JRA102@psuvm.psu.edu (Jim Achuff) (02/12/90)
I seem to remember hearing a story from a missionary visiting me home church
about 3 years ago. He was involved in the story, so it is most definately true.
Here goes: The missionary (a protestant), his wife, a Roman Catholic priest, a
nun, a Baptist minister and his wife, and a layman from another denomination
were at a training camp for missionaries, and put together as a group in one
campsite. One night around the campfire the talk turned to sacrements,
particularly communion. And the question came up: Why bread and wine? A
conclusion was reached that Jesus would have used whatever the common drink was
and whatever was handy to eat.
Those seven then held communion using diet-coke and saltines. The point
is, it's not the actual elements that comprise the sacrement of communion, but
the representation that Christ's body was broken and His blood shed for us. It
seems to me that so many people get caught up in religiosity that they forget
that out relationship with God is all Love, not what we eat, wear, how we
worship Him, as long as we give glory to Him, and Praise Him.
For so long, our message to the world has been that they must act
and worship just like us, and the world's message back to us has been loud and
clear: 'We don't want to be just like you.' If we continue to harp on the means
of worship, we will not be able to win others for Christ, because we are
becoming stale and boring. It's not the method of worship, it is all in the
worship, whatever the method.
Yours in Christ
-------
First you must believe - then you can understand : __ /\ :
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=: | || || | :
Jim Achuff : JRA102@PSUVM.PSU.EDU : |__||__ | | :
125 Beaver Hall : JRA102@PSUVM.BITNET : | || | :
University Park, PA 16802 :=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=: | | ||__| :
(814)-862-6812 : Christ is the answer! : \/ :
[Diet Coke? Wine is an interesting symbol, suggesting blood, the
richness of life lived to its fullest, and as someone suggested in a
previous posting, the peril of things not entirely under our control.
Diet Coke has been intentionally purged of any life-giving contents
and any risk. I make no comment on whether there are times when one
should use the cultural equivalent of wine rather than wine itself,
but Diet Coke doesn't sound like the equivalent. At least one could
use The Real Thing (TM) --clh]howard@53iss6.waterloo.ncr.com (Howard Steel) (02/25/90)
[howard@53iss6.waterloo.ncr.com previously commented on people who are "intolerant, accusatory and denegrating of the beliefs of each other." bgsuvax!kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) responded: >In the spirit of ecumenism today, we frequently find the word >"intolerant" being used to describe those who have firm convictions >about what they believe Scripture says to be true. --clh] This is true, but I am not suggesting that loyalty to ones convictions must be undermined to hold a "tolerant" attituded toward the beliefs of others. I am tolerant of the beliefs of many Christians and non-Christians alike, and find much value and wisdom in their teachings. What I do not agree with is the intolerance born of ignorance and fear that does little to join men together and much to alienate them from each other. The important term you use is "what they believe Scripture says to be true". It takes some time before each individual accepts (if they ever do) various aspects of the Gospels as true; this implies that they must be examined, studied, and seriously thought about before they are accepted; there is a degree of doubt initially. If an individual closes himself off at any point to the views of others, and ever stops doubting, secure in his/her 'firm convictions', they will cease to grow. >This word "intolerant" brings with it an initial human response that in most >cases is more negative than positive. This is my feeling exactly, and my intent. >Therefore it is a very powerful >word to use from a person whose convictions aren't strong enough for >him to feel the need to communicate those convictions to another. The use of adhominem attacks, even subtle ones, does not become this discussion >The second factor which makes this an effective word for an ecumenist >is the testimony given by Christians whose zeal for the truth (even if >they are "correct") is so strong that they come across as "harsh, >accusatory, and degenerating". When this "zeal" comes across in this way, it is of little value in finding truth. >This adjective is then the effective ecumenical weapon to yield >whenever the "intolerant" enemy shows up yielding his own sword, the >Word of God. All too often, during the exchange, the adjective is >able to dull the sword by removing the spirit of gentleness which >visibly affirms the reality of faith within the "intolerant >fundamentalist". >It is my prayer, that those who feel the Bible is worth daily reading >(Acts 17:11), and inevitably come to the same level of intolerance the >Scripture writers had, to remember the words of Paul. To correct weak >convicted people with a spirit that is compatible with the patience our >Lord showed to us in our rebellion prior to coming to Christ. >It is also my prayer that those who rate "tolerance of contradicting >beliefs" higher than their own, that they capture the spirit of >"intolerance" found in Holy Scripture and to begin to "fight the good >fight" by "earnestly contending for the faith, once for all delivered >to the saints" (Jude 3). Apostasy begins with the toleration of error. I find it difficult to understand the spreading of a message of Love when the terms employed are those of Conflict. The perception of ourselves as warriors for God, rather than emmissaries of love is mis-guided in my mind, and does not particularly serve us well in seeking our god. I re-iterate that in so far as intolerance alienates us from each other, it is inappropriate. I can not tolerate intolerance (now there is a fine little paradox for you :-)
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (03/01/90)
In article <Feb.24.22.57.11.1990.8074@athos.rutgers.edu> howard@53iss6.waterloo.ncr.com (Howard Steel) writes: > >I find it difficult to understand the spreading of a message of Love when the >terms employed are those of Conflict. The perception of ourselves as warriors >for God, rather than emmissaries of love is mis-guided in my mind, and >does not particularly serve us well in seeking our god. I re-iterate that >in so far as intolerance alienates us from each other, it is inappropriate. >I can not tolerate intolerance (now there is a fine little paradox for you :-) Howard, I understand how you feel about this, but reading through the Bible, both OT and NT, I find that we are in a fight, a war of major universe-shattering proportions. Paul says we are fighting. And in a number of other verses we can see this same thing. Granted we are supposed to be ambassadors for Christ, but that doesn't take away from the fact that we are in a war. The call to Love one another is clear as a bell, and I agree that we should more often demonstrate this Love than we do. And I can agree that we should demonstrate this Love toward others who are not Christians. But at some point we need to draw a line and say that we will not tolerate crossing of that line. I think we might want to discuss what that line is, but I have to agree in part with Ken that tolerance is not always the goal--at least not of beliefs that are clearly anti-Christian. Just so you kinda know where I'm coming from. I spent two years in combat. I know and value peace, now--thanks to Jesus Christ. I personally prefer a more peaceful life, but I am not willing to compromise my Faith just preserve peace. But inasmuch as is possible, I will live at peace with all around me. I discuss my Faith with people of different religions and those without a religious point of view (a.k.a., atheists). So far I've not seen any need to smack them up aside the head with my Bible. I understand how their belief systems were formed. In that understanding, I gain a measure of tolerance and patience. And who knows whether or not this patience, tolerance, and perseverance on my part will pay off!? I'll leave it in the hands of Him who did the impossible with me. Again, I would remind you that we are in a war. But that doesn't mean that we must act like the world in the conduct of this war. Peace and Blessings, Gene
howard@53iss6.waterloo.ncr.com (Howard Steel) (03/04/90)
[Howard initially complained about using terms based on warfare to spreading a message of Love. He believes we should see ourselves as emmissaries of love, not warriors. Gene Gross responded: >Howard, I understand how you feel about this, but reading through the >Bible, both OT and NT, I find that we are in a fight, a war of major >universe-shattering proportions. Paul says we are fighting. And in a >number of other verses we can see this same thing. --clh] It should be remembered that this was written for a time and people who were in the throws of slave-revolts; great battles were being fought to free the jew from the oppression that they had been subjected to for centuries. It is quite understandable that they would describe their spreading of the Gospel as a war, a conflict, a means to bring them out of the slavery they had endured, it was something they had grown to know well. The message however was Love, not conflict. >Granted we are supposed to be ambassadors for Christ, but that doesn't >take away from the fact that we are in a war. If you want to call your personal journey a war, or a struggle, or a conflict of your physical desires versus your spiritual needs, I see no problem with this; it is a struggle, but as you well state... >The call to Love one >another is clear as a bell, and I agree that we should more often >demonstrate this Love than we do. And I can agree that we should >demonstrate this Love toward others who are not Christians. But at some >point we need to draw a line and say that we will not tolerate crossing >of that line. I think we might want to discuss what that line is, but I >have to agree in part with Ken that tolerance is not always the goal--at >least not of beliefs that are clearly anti-Christian. Anti-Christian is one thing, contrary to Christian beliefs is quite another. I do not support or tolerate anti-Christian attacks (there, now I in to your battle :-)), but I understand that many people and groups have and hold dear, beliefs which are contrary to Christian beliefs. These contrary beliefs do not undermine the basic tenet of love, but rather voice the same message in different ways. >Just so you kinda know where I'm coming from. I spent two years in >combat. I know and value peace, now--thanks to Jesus Christ. I >personally prefer a more peaceful life, but I am not willing to >compromise my Faith just preserve peace. But inasmuch as is possible, I >will live at peace with all around me. I spent 10 years in the Air-force and am well aquainted with the message of conflict, and I find it most often is protected by lies. I feel that conflict mentality has an ability to corrupt. One small lie for the sake of the greater good, becomes a plethora of large lies for the sake of the cause. >I discuss my Faith with people of different religions and those without >a religious point of view (a.k.a., atheists). So far I've not seen any >need to smack them up aside the head with my Bible. I understand how >their belief systems were formed. In that understanding, I gain a >measure of tolerance and patience. Do you not also see or feel the basic truth on which the other viewpoint was founded, and its inseparable affinity to the truths of the Chrisitian religion, (atheistic views excluded for the sake of this argument)? >And who knows whether or not this >patience, tolerance, and perseverance on my part will pay off!? I'll >leave it in the hands of Him who did the impossible with me. Good point, and my view as well. Patience, tolerance, love...far better means to understanding than the alternatives. >Again, I would remind you that we are in a war. But that doesn't mean >that we must act like the world in the conduct of this war. As I said earlier, my war is personal, and although it may be similar to yours, it is not yours. It is my war with myself for growth. The contrary beliefs (not anti) of other groups are not the enemy, in fact they may be our best friends; a different perspective sometimes allows deeper understanding of your own beliefs. -- / / / / / / / / / / :-(I Think, Therefore I Am, I Think :-) / / / / / / / / / / / Howard.Steel@Waterloo.NCR.COM NCR CANADA LTD. - 580 Weber St. N / / (519)884-1710 Ext 570 Waterloo, Ont., N2J 4G5 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / [Christians have used the symbolism of spiritual warfare for a number of purposes. If you look at human history, it is easy to see it as a war between the forces of God and forces of oppression. It's a serious conflict, with real casualties. This doesn't mean that we have to be storm-troopers, nor does it mean that we all have the same view of the nature of the forces of oppression (i.e. the extent to which they are supernatural forces personified, vs. simply the results of human sin). The Salvation Army typifies for me the benefits of this approach: a group of highly dedicated people getting out in the trenches and working with people who most of the church has given up on. For a musical expression of the spirit involved, see Charles Ives' wonderful piece "General William Booth Enters Into Heaven". I think we also need peaceful images. Depending upon the times and the individual's need, different images may need to be emphasized. But I'd hate to see us lose an appreciation for the imagery based on warfare. --clh]
kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) (03/06/90)
[Gene Gross and Howard Steel have been discussing the use of warlike images. Most recently, Gene commented >I find that we are in a fight, a war of major >universe-shattering proportions. Paul says we are fighting. Howard responded: >It should be remembered that this was written for a time and people who were >in the throes of slave-revolts; great battles were being fought to free the >Jew from the oppression that they had been subjected to for centuries. > ... The message however was Love, not conflict. --clh] Paul said "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground...Stand firm then with the belt of truth buckled around your waste... (Ephesians 6:12,13) These spiritual forces are not restricted to one period in time but transgress cultures and peoples and nations and tongues. The battles we fight are against Satan and his legions of demons we are told exist and will continue to exist. This fight is as real today as in Paul's day and has nothing to do with the physical circumstances between the "flesh and blood". Many Christians are willing to take off their "belt of truth" and replace it with the "handcuff of tolerance". To do so is to give your defense away, a defense which God so graciously gave us to fight these battles. The Christian without a fight may have no convictions left to fight for. The flag he carries has TRUTH crossed out and UNITY to replace it. When this has happened, it may be time to call on the General and ask Him to lead us into battle again. -- Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu Systems Programmer BITNET KUTZ@BGSUOPIE University Computer Services UUCP ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz Bowling Green State Univ. US Mail 238 Math Science, BG OH 43403