if you're not my facebook friend...

... then you haven't been privy to this intriguing conversation.

i'll post it here for those who frequent this space, and if you're reading this on the RSS feed to facebook, you're going to be reading something twice over...

Thomas' response to my previous blog post:
Why does the church continue to find it appealing to draw people out of their natural environments/cultures, and into its own? As if it were somehow "missional" to attract people away from the world they live - into a different, segregated community. "Come to our church and we'll show you how to sing praise songs, speak our dialect, attend small groups, feel awkward for cursing, etc."

It is apparent that there is a national culture among Christians, and more importantly there is a smaller culture among each institutionalized church. If there gospel is supposed to be inclusive (and maybe we disagree there), why doesn't the church (body of believers) look to tear down the walls of the centralized institutional church, and bring what is left to people in the community. Why have church in a pretty room with nice wreaths, big atrium, and fancy projection screens? Why take people out of their natural element and fabricate "Christian environment" for them?

This has nothing to do with your blog...I suppose.
forgot to edit..."If THE gospel is supposed to be inclusive..."

my response:

actually, i think it does have a lot to do with it. i can totally follow you, starting from where i was talking about the attender/member issue... you went to the next level of questions... to what are members really submitting? to what are the committing themselves? is it really the Church as God intends? is it really Gospel-driven?

i love kierkegaard - one reason being, he was bringing Christianity into Christendom... albeit 19th century Denmark. We (believers) clearly need to reintroduce Christ into the Christendom of 'American Christianity.'

all of your questions are necessary questions for any Church that actually reads the Bible. your questions are rooted in lots of postmodern assumptions, too, but they are nonetheless important. you're getting at the philosophical issue of Christ and Culture: is it Christ vs. Culture, Christ in Culture, Christ above Culture, Christ transforming Culture, etc... an important philosophical basis for how a church or the Church behaves...
and i think that 'American Christianity' is a capitalist subculture that has its socioeconomic roots in the advent of 'adolescence' as a life stage and the development of marketing aimed at evangelicals. 'American Christianity' is how i would label the national culture you point out... but i don't think that all churches necessarily fall squarely into the national culture, although they are surely influenced by it.
if you love Jesus, you'll love His body, though... which may be what Rob Bell is getting at in his new book...

but i've just given myself probably 3 or 4 other posts to consider unpacking...

thomas' response:
I'm not seeing an actual addressing of the posed questions...but maybe you weren't trying to.

my response:
yeah, i was more exploring the presuppositions...
but i can answer, sort of. setting the stage, my answers are for my own ministry context, and i'll attempt but surely not give a conclusive answer on behalf of the capital 'C' Church.

"why does the church... draw people out... into its own?"
that question has several assumptions supporting it, but i'm sure that part of it comes from your own experience, too. i don't think it is fair, though, to critique the process of "drawing out," given that we are told NOT to conform to the pattern of this world. We are indeed part of a New Kingdom when we are adopted as heirs with Christ, there is a very different way of doing things. and to a certain extent (i won't get into how MUCH of an extent) Christianity is intended to be counter-cultural. when the Church begins modifying culture rather than being set apart and holy in its vision and functions, something IS wrong.
so, the Church SHOULD "draw people out" of their culture into the Kingdom way of living. here's the real problem, though - when the Church does not live/teach the Gospel unless people are "drawn out" of their "environment." The Gospel must be preached IN the environment where people live and work and suffer and rejoice. the Church SHOULD be bringing the Gospel and Gospel Living to the community, without walls or borders hindering it.
BUT... the Church, the Body of Christ, should itself be clearly distinguishable from charitable nonprofits, from youth culture dominated by shady advertising and "clever" marketing.

next question to follow... this post is too long...

"why doesn't the church... tear down... centralized institutional church?"
this question has a LOT of assumptions in it as well. i'm not really sure what you mean by 'church' in the first part, versus 'church' at the end, other than your general modifiers of centralized and institutional. is this a question for denominations? Catholic, Episcopal, Baptist, etc? or, is this a question for local churches as individual units? is this a question for the more conceptual movements, such as Mainline, Evangelical, Emergent, etc?

but i think this has a lot to do with differentiating between the Gospel and the Church as used in this dialogue - the Gospel is the True Way, the Message that must be taught and preached and lived. The Church is the gathering of followers of the Way, believers in Jesus, who are living in community together. The Gospel is not the Church, and vice versa... so, Church SHOULD be bringing what is left (i think you mean Gospel) to the community. the Gospel need not be kept within the Church alone, and its subsequent subcultures.

skipping ahead, your last question is clearly rhetorical to me - for indeed, we shouldn't be fabricating a Christian subculture, we should simply be living by the standards of the Kingdom.

but your question before that, "why have wreaths, projection, etc" is hard to answer on a larger scale. I have no answer for why Central FLorida Baptist Church cut their missions budget and built a 300 ft., fully lit cross to go on their property. I have no answer for why C3 church spend X million dollars on their new facility. I can only answer for the fellowship to whom i am accountable and for whom i am responsible as a pastor.
but to answer the question, i have to appeal to scriptural authority as well as reason, and i'm not entirely sure if that's a shared authoritative source for us. i do think we agree more on the inclusivity/exclusivity of the Gospel than you might think...
crap, i'll finish in the next comment...

but here's the deal... the Gospel needs to be taught and preached in our community. for us, decorating our facility for seasonal use is attractive, and it is the fruit of the talents of several people in our community - God has gifted them, and so we want them to exercise their gifts for His glory. so, we decorate occasionally. not frequently, and not lavishly by any means, but we do want our physical space for worship to be aesthetically pleasing, and we want it to be done with the same excellence that God calls us to do all things.
why do we have a projection screen? because it is an immense teaching help. the scripture can be displayed so that even the visually impaired can read it. the sermon can be laid out in steps so that people can follow along if they are not auditory learners. the text to songs can be displayed so that people aren't frustrated by not knowing a song or having to read music or having to hold a paper. the focus is not on the screen, the screen is a tool to help focus be on the one to whom we sing. if it's distracting, then there are other ways to worship and other bodies that function differently, as God leads, that probably don't have a projector. in this specific community, it is a helpful tool.
but maybe that question was rhetorical as well, and you already have thought about all of these potential answers... hopefully it is helpful to realize that at least SOME people in pastoral positions have actually thought about these things as well.
i'm afraid of starting to get defensive, i suppose, and that wouldn't be helpful at all...
i hope that you continue to ask these questions, but not only in your own heart and mind, but in the context of a small group or even a church...

thomas' response:
Well, I certainly appreciate the fact you spent a significant amount of time on your reply. Unfortunately, this method of communication is so dry that I don't know if I have have the patience to continue on much further.

Yes, I certainly have thought about these things and potential answers to the questions. I'm sure my ideas or thoughts regarding the future of the church would offend some people.

I understand most of your attempts of explanation, defense, justification, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning your work or your choices to be where you are at all. My brothers in law are two of my best friends...one has been a youth/associate pastor for a small church in northern VA for several years, and the other is finishing up his M-div and struggling to find his place in "the ministry" (puke at the word). These conversations are not few and far between among us.

I suppose the short version of my overall opinion here (which will be hard to fully explain or defend) is that the modern, institutional church (meaning the Constantinian model that has been preserved in various forms for 1600 years) must be crushed.

When I mentioned being "drawn" out...I'm not talking about the church rescuing lost ones from the worldly world and into the righteousness of the Kingdom. I don't see that majestic process taking place by shifting someone's Wednesday and Sunday activities from bowling/movies to church attendance. I'm talking more about the psychological power that is entrenched in the Constantinian model. It parallels the ineffectiveness of our education system - in that everyone sits in rows or lines and faces front to watch a performance or single speaker. How can anyone expect active participation to exist in this setting? There's no need for personal thoughts or reflections, or challenges to old ways of thinking.

The church sets their doctrine (usually by a few men in a closed room) and then you can come if you agree or leave if you don't. And yes, there are small groups...but aren't the small groups just a social get together for this closed community of head nodders?

You'll have to forgive my cynical overtones.

For the church to be what it needs to be, I feel like this model must go. The role of a centralized pastor would have to as well.

Here is where all of the deacons chime in and say "Well, then you're going to have no doctrinal direction and people will just start believing any old thing they want". I'm not sure if that would happen or not, but even if that is a legitimate concern...it couldn't possibly be the biggest problem the church is facing now.

If you think about it, institutionalized religion is exactly like the public education system (this is why I have been recently fascinated by education literature). They are two institutions that seek to take masses of unique individuals, with unique strengths, interests, abilities, etc. and melt them all together in a room, under the guidance of one or a few. What happens? PASSIVE ATTENDANCE. Some people hate going to church (or school) because it's boring, but they go because it's psychologically rewarding. Others like going to church (or school) because it's boring (passive) and they would have it no other way.

It's no wonder that after all my years of education (and I assume it is this way for a lot of people), after finishing college...I hardly feel prepared for the "real world", nor am I sure of my own talents and strengths to the degree one should after all of these years. Similarly, when the congregation leaves the building on Sunday afternoon they are certainly confused and unsure about living like Christ in the world.

my response:
i agree about the dryness of typed debate, but there is also something to be said for the ability to crystallize one's thoughts into concise terms and phrases, which i think you have done pretty well in these last two comments. there are still a few assumptions that may be unfair, and a few generalizations that are certainly unfair, but then again the Church as a whole has given you reason enough to draw these conclusions in the first place.
your cynical overtones are not unwelcome, when they're unpacked a little :-) cynicism is not fun to engage when it is ill-researched, or simply an attitude and not the mindset.

again, i think that these issues boil down to: what is authoritative in structuring spiritual development - scripture, experience, tradition, community, some combination of all or none, etc.? questioning the role of a pastor/teacher in a local community of believers is questioning a pretty basic scriptural tenet for the way the Spirit gives gifts to equip and guide the Church... and that's somewhere i'm not willing to go at this point...
your comparison to public education is very insightful, and something i'll be thinking more about - i was actually going to reference the onset of public education in the early 20th century as part of the development of 'adolescence,' and the subsequent youth culture.
as far as these "institutions" functioning toward passive attendance, i agree with that critique. however, and i'm sure you've heard this before in some way, you may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater by saying the model, in its entirety, is to be thrown out. i'm very glad to say that my church doesn't function in all the ways you've critiqued, but it certainly draws upon the model you would toss. our small groups operate on a very different philosophical basis than how other churches may, with the social focus and the head-nodding.

if you do feel this comment line starting to dry up, then please throw some other thoughts in anytime a note of mine prompts it! i need to think these things through, so that i don't at any point just do things as they've always been done, but rather live and 'work' with full intention of communicating the Gospel in the way God truly desires.

thomas' response:
"questioning the role of a pastor/teacher in a local community of believers is questioning a pretty basic scriptural tenet for the way the Spirit gives gifts to equip and guide the Church... and that's somewhere i'm not willing to go at this point..."

I'm not saying that there is no purpose or role for pastors/teachers among communities. I'm not saying that, because I agree with your response that this seems to be a basic scriptural tenet. When we understand the Bible correctly, I believe we should be able to see its truth's experienced in real life. Meaning, real life experiences should always be a litmus test for truth. We are all born with gifts and abilities. Some people are simply better at expanding upon ideas, communicating in various forms, and counseling others. These are all pastoral characteristics that should be emphasized and high lighted when they are seen in people.

The Constantinian model can be removed without losing the power (and scriptural purpose) of pastoral characteristics. To illustrate my point - I would suppose that there are several people among your congregation that posses these types (and other) pastoral/teacher type traits. The flaw then, is to choose one (or a few) people who may posses these traits, pay them, and give them the full responsibility of pastoring the church. These people then take on the responsibility (often too willingly) of making doctrinal decisions or flat out answering questions for an individual that should really be discussed and explored by the individual.

My point is, the scriptural concept of a pastor or teacher is certainly the baby. The Constantinian model of centralizing a congregation around a few pastors...well, this seems to be the bath water - the foundation for a rigid, stagnant, and passive congregation.

my response:
the more that i hear (read) you unpack the definition of 'Constantinian model,' the more i am encouraged - Grace has 9 'pastors,' with more being recognized and encouraged as God leads. i now think i understand what you mean by "centralized pastor," and i would probably call it the "Southern Baptist Dictator-Pastor," which is a caricature and not necessarily particular to Southern Baptists, but part of my Christian experience. i hope that we (my current church) are modeling after the New Testament model of church communities rather than how things are typically "done." we have not (yet) succumbed to the practically fatal flaw that you point out.
but i fully agree that this flaw is existent in many, many churches in many, many communities. i almost wish you'd posted this last comment first... particularly your last paragraph. your point is well made. i say almost, though, because it's been fun for me to think through these things and type them out... i wonder if anyone else is reading these and thinking interesting thoughts :-)

thomas' response:
I enjoy the banter.

I don't know enough about the intricacies of Grace's leadership. However, I am very familiar with several churches that have 20 pastors, and another fresh slate of elders. These circumstances did not positively impact the church congregation, mainly because it was still an authoritative situation. I guess that is what I should have been more specific about before. I find giving certain authority to a pastor or group of them over the rest of the congregation will quickly create the passive environment - the environment where people are subconsciously instructed to listen for answers and assume them. Quickly, you lose interactions, doctrinal challenges, and progression.

I'm tired, and the battery's going to die. I'll have to continue later.

aaron's interjection:
David said:
"i wonder if anyone else is reading these and thinking interesting thoughts"

It's the beauty and the beast of the interweb; everyone is watching. ;)

clint's 2 cents:
I, too, have been intriguied by this discussion (albeit I just read all of it inbetween games of NCAA Football 2009; Those fireworks you hear are the excitement in my life these days.) Nonetheless, I find this discussion to be thought-provoking, and one of those thoughts is this (and my biggest thought): Let's go back to where the idea of the education system as we know it (and for the most part, followed it) was put in the spotlight: "It parallels the ineffectiveness of our education system - in that everyone sits in rows or lines and faces front to watch a performance or single speaker. How can anyone expect active participation to exist in this setting? There's no need for personal thoughts or reflections, or challenges to old ways of thinking." along with "If you think about it, institutionalized religion is exactly like the public education system (this is why I have been recently fascinated by education literature). ... Others like going to church (or school) because it's boring (passive) and they would have it no other way." What I would like to know is this: What would our education system be without this formal and structuralized setting for learning? What if all education from 1st grade on was optional, and you could learn on your own freely? 500 years from now, what would society end up as? I understand this is discussion of religion and it's structure, but I think the same questions apply to education as they would religion (as Thomas pointed out). I, for one, love pretty southern church girls, so I dont want to see that die out :)

thomas' response:
I would love to recommend some books for you if you are interested in continuing down your path of curiosity (regarding education).

I feel like I've said most of what I wanted regarding "the church" so, if I may I will diverge a bit here into education.

All sensible education alternatives are built around concepts that produce active participants, promote individual thought and responsibility, and the freedom to explore one's own educational interests. In order to feel comfortable with a model like this, you have to understand how ridiculous it is to require all five year old's to be reading and 16 year old's to being taking pre-calculus math. These are two of the many examples of curriculum standards in our educational system that are simply outlandish. There are many angles at which I can come at this topic, so I'll try and keep it brief and hopefully pique your interest enough to do some more reading on your own.

The private school in England, founded in the 1920's by A.S. Neil called "Summerhill" has served as the spark plug for intelligent educational alternatives for the past 80 years. However, these schools philosophies seem so radical compared to their modern, industrial age counterparts that they have been forced to fly below the radar. The best US counterpart to Summerhill ideas is The Sudbury Valley School in Massachusetts. Started in the 60's and has about 30-40 like schools in the country. Ok, now on to the important stuff.

These schools are built around the idea of educational freedom and democracy. Every week there is a school meeting and the children along with all staff sit and discuss the issues of the week and vote on rules and other decisions relating to the daily operations of the school. Simply put, no one is more "in charge" than another. The children are taught that they have a voice and that their opinion matters.

There is a Sudbury school in Harrisburg, PA near my hometown. I visited the school this summer and was extremely impressed. The kids at the school ranging from 5-18 all took part in hiring their own teachers the previous year. The school needed two extra faculty members and so the children and staff help open interviews where they were grilled by 8 year old's for 3 hours. It is amazing how much children actually do care about education when you allow it to be their own.

Moving on...

There is complete educational freedom at these schools. Essentially, the students decide how to spend their days. They are all required to complete a house cleaning type chore each day in order to keep the school in order, but regarding their studies - the choice remains theirs. The idea here is that when kids are allowed to choose their own paths and interests they experience an authenticity in their learning that is unmatched by the public school set up. The obvious contentions here are that the students will just play and never learn all day, or that they will go through life unable to read or do math if they never wanted to learn it. In theory this could happen, but it never does. A child's intense interest in airplanes, animals, science (or whatever) will eventually lead them to the realization that they need to read in order to get along in society. Typically it takes them a no more than 6 months to be avid readers when they decide for themselves they want to learn. The same is with math and writing.

The teachers are these schools help the children set up lessons that they want to have, and discourage attendance from those who are being disruptive or not fully engaged in the subject.

Our entire educational lives have consisted of an authoritative (often several) figures telling you what was right or wrong, good or bad, and also deciding what you needed to know and learn. All decisions were made for you, and curiosity and contention to the norm are rarely rewarded.

The system teaches you that success is A) doing as little as you can to get by B) achieving an appropriate grade rather than the real absorption of knowledge C) to cheat if necessary, just don't get caught and D) to be passively involved, not caring about anything of real substance.

It is no wonder that half of the country doesn't want to vote in elections, and more importantly the majority of the country does not care to inform themselves about the world around them and take an active role in government and policy changes. The education system we have today seeks to eliminate individuality, as well as breed masses of non-curious, non opinionated, passive on-lookers.

It is also no wonder why so many people hate their jobs, or struggle to find what they have been gifted to do.

There's so much more to say, but I'll wait for a response.

I'd encourage anyone reading to check out the following
Sudbury Valley School Experience
Summerhill

Sorry for the typos, I really need to edit before I "add comment". For anyone who is interested and prefers listening to reading, below is a link to a great radio interview. The founder of "The Circle School" (a subdury school) in PA talks with the local talk radio host.

Sorry if I've hijacked your blog, David.
www.circleschool.org

my response:
you haven't hijacked by any means - it's on facebook, a contextually public forum :-)

i have to wonder... what are the philosophical bases for this kind of approach to education? it seems inherently humanist (which isn't always a bad thing), with the idea that we will choose what is good and right for us if given freedom to do so...

and, what are the sources for structural authority and/or worldview? is there a handbook/guidebook? does the majority vote rule in the large group meetings...?

i did actually look for the book when you suggested it earlier this summer, but didn't find it in available in the public library... it's on my list to order eventually, so maybe some of the philosophical questions are answered in that resource...

thomas' response:
The philosophies are absolutely humanist in their origin. Unfortunately, most people see a disconnect between the real power of Humanist theory and the concept of original sin. To me they co-exist quite well. That would have to be another discussion for another day.

Majority rules in the meetings, and I believe most schools under this model use a pretty strict form of Robert's Rules to conduct the meetings. At Summerill specifically, each meeting would end with that weeks' organizer naming a person who would be in charge of running the next meeting. This way someone is elected to keep the meeting in order, yet there still is no presence of authority.

I'm not sure I answered all of your questions, mainly because I wasn't sure what you meant by "worldview" when you paired it with structural authority. There's not a universal book that is all encompassing and inclusive of a single educational movement.

my response:
when i say worldview, i am referring to the framework of philosophy and properly basic tautologies that govern how knowledge is acquired and interpreted. worldview also includes the language(s) of knowledge shared between teachers and learners.
in this sense, worldview is an implied structural authority, in addition to whatever written resources there may be...
so, i guess i'm just still asking what the philosophical/cultural background for this version of educational theory is... and with that, i do think that philosophical humanism has a fundamental flaw in its perspective on human nature, but there is a kind of theological humanism that functions in a different way...
but, if philosophical humanism is the basic piece of the framework, then there are bound to be problems...

thomas' response:
The philosophies should and could certainly be debated. However, I would seek to view the real results of this educational environment as to whether or not it is producing successfully. The results I've see are pretty incredible.

Essentially, the humanist argument is going to be this:

Original sin does not exist. Children are born egoists - unaware of others and unable to feel empathy or sympathy. They are selfish in nature. However, when raised in an environment of freedom and love (love being a huge factor here) they "naturally" grow into altruism.

Where I part ways with Neil (the author of Summherill) and other humanists, is with the automatic exclusion of original sin. They would be the first to say the child is born an egoist. To me, this is a essentially saying they are born selfish, and sinful. The growth process into altruism would be coined a "natural" one by the humanists. However, this only takes place in the correct environment - a mix of freedom and love. This is a unique mix that is counterculture in so many ways. It also represents a lot of the ideas that I would pose are synonymous with Jesus. The educational philosophy is one that represents the child as a unique human being with rights. The environment that Neil talks so much about is nothing more than a true Christian environment.
The modern Christian contention would probably be "Well, you need salvation through Jesus to become a Christ-like person, you can't just become one because you're allowed to make your own decisions". First of all, the child doesn't grow healthy or into altruism without a FREE and LOVING environment. The environment must be one that is built around constant approval and unconditional love. Simply put, this philosophy is a recognition that children cannot be taught how to live as a Christian. If we want our children to have an authentic spiritual life, we must let their spiritual pursuits to be completely their own. This is why I am completely against forcing children to attend church or sunday school classes when they are young. Demanding church attendance from a child is a great way to rob them of an authentic spiritual life. Instead, create an environment at home where Christ simply exists - not through words or concepts that they cannot comprehend, but through real experiences. Constant approval, unconditional love, and freedom (within the parameters of safety) is a formula for an environment that fully represents Jesus.

These are hard concepts for parents to employ. Especially Christian parents when they feel compelled to "teach" their children into "right living". Rather, it is essential that you have them experience "right living".

I always use the example of a clear childhood memory of mine. Sitting in the living room at age 6 with my father, feverishly trying to memorize the Lord's Prayer for a church class. Though it was a cute memory, it holds absolutely no spiritual significance in my life.

I'm not sure I'm presenting these ideas clearly.

Houston's interjection:

Wow, I think I'll compile these posts, call myself "the Editor", and then make a fortune selling them to Christian bookstores. Would love to discuss this over coffee sometime...

my response:
"...is nothing more than a true Christian environment."
"... are synonymous with Jesus..."

Freedom and Love are definitely the defining characteristics of the Kingdom of God that was, is, and will be wrought by the work of Jesus. however, i don't think either of those statements you made, in their context, are justifiable.
a true Christian environment is indeed defined by freedom and love, but love rooted in Christ - not the concept itself; freedom from sin as experienced through a life alive in the Holy Spirit, not freedom that is arbitrarily given by the majority... so Neil may be talking about an environment that approaches a true Christian one, but cannot be apart from the Gospel... i hope i'm making sense and not misunderstanding what you stated...
freedom and love are synonymous with the life and work of Jesus, but not Jesus himself - it's always important to distinguish concepts.

i completely agree with your assessment of the Christian home, however... raising a child to be "Christian" by seeking to drive some outward action/education INTO the child will not 'take,' it will not in any positive way affect the spiritual growth of the child. the spiritual activities and hunger for scripture must come from the heart... and this is why Kierkegaard referred to Christianity as an 'adult religion,' because the aesthete and/or child cannot grasp the truths therein... but this is starting to become tangential...
the reason i can agree with your ending assessments of a Christian home is because the assumption there is the presence of Christ, the root of true love and true freedom. that assumption is not present in this educational theory, however...

thomas' response:
"a true Christian environment is indeed defined by freedom and love, but love rooted in Christ - not the concept itself; freedom from sin as experienced through a life alive in the Holy Spirit, not freedom that is arbitrarily given by the majority"

"not the concept itself"

that phrase is the thesis for almost your entire rebuttal.

and then you do a good job of extending your logic linearly, (rather than completing a circle) when you say "so Neil may be talking about an environment that approaches a true Christian one, but cannot be apart from the Gospel."

What I want to know...is what remains of Jesus when we separate the two. What remains of the gospel? What have we omitted from our environment that must be there in order to fully represent Jesus or "the gospel".

I would immediately guess...it would have to do with the abstract concepts of the the story of Jesus. I would only say abstract because they cannot be tangibly put into action by humans. Such as; Jesus is the son of God, Jesus took the sin of the world on his shoulders so you could live eternally with God, Jesus was born of a virgin, etc. All details about the story of Jesus that are intangible. My questions arise over the significance of these details in expanding the Kingdom of God. I guess I'll leave it as an open question because I really want to hear your point of view on that. I have only partially explored mine.

I will say that I absolutely subscribe to the statement (and the implied philosophy) that "all truth is God's truth".

The church has been trying to communicate abstract concepts about Jesus to people in their attempt to "preach/spread the gospel". These concepts don't need to be paired with the existence of love and freedom - they should represent the same thing. I guess I am prematurely revealing my feelings here. I would say that these two parts are from the same source, thus they are revealing of the same God and the same Truth (capital T).

The differences remain only in the mode in which they are communicated. I would then argue that communication of Truth through experience (formed from environment) is more spiritual and more authentic than Truth communicated through words. Unfortunately, words are the only vehicle used to communicate these abstract ideas about Jesus.

I'm concerned this has been a bit convoluted...
Have I lost you yet?

my response:
i hope that clint, houston, or any others feel free to jump in...

what remains of Jesus when we separate the Gospel message from the person/work/example of Jesus? i suppose that's what demythologizers and the Jesus Seminar sought/seek... the 'historical' Jesus, and only that which can be historically substantiated...

this question of what remains isn't 'really' what you're asking, though...
i think your question is found when you say "my questions arise over the significance of these details in expanding the Kingdom of God."
that is an interesting question, one that plagues missiologists and apologists and the like... and its a deeper question as well, perhaps phrased as: "what is necessary for an indicative relationship with God? right belief, right action, saying certain words in a certain language, acting in a certain way in response to encountering Truth?"

you haven't lost me, but you jumped between at least 2 different places, so i'm still formulating a response in my head, but i have a good idea of where we are :-)

your second post was more succinct and to the point, and i want to address it alone, but i don't think that's fair to the first post...

why were you up so late?

thomas' response:
Ok. Fair enough. Take your time...I ran out of herb last night so it will probably be a few days before I'm fully ready to respond anyway. However, I did formulate an articulate metaphor that I'd like to present at some point...it might shed more light on where I'm at right now with all of this.

I was up late...uh, I'm not sure. Bryan and I were talking for a few hours and I felt stimulated enough to return the discussion.

aaron's second interjection:
perhaps i can jump start something. David and Tommy were talking about Summerhill/Sudbury Valley philosophy and how it was intimately related to philosophical humanism. David mentioned there are noticeable holes in the humanist philosophy. I have read a bit on the humanist side but I have not read any literature negating its tenets. Can someone point me to a good source that talks about the flaws of humanism? I would like to see what is out there. Thanks.

thomas' clarification:
David was differentiating between the tenets of humanism and a "true Christian environment". This is precisely where the discussion has ceased.

my response:
all Truth is God's Truth, thus anything true, lovely, admirable, excellent, is indicative of the imago Dei. however, does Truth = Gospel...?
you're saying that an environment in which Truth is experienced is comparable to hearing the Gospel preached, if not the same thing. this comes back to an issue you didn't really answer directly, which is authority. I give the scriptures significant authority in my life, and i believe that God makes it relatively clear through Paul that the Gospel is intended to be taught and spoken as WELL as lived out - they must both happen, rather than one equaling the other, they both must occur for Truth to be made fully manifest. this is why i say that Neil is approaching a True Christian environment, but until the name of Jesus (at which every knee will someday bow) is glorified, it is not in fact a True Christian environment. Truth, capital T, may be evident and existent in the environment, but that does not mean that Christ necessarily is being made evident.

i think that the only thing unfortunate about having to use words to communicate Truth is that we usually don't recognize our own contexts, and the ways that our specific context shapes our language of knowledge. my brother has shown remarkable insight into psychosocial and linguistic arguments for the use/limitations of spoken/written language, and its helped me to formulate my ideas a little bit regarding the communication of the Gospel through words/actions/etc...
the problem with exalting experience over spoken/written language is the reverse of what is occuring in stagnant churches - the spoken/written Word is exalted above the living, active Word, so the family of God simply cares for its own and fills its burial plots instead of feeding the hungry, giving to the poor, and hurting with those who suffer in the community.

on the other hand, a church that only cares for the poor in a monetary sense, only feeds the belly of the hungry, and only suffers... is not being faithful to the powerful Word of God that speaks life - that there is something more satisfying than money in a relationship with God through Christ, that there is Bread and Water that satisfy on a deeper level, that there is an end to this suffering, and it will all be made right, thanks to the work of Jesus... if these things are not spoken and taught from their biblical roots, then the experience has nothing in which to ground itself, and a person may spiritually be growing, but growing toward what? toward what should spiritual experiences lead us? on what grounds should they be evaluated?

Aaron, you've got a very key question, and i'll attempt my answer to it after lunch, hopefully... :-)

re: humanism

i have to admit, my interaction with humanism is indirect - i have seen its effects in the forms of the subsequent ideologies that find their root in humanism. theological humanism is what i've dealt with more specifically, and it's not exactly the same thing as proper classical, philosophical humanism.
so - take my answer from that context -

i find the glaring, practical hole to be that humanism holds as a basic tenet that humans are naturally good, and will naturally choose that which is good, both for the self and the community. humans can naturally achieve understanding, accomplish great things, etc. this 'ism' has its relations with rationalism, logical positivism, and other products of the Enlightenment.
the similar problem with theological and philosophical humanism is that a properly basic assumption is that humans can/will make things better. the world can become a better place if we all work harder, use reason, and help others use reason and understanding. we can all choose altruism given the proper environment... drawing from a concept stated earlier. this manifests itself in postmillenial eschatology on the one hand and darwinism on the other hand.

aaron, the sources i could point you toward have a theological bent of some kind, and i don't know that that is what you're asking for... but i'll post them if you're interested in that angle. i think the best thing is just to keep reading the progressions of thought AFTER the Enlightenment... i think that humanism is a kind of pinnacle, but it fails to answer a lot of key questions, namely ontological and teleological ones, and Modernism and Postmodernism have sought to answer those. perhaps humanism is the most practical worldview of those, and thus its longevity... but you can't ultimately be practical without an attempt at answering why we're here or what we're here for besides pleasing the self and procreating.

thomas' response:
I don't understand why humanism or humanistic ideas have to be separated from a belief that we're here for more than pleasing the self and procreating. It also sounds from the first paragraph, that you're saying the fault of humanism is that it believes we can make the world a better place and that humans "can/will make things better".

I want to know the typical Christian stance on the coexistence of original sin and the story of the New Testament. Yes, original sin is the where the Old Testament begins, but where does the story end? The story ends in redemption (or the possibility of redemption), correct?

There seems to be this anti-humanism sentiment in modern Christians because they have this innate desire to hate life and hate humanity - hate our potential to progress positively. Does this come from an unhealthy love for original sin, or from an unhealthy understanding of Jesus?

Now I suppose you're going to say that Jesus is the counter to original sin - in that, we were born sinful but through the redemptive act of Christ we can live outside of sin. Does that mean that humans can actually start doing good now? I think it does. This is why (maybe not the entire philosophy) but the major tenets of humanism are rooted in the story of the NT, and because of progressive revelation - the story of the entire Bible.

Humanism simply rejects the abstract concepts of Jesus because the philosophy realizes (without knowing it) that you can't preach Jesus, you can only live Jesus.

my response:
the fault of humanism isn't that it's hopeful, it's that it is hopeful to a fault... living out a hope that we can accomplish God's work is certainly important and even necessary, but operating from the assumption that we WILL make the world better, and humans alone being the WE, is a misplaced hope.
i don't think that original sin, or sinfulness as human nature, ends at redemption. otherwise, sanctification would not be a process but instead a moment.
i don't know about hating our potential to progress positively, but if we are saying that humanity will save the globe, i think that humanities actions speak clearly. i think that progress on an individual and community scale is one thing, but talking about world teleology is where humanism is on sketchy ground at best.

i think that people are capable of doing good even without Jesus' intervention.
if theological humanism is rooted in the NT, which i agree with, that doesn't mean that philosophical humanism is completely compatible with the scriptures - in fact, i think your last statement crystalizes that - if one can't preach Jesus, then God's words through Paul are obsolete, and that's another place i'm not willing to go.

those are just my first impressions to your statements... i probably should have thought those through a little more... oh well

thomas' response:
I guess what I'm getting at is more along these lines...

When Jesus says I am the way, the Truth and the Life and other rhetoric that makes it clear he is calling people to believe "in him"...what is he really saying? I used to believe that he was saying "I am God and here is a story about the world and how it came to be and how God created people and they screwed up, but God allowed them to screw up because evil got in there with the snake, but don't worry cause here I am and now I'm going to die a horrible death so you can now be allowed to go to heaven again...all you have to do is believe that this story I'm telling you is true and when other people ask tell them that I'm God and all of the above is true".

I would love to poll thousands of Christians - I think we would find that the majority of their responses would focus around these ideas.

I suppose my overall view of the Bible has changed considerably through learning about its origins, the context in which in was written, and coming to grips that people wrote it - not God. Obviously it is not perfect, it it was perfectly constructed by God - then we worship a God who is lousy at communicating to his own creation.

I feel like instead, Jesus was maybe saying "Look at who I am and what I've said. Look at the way I've treated people and the way I'm responding in the situations you all face on a regular basis. Look at how men typically act, and compare that to the way I am calling you to act. Look how I treat people. Become born again each day and renew your mind so that you might not accept the old ways of yesterday. Put faith in these ideas of unconditional love, freedom, acceptance and community. Reject the tattered logic of "an eye for an eye". Accepting me is accepting a philosophy - a lifestyle that will change every aspect of how you think about and treat people. Accept me everyday and know that the Kingdom of Heaven is here and now and available to you if you choose it. "

Humanists do have it wrong if they believe that people will naturally be and do good when left to themselves. This notion was clearly refuted for me while reading "Summerhill" (despite the authors humanist leanings). The book talks extensively about the importance of applying these concepts of unconditional love, approval, and freedom when dealing with people (in this case children). These are the defining elements of Christ's message - the essence of who he was.

Essentially, Summerhill reveals to me the perfect mixture of a sound understanding of psychology, the minds and mechanisms of children, and the counterculture methods of Christ. In a world believed to have a creator and a belief in the message of Jesus - it makes perfect sense that these things should fit together.

Simply put, the traditional methods of parenting and education do not work. These are the ideas birthed from a fallacy. The fallacy is not that humans are inherently egoists (sinful), but from our approach to treating our egoism - our approach to redemption. Discipline, disapproval, conditional love (as viewed from the child's eyes) are all essentially forms of judgment.

(I would argue that judgment is the first and greatest step of sin, because it seeks to acquire the role of God. It is also the first sin...a desire to see all and judge for oneself).

These methods are faulty with children and adults - however children are ripe and intensely malleable minds, heightening the importance of their environmental experiences. These faulty methods (traditionally adopted by almost all people including "Christians") are the foundation for neurosis and psychological disorders/diseases. Raising children in an environment which is supported by the message of Jesus - respect, unconditional love, awareness, freedom and choice - this produces healthy and altruistic people. Living these ideas is the only legitimate way to advance the message of Jesus as well as choose the Kingdom of Heaven.

It does not happen "naturally".

I feel like I've been repeating myself.

my response:
i've gotta run, but i have several first impression thoughts here too... hopefully tonight.
i don't think you've been repeating yourself so much as continuing to flesh out the perspective you have for me and whoever else is reading. there are a couple places that i think we have fundamental disagreement, and i want to clarify those soon...
you begin with a sort of evangelical caricature... it's clear to me that your experience with American, Protestant, Evangelical Christianity has been less than wonderful.

you move into your ideas about the scripture, and this is, as i surmised, a place where we diverge. i have been studying the origins, contexts, and uses/misuses of the scriptures for almost 10 years as a religion major and div. student, reading sources from Ehrman to Grudem, in a context largely moderate/liberal. i don't come to the same conclusion you do, though, with regard to ascribing authority to the scripture.
from my experience, it is not unwarranted to hold as a faith statement that God has given us the scriptures in the form they are intentionally.
In the spirit of Van Til, let's get some presuppositions out in the open: You presuppose that, since God used man, there is a fundamental flaw in the Bible, and that this flaw must necessitate that God is no longer involved - the scriptures are not "perfect." Depending on what you expect a "perfect" Bible to look like...
and, you presuppose that our reason is sufficient for understanding how God would choose to communicate, because certainly it is not OUR fault for misunderstanding or being confused...
this is a sort of humanist paradox - although we humans are capable of supreme reasoning, we are not capable of being used to communicate on behalf of the divine...
analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga makes a case for Christian belief as properly basic, and rationally warranted. N.T. Wright, in his powerful testament to the historicity of the resurrection, deals with the importance of scriptural authority. i'll let those men and people like them do the more articulate defense of the holistic, intentional preservation of scripture.
all of this to bring me back to: don't assume your conclusions about scripture are necessarily the only conclusion after learning scriptural origins, transmission, contexts, etc.
i would contend that we are lousy listeners as opposed to God being a lousy communicator.

next, the words you attribute to Jesus are approaching a divergence for us... i agree with your statements, i agree that Jesus was communicating on that level. But, i don't think that's all of it. I think that Jesus was and is also saying that we must recognize our sin, we must repent, and we must trust God to make all things right.
the words you use to describe Jesus' teaching could also be, without much effort, put into the mouth of Gandhi or the Hare Krishna. Actually, it sounds a LOT like Hare Krishna, when you say "put faith in... love, freedom, acceptance, community." but, perhaps that is part of your point, that the life and work of Jesus is not unique, but rather reflected in other religions and cultural values. and that is perhaps where we would diverge again - i believe that Jesus was/is uniquely the Son of God.

i'll get to your second post in a bit...

basically, i need to read summerhill. this seems to be a place where we converge, because i do agree that the essence of how Christ lived was through unconditional love, freedom, and approval.

i also agree with your assessment of judgment, and i would add that 'pride' is the context for judgment, and thus the two are potentially the roots of all sinful attitudes and actions.

i would only add one caveat to your statement that "living these ideas is the only legitimate way to advance..." i don't think that it is the only legitimate way, and that stating it that way is too conclusive - you're presupposing that there is absolutely no power/meaning/communicativ

e ability in the spoken/written word. that would make this facebook notefest pretty pointless, and i would have to disagree with that.
i suppose it depends on what you mean by "legitimate," but it seems to me that written/spoken communication is very valuable and even necessary, since we cannot only communicate in community through eye contact and smiles, we have to have a shared language and some common concepts to shape that language, and i think in your fervor to re-evaluate the concepts being communicated in Christian spirituality, you may be reacting to your experiences just a bit too far by saying that "only" living is legitimate communication.

thomas' response:
Ah. Well your reply is thorough. However, I feel like you've made several assumptions of your own (regarding my positions) in your attempt to dissect the argument. No guarantees on when I can fully respond - the next two days could pose potential problems.

I think eventually though - even after we hash out some more details, we may still be in ultimate disagreement about a few important things.

And yes, reading Summerhill would certainly help the discussion. I think you will be refreshed and excited by Neill's writings, especially concerning criminality and other stances on adult behavior - just as much as the child psychology.

thomas' continued response:
Ok...I'm now 22...I'm in a coffee shop as I type this...drinking some dark Appalachian special brew. There are stickers on my laptop - so I'm in full hipster, PO-MO, emergent, indie rock, slip on vans mode.

--it's clear to me that your experience with American, Protestant, Evangelical Christianity has been less than wonderful.--

My personal experiences with American, Protestant, Evangelical Christianity have been a mixed bag. Nothing from the institutionalized religion itself have contributed positively to who I am today. However, relationships that began (and for a portion of time) existed in that environment, have. These relationships would have thrived with or without the institution being a part of them.

Most of my disdain for the aforementioned has mostly been cultivated through direct observations of things around me (in these environments) and the experiences of others. I think it is also a little cheap (no offense) to dismiss my words as a caricature...assuming by that you were intending to communicate that they are exaggerated and overstated truths. I think my caricature accurately describes the minimalist ideas that propagate the vast majority of modern Protestants in America.

Your next section is certainly warranted. I am certainly not closing the door to the way I view the bible and its writings. However, I think it is safe to say there is a debate that has existed and remains over the intricacies of the texts; their origins, authenticity, etc. I also do not claim that God cannot and has not (even to write the bible) used man to communicate. This may traditionally be the humanist paradox, but I don’t see an issue with it. I’m seeking to reconcile the fundamentals of humanism and Christianity, because I see a congruity among the Truths that both seek (or claim to) advance.

--But, I don't think that's all of it. I think that Jesus was and is also saying that we must recognize our sin, we must repent, and we must trust God to make all things right.—

Ahhhh, yes…this is the line that was inevitably coming and continues to frustrate the hell out of me. Usually, a discussion with my parents is halted by my mother using a similar statement. To save a lot of time – I’ll just say what the issue is that I have with this…

I’m not saying I disagree with what you are probably saying. However, it is the “christianese” rhetoric that you’re using that drives me nuts. I literally have no idea what you’re actually saying when you say “We must recognize our sin, we must repent, and we must trust God to make things right”. I mean, I might have some idea – but only from my personal experiences that I could potentially identify with the rhetoric.

There must be actual, viewable actions that take place or represent the abstract actions of “recognizing our sin, repenting, and trusting God to make things right”. The fact is, these are words that describe the most personal aspects of your spirituality. It seems that for so long, the church has been trying to turn this unique aspect of Christianity into some type of 10 step AA processes. Unless of course, you can give me a legitimate representation of how “recognizing our sin, repenting, and trusting in God to make things right”, actually should look for everyone.

You cease to use the most effective and genuine form of communication when you reduce Christianity/ministry/spre

ading the gospel to this types of abstract statements. Couldn’t our lives be a living breathing example of what it means to “recognize our sins, repent, and trust in God to make things right” so much that we wouldn’t be so dependent on selling this process to people through empty words?

Lastly, isn’t it possible for Jesus to be the Son of God and also have legitimate representations of his truths echoed by other religions/philosophies/lea

ders who were unable to accept the label of “Jesus, Son of God”, because of a tainted view or perverse representations of him?

I don’t know how you feel about salvation and how all of that works, but I would suppose that would be important to this discussion. From my interest in Psychology, I’ve been unable to retain the position that salvation is contingent upon a verbal recognition of Jesus, or some sort of earthly conversion experience. If this were true – all significance of Christianity would be completely undermined. Basically, what I’m saying is that if Gandhi isn’t in the proverbial “heaven”, then I don’t want to go there either.

Yes, you should read summerhill and we should discuss. If you do, be aware that the author has great disdain for the religion (emphasis on that word) of Christianity. I’m you’re intelligent enough to retain the essence and truth of what the book is saying, regardless of this slant.

As far as the written word stuff…

I would not say that written words or words in general are not important for advancing ideas and implementing change. Words (spoken and written) have to be the catalyst for these things – not the essence of them. It is words that must be used to spark, guide, and record experience. Where words lose their power is when they aren’t being used fuel experience. I hope I’m not being too vague. Tell me “Jesus loves you” is using words alone. Telling me “Jesus loves you” and then demonstrating love to me (through various methods of meeting needs, etc.) is using words as a catalyst. This is also very important considering the bulk of my response regarding Christian rhetoric. Alone, it’s useless. So maybe, we must be more concerned with the experience until we get that down.

my response:
i don’t intend to dismiss anything you’ve said or will say, so i apologize for my caricature comment if it seemed dismissive. for me, it’s just a way to give a handle to the kind of tone/perspective you have toward this people group/belief set. i don’t know that your statements are necessarily overstated or exaggerated, but to extend your own experience to necessarily describe the whole environment might be an overstatement.
i agree, though, that the caricature is accurate more often than not...
i’m not sure how you saw the troublesome line coming, but you were pretty clear in explaining your frustration. again, though, i apologize - i was not intending to compound your existing frustration with the terms, nor was i intending to fit into a “christianese” use of the words. off the top, here’s the thing about words and language: we have to have some shared definitions to communicate clearly. although we’ve largely been in the process of clarifying or redefining some things in this conversation, i didn’t take the time to redefine those particular concepts because i assumed that we have a shared understanding of what they mean on more than a surface level. i can’t speak for your mom, i can’t speak for any of the readers of this note, but i feel confident in saying, “come on, you know what i mean.”
but then you say that, on the one hand, you agree with what you may possibly assume i mean, but you really have no idea what i mean, but you might have some idea after all. to be fair, that’s a bit hard to follow.
if i must, i will clarify:
recognize our sin: in psychological or social terms, i mean that we need to seek to develop and live out of a self-awareness that is as honest and objective as the subjective can be. we should pursue a self-understanding, and Jesus provides the perfect mirror in which to begin the self-discovery. we must be willing to admit our own natural tendencies toward judgment, pride, and selfishness. when we can recognize our “sin” in this way, we then put ourselves in a place to do something about it.
repent: in other words, the “doing something” about it. to repent means to intentionally turn away from the things that represent pride, judgment, selfishness, etc. instead, those who follow Jesus turn toward the ways that we can stand with the broken, feed the hungry, heal the sick, and love our neighbor. (of course, i recognize also that sometimes professing Christians don’t look anything like this)
trust God to make all things right: place our hope in Jesus and in God’s work in, through, and because of Him, rather than placing our hope in our efforts alone, or in the American government, or the world economy, or any of our Western comforts. we must instead move our perspective towards the only hope than can truly heal the world, and that is the Kingdom of God, which is already here (through us) but not yet here, as well.
now, you may have an issue with something in the definition for those three things, but i’m willing to assume that you would agree with most of it if not all, and if YOU were to use those “christianese” words in a conversation with me, we would be capable of having a coherent conversation because of our shared definitions and ideas.
it seems to me, though, that you’re much more comfortable (and understandably so) in the realm of things that can’t be said, because you almost retreat there when the rhetoric gets to thick - because your experience has been a mixed bag, you cannot existentially make a faith statement that has not been empirically demonstrated. so, the mixed bag has fostered yet another paradox :-)
i’m not so much ‘reducing’ Christianity to those statements as i am using an abstract statement to refer to deeper, transformational truths. i really don’t know another way to verbally refer to transformational truth than through an abstract statement or concept, so i’d be interested to hear your alternative for the written/verbal communication of transcendent, transformational, or otherwise abstract (for a lack of a better word) concepts.
all that to say, you’re RIGHT - our lives SHOULD BE a living, breathing example. those abstract statements should be communicated in such a way that the community is indeed transformed by them through living them, rather than reciting and catechizing them alone. that is what makes the words empty, and i’m sorry if, by inferring from your rhetoric, my words have been empty as well. towards the end, you mention again that words are the catalyst for and/or the recording means for experience. i’m not sure that this would be a working way to talk about all language communication, but i think it is a very good and helpful definition of Christianity - the scriptures, sermons, and bible studies that permeate our Christian subculture should be the catalysts for change, and should be the testimony of what has happened, instead of merely rhetoric.
yes, it is very possible for God’s Truth to be evident in other worldviews, philosophies, and teachings.
my views on God’s salvific activity have been largely influenced by Calvin, Barth, and Newbigin. ‘The Gospel in a Pluralist Society’ in particular was a helpful book in finding ways to articulate abstract concepts such as God’s salvation of humanity.
From a biblical, as well as psychological, position, it is difficult to maintain that salvation is contingent on verbal recognition. and, i think that when most theologically educated church leaders are pressed on this, there is a gray area that is explored. it is more a fault of the unspoken aura that “we (must) have ALL the answers” that theology like what you mentioned is perpetuated.

thomas' response:
At first glance, it doesn't look like there's a whole lot to respond to. Maybe that's because we've simply reached a dead end - or maybe you're hoping to wrap this up soon. I would like to respond to ...

...it seems to me, though, that you’re much more comfortable (and understandably so) in the realm of things that can’t be said, because you almost retreat there when the rhetoric gets to thick - because your experience has been a mixed bag, you cannot existentially make a faith statement that has not been empirically demonstrated. so, the mixed bag has fostered yet another paradox :-)

I will be thinking about this today and will hopefully write tonight.

--I agree, though, that the caricature is accurate more often than not...—

Ok, well then we are in agreement on the essence of what I was getting at on this issue.

Next part…

I should have been clearer and replied to this from one perspective only. In saying, “I have no idea what you mean by this rhetoric”. I am partly speaking about me personally, but mostly I am saying that your words represent a communication break-down – a breakdown which takes place within church communities (it also takes place when Christians try and communicate with “non-believers”). Essentially, I am saying that “recognize our sins, repent, and trust in God to make things right”, needs to be defined. However, I don’t think it should be defined and left alone. The essence of our community interaction should be thriving discussions and representative actions which continually define this rhetoric.

---recognize our sin: in psychological or social terms, i mean that we need to seek to develop and live out of a self-awareness that is as honest and objective as the subjective can be. we should pursue a self-understanding, and Jesus provides the perfect mirror in which to begin the self-discovery. we must be willing to admit our own natural tendencies toward judgment, pride, and selfishness. when we can recognize our “sin” in this way, we then put ourselves in a place to do something about it.
repent: in other words, the “doing something” about it. to repent means to intentionally turn away from the things that represent pride, judgment, selfishness, etc. instead, those who follow Jesus turn toward the ways that we can stand with the broken, feed the hungry, heal the sick, and love our neighbor.---

(your third part could be inserted here as well. I agree with it, though I feel the language is a tad over saturated).

Now, I can see that we understood each other, because I agree with your definitions. Though, it is interesting to me you use the preface “in psychological and social terms”. Aren’t these terms much more “down to earth” (for lack of a better term) than the alternative? I also wonder why these types of statements are not made in describing a church’s doctrine/theological principles. Usually, the language is much more like your original statement. This seems vitally important to me on a cultural/missional/communicational level. One of my points (I guess you could call it that) is that this type of realistic communication is underutilized. I think it’s easier to fall back on statements like “trust God” (amen!) “less of me, more of Jesus” (amen!) than it is to actually discuss and act out what the hell it means to “trust God”.

I think most churches would be viewed as “too secular” or wouldn’t even attempt to publicly announce their beliefs in the terms you used

---it seems to me, though, that you’re much more comfortable (and understandably so) in the realm of things that can’t be said, because you almost retreat there when the rhetoric gets to thick - because your experience has been a mixed bag, you cannot existentially make a faith statement that has not been empirically demonstrated. so, the mixed bag has fostered yet another paradox :-)---

I may be ignorant of the significance of this observation – but my only response would be this…

For the past four or five years I’ve been amidst a period of intense spiritual growth/change. The process begun and continues to be guided by a desire for authenticity. I want to believe what is real to me. If I have a belief I cannot explain, I want to test it and determine its authenticity. This does not discount areas of “faith” or the supernatural. I think even matter of faith are grounded in reason – a reason or feeling that causes one to project their mind in a certain direction. Experiences are absolutely the vehicle for authenticity – and rightfully so. I’m not justifying overgeneralizations of people because of stereotypes or one-time encounters. I simply mean that I cannot believe statements about God, people, the natural world, etc. that I haven’t personally validated in some way.

To me, this process embodies the “born again” concept in its truest form. How pathetically have the evangelicals hijacked that great conversation?

If this hasn’t given you enough for a response – I would still love to hear your views on salvation…without having to read all the recommended books :)

my response:
finally, i have a few moments with nothing else pressing...

i was pretty sure that you weren't speaking entirely on your own when you said "i have no idea what you mean" as i used those terms, but i didn't want to assume. and, you are right that there is an unfortunate and unnecessary dichotomy that exists between the terms as defined on paper and as defined by the lives of 'believers.' i can't argue with this necessarily scathing critique of any who confess to follow the Way of Jesus.

with regard to the definitions in terms of psychological/social versus "spiritual," i think that you raise an interesting but ultimately overwhelming quandary. if you were to talk with theologically educated persons in ministry, these terms of reference aren't too hard to encounter. if you were to probe the educational processes of at least some seminaries, there are classes that teach ministry tools solely using these frames of reference.

however, if you were to go to a church's website and click on their "doctrinal statement," are you really looking for the psychosocial benefit of church involvement or the spiritual benefit of church community involvement...? and when i say "you" i am speaking of those "outside" the church, whether seeking or not. in most cases, and i'd assume the vast majority of cases, when someone is looking for a church's understanding of itself and Christian spirituality, they are looking for spiritual terms.

now, you may argue, why can't psychological and social terms be considered spiritual? theoretically, that's a fair argument, but you can't reasonably hope to change the usage of language by the general American populace without an overhaul in the education system, mass media, parenting, etc... which may be what you are advocating after all...

of course, "spiritual" needs to be defined in order for me to properly continue using it in this part of the discussion, and i'm a bit weary at the moment having just been on the phone dealing with some church-related stuff. but, i recognize the need and can come back to it if you think it's worth it...

i'm not sure that scientific terms are necessarily more "realistic" or "down-to-earth," depending on your context. for someone who is less well-read or not college-educated, how practical are empirical or even psychological terms when describing community living and redemptive life through Christ... and there i go using "spiritual" terms again, falling back on the authoritative definitions from the scripture... hmm.

i think it is the fundamentalists who hijacked that conversation, not the evangelicals as they are defined in academia. but, that is an interesting perspective on being "born again"

philosophically, there seems to be something missing from that perspective, though... you "cannot" believe something unless it is experienced first-hand... so you "cannot" believe in a literal resurrection of Jesus unless you have seen Him? or is there another experience that could reasonably substitute for putting your own hand on the resurrected body...? this seems to be a pretty important issue in Christian spirituality, and we have hit on scriptural authority so why not bring this one up? :-)