Abiding

Nov. 15th, 2004 08:02 am
pecunium: (Default)
[personal profile] pecunium
On the flip side of my last post, there are those Christians who don't subscribe to the pernicious doctrines I was railing against in my last post (disjointed though the beginning was).

Sojournors

An excerpt.

Confessing Christ in a World of Violence

Our world is wracked with violence and war. But Jesus said: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God" (Matt. 5:9). Innocent people, at home and abroad, are increasingly threatened by terrorist attacks. But Jesus said: "Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44). These words, which have never been easy, seem all the more difficult today.

Nevertheless, a time comes when silence is betrayal. How many churches have heard sermons on these texts since the terrorist atrocities of September 11? Where is the serious debate about what it means to confess Christ in a world of violence? Does Christian "realism" mean resigning ourselves to an endless future of "pre-emptive wars"? Does it mean turning a blind eye to torture and massive civilian casualties? Does it mean acting out of fear and resentment rather than intelligence and restraint?

Faithfully confessing Christ is the church's task, and never more so than when its confession is co-opted by militarism and nationalism.

3. Christ commands us to see not only the splinter in our adversary's eye, but also the beam in our own. The distinction between good and evil does not run between one nation and another, or one group and another. It runs straight through every human heart.

We reject the false teaching that America is a "Christian nation," representing only virtue, while its adversaries are nothing but vicious. We reject the belief that America has nothing to repent of, even as we reject that it represents most of the world's evil. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23).

...The Lord Jesus Christ is either authoritative for Christians, or he is not. His Lordship cannot be set aside by any earthly power. His words may not be distorted for propagandistic purposes. No nation-state may usurp the place of God. "




hit counter
From: [identity profile] patgreene.livejournal.com
My faith in G_d carries me to believe that there is one G-d and he made all religions but the same thread is carried in the most orthodox and most observant and I won't laugh at that at all.

I will not laugh at it, but I will respectfully disagree with your equation of "most orthodox" with "most observant." I cannot speak to Judaism, as I am not Jewish. But I can speak quite clearly to Christianity. For Christians, to be observant is to follow the path of Jesus. I know many who are observant and devout Christians who are not Roman Catholic or Greek or Russian Orthodox. The fundamentalist Christians historically have no more claim to orthodoxy than any other Protestant sect.

Christianity is a commitment to follow Jesus. It is not a political agenda. Even the theology gets argued about. What it is is a belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the redeemer of mankind. The understanding of what that means, and how we are called to be in the world, can vary from sect to sect, or even believer to believer.

An the Protestant faith came about because of the right to divorce, men again, or one king.

I would respectfully suggest that you not discuss Christianity, especially Protestanism, since you have no clue what you are talking about.

Protestantism was at heart a rejection of the worldly values and corruption of the Roman Catholic church in the middle ages and renaissance. Martin Luther -- who really is the father of Protestant belief, *not* Henry VIII -- said nothing about divorce when he posted his 95 Theses. He did speak a lot about corruption in the church, the sale of indulgences, and the redemption of the believer's soul through Christ Jesus, however. The Roman church of the pre-reformation era was a far far cry from the circle of believers who gathered around the carpenter's son from Nazareth. If anything, the Reformation was an attempt to return to Jesus's teachings, rescuing the church from the moral drift and corruption that had occured over centuries.

Even in England, where you so dismissively state that Protestantism arose because of Henry VIII's desire for a divorce, the situation is far more complex. Again, had it only been Henry's desire for a son driving it, the Reformation in England would not have survived his death. It did, and flourished, in spite of Mary I's (admittedly bloody) attempt to return the country to Rome. People died -- a lot of them -- in defense of ideas that had nothing to do with Henry or divorce. (Technically, what Henry was calling for was a dissolution of his marriage -- a recognition that the marriage was invalid from the beginning, with his children from that marriage made illegitimate. This is not the 20th century understanding of divorce -- it is closer to the Roman Catholic concept of annulment.)
From: [identity profile] pecunium.livejournal.com
...but I will respectfully disagree with your equation of "most orthodox" with "most observant." I cannot speak to Judaism, as I am not Jewish.

Oh no, she is right. The orthodox are more observant. The question is whether or not those sorts of observance is still required. This has been one of the most difficult questions in talmudic argument, one might argue is the only question in talmudic argument.

The hasidim are observant to an extreme (and the Ba'al Shem Tov would, I think, take them to task for losing sight of his primary message, but that would be a major digression).

But, as the Jewish understanding is that there are two parallel bodies of Law (think of it as the Constitution, and the decisions of the Supreme Court), and as a result differing sets of rulings lead to a host of variants on the religion. The three most of us are aware of are Orthodox, Conservative and Reform, with the various flavors of Hasidim being added to the understanding of the outside world in the past few decades.

TK
From: [identity profile] patgreene.livejournal.com
As I said, I cannot speak to Judaism, not being Jewish and having really little knowledge of Judaism. I was if anything reacting to the assertion that "more orthodox" = "more observant" is applicable in Christian thought. I was especially reacting to what I perceived to be an assertion that Roman Catholicism by its nature had a greater claim to theological/moral legitimacy than "less orthodox" or "less rigorous" Christian sects.

The nature of faithfulness to God is a difficult thing to determine. This is especially true of Christianity, which in its canonical writings rejects the idea of salvation through law. My sister. who is the wife of an Antiochean Orthodox priest, once told me that "we can tell where the church is, we cannot tell where it is not." Simply because the expressions of faith do not follow a specific form does not mean that faith is not there. Only God knows the heart of men.
From: [identity profile] pecunium.livejournal.com
I certainly agree, with respect to Christian faiths. Being a Catholic (though not quite apostate) I understand the dilemma.

Elizabeth I said it best, "I will not make a window into the hearts of men." Henry was, at heart, a Catholic, just not, after all was said and done, a follower of the Pope.

TK

Profile

pecunium: (Default)
pecunium

June 2023

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11 121314151617
181920212223 24
252627282930 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 26th, 2026 11:22 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios