atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Alan T. Terlep) (09/18/90)
In article <Sep.13.02.22.33.1990.23870@athos.rutgers.edu> kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (An Appalachian Hillybilly) writes: >Criteria for distinguishing Real Christians (tm) from Cheap Imitations: > > a) Do they recognise The Right And True Scriptures? > b) Do they believe Weird Things About History? > c) Is their theology Correct? >a) I am curious to know if I should throw out people who include the > Apocrypha, or if they should throw me out? Somebody's got to go... Why does someone have to go? Belief or non-belief in the Apocrypha has nothing to do with loving your neighbor. That's the point of Christianity-- that a person with faith and love in his/her heart is pleasing to God. >"Christianity isn't about `us' and `them' -- that's the whole point." > -- Larry Dungan That's right. And since Christianity isn't about "us" and "them", and is, in fact, based on treating us and them the same, why are we trying to figure out which is which? -- Alan Terlep "Violence is the last refuge of the Oakland University, Rochester, MI incompetent." atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu --Isaac Asimov
carroll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) (09/20/90)
In article <Sep.13.02.22.33.1990.23870@athos.rutgers.edu> kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (An Appalachian Hillybilly) writes: >At Severna Park Baptist Church, the pastor precedes the Lord's Supper >service by saying "Our policy here is that all Christians are welcome >at the Lord's Table, and if you are a Christian please feel welcome to >partake of the Supper with us." (Note that the exact definition of >`Christian' is left to the individuals themselves.) >On the bulletins at Our Shepherd Lutheran Church, there is a note that >says "Communion is celebrated every week, and all who acknowledge the >Lordship of Christ are welcome." In the Episcopal Church, the Eucharist is open to all who have been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the United Methodist Church, the requirement is merely that one repent of one's sins, sincerely intend amendment of life, and be in love and charity with one's neighbors. In some traditions (notably those using the common chalice), there are mechanical difficulties associated with opening communion to those not instructed in common practice. For those reasons (primarily), I personally favor requiring new communicants to participate in an instructional Eucharist prior to partaking of the Sacrament with the rest of the parish. Some parishes schedule periodic instructional Eucharist for the entire congregation. This would not be an invalidation of one's previous Christian life (there was some tinge of that in the old Episcopalian Confirmation requirement), but merely a tool to assist the communicant in how to receive the Sacrament in a way which doesn't distract him or his fellow worshipers from its spiritual meaning. >Criteria for distinguishing Real Christians (tm) from Cheap Imitations: > a) Do they recognise The Right And True Scriptures? > b) Do they believe Weird Things About History? > c) Is their theology Correct? >Problems: >a) I am curious to know if I should throw out people who include the > Apocrypha, or if they should throw me out? Somebody's got to go... I think this is a red herring. In the Anglican communion we accept the Apocrypha "for instruction of life and manners", but grant it no authority in the formulation of doctrine. Are you implying there are dangerous things in the Apocrypha? [At this point Kilroy proposed other matters on which Christians might disagree, including the unity of Isaiah and heresies such as subtle problems with the Trinity. As he says, "few people can talk about the Trinity for more than 10 minutes without falling into one standard heresy or another." >I have in my head the idea of `mistaken Christians': when I encounter >a person who accepts Christ's Lordship but who has theological or >historical beliefs that I consider erroneous, I do not doubt her >Christianity -- I simply consider her a mistaken Christian. --clh] Amen. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com
daveh@tekcrl.labs.tek.com (David Hatcher) (09/23/90)
In article <Sep.18.05.06.06.1990.9651@athos.rutgers.edu> atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Alan T. Terlep) writes: >In article <Sep.13.02.22.33.1990.23870@athos.rutgers.edu> kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (An Appalachian Hillybilly) writes: >>"Christianity isn't about `us' and `them' -- that's the whole point." >> -- Larry Dungan > > That's right. And since Christianity isn't about "us" and "them", and is, >in fact, based on treating us and them the same, why are we trying to figure >out which is which? I'm in total agreement here. Which is why I'm having such a hard time in understanding the reasoning and justification for why a "us" and "them" attitude is so prevalent among so much of Christianity? The roots of such an attitude seems to run counter to everything that brings people together through a heart that is open to love and understanding. David Hatcher Submission to the Spirit is an art which is only learned through years of trial and error, success and failure. Only gradually does one come to possess a delicate sensitivity to the inner motions of grace so as to be moved by the Spirit in one's life. And the art or gift by which we come to recognize the inner voice of the Spirit is called discernment. William Johnston _The Inner Eye of Love_