderful Mom too, we should thank them on our birthdays. I know.........
  :offtopic: sorry, just seemed important to say :thumbs-up:  :D Memmy

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #33 on: Sun May 11, 2003 - 19:34:55 »
keb, come down to Florence, Alabama-we'll work with ya! We, too, are routinely accused by our conservative brethren of a whole host of "unscriptural" practices; in our case, I just wish half of em' were true! :D

Pax vobiscum.

Offline crocless aussie

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 828
  • Manna: 11
  • Gender: Male
  • crocless aussie
    • View Profile
"Christianity, Then and Now"
« Reply #34 on: Mon May 12, 2003 - 14:28:49 »
Booty

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Don't stop half way!! Come all the way South!! Mi casa es tu casa!![/quote]

Technically, you are only halfway south!  Come ALL the way to the Great South Land and we'll chuck another prawn on the barbie!

Allan

 

     
anything