This has happened to me many times when I have changed how I understood something as a believer. I have an experience that tugs on my heart and I go to Scripture and it seems to say to me that the truth is X. But my emotional/pastoral heart says X seems too harsh. This serves as a motivation to dig deeper; could I possibly be missing something in thinking X is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? When I do a deeper dive, I realize that there were relevant parts that I was missing in Scripture and also that I was misunderstanding some Scripture. Yikes!
Christianity is not at its essence factual. It is incarnational. God incarnating in Christ, then Christians incarnating His life in their own. Experiences don't necessarily shape belief. Belief, however, must shape our behavior. We are the only Gospel some may read...
If we don't have our facts right how do we know that we are incarnating the true Christ and not something made in our own image? As we subject our lives to the facts of God's word we are remade into the image of the Word incarnate. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Yes, good thoughts - thanks! it seems if someone is drifting away from the church, then reasons must be found to justify it - we see this with Blue Progs moving away from their Evan. brethren - they don't want to make common cause with the world fully, but they can't worship with Red Cons for any number of reasons - two cultures in a single community. Plus nobody can argue or reason with an experience - the person knows what they feel about what they know. In the end, the enemy wins by dividing brethren....
If this is the interview I think it was (why didn't you share it?) the writer was contesting that he had actually changed his views, but rather observing that it was everyone around him who had changed theirs, themselves having left the traditional and conservative views that they still claimed fealty to. This seems like a disingenuous characterization.
Tom, as a follow-up answer that relates directly to the thread topic...
I was a highly-regarded member of Sydney Anglicans since my teens. Member of the Sydney Synod, Warden in a couple of different parishes as I moved house over time, etc. I completed a Bachelor of Theology in my own time at my own expense with a view to working after retirement as an unpaid member of staff in a parish that needed more man-hours but couldn't afford to pay for them. I was a personal friend of the Area Bishop from my teen years. He advised me that there was no place for me in Sydney Anglican parishes because I didn't agree with the Archbishop's patriarchal interpretation of 'male headship'.
This was a case of my 'tribe' disagreeing with me. It cut deeply. But I knew what I believed was biblically-based, so I moved churches to a denomination that actually ordained women. In a few short years since then I feel like I have come home to where I always belonged! I have been asked to be head of a few committees, been appointed to the committee to assess a new pastor, and helped mentor students in the Lay Preacher course at our theological college. Being 'shunned' because I stood for my understanding of the Bible was a traumatic experience, but by the grace of God I have come out the other end a better Christian and a better tool for Christ's church.
Well, I was going to ask if I'd misunderstood what you meant, but given that you abandoned biblical doctrine for something more in line with 21st-century Western progressivism, that question has been answered.
Actually, I abandoned pagan-based social constraints for a more Biblical understanding. 1. 'Male and female created He them'. The female is also in the image of God.
2. Read Paul in the original Greek. Both males and females are 'adopted' as God's children, and the word 'adopted literally means 'make sons of'. So the female has the same status as a male in that deeply Patriarchal society.
3. Did the Work of Christ FULLY redeem us from the curse in Genesis? If so, them the female is restored to full status no less than the male. But if some aspect of the Curse still applies to woman more than man, then that implies that Christ's Work was not complete.
4. "In Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, Greek or barbarian..."
5. Have you read Pliny's rescript? He mentions that he questioned two slave women who were known as 'deacons' in the local church. Women having a position of authority? and SLAVE women at that? Conservatives have no idea of how the early Church really was a hotbed of social equality. But it didn't take long before pagan converts and their social assumptions 'restored' sexism and class distinctions.
6. You object to 'Western progressivism'? Would you like to restore slavery, and the right of husbands to beat their wives at whim? Does the government have the right to make whatever laws the King sees fit to impose? Should adultery be punishable by death? Why is it that Conservatives so often object to 'progress' in their own time, but don't realise that their own time is the result of 'progress' by their forefathers?
Please, Tom; don't confuse customs from the past with 'Biblical doctrine'. Rarely have any societies enforced Biblical doctrines such as mercy, mutual respect, care for the vulnerable, generosity to the poor, etc.
I haven't confused 'the customs of the present' with Biblical doctrine. For a few examples, I object to many current law enforcement policies. I object strongly to certain taxation policies and government subsidies. I object to many 'recreational drugs'. I could go on for quite a long list. I am not a blind accepter of modern fashion.
But you are correct to say that your problem is quite different. This is shown by your inability to fault any of the six dot points I made in my initial response. Also by your accusation that I was libelous when I was critiquing a set of attitudes rather than attacking people; your allegation was itself an attack on me, not on what I said, so you have done what you falsely accused me of doing.
This suggests you have tend not to think with precision, nor to recognise fine distinctions but to dismiss them as word games. This suggests that I have a duty to you to explain things more clearly.
"How do we know we are incarnating the true Christ?" This question assumes that there is only ONE way of incarnating Christ. This is not true; Christ can be incarnated in an infinite number of ways. How we do it will depend on circumstances. The key is to have the heart of Christ, not about knowing some 'facts'.
Good question, Tom. That's where humility, good theology and compassion are required. As you imply, too many people think that the 'biblical robe' of their own doctrine is a licence to trample what their brothers and sisters need at that critical moment.
Being a Christian is not about checking boxes and being perfect in our belief. Being a Christian is about being Christlike in our behavior and towards others. God knows our hearts and that is what matters. I am reminded of two commandments that we are to follow: Love the Lord they God with all your heart and love your neighbor, Those are the instructions that we are left with.
Are going to do that perfectly? no not in this life, we will fail. We Strive to be close to Jesus and follow those commands.
Their is no higher truth then those two commandments.
That is why I am no longer an Evangelical, Evangelicals are obsessed with "Truth and belief and facts"
Being a Christian is a relationship a way of living with our God not a set of beliefs or truths.
In the world outside the USA, 'Evangelical' means 'based on the Gospel'. This means to love God and your neighbour, to show mercy and generosity, to defend the vulnerable, etc. What Americans call 'evangelical' seems to focus on property, patriarchy and a pretence of 'purity' (all the while cheering for the politics of selfishness). This called 'fundamentalism' everywhere else. So welcome to a better understanding of the faith.
Thanks, Tom. Would you please point out where I was libelous, and of whom? If you read what I posted, you will notice that I criticised a set of attitudes, not a person or group of persons.
Come off it, Bob. You identified a set of attitudes, and labeled them as "evangelical/fundamentalist," which indicates that thst os what you think evangelicals stand for.
Disingenuousness and smarmy word games are unbecoming.
No, Tom. Not 'disingenuous', but careful to distinguish brothers and sisters who hold sub-Gospel attitudes from those attitudes. I condemn the attitudes, not the people. Haven't you heard 'hate the sin but love the sinner'?
I have. I also know that saying "X group label has Y attitudes" when "X group label" is used in common parlance to describe, oh, say, about one in four American adults, is to, bare minimum, heavily imply that those people all have those attitudes. And if you want to claim that tens of millions of American Christians are a bunch of selfish and hypocritical sexists, fine, but have the guts to come out and say it.
Why walk that 'balance' between antinomianism and legalism? Why not ignore both and walk the Law of Christ? Ga' 6:2 = "Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ."
I totally agree, Merry! I was trying to say that neither Law nor un-Law is the way, but Love. I once told a Muslim co-worker that we don't follow a Rulebook, we follow a Person. We don't always get it right, but that is our aim.
Yes. And his commandments were to love God and love your neighbour. How can I best love my neighbour? That's a question that has to be answered in the context of the moment, not by any pre-ordained rules.
Yes one example of loving my neighbor is not snitching on my neighbor if they are an illegal alien or something like that. You are correct loving your neighbor has to be answered in the context of the moment, what is happening at that time. It will look different depending on the circumstances.
He had a few more than that. I will also note that Jesus never criticized the religious leaders of the time for adhering too closely to Scripture--what He criticized them for was when they added to or deviated from it.
I will also note that "in the context of the moment, rather than by pre-ordained rules" tends to result in decision-making that is generally focused on whatever makes the decisionmaker the least uncomfortable.
This has happened to me many times when I have changed how I understood something as a believer. I have an experience that tugs on my heart and I go to Scripture and it seems to say to me that the truth is X. But my emotional/pastoral heart says X seems too harsh. This serves as a motivation to dig deeper; could I possibly be missing something in thinking X is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? When I do a deeper dive, I realize that there were relevant parts that I was missing in Scripture and also that I was misunderstanding some Scripture. Yikes!
Christianity is not at its essence factual. It is incarnational. God incarnating in Christ, then Christians incarnating His life in their own. Experiences don't necessarily shape belief. Belief, however, must shape our behavior. We are the only Gospel some may read...
If we don't have our facts right how do we know that we are incarnating the true Christ and not something made in our own image? As we subject our lives to the facts of God's word we are remade into the image of the Word incarnate. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Yes - factual and incarnational. Both/and not either/or. Great piece by Sam as ever and total agreement with him.
Yes, good thoughts - thanks! it seems if someone is drifting away from the church, then reasons must be found to justify it - we see this with Blue Progs moving away from their Evan. brethren - they don't want to make common cause with the world fully, but they can't worship with Red Cons for any number of reasons - two cultures in a single community. Plus nobody can argue or reason with an experience - the person knows what they feel about what they know. In the end, the enemy wins by dividing brethren....
If this is the interview I think it was (why didn't you share it?) the writer was contesting that he had actually changed his views, but rather observing that it was everyone around him who had changed theirs, themselves having left the traditional and conservative views that they still claimed fealty to. This seems like a disingenuous characterization.
I think you judged that writer too harshly.
Tom, as a follow-up answer that relates directly to the thread topic...
I was a highly-regarded member of Sydney Anglicans since my teens. Member of the Sydney Synod, Warden in a couple of different parishes as I moved house over time, etc. I completed a Bachelor of Theology in my own time at my own expense with a view to working after retirement as an unpaid member of staff in a parish that needed more man-hours but couldn't afford to pay for them. I was a personal friend of the Area Bishop from my teen years. He advised me that there was no place for me in Sydney Anglican parishes because I didn't agree with the Archbishop's patriarchal interpretation of 'male headship'.
This was a case of my 'tribe' disagreeing with me. It cut deeply. But I knew what I believed was biblically-based, so I moved churches to a denomination that actually ordained women. In a few short years since then I feel like I have come home to where I always belonged! I have been asked to be head of a few committees, been appointed to the committee to assess a new pastor, and helped mentor students in the Lay Preacher course at our theological college. Being 'shunned' because I stood for my understanding of the Bible was a traumatic experience, but by the grace of God I have come out the other end a better Christian and a better tool for Christ's church.
Well, I was going to ask if I'd misunderstood what you meant, but given that you abandoned biblical doctrine for something more in line with 21st-century Western progressivism, that question has been answered.
Actually, I abandoned pagan-based social constraints for a more Biblical understanding. 1. 'Male and female created He them'. The female is also in the image of God.
2. Read Paul in the original Greek. Both males and females are 'adopted' as God's children, and the word 'adopted literally means 'make sons of'. So the female has the same status as a male in that deeply Patriarchal society.
3. Did the Work of Christ FULLY redeem us from the curse in Genesis? If so, them the female is restored to full status no less than the male. But if some aspect of the Curse still applies to woman more than man, then that implies that Christ's Work was not complete.
4. "In Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, Greek or barbarian..."
5. Have you read Pliny's rescript? He mentions that he questioned two slave women who were known as 'deacons' in the local church. Women having a position of authority? and SLAVE women at that? Conservatives have no idea of how the early Church really was a hotbed of social equality. But it didn't take long before pagan converts and their social assumptions 'restored' sexism and class distinctions.
6. You object to 'Western progressivism'? Would you like to restore slavery, and the right of husbands to beat their wives at whim? Does the government have the right to make whatever laws the King sees fit to impose? Should adultery be punishable by death? Why is it that Conservatives so often object to 'progress' in their own time, but don't realise that their own time is the result of 'progress' by their forefathers?
Please, Tom; don't confuse customs from the past with 'Biblical doctrine'. Rarely have any societies enforced Biblical doctrines such as mercy, mutual respect, care for the vulnerable, generosity to the poor, etc.
Bob, that you haven't figured out that you've confused the customs of the present with Biblical doctrine is your problem. Not mine.
I haven't confused 'the customs of the present' with Biblical doctrine. For a few examples, I object to many current law enforcement policies. I object strongly to certain taxation policies and government subsidies. I object to many 'recreational drugs'. I could go on for quite a long list. I am not a blind accepter of modern fashion.
But you are correct to say that your problem is quite different. This is shown by your inability to fault any of the six dot points I made in my initial response. Also by your accusation that I was libelous when I was critiquing a set of attitudes rather than attacking people; your allegation was itself an attack on me, not on what I said, so you have done what you falsely accused me of doing.
This suggests you have tend not to think with precision, nor to recognise fine distinctions but to dismiss them as word games. This suggests that I have a duty to you to explain things more clearly.
"How do we know we are incarnating the true Christ?" This question assumes that there is only ONE way of incarnating Christ. This is not true; Christ can be incarnated in an infinite number of ways. How we do it will depend on circumstances. The key is to have the heart of Christ, not about knowing some 'facts'.
How do you know that you are "incarnating" the heart of Christ rather than dressing up yours in a biblical robe?
Good question, Tom. That's where humility, good theology and compassion are required. As you imply, too many people think that the 'biblical robe' of their own doctrine is a licence to trample what their brothers and sisters need at that critical moment.
Bob, that question was directed at you.
Tom, I think our posts crossed in cyberspace. I think I have answered your question, but please let me know if I have missed your point.
Being a Christian is not about checking boxes and being perfect in our belief. Being a Christian is about being Christlike in our behavior and towards others. God knows our hearts and that is what matters. I am reminded of two commandments that we are to follow: Love the Lord they God with all your heart and love your neighbor, Those are the instructions that we are left with.
Are going to do that perfectly? no not in this life, we will fail. We Strive to be close to Jesus and follow those commands.
Their is no higher truth then those two commandments.
That is why I am no longer an Evangelical, Evangelicals are obsessed with "Truth and belief and facts"
Being a Christian is a relationship a way of living with our God not a set of beliefs or truths.
Gladys,
In the world outside the USA, 'Evangelical' means 'based on the Gospel'. This means to love God and your neighbour, to show mercy and generosity, to defend the vulnerable, etc. What Americans call 'evangelical' seems to focus on property, patriarchy and a pretence of 'purity' (all the while cheering for the politics of selfishness). This called 'fundamentalism' everywhere else. So welcome to a better understanding of the faith.
Your libel of your brothers and sisters is duly noted.
Thanks, Tom. Would you please point out where I was libelous, and of whom? If you read what I posted, you will notice that I criticised a set of attitudes, not a person or group of persons.
Come off it, Bob. You identified a set of attitudes, and labeled them as "evangelical/fundamentalist," which indicates that thst os what you think evangelicals stand for.
Disingenuousness and smarmy word games are unbecoming.
No, Tom. Not 'disingenuous', but careful to distinguish brothers and sisters who hold sub-Gospel attitudes from those attitudes. I condemn the attitudes, not the people. Haven't you heard 'hate the sin but love the sinner'?
I have. I also know that saying "X group label has Y attitudes" when "X group label" is used in common parlance to describe, oh, say, about one in four American adults, is to, bare minimum, heavily imply that those people all have those attitudes. And if you want to claim that tens of millions of American Christians are a bunch of selfish and hypocritical sexists, fine, but have the guts to come out and say it.
Yes, indeed, we should strive to love God and love people. Now tell me, where and how do we learn what that looks like?
Amen as ever!!!
Why walk that 'balance' between antinomianism and legalism? Why not ignore both and walk the Law of Christ? Ga' 6:2 = "Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ."
I totally agree, Merry! I was trying to say that neither Law nor un-Law is the way, but Love. I once told a Muslim co-worker that we don't follow a Rulebook, we follow a Person. We don't always get it right, but that is our aim.
And that Person said, "if you love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15)
Yes. And his commandments were to love God and love your neighbour. How can I best love my neighbour? That's a question that has to be answered in the context of the moment, not by any pre-ordained rules.
Yes one example of loving my neighbor is not snitching on my neighbor if they are an illegal alien or something like that. You are correct loving your neighbor has to be answered in the context of the moment, what is happening at that time. It will look different depending on the circumstances.
He had a few more than that. I will also note that Jesus never criticized the religious leaders of the time for adhering too closely to Scripture--what He criticized them for was when they added to or deviated from it.
I will also note that "in the context of the moment, rather than by pre-ordained rules" tends to result in decision-making that is generally focused on whatever makes the decisionmaker the least uncomfortable.