466 replies to this topic

[mrmando]

jfutral, on 26 January 2012 - 01:25 AM, said:

This:
"If your pastor constantly preaches against "religion," but your church has that kind of discipline policy, can you really trust that the pastor knows the difference between "religion" and Christianity?"

But then this, too?:

1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you."

"But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."

Let's just say the question of what constitutes proper religious authority in Christianity has gotten awfully murky since the Reformation, and even murkier in the case of independent, nondenominational Protestant churches. We can say that "sola Scriptura" is the authority, but even so, the double-edged sword of scripture has to be wielded by somebody; it won't wield itself. And like any good double-edged sword, it cuts both ways, particularly in the present case at MHC, where a good argument can be made that the actions undertaken against Stephen's brother in the name of "church discipline" go well beyond scriptural boundaries.

Edited by mrmando, 26 January 2012 - 06:14 PM.

[mrmando]

David Smedberg, on 26 January 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

Hang out is something I do. Loiter is something someone else does.

Heh. I don't do either.

Seriously, if "hanging out" means constructive engagement and relationship-building ... over a meal, a game of darts, or whatever ... then I'm cool with it, and in that sense it's entirely accurate to say Jesus hung out with tax collectors. Of course he also liked to hang out with other rabbis and debate the law.

[Attica]

mrmando, on 26 January 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

David Smedberg, on 26 January 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

Hang out is something I do. Loiter is something someone else does.

Heh. I don't do either.

Seriously, if "hanging out" means constructive engagement and relationship-building ... over a meal, a game of darts, or whatever ... then I'm cool with it, and in that sense it's entirely accurate to say Jesus hung out with tax collectors. Of course he also liked to hang out with other rabbis and debate the law.

That would be my understanding of "hanging out".

Edited by Attica, 26 January 2012 - 04:29 PM.

[Attica]

Nezpop, on 26 January 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

Attica, on 25 January 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

Who knows, maybe the fiance was originally the instigator and he was trying to pull back.


See that leads to something that people commenting on this do not seem to be touching on...... all of this response by the church isn't just bringing pain, condemnation, and shame on to Andrew, but I would suspect also his fiance, and those close to her. I mean it's all publically set up against Andrew, but the public that is involved in this knows darn well who the fiance is, and she basically did all of the same things that Andrew is accused of, being the original covering up of what they were doing, ect. Anybody that stops and thinks about the issue can see that she, although more behind the scenes, would be observing the whole fiasco, knowing, that people are connecting Andrew to her in their understanding of this.

Well, the problem is, she is viewed as a victim of Andrews. They teach that the woman is the weaker vessel and so even if she was the instigator, it was all his fault for not "leading her to righteousness".

Interesting. If I'm correctly understanding what your getting at. Maybe, when I wrote that comment I was filtering it through the perspective of how a female that say I associate with, would view the instance. Yet maybe in this case the girl, and others, are not seeing it that way, being that they are so brainwashed by Driscoll's teaching that she wouldn't be having some of the feelings or perspectives that I had touched on.

I say this with some reservation. It's just a question really. I mean who knows what's going on there. But this could be the kind of thinking that Driscoll's teachings lead to. It could even possibly lead to more of a "victim mentality" amongst women at times..... which also can have negative consequences.

Edited by Attica, 26 January 2012 - 04:39 PM.

[jfutral]

mrmando, on 26 January 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

Let's just say the question of what constitutes proper religious authority in Christianity has gotten awfully murky since the Reformation, and even murkier in the case of independent, nondenominational Protestant churches.

You've been spying in on my conversations with my wife.

mrmando, on 26 January 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

We can say that "sola Scriptura" is the authority, but even so, the double-edged sword of scripture has to be wielded by somebody; it won't wield itself. And like any good double-edged sword, it cuts both ways.

I don't know. I think the Word of God wields himself pretty well, striking us and we won't admit it. Think of the Black Knight in Monty Python. Barely a scratch!

Joe

[Overstreet]

mrmando, on 25 January 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

Stephen Lamb, on 25 January 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

I have some further thoughts on this issue here, for those interested: http://t.co/p6dJ0br2

Wow. Thanks very much for sharing.

So ... um ... you all know that before he got involved with Pixar, Brad Bird made a wonderful animated kids' movie called The Iron Giant. But what's on my mind right now is The Giant Irony.

Doesn't abusive, nonredemptive, unforgiving church discipline look a lot like "religion" in the worst, pejorative, Archie Comics/Jeff Bethke sense of the term?

If your pastor constantly preaches against "religion," but your church has that kind of discipline policy, can you really trust that the pastor knows the difference between "religion" and Christianity?

And if Jesus came to abolish "religion" ... where might you suggest that he begin?

You may both advance to the Bonus Round.

Edited by Overstreet, 26 January 2012 - 06:40 PM.

[mrmando]

jfutral, on 26 January 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

I don't know. I think the Word of God wields himself pretty well, striking us and we won't admit it. Think of the Black Knight in Monty Python. Barely a scratch!

In church politics, people are forever deciding which parts of God's word should be wielded against whom. It's hard work to prevent one from getting one's own instincts and preconceptions confused with scripture, and then using them against other people. Maybe that's why some Protestants (Quakers, for example) have a headless model, where there's no heavy-handed authority figure as such.

Try debating Sola Scriptura with Peter sometime and you'll end up feeling like the Black Knight. Truth is, there's always a hermeneutic, always a theology, always someone's idea of how to interpret scripture. And probably the worst hermeneutic of all is the one that denies its own existence...

[mrmando]

I'll probably regret this...

Context, if you need it.

Edited by mrmando, 27 January 2012 - 04:29 AM.

[Peter T Chattaway]

mrmando, on 25 January 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

Doesn't abusive, nonredemptive, unforgiving church discipline look a lot like "religion" in the worst, pejorative, Archie Comics/Jeff Bethke sense of the term?

I've been wondering if someone, somewhere would make this connection. How amusing that, so soon after Bethke's video came out (and so soon after Bethke was exposed as a Driscoll-ite), Bethke's church should make the news for being so, so, SO very "religious" (as Bethke defined the term).

Rules? Behaviour modification? Do, not done? Oh baby, and how.

Has anyone asked BETHKE to comment on this latest Mars Hill controversy?

mrmando, on 24 January 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

jfutral, on 24 January 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

Similarly it seems to allow for someone to be a Christian without being part of a particular Christian religion.

Big "yeah but" on the way from Peter here.

Eh?

mrmando, on 26 January 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

Try debating Sola Scriptura with Peter sometime and you'll end up feeling like the Black Knight.

Really? It's not like I'd have to cut anyone's limbs off one-by-one. All it takes is one cut, but, admittedly, it's a biggie: noting that the doctrine of "sola scriptura" appears nowhere in the Bible and is, thus, by definition, non-biblical and self-defeating.

[mrmando]

Peter T Chattaway, on 27 January 2012 - 04:37 AM, said:

mrmando, on 24 January 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

jfutral, on 24 January 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

Similarly it seems to allow for someone to be a Christian without being part of a particular Christian religion.

Big "yeah but" on the way from Peter here.

Eh?

What's the correct term for how the Orthodox Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, would refer to other branches of Christianity? "Not in full communion" or something along those lines ... that's what I was trying to get at.

[Peter T Chattaway]

mrmando wrote:
: What's the correct term for how the Orthodox Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, would refer to other branches of Christianity? "Not in full communion" or something along those lines ... that's what I was trying to get at.

Ah. I guess I lost track of what the earlier "it" was referring to. Some things would "allow" for diversity (or, rather, for certain kinds of diversity, or diversity in certain areas) and some would not.

[Thom Wade]

[quote name='mrmando' date='26 January 2012 - 03:08 PM' timestamp='1327608519' post='266004']

But then this, too?:

1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you."

"But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."[/quote]
Let's just say the question of what constitutes proper religious authority in Christianity has gotten awfully murky since the Reformation, and even murkier in the case of independent, nondenominational Protestant churches.[/quote]

Of course, when Jesus spoke those words there was no Christian church...technically, he was not even speaking about the Orthodox/Catholic churches... "teachers of the law" referred to the people teaching the covenent Jesus was there to fulfill. So, it is murky right from the start.

[jfutral]

Peter T Chattaway, on 27 January 2012 - 04:37 AM, said:

[It's not like I'd have to cut anyone's limbs off one-by-one. All it takes is one cut, but, admittedly, it's a biggie: noting that the doctrine of "sola scriptura" appears nowhere in the Bible and is, thus, by definition, non-biblical and self-defeating.

I think that doctrine has suffered the biggest abuse of modernity. It has devolved to "solo scriptura" by many protestants, usually most of them the independent, non-denominational. I am not a big student of sola scriptura, much less Luther, but I have a feeling there is little resemblance between how many churches teach and practice sola scriptura and how Luther meant it.

And by extrapolation, if Jesus is the word made flesh, and the word is scripture, and Jesus is the head of the church, then the only thing we need is scripture.

I think Word of God=Jesus=Scripture is a big discussion to be had or at least an attempt to be understood. I know I'm wrestling with it. But I am sure that would want to be its own thread, no matter how far this thread has traveled.

Joe

[Andy Whitman]

Hipster Trap

Edited by Andy Whitman, 27 January 2012 - 11:12 AM.

[mrmando]

Quote

Of course, when Jesus spoke those words there was no Christian church...technically, he was not even speaking about the Orthodox/Catholic churches... "teachers of the law" referred to the people teaching the covenent Jesus was there to fulfill. So, it is murky right from the start.

Keep in mind: I didn't provide the quotation in order to suggest that we might infer from it anything about today's Christians and religious authority. I provided it to show that Jesus made a distinction between religion and hypocrisy, rather than equating the two.

Edited by mrmando, 27 January 2012 - 12:49 PM.

[Peter T Chattaway]

jfutral wrote:
: And by extrapolation, if Jesus is the word made flesh, and the word is scripture . . .

False premise. You could argue, as some scholars do, that the Bible is the Logos made text, just as Jesus is the Logos made flesh, but when English-speaking Christians call the Bible "the Word", they are NOT calling it "the Logos". The word "Word" designates different things, depending on the context in which it is used.

[jfutral]

Peter T Chattaway, on 28 January 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

jfutral wrote:
: And by extrapolation, if Jesus is the word made flesh, and the word is scripture . . .

False premise. You could argue, as some scholars do, that the Bible is the Logos made text, just as Jesus is the Logos made flesh, but when English-speaking Christians call the Bible "the Word", they are NOT calling it "the Logos". The word "Word" designates different things, depending on the context in which it is used.

Just to be clear, this is not my premise. I was just restating what I've heard argued, even from pastors. Particularly independent, non-denominational pastors.

Joe

Edited by jfutral, 28 January 2012 - 09:50 AM.

[Thom Wade]

mrmando, on 27 January 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

Keep in mind: I didn't provide the quotation in order to suggest that we might infer from it anything about today's Christians and religious authority. I provided it to show that Jesus made a distinction between religion and hypocrisy, rather than equating the two.

Ah, fair point. Sorry for misunderstanding.

[mrmando]

[NBooth]

That's pretty fantastic.