New Blog Post: "Confessions"

by brerarnold, Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 14:50 (4613 days ago)
edited by brerarnold, Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 20:20

I've put up a new post on my blog, called "Confessions." It is the second part of another post which was entitled "Why I Call Myself a Christian." These essays might be of interest to some of you on this forum. They are the substance of two sermons I gave at the local Unitarian Universalist church. While not a Unitarian myself -- I am a recorded Friends minister, and a member of Croatan Friends Meeting -- I have often filled the pulpit at UUFNB because they don't currently have a minister and rely on volunteers. I am sort of the "loyal opposition" among that bunch of people.

Anyway, here's the URL for the new post: "Confessions"

If you want to see any of the old ones, click on the header at the top of the page -- "Letters From The Street" -- and it will take you to the blog's home page.

Edited to add: If you want to comment, please do so on the blog and not here. That way, many others will benefit from your viewpoint. Thanks.

New Blog Post: "Confessions"

by edwardyoung, Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 16:37 (4613 days ago) @ brerarnold

If you don't believe in the Virgin Birth or Resurrection "stories" then I'm not sure why you call yourself a Christian. Those are pretty fundamental to the whole Christian thing. I'm not trying to pick a fight. You are free to believe anything you like and identify yourself any way you like, of course. I am just curious why you chose the 'Christian' word as opposed to some other word that isn't so narrow in it's definition. I may have misunderstood what you meant. If so, I apologize.

New Blog Post: "Confessions"

by brerarnold, Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 20:35 (4613 days ago) @ edwardyoung

If you don't believe in the Virgin Birth or Resurrection "stories" then I'm not sure why you call yourself a Christian. Those are pretty fundamental to the whole Christian thing. I'm not trying to pick a fight. You are free to believe anything you like and identify yourself any way you like, of course. I am just curious why you chose the 'Christian' word as opposed to some other word that isn't so narrow in it's definition. I may have misunderstood what you meant. If so, I apologize.

Very few, who have not made a particular study of church history, are aware of how diverse the range of beliefs is among Christian. Most people only know what they believe, and some about what their closest neighbors believe.

For instance, someone who grew up in a Catholic country such as Italy might find it hard to believe that ministers in Protestant churches marry. I know folks who believe in adult baptism who simply don't get why other churches practice infant baptism. And then there is a long history of conflict between those who believe in full immersion baptism versus those who just sprinkle some water on the head.

Would you believe, here in the South, that I had to explain what an altar call is to someone? Yep, just last month. She had never heard of it. I don't know how you could live here and never once even so much as been to a tent revival, even if only out of curiosity. But there you have it.

There is no aspect of doctrine or practice on which you cannot find disagreement between at least some number of Christians and the rest. Everything, absolutely everything, which is found essential by one is seen as unnecessary by another. And yet, we are all Christian.

I am not reaching out to the convinced here. I am reaching out to the modern, scientifically-minded non-believer, who thinks that the medieval dogma and superstition he has rejected are the whole of what faith is about.

New Blog Post: "Confessions"

by edwardyoung, Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 20:54 (4613 days ago) @ brerarnold

I guess it makes it easier for me that I believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. If I ever need to reconcile someone's professed belief or practice, I just need to see if it conflicts with what is written in the Bible. If it does, then I am comfortable deciding(for myself) whether it is "Christian" or not. It's not important to me that everyone's 'style' of worship is the same. It is important that it doesn't disagree with what is written in the Bible. Easy, right? It's not, I know. A lot of it is, though.

 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

I believe Jesus is Who He says He is, so I believe what He says. Childlike, but it works for me.

yes, but, I have seen perfectly reasonble folks argue WHICH

by Rob Leahy ⌂ @, Prescott, Arizona, Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 21:35 (4613 days ago) @ edwardyoung

bible is the true inspired word... Everything is open to argument. I think G-d laughs and shakes his head a lot.

--
Of the Troops & For the Troops

I try not to argue. Thanks for implying I'm reasonable. :)

by edwardyoung, Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 21:41 (4613 days ago) @ Rob Leahy

I read, "Why I Call Myself a Christian"

by RangerBob, Thursday, February 16, 2012, 19:21 (4612 days ago) @ brerarnold

And I'm still not sure why you use that term.

I've traveled much of the world and met Christians from many, many traditions. Almost none would understand your beliefs and labels.

I've met you, and like you. You are an educated, urbane, and polite man.

But I'm sure you would find my more traditional, and more exclusive Christian beliefs to be uneducated and provincial. So I won't offer to change your mind.

But personally I would prefer that you would call yourself something else.

If Christian can mean anything . . . then it can mean this . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50r0CnKq7_k&sns=fb

I can call this interpretation "wrong" because it does not line up with scripture. I'm not sure that you can.

With deepest respect,

Bob


From G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, Chapter 5 . . .

“It is commonly the loose and latitudinarian Christians who pay quite indefensible compliments to Christianity. They talk as if there had never been any piety or pity until Christianity came, a point on which any mediaeval would have been eager to correct them. They represent that the remarkable thing about Christianity was that it was the first to preach simplicity or self-restraint, or inwardness and sincerity. They will think me very narrow (whatever that means) if I say that the remarkable thing about Christianity was that it was the first to preach Christianity. Its peculiarity was that it was peculiar, and simplicity and sincerity are not peculiar, but obvious ideals for all mankind. Christianity was the answer to a riddle, not the last truism uttered after a long talk. Only the other day I saw in an excellent weekly paper of Puritan tone this remark, that Christianity when stripped of its armour of dogma (as who should speak of a man stripped of his armour of bones), turned out to be nothing but the Quaker doctrine of the Inner Light. Now, if I were to say that Christianity came into the world specially to destroy the doctrine of the Inner Light, that would be an exaggeration. But it would be very much nearer to the truth.

The last Stoics, like Marcus Aurelius, were exactly the people who did believe in the Inner Light. Their dignity, their weariness, their sad external care for others, their incurable internal care for themselves, were all due to the Inner Light, and existed only by that dismal illumination. Notice that Marcus Aurelius insists, as such introspective moralists always do, upon small things done or undone; it is because he has not hate or love enough to make a moral revolution. He gets up early in the morning, just as our own aristocrats living the Simple Life get up early in the morning; because such altruism is much easier than stopping the games of the amphitheatre or giving the English people back their land. Marcus Aurelius is the most intolerable of human types. He is an unselfish egoist. An unselfish egoist is a man who has pride without the excuse of passion. Of all conceivable forms of enlightenment the worst is what these people call the Inner Light. Of all horrible religions the most horrible is the worship of the god within. Any one who knows any body knows how it would work; any one who knows any one from the Higher Thought Centre knows how it does work. That Jones shall worship the god within him turns out ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones. Let Jones worship the sun or moon, anything rather than the Inner Light; let Jones worship cats or crocodiles, if he can find any in his street, but not the god within. Christianity came into the world firstly in order to assert with violence that a man had not only to look inwards, but to look outwards, to behold with astonishment and enthusiasm a divine company and a divine captain. The only fun of being a Christian was that a man was not left alone with the Inner Light, but definitely recognized an outer light, fair as the sun, clear as the moon, terrible as an army with banners.

I read, "Why I Call Myself a Christian"

by brerarnold, Saturday, February 18, 2012, 13:52 (4610 days ago) @ RangerBob

Thanks, RangerBob, for your kind comments.

If your version of Christianity was in the minority, and rare, would it matter to you? Would you call yourself any less of a Christian?

I read, "Why I Call Myself a Christian"

by brerarnold, Saturday, February 18, 2012, 15:08 (4610 days ago) @ RangerBob

Had to go and read up on Chesterton before I could respond to that part. Seems he didn't like the Quakers very well. As it happens, I am a Quaker, and a recorded Friends minister. Among the Society of Friends at large, I am a Conservative Friend, standing somewhere in the middle between liberal Quakers and evangelical Quakers. I should also say that most conservative Friends would not describe their faith as I have, but it would be recognizably Christian to them.

What Chesterton did not know about the Quaker doctrine and practice of the Inner Light is immeasurable. Comparing it to Aurelius only goes to show how far off base he was. He was mistaken about Aurelius also, although in lesser measure. Stoicism has nothing to do with the Inner Light as we have known it, and you can't just import it into Stoicism because it serves your purposes rhetorically.

I'm not going to try to correct the misimpression Chesterton gives in the passage you quoted. For anyone who really cares, there is already plenty written on the score.

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum