|
Post by What Hat on Aug 24, 2010 9:46:47 GMT -5
I've been thinking about the discovery of Brunstad Christian Church (by ts). See "Miracle of Conventions" thread for some discussion. Their theology, brunstad.org/en/About-us/Theology.htm, is very similar to that of the f&w, and they also share common historical roots. (See thread above). It's no surprise that the same kind of counter-advocacy and ex-member casualties exist with their group. (Just search "Brunstad cult" and you'll find it.) What does this say about religion in general? What is common to these religious groups that creates similar negative effects? No one lied to their ex's about their founder. The Brunstad history is well known and no one ever tried to hide it. Yet the ex-members of that group seem as hurt and upset, and in some case, vituperative, as those of ours. It would seem that there are members in every church and even every ethnicity that look down at others just for being different. And they want to hold on to their kids, and cannot easily accept change. That much seems to be universal across all social groups, ethnicities, religions and traditons. Intolerance and egocentricity do vary with the individual but they are present in every social group. But I've noticed that the more serious and intent a group is about their beliefs, the more deleterious these effects. Mennonites practice shunning, and look down at other varieties of Mennonites. Similar kinds of social practices exist among Mormons, JWs, our group, Brunstad, Haldeman Mennonites and many others. "Only way" belief is a common characteristic of such groups, but such intolerance is not limited to "only way" groups. So what's the answer? I mean, you can attack the "only way" idea, but let's face it, you're not going to shift the thinking of someone who is seriously committed to a given lifestyle. Are there ways to limit the damage to ex-members lives, and also live in relative peace with them?
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 24, 2010 11:29:38 GMT -5
What a challenging, interesting wonderful question. The question alone suggests some very mature thinking and insight. This one is going to require some real reflection and introspection.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 24, 2010 12:00:52 GMT -5
What a challenging, interesting wonderful question. The question alone suggests some very mature thinking and insight. This one is going to require some real reflection and introspection. Thanks for the condiments, yknot! Where were you when we had the karma system?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 24, 2010 12:04:03 GMT -5
While I was a missionary for the F&W's church I worked among the Brunstands in Patagonia. They are a small church worldwide with little publicity and their members here are almost all German expats. Very similar back ground and some similar doctrinal points, but they also believe in a ONE true way. The web site would belie the publicity comment. It's quite slick. I think when you are very different, one true way-ness is bound to slip in. As far as the doctrine, at the level of basic premises it is astoundingly like the f&w. No creeds, no doctrine, no organizational structure; all reminiscent of Christian anarchy. Did you know that there's evidence they stem from the same root historically as the friends?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Aug 24, 2010 14:11:05 GMT -5
While I was a missionary for the F&W's church I worked among the Brunstands in Patagonia. They are a small church worldwide with little publicity and their members here are almost all German expats. Very similar back ground and some similar doctrinal points, but they also believe in a ONE true way. The web site would belie the publicity comment. It's quite slick. I think when you are very different, one true way-ness is bound to slip in. As far as the doctrine, at the level of basic premises it is astoundingly like the f&w. No creeds, no doctrine, no organizational structure; all reminiscent of Christian anarchy. Did you know that there's evidence they stem from the same root historically as the friends? Faith Mission? I wouldn't be surprised that there are more small religions coming off of the Faith Mission simply because the converts to Chrisitianity the Faith Mission's workers obtained were left to go to whatever church theys o desired...so perhaps more of them made up their own little congregations and ways of getting across the globe?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 24, 2010 14:59:17 GMT -5
The web site would belie the publicity comment. It's quite slick. I think when you are very different, one true way-ness is bound to slip in. As far as the doctrine, at the level of basic premises it is astoundingly like the f&w. No creeds, no doctrine, no organizational structure; all reminiscent of Christian anarchy. Did you know that there's evidence they stem from the same root historically as the friends? Faith Mission? I wouldn't be surprised that there are more small religions coming off of the Faith Mission simply because the converts to Chrisitianity the Faith Mission's workers obtained were left to go to whatever church theys o desired...so perhaps more of them made up their own little congregations and ways of getting across the globe? Actually, the historical link predates the Faith Mission. It's the Keswick Convention dating from 1875. Apparently Govan, who founded the Faith Mission, was influenced by the ideas of Keswick C., which have to do with finding perfection in Christ. This article explores the theology of Brunstad and also the link with Keswick. Unfortunately, not much historical evidence here, but the theology is interesting and markedly similar to f&w. www.apts.edu/aeimages//File/AJPS_PDF/04-2-GeirLie.pdfThe article also points out that the roots of Keswick lie in "old Methodism" and John Wesley. Irvine was a Methodist also, I believe. The other link is through Hudson Taylor who was influential at Keswick. He evangelized in China for many years with William Chalmers Burns ... from Kilsyth. Certainly Irvine would have heard of Burns who was almost famous; whether it goes further than that I don't know. It's interesting to trace the succession of ideas but it's also difficult work to do properly.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 24, 2010 15:03:03 GMT -5
Perhaps the roots to these small religions, as you call them, lie in John Wesley's teaching on Christian Perfection. new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/40/2/This dates back to the 1700s. The basic message is that one is expected to work and fight to be free of sin in lifetime. "He that is born of God sinneth not," [1 John 5:18] Wesley quotes.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Sargison on Aug 24, 2010 16:06:24 GMT -5
That's really interesting what. Actually you have jogged my memory. The workers ran a mission in our town about six years ago. A Brunstad couple, local folk, attended several meetings. I was on the door at the time, they were friendly and certainly didn't look out of place among the congregation. The mission season came to an end, soon after which the husband passed away. I'm not sure exactly what became of the wife. The couple met out of town with fellow Brunstadians, they seemed few and far between at that time, although the church does seem to be enjoying good growth world-wide, including in this country.
Watched a couple of the vids, Norway conference, Kenya conference. They are certainly up with the technology in spreading the Word. Nice touch with members of the congregation discussing the theme of the message.
Fascinating, I'll read some more.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 24, 2010 19:17:29 GMT -5
I've been thinking about the discovery of Brunstad Christian Church (by ts). See "Miracle of Conventions" thread for some discussion. Their theology, http:"Brunstad cult&quthis say about religion in general? What is common to these religious groups that creates similar negative effects? No one lied to their ex's about their founder. The Brunstad history is well known and no one ever tried to hide it. Yet the ex-members of that group seem as hurt and upset, and in some case, vituperative, as those of ours.
It would seem that there are members in every church and even every ethnicity that look down at others just for being different. And they want to hold on to their kids, and cannot easily accept change. That much seems to be universal across all social groups, ethnicities, religions and traditons. Intolerance and egocentricity do vary with the individual but they are present in every social group.
But I've noticed that the more serious and intent a group is about their beliefs, the more deleterious these effects. Mennonites practice shunning, and look down at other varieties of Mennonites. Similar kinds of social practices exist among Mormons, JWs, our group, Brunstad, Haldeman Mennonites and many others. "Only way" belief is a common characteristic of such groups, but such intolerance is not limited to "only way" groups.
So what's the answer? I mean, you can attack the "only way" idea, but let's face it, you're not going to shift the thinking of someone who is seriously committed to a given lifestyle. Are there ways to limit the damage to ex-members lives, and also live in relative peace with them?i might wonder if the Keswick conv. folk, might be/were the remnant of George Wishert's converts??? [Wishert, Keswick, Brunstad/others] just wondering The gap between Wishert and Keswick is quite great. To link things up you have to span 250 years. The reason I believe John Wesley had some influence on Irvine's thinking is because Wesley was quite famous in Ireland and Scotland and so had a wide influence. (I've been told that Irvine was not a Methodist, BTW, although other early workers were.) Wesley would have influenced some of the men (and women) who influenced Irvine, like Govan, for example. I don't know who the direct influences on Irvine would have been; this is mostly conjecture based on reasonable possibility as well as a succession of ideas. Was there something about Wishert's theology that you found appealing or interesting?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 25, 2010 13:23:29 GMT -5
... there was a Scot named George Wishert, who preached in England before John Knox, who spent some time in Switz , George Wishert never was involved with a 'religion', .... (Apologizing in advance for my attempt at humor)Aha! The Swiss connection!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 26, 2010 10:18:21 GMT -5
I'm skeptical of a Wishert to Keswick connection. As you indicate though, Keswick wasn't a spontaneous development, but then nothing ever is. Wishert would be what was called an early Reformer. The Reformers that we remember were people like John Knox, Martin Luther, John Calvin and so on. One of my profs told me, with more than a grain of truth, that these weren't the first Reformers, just the first ones that the Catholic Church did not kill.
So Wishert was one of the early reformers, that paved the way for the ones we now remember. Ever since the Reformation began in the 17th C or so, the church has never really stopped reforming itself, and John Wesley was significant in taking theology away from the influence of the Church of England, even though Wesley himself was an Anglican. Wesley was enormously influential and the kind of figure that everyone in Great Britain would know. After reading his views on Christian Perfection it's easy to see how his thinking influenced the Methodists, the Baptists and everything else on down from that including the friends. This would be in contrast to those streams like the Calvinists and Pentecostals who are rather heavier on the Grace type preaching.
Quite often we see theological criticism of the friends from people who are now in contact with Pentecostals or Evangelicals and they don't recognize that the basic principles of teaching are just different than what they had before.
Disclaimer: There could be errors in the above explanation. I have only a schoolboy knowledge of this stuff. I'd love for someone who has studied comparative religion to have a go at this and sharpen it up a little.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 26, 2010 10:22:55 GMT -5
just edited my post, sorry Welcome to the club ... I do that a lot. I plan to do more reading in this area, and might have a more informed go at this at a later point in time. I don't have too much else to say.
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Aug 26, 2010 10:25:11 GMT -5
The reason I believe John Wesley had some influence on Irvine's thinking is because Wesley was quite famous in Ireland and Scotland and so had a wide influence. Was there something about Wishert's theology that you found appealing or interesting? John Boardman (a Presbyterianist) wrote the book "the Higher Christian Life '' , around 1858 ... he is listed as being linked with the earlier movement 'holiness movement' in England . it seems that this book might explain some of the concepts that the 'high life movement ' brought to the table at the Keswick Conventions.. thus : Presbyterianism must have had at least a partial affect of the Keswick Conv.
ok, just reread the author sketch, (John Boardman presbyterian ) their take (wikipedia) was that John Boardman springboarded the Keswick Con. , by the book he wrote and the movement it was a part of. where can one get this book? ? sounds like it could be interesting stuff//................ Try this: www.archive.org/details/higherchristianlife00boarrichor Google Books: books.google.com/books?id=5_MrAAAAYAAJ&ots=HV_3AQmFbN&dq=Higher%20Christian%20Life&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q&f=false
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 26, 2010 10:44:49 GMT -5
I'm skeptical of a Wishert to Keswick connection. As you indicate though, Keswick wasn't a spontaneous development, but then nothing ever is. Wishert would be what was called an early Reformer. The Reformers that we remember were people like John Knox, Martin Luther, John Calvin and so on. One of my profs told me, with more than a grain of truth, that these weren't the first Reformers, just the first ones that the Catholic Church did not kill. So Wishert was one of the early reformers, that paved the way for the ones we now remember. Ever since the Reformation began in the 17th C or so, the church has never really stopped reforming itself, and John Wesley was significant in taking theology away from the power of the Church of England, even though he himself was an Anglican. Wesley was enormously influential and the kind of figure that everyone in Great Britain would know. After reading his views on Christian Perfection it's easy to see how his thinking influenced the Methodists, the Baptists and everything else on down from that including the friends. This would be in contrast to those streams like the Calvinists and Pentecostals who are rather heavier on the Grace type preaching. Quite often we see theological criticism of the friends from people who are now in contact with Pentecostals or Evangelicals and they don't recognize that the basic principles of teaching are just different than what they had before. Disclaimer: There could be errors in the above explanation. I have only a schoolboy knowledge of this stuff. I'd love for someone who has studied comparative religion to have a go at this and sharpen it up a little. are you skeptical of Wisharts convert John Knox having a link, too? John Boardman( via wishart-knox-presbyterianism) was very much a part of Keswick i am not claiming that modern presbyterianism is the same as the 'original' whatever that was, but that there was a 'certain' influence, just wondering No I have no problem with the Wishart to Knox link, or with the influence of Presbyterianism on Keswick, since it was a major force in Scotland. I guess I don't know particularly how Wishart fits into Presbyterianism. I'm not disagreeing with your point. Saying I'm skeptical is because the argument is not convincing at this point.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 26, 2010 11:01:40 GMT -5
You'll see in wikipedia that this doctrine has its roots in John Wesley's teaching on Christian Perfection. I think if you breeze through Wesley's very long sermon on this subject that it's quite compatible with worker teaching and incompatible with some of the Grace teaching you hear on this board (coming from the Pentecostal/ evangelical side). Another interesting conflict is that of Jacobus Arminius versus the Calvinists. Numerous articles on this on wikipedia, but this would seem to be a fundamental break early on around the questions of free will and pre-destination. Arminius influenced Wesley. Since the Presbyterians are Calvinists I discount their influence on Keswick and on the early workers. Even though Irvine was a Presbyterian, Calvinist theology seems quite incompatible with early worker teaching. I should add that some of these past conflicts seem quite esoteric to today's believers. For example, few believers today argue much about pre-destination as it's quite an academic argument. Questions about grace, free will and works are quite salient though to the practice of the Christian life, and so people continue to argue about them.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 26, 2010 12:19:19 GMT -5
No I have no problem with the Wishart to Knox link, or with the influence of Presbyterianism on Keswick, since it was a major force in Scotland. I guess I don't know particularly how Wishart fits into Presbyterianism. I'm not disagreeing with your point. Saying I'm skeptical is because the argument is not convincing at this point. i guess you are just as skeptical as i am about most of these sketches of history, as there was nothing written about them , that i know of, and as far as i know, wishart did not 'write' anything. Knox, however , must have done some writing---seeing that he is referred to as a 'father' of presbyterianism. even so, i do not know if it was Knox original intention to create a 'church'/belief base solely on 'his' opinions...... i dont know for me, the bottom line: does it really mean that much to me how the f&w came into being??? if it really mattered, i would do a bunch of rersearch on all these links, nevertheless, 'some' of the links are a little bit interesting to me, (at this point in time) , tomorrow, i might find out i was going on a wild goose chase. oh welll, thanks for bringing up this subject, i did research this a few years back, and dropped out until this came up . thanks Exploring the history is not useful to the average believer, but all the same I think it's fairly important for someone to do it. For example, when you look at a number of the conflicts and differences of opinions that come up between different denominations the historical background is useful in sorting things out. People tend to 'mythologize' their history, make it more than it is, so the actual history is useful for bring things back to earth. I'm thinking beyond just the Irvine history here. Many truth claims that people make, such as the Trinity claim, are bound up with one powerful faction destroying its opposition and claiming the territory. This goes beyond the victors being able to write the history books, although they certainly do that. Many battles have to do with "who is right?" about some religious claim, and whoever wins gets to define their version of the truth from that point forward. So it's useful to look back and see what actually did happen. The friends history is an object lesson in the fancies and notions that can creep in in the absence of real information. But the same has been true throughout the entire history of Christendom. People who study the actual beginnings of the Christian church often have to revise or drop some of their childhood notions relating to the things they've been taught.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 26, 2010 12:19:45 GMT -5
The part of the original post that fascinates me is the "ontogeny" of groups. Not only how they get started but how they develop and "mature" over time.
The whole question of why, in spiritual matters, we "need" a group. Spiritual enlightenment and practice and salvation (for those who believe in reward and punishment) all seem to be individual quests. Teachings seem to imply that these matters involve only an individual and a higher consciousness.
And yet the teachings seem to also suggest that we should gather one with another (into a group). What is the original purpose of this association with like minded individuals? Is the purpose to share experiences (communion), is it to instruct (suggesting a hierarchy), is it to protect (if so, from what) or is it to create a "sacred" place suitable for spiritual experiences?
Once a group of like minded individuals is formed, what is it's natural history. How, why and with what constraints does the group grow and prosper? Does the group recruit (evangelize) and if so based on who's interpretation of the sacred texts? Is there an "optimal" group size? If the group becomes "too large" does it take on a new role of extending it's own life ("only way" ness)? Under what conditions do "inside" and "outside" become clear and distinctive demarcations? Who sets the requirements and consequences of moving into or out of the group?
As the group grows does it's mission of ministering to the spirtitual needs of the individual diminish? Does this change of focus away from the individual lead to conflict, anger, rejection? Do like-minded individuals within the group re-segregate into smaller groups and splinter?
Lots of questions but I "ain't" got any answers. Looking forward to more discussion on the topic.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 26, 2010 13:52:43 GMT -5
You'll see in wikipedia that this doctrine has its roots in John Wesley's teaching on Christian Perfection. Since the Presbyterians are Calvinists I discount their influence on Keswick and on the early workers. Even though Irvine was a Presbyterian, Calvinist theology seems quite incompatible with early worker teaching. Wishart would not have been a Calvinist, as the theology did not exist at that time. However, he may have been an influencer of the Calvinists. As far as who or what is a Calvinist, it's more self-labelling than anything else. There are quit a few denominations that will tell you they are 'Calvinist'. Generally, terms like this grow out of actual differences of opinion that people have. One of the big tenets for Calvinists is pre-destination. Early in the Reformation there was a debate between Jacobus Arminius and Calvin on this point, and some of the Protestants identified with one and some with the other. The result is two completely different sets of denominations who can trace themselves back to one or the other. Along the way, other differences of opinion have cropped up, and more denominations formed. Sometimes the difference of opinion seems minor in retrospect and you know the split was more around personalities than difference in doctrine. I don't prefer Wesley/Arminian to Calvinist theology. I grew up in a Calvinist church originally and there are things I like about each. There are some great things about a theology called neo-Calvinism, for example, that I find very attractive.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 26, 2010 15:15:27 GMT -5
I think it must be a paradox. If you forsake fellowship you will find fellowship with like-minded people who are truly seeking. If you find a suitable church(especially one that is the only truth and way) you will settle among people who are no longer seeking. If you are not a seeking soul, you will be in good company.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 26, 2010 18:44:03 GMT -5
I think it must be a paradox. If you forsake fellowship you will find fellowship with like-minded people who are truly seeking. If you find a suitable church(especially one that is the only truth and way) you will settle among people who are no longer seeking. If you are not a seeking soul, you will be in good company. Well, what if you thought the only true way was to join the Seekers?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 26, 2010 18:51:24 GMT -5
Wishart would not have been a Calvinist, as the theology did not exist at that time. However, he may have been an influencer of the Calvinists. As far as who or what is a Calvinist, it's more self-labelling than anything else. There are quit a few denominations that will tell you they are 'Calvinist'. Generally, terms like this grow out of actual differences of opinion that people have. One of the big tenets for Calvinists is pre-destination. Early in the Reformation there was a debate between Jacobus Arminius and Calvin on this point, and some of the Protestants identified with one and some with the other. The result is two completely different sets of denominations who can trace themselves back to one or the other. Along the way, other differences of opinion have cropped up, and more denominations formed. Sometimes the difference of opinion seems minor in retrospect and you know the split was more around personalities than difference in doctrine. I don't prefer Wesley/Arminian to Calvinist theology. I grew up in a Calvinist church originally and there are things I like about each. There are some great things about a theology called neo-Calvinism, for example, that I find very attractive. then, Calvin might have been a 'Wishartite' , (someone that followed Wishart's teachings) , but that label has never been in general use, as far as i know. i know a person that claimed to be a Morman, and yet he did not practice all of its doctrines, I asked him what percentage of the doctrines he believed, and he said . 'about 80%' the main thing, he seemed to enjoy the thought that he 'belonged' to the Morman church, (for whatever reason he wants) So, if you believe that it is acceptable to call someone a neo-Calvinist, does that mean that 4 neo-Calvinists would agree with each other, since they share ther same label??? what if they disagree with Calvin on different teachings, that they consider most important? do you understand why i dislike 'labels'? but that doesn't mean that labels are wrong, imo, just confusing to my simple mind. Gads, neo-Calvinists NEVER agree with each other. They're mostly Dutch you know, and Dutch people LOVE to argue. But I know what you mean by disliking the labelling of individuals. It's often done to limit people or shut them up. Once we've labelled someone no need to listen to that person because we know what they're going to say. Hey, you're a "2x2", you're okay with the workers abusing children, huh? * Think you've got the only way, huh? Think that you can get to heaven through works, huh? And so on, and so forth. * - as per one recent thread title.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 26, 2010 19:01:26 GMT -5
Well, what if you thought the only true way was to join the Seekers? Good song! Always liked it.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 26, 2010 19:56:38 GMT -5
Well, what if you thought the only true way was to join the Seekers? Good song! Always liked it. Another fine product of Australia!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 27, 2010 10:31:42 GMT -5
Gads, neo-Calvinists NEVER agree with each other. They're mostly Dutch you know, and Dutch people LOVE to argue. But I know what you mean by disliking the labeling of individuals. It's often done to limit people or shut them up. Once we've labeled someone no need to listen to that person because we know what they're going to say. Hey, you're a "2x2", you're okay with the workers abusing children, huh? * Think you've got the only way, huh? Think that you can get to heaven through works, huh? And so on, and so forth. * - as per one recent thread title. ya, i think i know what you mean. it makes me wonder why people do actively endorse searching for a name to call themselves?? was Jesus' teaching so hard to swallow, that thety would rather follow: Mormonism, 7-day A, Jehovah witness, Luther, Method, Calvin, Mennonite, etc. , etc. Jesus teachings were soo simple: love God, & love your neighbor as self, from that all teachings follow in a simple(*) straight manner...., imo! (*) = simple =(meaning 'uncomplicated')? oh,excuse me! maybe 'wise' would be a better choice of word The problem is that the Bible on its own is not enough. Even if you disavow creeds, doctrines, interpretations, printed sermons, labels, denominations, and so on, you're still faced with the problem of interpreting the Bible for your own life. The Bible has always resisted any single literal interpretation. You'll find that most serious interpretations involve extensive analysis and synthesis of the Bible text. For example, you can't have much an idea about who Jesus was unless you read a lot of verses and put them together to form some kind of a picture. Most people do not do that for themselves from scratch. They will listen to what others have done and said, whether it be workers preaching, conversation, or what they can glean from books. Throughout history, whenever a major departure or schism from the main stream of Christianity has occurred, those individuals who broke away were faced with developing a systematic theology all over again. So the Reformation, which was a major break from Rome on some key points, particularly the authority of the church hierarchy, forced a re-examination of the entire system of belief. This has been the reality of Christian belief since day 1. For the first 1500 years it pretty much flowed in one stream since dissent was suppressed by force and did not affect the unity of the church. With the loss of church authority since around 1500 (and the emergence of the nation-state which supplanted the power of the church) the church has gone in 1000 different directions idea-wise. I suppose the f&w said let's do away with all these different ideas and modes of worship and just embrace the simplicity of Christ and the gospel. But in actual practice this has not proven to be all that simple.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 27, 2010 12:02:30 GMT -5
Romans 10:15 how can we hear unless it is preached ? how can it be preached unless they are SENT by God. so the question that still remains: how do we know if 'they' are truly 'sent by God', or just : 'ordained by men' .... good questions! I believe that God plants within the hearts of all men some seed that would draw them back to Him. To me that seed seeks to emulate the Christ in thought and deed. So, here is how you tell. 1Jo 4:1 ¶ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. "Jesus in the flesh" means to me the Christ within and the historical Jesus. I'm struck by how the verse says "Every spirit" incidentally. Contrast however with Matthew 7:21. Mat 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Does that mean that some who confess the Christ are not of God? That would contradict the earlier verse "every Spirit". Perhaps there is a difference between confessing and saying but I think they are very much the same thing. It's also possible that a spirit or Spirit are not the same as a person. That the Spirit speaks through people, so that when they bear a message it is not of themselves. So it is the message we must test, and not the person. We would test the message, and God is left to test the person. Still, they are not totally independent things, but on an exceptional basis the Spirit could work through any person. I think we can be somewhat relaxed and open in our dealings that if the message is right, if it feeds and nourishes the seed, then we will be alright with it.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 27, 2010 13:28:05 GMT -5
I believe that God plants within the hearts of all men some seed that would draw them back to Him. To me that seed seeks to emulate the Christ in thought and deed. So, here is how you tell. 1Jo 4:1 ¶ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. "Jesus in the flesh" means to me the Christ within and the historical Jesus. I'm struck by how the verse says "Every spirit" incidentally. Contrast however with Matthew 7:21. Mat 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Noticing in this verse: Jesus made mention (again), that we should be doing the 'will of His (Jesus') Father' , certainly some would have us believe that Jesus had the same will as His Father, and yet this verse specifically says to do the will of the Father... interesting , where is the 'hypostatic union' (what a fanciful word! ) Does that mean that some who confess the Christ are not of God? That would contradict the earlier verse "every Spirit". Perhaps there is a difference between confessing and saying but I think they are very much the same thing. It's also possible that a spirit or Spirit are not the same as a person. That the Spirit speaks through people, so that when they bear a message it is not of themselves. So it is the message we must test, and not the person. We would test the message, and God is left to test the person. Still, they are not totally independent things, but on an exceptional basis the Spirit could work through any person. I think we can be somewhat relaxed and open in our dealings that if the message is right, if it feeds and nourishes the seed, then we will be alright with it. i think the 'unity' of the scriptures, is the unity of the spirit, and some people do sense this unity, and others do not sense this unity of spirit and many not any unity of teachings. It all depends on the person, and what they 'hear' and if they believe what they 'hear' . A good example of the problem with how we hear things , is certainly revealed in the on-going discussions about the simple teachings of Jesus..... were they suppose to be 'complex' doctrines that only the scholars could wrest their true intended meanings??? and if you do not believe the scholars, and their interpretations, you would suffer the consequence of a martyr, and many did suffer that fate. Was the 'burning of Wishart' a necessary event??? I wonder if something more clear could be told about this event! perhaps the main reason he was burned, is that he spoke out about the abuses of the church in England and Rome, and this presented a threat to Rome/England. The problems in that day, could not have been dealt with by simple oral discussions, there was tooo much 'power' at stake in this battle. It seems that the effect of Wishart, was the 'holiness movement', which was far too big of a movement than just ONE preacher was (Wishart), thus the foundation was there for John Knox to follow Wishart and create an 'organization' such as Presbyterianism. i dont know how this happened, but the years are certainly in line with the when Knox began His crusades... and the movement was strong enough to avoid any more 'burnings' , as far as i read.... i might do some research to see if the Presbyterians were 'incorperated' by Knox, or that they were just a 'movement' in England. sorry , i got off the subject of your questions, a bit.... Was Wishart associated with the Holiness movement? You had not mentioned that before and if that is the case, it is quite interesting. Speaking of labels, I would be careful with the label "scholar". It's interesting how when people don't understand something they stick the word "complex" on it, and label it as the domain of scholars who sit in their ivory towers thinking up complex ideas only they can understand. Most breakthroughs in scholarship involve taking complex phenomena and finding a simple explanation or solution. So scholarship is bound up with finding simplicity not complexity. The Bible, by its nature, often presents complex phenomena, apparent contradictions, riddles, paradoxes, metaphors, analogies, allegories and other devices in order to give us some claim to the Truth. It's the function of scholarship to make sense out of what there is, and lay bare the essence or simplicity of the Gospel. Don't think that workers are not scholars. They need not be, but some of them are, as much as they may distance themselves from the idea. In addition the hierarchy of the Catholic church was always ill at ease with the 'scholars'. I think you'll find that the brave critics have been the scholars while the leaders, the brokers of power, the ones who have no problem with contradictions, inconsistencies, and what we call 'cognitive dissonance'. Men like Abelard, Luther and Knox were scholars. Sometimes scholars also work with the central authority, and sometimes are co-opted by them in order to suppress and maintain their position. Bottom line I'd avoid thinking that scholarship or scholars are necessarily good or bad, they could be either one as the case may be.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Aug 27, 2010 13:41:13 GMT -5
The problem is that the Bible on its own is not enough. Even if you disavow creeds, doctrines, interpretations, printed sermons, labels, denominations, and so on, you're still faced with the problem of interpreting the Bible for your own life. The Bible has always resisted any single literal interpretation. You'll find that most serious interpretations involve extensive analysis and synthesis of the Bible text. For example, you can't have much an idea about who Jesus was unless you read a lot of verses and put them together to form some kind of a picture. Most people do not do that for themselves from scratch. They will listen to what others have done and said, whether it be workers preaching, conversation, or what they can glean from books. Throughout history whenever a major departure or schism from the main stream of Christianity has occurred, those individuals were faced with developing a systematic theology all over again. So the Reformation, which was a major break from Rome on some key points, particularly the authority of the church hierarchy, forced a re-examination of the entire system of belief. This has been the reality of Christian belief since day 1. For the first 1500 years it pretty much flowed in one stream since dissenters did not affect the unity of the church, usually by killing or suppressing any ideas that went to far. With the loss of church authority since 1500 (and the emergence of the nation-state which supplanted the power of the church) the church has gone in 1000 different directions idea-wise. I suppose the f&w said let's do away with all that and just embrace the simplicity of Christ and the gospel. But in actual practice this has not proven to be all that simple. yes, i agree.... somewhere in the bible it alludes to this fact. "by the foolishness of 'preaching' God reveals himself to us'' sounds pretty foolish, doesn't it?? yet the simple teachings, are made wise (wisdom). How can we know what is true? simple! It seems like to me perhaps mankind has been trying to make the "preaching" of the gospel to complex just to keep their job...I mean how long does it take to tell the gospel story? It really takes no time and all...and it makes sense to me that Jesus knew this and thus He was content that His own Apostles would be able to traverse the whole world over and preach the good news to all who would listen! So in that light, aren't all the preachers kind of a vain repetition? Once people have heard, repent and are baptized....the preaching is over and the pastoring takes place.....some ministers are able to switch, but the makeup of the workership is not conducive to pastoring so much as it is for evangelizing and I think this is a grave issue for the workership....they're tied into a mode of pastoring that doesn't pay the dividends that preaching the gospel does....just an observation is all.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 27, 2010 13:50:42 GMT -5
Was Wishart associated with the Holiness movement? You had not mentioned that before and if that is the case, it is quite interesting. Speaking of labels, I would be careful with the label "scholar". It's interesting how when people don't understand something they stick the word "complex" on it, and label it as the domain of scholars who sit in their ivory towers thinking up complex ideas only they can understand. Most breakthroughs in scholarship involve taking complex phenomena and finding a simple explanation or solution. So scholarship is bound up with finding simplicity not complexity. The Bible, by its nature, often presents complex phenomena, apparent contradictions, riddles, paradoxes, metaphors, analogies, allegories and other devices in order to give us some claim to the Truth. It's the function of scholarship to make sense out of what there is, and lay bare the essence or simplicity of the Gospel. Don't think that workers are not scholars. They need not be, but some of them are, as much as they may distance themselves from the idea. In addition the hierarchy of the Catholic church was always ill at ease with the 'scholars'. I think you'll find that the brave critics have been the scholars while the leaders, the brokers of power, the ones who have no problem with contradictions, inconsistencies, and what we call 'cognitive dissonance'. Men like Abelard, Luther and Knox were scholars. Sometimes scholars also work with the central authority, and sometimes are co-opted by them in order to suppress and maintain their position. Bottom line I'd avoid thinking that scholarship or scholars are necessarily good or bad, they could be either one as the case may be. sorry if i misused the word 'scholar', but i meant it as the 'university approved' sure : it seems everything will go complete circle, one day we might find out that in its own precarious manner, the sun does indeed circle the earth..... oh no, i am really in trouble here ;D serious study of quantum mechanics, reveal that this physical earth is not the only reality , the spirit world does indeed exist! another whacko idea! So who gives the king his power? does the king really have power, in and of himself?? i do not think so,,, thus even a word like power can be misused to mean something that it really isn't. but discussing 'scholar' , is like God saying that He hid His wisdom, from the wise . another paradox, but easily understood that we are NOW discussing two different types of wisdom, earthly and heavenly... The problem with scholarship, which is basically concerned with a good result, finding the truth about things, and getting to the bottom of the situation, is that it can lead to arrogance. Because if you're a good scholar you know more than the next person and it's a very heady thing to think about how smart you are. So the Bible reminds us that the basic truth is 'sometimes' lost to the scholar and can be more easily revealed to babes. But the problem isn't scholarship itself, it's the arrogance of scholarship. The true scholar also has the spirit of a babe, and the further you go with scholarship the more you understand how little you know, and how much you stand in awe of God and His creation. And yeah, the basic truths are understood by babes. But scholarship is still a gift of the Spirit all the same. I struggle with where the exact line is between earthly and heavenly wisdom because I think the two often collide and are not so easily untangled.
|
|