|
|
Post by dgan on Feb 20, 2005 5:52:38 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more with complexity vs. simplicity. Although we must not confuse salvation with enlightenment. Simplicity in Christianity is a catalyst for salvation. The complexity of God is the journey toward enlightment. If understanding God could be achieved simply, where is the journey? Therefore, you are absolutely correct that it is complex. I merely suggest that Lawhead's avoidance of that is refreshing, because too often an acceptance of a specific theology is thought to be required for salvation. This allows all his readers, regardless of theological holdings, to see God in his work. I suppose that is why we are having this discussion.  |
|
|
|
Post by twyrch on Feb 20, 2005 10:15:50 GMT -5
I don't want to belittle anyone's heartfelt beliefs, which you are so honestly pouring out on this thread. However, I have to say that this is an excellent example of what makes Lawhead's approach toward Christianity so refreshing. Everyone in every generation in every walk of life squabbles about theologies, labels, divisions, etc... Religion is made quite complex, and opinions are held with such ferocity that polarization and division cannot help but occur. But look at Lawhead's characters. Pious Dyfed, wreckless Patrick, devout Arthur - wayward, enlightened, weak, devoted, rebellious, redeemed - the adjectives for his characters goes on and on. Yet who is to say which of these is the greater Christian, much less holds the correct theology? Lawhead makes the journey of the man's soul the focus. As he says so often, "To whom much is given, much is required." Yet, seemingly in contrast, "More will be given when more is required." The only time I have ever cried reading a book was after spending hours upon hours reading about Arthur's and Merlin's life ambition only to see it die after a few short years - and as Arthur lay on his death bed, he looks at Merlin and says, "It was enough, was it not?" "Arthur my soul, it was enough." We do not have to achieve God, reach him, or even succeed in our simple endeavors. We must only give all we have to God. Some have more, some have less, but what we have we must give, and when more is required, we will in turn be given more. It is not the beginning or the end, but the journey of the soul to God. That is not to say all roads lead to God - certainly not. (Our Catholic friend recognizes something most Catholics do not - the church is not our salvation and should steal none of our faith. I hope you also challenge their teaching of the Christ, but that is for another day.) But all souls who believe, trust, and have given what faith they have to God - indeed, all those souls do lead to God and eternal life! Well Said... I couldn't have said it better myself. |
|
|
|
Post by Riothamus on Feb 20, 2005 11:46:38 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more with complexity vs. simplicity. Although we must not confuse salvation with enlightenment. Simplicity in Christianity is a catalyst for salvation. The complexity of God is the journey toward enlightment. If understanding God could be achieved simply, where is the journey? Therefore, you are absolutely correct that it is complex. I merely suggest that Lawhead's avoidance of that is refreshing, because too often an acceptance of a specific theology is thought to be required for salvation. This allows all his readers, regardless of theological holdings, to see God in his work. I suppose that is why we are having this discussion. I follow you, and pretty much agree. I just see a lot of distrust of theological complexity in a lot of Christian thought today. Sorry if I reacted too quickly. |
|
Charis
Student
[M:1]
Posts: 25
|
Post by Charis on Feb 28, 2005 21:14:36 GMT -5
*waves* I'm Catholic and dang proud of it. But I'm quite tolerant of other's religions and beliefs and I'm not the arguing type so don't worry about big debates or confrontations from me.
Its funny you should talk about SRL's religion because I wrote him a letter like 4 years back after I read The Celtic Crusade and told him that it had quite an impact on me as I read it during Lent. I asked about his religion too and he said he was Anglican. I still have that letter hanging in my room at home.
|
|
|
|
Post by Child of Immanuel on Mar 1, 2005 7:46:16 GMT -5
That must have been cool! Never got an answer to mine... oh well. I would be embarrassed.
Welcome to the forum, Charis!
|
|
|
|
Post by Riothamus on Mar 1, 2005 7:50:20 GMT -5
Its funny you should talk about SRL's religion because I wrote him a letter like 4 years back after I read The Celtic Crusade and told him that it had quite an impact on me as I read it during Lent. I asked about his religion too and he said he was Anglican. I still have that letter hanging in my room at home. Anglican, eh? Well, that doesn't surprise me in the least. It seems more or less in line with religion as it's presented in the books.... |
|
|
|
Post by Ganieda on Jun 21, 2005 10:01:10 GMT -5
I don't want to belittle anyone's heartfelt beliefs, which you are so honestly pouring out on this thread. However, I have to say that this is an excellent example of what makes Lawhead's approach toward Christianity so refreshing. Everyone in every generation in every walk of life squabbles about theologies, labels, divisions, etc... Religion is made quite complex, and opinions are held with such ferocity that polarization and division cannot help but occur. But look at Lawhead's characters. Pious Dyfed, wreckless Patrick, devout Arthur - wayward, enlightened, weak, devoted, rebellious, redeemed - the adjectives for his characters goes on and on. Yet who is to say which of these is the greater Christian, much less holds the correct theology? Lawhead makes the journey of the man's soul the focus. As he says so often, "To whom much is given, much is required." Yet, seemingly in contrast, "More will be given when more is required." The only time I have ever cried reading a book was after spending hours upon hours reading about Arthur's and Merlin's life ambition only to see it die after a few short years - and as Arthur lay on his death bed, he looks at Merlin and says, "It was enough, was it not?" "Arthur my soul, it was enough." We do not have to achieve God, reach him, or even succeed in our simple endeavors. We must only give all we have to God. Some have more, some have less, but what we have we must give, and when more is required, we will in turn be given more. It is not the beginning or the end, but the journey of the soul to God. That is not to say all roads lead to God - certainly not. (Our Catholic friend recognizes something most Catholics do not - the church is not our salvation and should steal none of our faith. I hope you also challenge their teaching of the Christ, but that is for another day.) But all souls who believe, trust, and have given what faith they have to God - indeed, all those souls do lead to God and eternal life! Bravo Dgan! Very well said! My husband and I looked for a church for 4 years in the buckle of the Bible Belt. We were amazed at how many we rejected for one reason or another. We finally realized that we were never going to find a church that believed exactly what we believe because faith is so very unique from person to person. He and I don't even agree on some points. There is no "perfect for me" church. (There also is no perfect church because they're all full of sinners.) In the same way we shopped for our house vs. our dream house, we pinpointed what aspect of a church we were willing to relinquish. We're both fairly happy with our choice. Many have said here that they are not regular church goers. I understand that. I've been there. I'd like to answer the question "why go to church at all?" It is very true that you don't need to pray in a church to pray, or even come to salvation thru Christ inside a church. The reason I go to church is for support and growth. It's easier to keep on the straight and narrow when you know others are struggling to do the same. I've found that spiritual growth is much less frequent when I'm just learning about God on my own. Sunday school teachers and preachers have different ideas and different insights. You may not agree with them, but growing in the opposite direction is still growing. I read a quote once that asked "Why are church politics so fierce?" The answer was "because the stakes are so small." Once people agree on how one becomes saved, the other arguments are so petty and small. They're the result of folks looking at each other when they should be looking to God. Praise team or hymnal? Just praise Him! Real wine or grapejuice? Pay attention to the significance of the ritual! Yes, we all have preferences, but they should not be the focus. I've always appreciated how SRL approached Christianity in his books. What is there is strong and not controversial. His characters are real people with realistic faith. I've even appreciated his account of the druids for that matter. There doesn't appear to be any hocus pocus there. They were the learned men. Just because they did amazing things doesn't make them evil. Imagine if you dropped an Alka-seltzer into the time period of Arthur. The plop plop fizz fizz would seem like magic and would be called a potion. The difference is the advancement of knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by laurelin on Jun 21, 2005 23:42:15 GMT -5
I have some cousins who went Fundamentalist a while back. They stopped celebrating Christmas and Easter because they were really heathen rituals in disguise, and they decided Catholics were idol worshippers (and my grandmother is Catholic). I know they went to a number of churches, and quit each one over some minor doctrinal difference, and for a while gave up church all together. That's what can be dangerous about "church." We can focus on theology so much that we lost sight of God himself, and church simply becomes a way of making him convenient. Acts 15 talks about the early church contention over whether the Gentile believers had to follow the law of Moses to be saved. Peter, Paul, and James (a very authoritative council) all spoke against it, reminding them that it is faith and the Spirit that gains salvation; no man could gain it through sacrifices and rituals. While the rituals have value, they are not themselves the substance of salvation; they are to remember and do reverence to God and all he has done. Throughout Paul's journeys, he always revisits new believers, and he always writes them to encourage them and share his insights and advice. Council and communication were so important to the early church; they always met and discussed and wrote one another to keep the faith strong and God central. I've never been a social person, as it were, and I used to believe that my faith wouldn't suffer if I never shared it. About a year and a half ago, I joined a Bible study group at school. It destroyed a lot of my illusions, and made me realize that my adamant assurance was a result of my weakness, and it was an escape to get away from things that felt uncomfortable to me. I don't feel that church is necessary to be Christian. I have, however, come to believe that fellowship keeps you strong, and helps you grow. I also believe very strongly that you should always take the time to question your conceptions, to make sure they aren't traps or illusions. I think the most important thing is to be aware of what's around you, and to be open to change. That went on for far longer than I intended.  Guess I just needed to share. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by DanTheMan on Jun 22, 2005 9:32:15 GMT -5
I do agree with you on this, laurelin. I know that a church is necessary for fellowship. I believe Jesus wanted it that way. And, yes, everyone is going to have their own individual beliefs - that's inherent in people. But a church can have a set of beliefs that all of it's members *can* agree on, even if they disagree on little stuff. A church should be a place that people *want* to go to, not *should* go to. It should be a happy place, and a place for healing. It's not easy keeping it that way, and there are really hard things to deal with. Churches aren't perfect, just like families aren't perfect, because people aren't perfect. It takes effort to make it good. Just like any relationship.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinadan on Jun 22, 2005 9:48:51 GMT -5
I can't restrain myself from jumping in on this again. As most of you know, I'm probably the most anti-church believer of the group; that being said, it isn't the gathering together of Christians for mutual worship of Our Lord that I dislike--it's the attitudes and petty bickering that goes on. My cure for that is to go to church just often enough to make sure that my personal needs for chuch-setting worship are fulfilled (I like to recieve Eucharist occasionally, after all), but not to go so often that I am aware of all the "church politics." It's an imperfect solution to an imperfect problem.
As far as "there is no perfect church" business goes--that may be true, but there should be, and I don't like resigning to fail before I even try (in fact, even in spite of overwhelming odds for failure, I tend to keep trying). Regular church-goers should be the same. Of course perfection is beyond our reach, but as He is perfect, so we should strive to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by DanTheMan on Jun 22, 2005 12:11:14 GMT -5
We definitely should strive to be perfect. And we should try for the best church we can. But if you don't get in there and work on it, it won't happen. I don't buy it that a person can attend a church, see it's imperfections, and then say "See, church sucks." If you are only going to church once in a while, then I'm sorry, you have no business complaining that it should be this way or that way. Become a member of a church and work with those members to make a better church. Nothing gets better if you don't get in there and try. It's not easy but it's worth it.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurelin on Jun 22, 2005 12:56:31 GMT -5
I completely agree that no church is perfect, and I understand the problem with church politics. I haven't actually experienced it as such. The problems I have had with church are purely due to my social deficiencies.
I've been very fortunate in my church, because we've had leaders who kept the focus on God rather than church. We dress nicely, but we aren't going to shun anyone for wearing blue jeans on Sunday.
As much as we joke about our numerous church committees, the proliferation of democracy and openness in our church has kept it from arguing about the petty details of church business. I think church works best when more people are involved, both in speaking and listening.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgan on Jun 23, 2005 0:30:03 GMT -5
You know, I thought this thread was dead months ago. I didn't realize how much I missed it.
Risking blasphemy, can I suggest that our "relationships" on this site are closer to the intentions of church fellowship - closer than many brick and mortar churches are? See, in my warped world, the friendships, fellowship, discussion, encouragement, and debate we enjoy here is more honest and heartfelt than that I would get at my church. So, in some small ways, this site is more beneficial to my spiritual growth than my church. I would like to thank everyone, for it is you that make me feel that way. It is the people, not the site itself.
Of course, the reason modern "church gatherings" came about in the first place was to hear the Word of God - fellowship was not the purpose, because people had their neighbors and such. Fellowship was an every day thing, but Scripture reading was not. Most people didn't have their own copy of the Scriptures. Many people had never heard much of Scripture. In this age of information overload, imagine hearing the story of Daniel or of Jesus calming the sea, or anything else for that matter - for the first time!! It must have been extraordinary! Then, as printed lit became more available, church started becoming a social event - or worse, social ettiquette, from which stems the problems we see today. So now what we have is a church setting, the original intended use of which is no longer practical, trying to find purpose for its existance. Churches trying to find meaning...ironic, is it not?
In summary, thank you all for your edification and friendship. It is more meaningful than you know. (And I'm pretty sure I speak for others as well.)
|
|
|
|
Post by DanTheMan on Jun 23, 2005 8:58:14 GMT -5
I'm sorry if I came off too strong earlier. I don't want to be too closed minded to something such as this discussion group if it brings you closer in your relationship with God. I do feel strongly that church can be a great experience, and I love my church. I do appreciate this group as well. I am encouraged and challenged by you all. (I admit to expecting more of a response from Dinadan on this. He would usually jump in here and argue pretty well.)
In return, I would encourage all to try church again if it has failed you so far. There are bad church, but there are good churches, too. Regardless, continue seeking Him out and you can't go wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ganieda on Jun 23, 2005 11:38:41 GMT -5
dgan, blasphemy is calling something that is holy evil or calling something evil that is holy. So you were in no risk of blasphemy there. But it isn't something to play with. It's the only sin that is said to be unforgivable.
I really enjoy the fellowship of this forum too. It's nice to have conversations about whatever and have God/faith/religion come up in a casual way.
Dan the man - so you have a son and a daughter?
|
|
Twyrch /|\
Guess I just needed to share. ;D
