A Rogue Christian

The Nature of Grace

2011-07-30T04:30:00.000-07:00

Grace Before Sin

I feel that I am going to fail to properly articulate my point. The truth of it is so simple, yet so profound. I feel like a great weight has been lifted, but I can't say why. This is an issue I'd like to further "unpackage" and explore. It is not an issue I wish to debate and argue over. I need to explore this issue, not hear why it’s wrong.

I've always entertained the idea that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity could, potentially, all be wrong. Well, "wrong" isn't the word: Incomplete. But let's not be pretentious. Let me be brutally honest:

I've never believed Islam or Judaism were complete.

I've always believed Islam and Judaism were incomplete.

I've only ever entertained the idea that Christianity might be incomplete.

On Monday, November 20th, 2006, at 6:16am I crossed a threshold. I stopped entertaining that idea.

Christianity is incomplete. In fact, I'd go so far as to say Christianity is wrong. Well, at least its methodology is wrong.

The Religion of Christianity teaches that we begin, or start out, fallen. Our human condition's default is Sin. We need to have or accept the "bad news" before we can accept the "good news". Our goal becomes salvation through Grace and therefore Grace is the prize; it is the goal that must be attained! The division of denominations come about with the questions of "How do we attain grace?" or "How do we exit this state of sin?"

One side of Christianity acknowledges Original Sin as tainting and condemning all of humanity! Thus is introduced Infant Baptism. But this fails to address the conscious choice of the believer. It allows exceptions or conditions for a lack of understanding between Sin & Grace.

The other side of Christianity acknowledges the conscious choice of the believer, and introduces Believer's Baptism, but makes exceptions or conditions to rectify infant death with a non-scriptural formula of "Age of Accountability".

Both sides struggle and make exceptions to "biblical rules" and insert non-biblical conditions because of the assumption that we always have Sin, but we don't always have Grace.

What happens to a newborn that dies shortly after birth? What happens to an aboriginal heathen who has never seen a white man, let alone hears the gospel or of Christ, dies? Are they condemned to hell? Christian theology must compromise itself with “footnotes” and “exceptions to the rules” to explain these things. I’ve always been skeptical of rules or theories that contain “yeah, but…” statements.

God hates Sin, but loves Sinners. That was the reason why He died on the cross: because He hates Sin, but loves Sinners. If this weren't true then His death was - for - absolutely - no - reason. Let me repeat myself: God hates Sin, but loves Sinners. It makes no sense the other way around: Jesus died on the cross because He loves sinners, not because He hates sinners.

I dearly love my children. I wish I could say that about their behaviour at times too. There are times I could honestly say that I hate their behavior. But I never hate them. Would I lay my life down and die for my children? Definitely, and that’s because I love them. But would l lay my life down and die for someone I hated? Absolutely not!

The Flood was an example of the opposite of the Crucifixion. God hated the sinners and killed them all off, yet Sin survived, thrived, and continued! No Grace was given in this equation, and the outcome failed to destroy Sin (which is not to say God failed because we don’t know if that was His goal).

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is yet another example of the attempted cleansing of Sin without Grace. No Grace was given to the sinners of Sodom and Gomorrah. They themselves (not Sin) were outright destroyed. Even Abraham missed this point! Abraham attempts to barter or negotiate with God. Abraham seems to think God's Grace can be earned or bought! What if there are 50 righteous people? What about 45? 40? 30? Do I hear 20? What about 10? Even if it is only one, Grace cannot be bought! Jesus’ parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Mat. 20:1-16) is a clear lesson that Grace doesn’t work on any sort of economic system. It isn’t mathematical.

God condemns a complete generation of Israelites during their 40-year exodus through the wilderness, promising only their children - their next generation - will see the Promised Land. Again we see an attempt to cleanse Sin without Grace, and again we see Sin's eradication incomplete.

The most difficult issue we struggle with in the book of Job is that Job is upright and blameless! (Even God admits it!) Job doesn't deserve what he's inflicted with. But isn't that the whole point? Isn't that what Job misses? Isn't that the lesson we miss? It's about Grace. It isn't that Job deserves what he's inflicted with, but that he doesn't not deserve it! That's Job's flaw. It's not that he's committed some sin and is being punished for it. It's that he believes that he somehow earned the Grace he is enjoying – that the Grace was his. He was coveting his exclusivity to Grace, where Grace isn't exclusive. Even at the end when Job "confronts" God in the storm, he pleads his case and maintains his innocence, God does not accuse nor reveals Job's sin - for Job is still blameless. It is only after Job acknowledges God absolute sovereignty and unquestionability does Job again enjoys God's Grace.

I walked through Zellers on the weekend and someone working there offered me a nice expensive pen for free! Well, that caught my attention! I'm then told that, if I apply for a Zeller's Credit Card, the pen's mine for free! Well...it's not free. Granted, it's a very good deal, but it isn't free.

Not only is this paradigm wrong and doesn't work, it's an outright lie: We begin (default) in Sin and can attain salvation and grace by simply saying the "Sinner's Prayer" (for example). Hey! Wait a second! That is a great deal, but IT ISN'T FREE!

If this is Christianity, then I'm out. I'll hand in my W.W.J.D. bracelet, my "Admit One, Eschatological Pass/Soteriological Coupon", and my Club J.C. Card.

Jesus died on the cross for ALL PEOPLE. This is Grace incarnate. We don't start in a state of Sin and climb into a state of Grace. We begin in a state of Grace. Grace is not a transaction or an exchange. Grace must by definition be free and must be for everyone - and when I say everyone, I don't mean every Christian. No sir! I mean everyone: Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Agnostic, Atheist, you name it! Grace for ALL. Grace can't be earned and can't be attained by our own methods. GRACE IS A FREE GIFT !!

A newborn isn't a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Hindu, or an Agnostic, or a Buddhist, or an Atheist! But a newborn already has God's Grace. We begin our journey with it.

And the Religion of Christianity voices in with, "But this is Universalism! The bible doesn't teach that 'all will be saved'!" No, this is not Universalism. And no, there is no longer Original Sin. And there is an Age of Accountability, but it is to opt out of Grace, not into it. No, this isn't Universalism because people can and do opt out of grace. It is a free ride for all, but not all accept it.

One denomination, in an official publication concerning its belief, makes the following statement:

“Some people inconsiderately accuse us of rejecting the atonement of Christ entirely because we dissent from the view that the atonement was made upon the cross as is generally held. But we do nothing of the kind. We object to the view that the atonement was made upon the cross, because it inevitably leads to one of two great errors, thus, Christ on the cross bore the sins of all the world. John said, ‘Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away (margin, ‘beareth’) the sin of the world’ (John 1:29). Peter tells us how Christ thus bore the sins of the world. ‘Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree’ (1 Peter 2:24). Paul says that ‘He died for all’ (2 Cor. 5:14,15). That which Christ did on the cross, therefore, was done indiscriminately and unconditionally for all the world, and if this was the atonement, then all the sins of the world have been atoned for and all will be saved – but all men will not be saved; hence the sins of all were not atoned for upon the cross.”

Little comment needs to be made about this quotation except to point out that the writer sees clearly that, if the usual understanding of the cross of Christ is accepted, all men will be saved. Hence, in order to maintain that not all will be saved, as he thinks, he claims that the atonement was not made upon the cross. ..

Through the centuries the Christian understanding has been that when Jesus hung on the cross and cried, “It is finished”, the problem of atonement was settled for all time. We do not have, therefore, a gospel of chance, either first chance or many chances. We have a gospel of grace.1

"Grace tells us... we are already in unless we want to be out." (Spencer Burk, A Heretic's Guide to Eternity, pg. 61)

These two paradigms are in conflict and is an extremely dangerous path to follow. If we can understand that Grace by definition is a free gift paid for and given by Jesus on the cross, then we must also admit we all begin with it. So now we have an apparent contradiction of facts: We always have Sin and we always have Grace. They must both be defaults to the human condition. If Adam and Eve brought Sin into the world - caused the problem - “broke it”, as the case may be – and Christ resolved the problem - cleansed it - “fix it”, then the problem must actually be fixed. If we are still born into Sin, then the problem isn’t fixed. We are, and the world is, still “broken”. Christ has failed. Paul argues this very point in Romans 5:18,

“…just as the result of one trespass[Adam] was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness [Jesus] was justification that brings life for all men.”

We know that Grace can trump Sin. But the Religion of Christianity teaches Sin first and then Grace (maybe). In this scenario Sin can trump Grace because we’ve been kept in the dark about the Grace we already have. It comes down to a question of which default/fact do we choose to embrace, Sin or Grace? If we are to believe the lie Religion teaches, that we have Sin but need to attain the gift of Grace, we're in a lot of trouble!

The Religion of Christianity teaches that Damnation is the rule and Salvation is the exception. Christ's Crucifixion allows that Salvation is the rule and Damnation is the exception.

We all have Free Will. But the question is, what is the choice? Christ's death and Crucifixion on the cross is God's Grace. I think "Christ" and "God's Grace" are synonymous. I think Religion even asks the wrong question: "Do we accept Christ, or deny Him?" Whereas the real question should be, "Do we accept the Grace we've already have been given?” or "Do we hope to attain a Grace we don't have?" Grace is not something we can attain. It is only something we can lose.

Marcus J. Borg articulates this exact point very accurately when he states

“Of course, the earlier paradigm [a more Traditional Christianity] uses the language of God’s grace and compassion and love, but its own internal logic turns being Christian into a life of requirement and rewards, thereby compromising the notice of grace. Indeed, it nullifies grace, for grace that has conditions attached is no longer grace.”2

No other perspective works.

The Born Again Problem

It is at this point when some people – most especially the Evangelical or Born Again Christians – will state that this idea doesn't biblically align itself with being “Born Again”.

“Born Again” = Adult Baptism = “Saved” = Salvation is an erroneous assumption.

Jesus didn't tell Nicodemus that he needed to be born again to get to heaven. What He did say was that everyone – Nicodemus included – needs to be born again - born from above - in order to enter into the Kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

Adult baptism is often assumed to be synonymous with being “born again”. Another, seemingly unrelated topic, is the assumption that the Heaven of the Afterlife is synonymous with the Kingdom of God.

However, Luke 17:20-21 describes the advent of the Kingdom of God in some particular details: Our Lord says it comes not with observation; that is hasn't a geographical locale (“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo, there!”); and that “...behold the kingdom of God is within you”. It may not be abundantly clear what the Kingdom of God is, but it is clear that it is not the Heaven of the afterlife, and therefore cannot be referring to salvation.

So, if Nicodemus must be “born again” to enter the Kingdom of God, then Jesus is not referring to adult baptism, being “born again” (as it is commonly understood today), or being saved. To be born again, according to Jesus, is to dedicate oneself to the Kingdom of God and it's purposes. It is to begin a journey with God in order to make the world a place of grace.

The pharisee Nicodemus' perception of an exclusive religious community or institution which dispenses salvation was in fact not only ignorant of the truth of the matter, but in conflict with God's plan and his Kingdom. This flies in the face of Pre-Vatican II Catholicism's salvation only through the Church as well as certain “Born Again” Christians' beliefs/theology (Adult Baptism only, to be saved.)

The Spirit is like the wind, Jesus tells Nicodemus “The wind bloweth where it listeth”. We can hear the wind and see it's effects, but we have no idea where it comes from or where's it going.

“...and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh , and whither it goeth.” (John 3:8)

God's Spirit – like the wind – is not something we're meant to control. The Spirit as a wind starts us on a journey. The Spirit now resides within us and inundates us. We now learn to live, breathe, and walk in the way – in the way of the Spirit and in the method of the wind.

We become a new creature.

We are renewed.

We are reborn.

Grace and Mercy

Grace: Getting something you have not earned or deserved (in a positive manner, i.e. a gift).

Mercy: Not getting what you do deserve (in a negative manner, i.e. a punishment).

When either Grace or Mercy are present without the other they can successfully be identified.

When both Grace and Mercy are present they can still be successfully identified.

For example: I steal $100 from you. You catch me and I stand before a judge in a court of law. Before the judge passes sentence you say that you wish to drop the charges against me. That is an act of Mercy. I was guilty and deserved punishment, but you showed mercy. Mercy is present but Grace is not.

Now after withdrawing the charges of theft against me you add that since I obviously need that $100 more than you do that I may keep the money as well. That is Grace. I didn’t earn the money, and I don’t deserve it either.

However, when both Grace and Mercy are absent they become blurred and indistinguishable.

For example: When I say the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah shows no Grace, some might say that I am confusing Grace with Mercy. Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty and had that punishment owed to them. Judgment was passed and justice was served. God simply didn’t show Mercy. But He also didn’t show Grace because He didn’t give them what they didn’t deserve; namely forgiveness and exemption.

Is the absence of Grace or Mercy the same as their opposites?

What are Grace and Mercy’s opposites?

The opposite of Grace must be not getting something you haven’t earned or deserve, which would be fair and just.

The opposite of Mercy must be getting what you deserve, which would be harvesting what you sow, which would also be fair and just.

So we can say that both Grace and Mercy’s opposites are the same thing: Justice through Righteous Judgment.

Therefore if one can opt out of Grace (and Mercy) you are faced with Justice through Righteous Judgment. So, if God chooses to pass judgment and justice, He also chooses not to show Grace or Mercy. Thus the example of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is an example of showing no Grace.

What is the absence of Grace and Mercy? I don’t think their absence is the same as their opposite. Grace is active, while Mercy is passive. Grace is an action while Mercy is inaction. Their opposites – Justice through Righteous Judgment – are also active. Their absence must not be active but passive.

If Grace and Mercy’s opposites are Justice through Righteous Judgment (active), their absence must be the lack of justice (injustice).

Grace in the Evangelical

Evangelical Christians say we are called to evangelize. That statement is a little too simple I think.

What does ‘evangelize’ mean, and why are we called to do it? What are the reasoning and the drives behind it?

There are only 3 reasons why Evangelical Christians believe they should evangelize.

A) Because we are told to

B) Because we are commissioned by the Lord to make converts

C) Because so many people will be damned to hell without evangelizing.

Realistically, most Evangelical Christians are a combination of these 3 points, but we’ll address them one point at a time.

“Because we are told to.”

The problem with this reasoning is that we don’t know what we’re doing. We can’t answer the question ‘why evangelize’? If we cannot answer why then we also cannot answer how? If we aren’t sure why then we aren’t sure how. If we’re not sure how to evangelize then the margin for error becomes enormous because we’re not sure what the goal is.

“Because we were commissioned by the Lord to make converts.”

I don’t believe we were commissioned to make converts. We were told to make disciples, which are pupils or students. This is another topic worth discussing, as to what exactly making disciples, or students, or pupils, means, but suffice it to say that for our intent and purpose now it does not mean to make converts.

“Because so many people will be damned to hell without evangelizing.”

This point may manifest itself in different expressions: The positive being, “Who goes to heaven?” and the negative being, “Who gets condemned to hell?”

This is the most complicated answer of the three. What does the Evangelical Christian say happens to a newborn baby who dies directly after birth? Do they go to heaven or hell? We know what scripture says the “criteria” of receiving salvation is, and a newborn clearly doesn’t meet these “requirements”. But the thought of an innocent newborn infant suffering eternal conscious torture at the hands, or will of God seems inconceivable! Most will answer and say that this innocent will go to heaven because God’s Grace is large enough (which I personally agree with). They will generally answer that it has to do with the formula of “Age of Accountability”, which isn’t scriptural, but is an attempt to better understand and systemize salvation (which I also agree with). I don’t have a problem with this belief, but with this methodology.

Grace vs. Accountability

The Age of Accountability says that under a certain age (and I’m not interested in debating what that age is) the child lacks the proper facilities or tools to make a proper choice or decision. Therefore they cannot be responsible for that choice and they cannot be accountable. Responsibility and accountability have everything to do with harvesting what one sows.

Accountability means we can be judged on it. Either we are accountable or we are not. Either we are guilty or we are innocent. Accountability belongs in the realm of judgment and justice. Grace is an all together different creature! There is no guilty or innocent in Grace. The question of guilt isn’t even asked.

For someone under the ‘Age of Accountability’ God really cannot show Grace but can only show Mercy. The infant is tainted and guilty of Original Sin. Being guilty of sin is punishable by death (‘the wages of sin are death’). If the newborn lives, it is a sign of God’s Mercy (not getting what it deserves because it deserved death). If the infant dies, which is the ‘wages of sin’, it is God’s Righteous Judgment and Justice (which is the opposite of Grace and Mercy, which means no Grace and no Mercy). So, when the Evangelical Christian evokes the ‘Age of Accountability’ and God’s Grace in the same breath, I’m forced to ask, “Well? Which one is it? Grace or Accountability?” I can’t see where or how – in this context – Grace could be applied. But I do believe God’s Grace can be and is applied!

Regardless of whether the newborn infant lives (Mercy) or dies (Judgment) Grace has already been gifted freely! Grace cannot have anything to do with guilt or innocence. It cannot have anything to do with what you’ve earned or deserve. It cannot exist in the realm of analysis or judgment. It is free. Grace is boundless. The only limiting or controlling feature on Grace is God’s will. It is His to give freely and I believe He did so on the cross.

They are willing to allow the Grace of God to be large enough to make exceptions, but I can’t help but think this is not an actual belief, but rather an intellectual exercise. Because once it is applied to others (Jews, Muslims, non-believers, agnostics, homosexuals, etc.) suddenly God’s Grace dries up! Where God’s Grace was once large and overflowing suddenly has become finite and very limited.

Now, I realize I am making generalizations of all Evangelical Christians. Before you accuse me of creating straw men to knock down allow me to continue; There is another type of Evangelical Christian who does honestly allow for God’s big Grace and acknowledges and accepts that we don’t know who “makes it” into heaven. They do allow and entertain the concept of others receiving salvation. This theology or belief puts salvation and damnation into God’s hands exclusively (where I believe it belongs). And when who is and who isn’t saved ceases to be an issue, then the focus must also shift away from the Afterlife.

But it is here that this option becomes plagued with a problem. If the question is “Why do we evangelize?” and the answer is, “Because so many people will be condemned to hell without evangelization” they cannot shift that focus away from the Afterlife, while not defuncting their very own definition. It creates a conundrum. It removes their reason, motivations, and impetus to evangelize. Ultimately we are led back to attempting to answer the question, “What does ‘evangelism’ mean?” This option has begun with spreading the “bad news” (you are a sinner) followed by spreading the “good news” (there is hope in Christ). If the “bad news” is removed from the equation and if we are left with only the “good news”, what does that look like? And, more importantly, are we ready to accept it?

“In a very real way, they don’t even hope for universal salvation. After all, without the fear of their unsaved loved ones’ eternal damnation, how would they motivate one another for outreach and missionary service?”3

“…many [Christians]…evangelical in attitude…insist that they want to see the wicked saved, nevertheless tend to anger if they are told that God is going to do just that for all the wicked. They are not willing for God to save the lost ultimately, unless He does it according to their theological scheme. They are like Jonah, who was angry because God spared the wicked city of Nineveh.”4

If we are only focusing on accepting God’s Grace that has already been gifted to us, ‘evangelizing’ becomes an open invitation to a celebration and a joyous exploration. The paradigm shifts. There ceases to be a “them” and “us”, the focus leaves the Afterlife and centers on the Now. The kingdom of God begins to grow and nurture here and now! Orthodoxy bows to Orthopraxy. Proper Doctrine takes a back seat to proper practice. Doctrine and Orthodoxy define the distinctions of denominations. Denominational lines blur…unity begins…we enter a post-denominational age. No longer are we focused on gaining converts to our religion. No longer must things be only our way: Fundamentalism dies. No longer must we amass our numbers. Our control stops mattering: nobody can claim exclusivity. There is no fear in our “sales tactics”: we don’t need to “sell” our faith with “hell and damnation”. No longer can we condemn the non-believers: the words infidel and heathen are removed from our vocabulary. There stops being a “them” and “us”. The only reason we have left to knock on someone’s door is to say hello! We can all hold hands with a bottle of Coka-Cola and sing “I’d like to teach the world to Sing”. Well… that might be taking it a little too far, but you get the idea. We can stop focusing on the hereafter and begin focusing on the Now!

I believe the Kingdom of God can be here now. That it is in us (Luke 17:20-21). It is attainable! So why are we so obsessed with making it heaven?

The Gnostic Escape

In “The Purpose Driven Life”, Rick Warren says, “This life is a preparation for the next”5, and “…earth is only a temporary residence”6 The whole of chapter 4 has this theme. “Earth is a staging area”. To me, this is really saying we were not made for this world, but for another. If we weren’t made for this world, then what are we doing here? Are we just passing through? I’m sure many Christians believe and teach this. I also believe it is wrong. In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is quoted as saying, “Be passersby” (Thomas 42)7

This world = bad.

Next world = good.

This reality (physical) = bad.

Next reality (spiritual) = good.

Our focus is to either ignore or gloss over this world and its problems (because this world doesn’t really count, does it? Its just a practice run!), or to focus on the next world and the escape from this one! Salvation, being “born again”, and being “saved” have the risk of, not being about making it into heaven, but about getting the ticket out of this world and it’s problems! This is Gnosticism.

I think Qui-Gon Jinn gave excellent advice to a young Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace.

Obi-Wan Kenobi: “But I thought Master Yoda said to be mindful of the future?”

Qui-Gon Jinn: “Yes, but not at the expense of the moment: You must be mindful of the Living Force.”

One of the greatest pieces of wisdom I’ve heard comes from the Rabbi Israel Salanter.

“Normally, we worry about our own material well-being and our neighbours’ souls; let us rather worry about our neighbours’ material well-being and our own souls.”

Words for a Christian to live by. Interesting that they would come from a Jew. I think the Evangelical perspective sees things backwards. Last year I took a course at a Baptist Church and had a man named “Jack” introduce himself. “Hi! My name is ‘Jack’.” He said while extending his hand, “I’ve been saved since March [3 months ago]. How long have you’ve been saved?”

I shook his hand in stunned silence. I didn’t know whether to laugh out loud or cry. He then proceeded to discuss his and his fiancé’s concern about proper methods of prayer.

“Jack” was speaking English. I speak English too and I’d like to think I have the same size vocabulary as most people. I understood every word he spoke and used. But he wasn’t speaking English. I had to think fast! I had to switch my internal-language-button over to the “Christianese” setting.

Not only was “Jack” speaking a language the vast majority of people don’t understand, he was asking all the wrong questions, and making all the wrong statements. The paradigm’s all wrong. And this was a product of Evangelical Christianity! What? Is he supposed to go out into the world and evangelize and ‘witness’ to people? Yikes! What is he really saying? And more importantly, What are people really hearing? “I’ve got my one-way ticket out of this ‘dump’ and the Good News is you can buy a ticket out of here too!” That’s the message I got loud and clear.

“Well, I’m not quite ready to leave this ’dump’ because this ‘dump’ is my home and I belong here. And as far as buying one of your tickets out of here…well, I’m not sure I like the brand name you’re selling. No thanks, I think I’ll pass.”

What would the Evangelical Christian thoughts or response be to that be? Some would think that I’m lost. The bolder ones would say I’ve rejected Christ at the risk of eternal damnation. Some might “shake the dust off their feet.”

I’ve always had a difficult time identifying the moment you are ‘saved’. I’m entertaining the idea more and more that we’re born ‘saved’. As I’ve said before, Grace tells us we are already in unless we want out. From this perspective the question is never “How long have you been saved?” The only applicable question is – and it’s a dark path to travel – “At what point did you opt out?”

Forfeit

Once we realize and accept that we have always had the gift of God’s Grace – that we’ve never had to attain it – how do we live this life of Grace? This question takes on a very different dimension once we realize that it applies to the believer, the non-believer, and people of other belief systems as well. We’ve transcended the bounds of Religion and entered into the realm of the Spiritual.

What would a person’s actions/thoughts look like to reject the grace of God that was already given? How exactly would one do that? Is there any biblical indication to support this? To blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.

“…but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” Mark 3:29, ASV

If we forfeit Grace - if we opt out of God’s Grace - we are choosing Righteous Judgment and Justice in its stead. Luke 18:17 says, “I tell the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a child will never enter it” (NIV).

This is an interesting verse. It seems to confirm that the kingdom of God already is a child’s. It also puts things in the context of “who will not receive” rather than “who will accept”, again reinforcing that it is a denial of something already in existence rather than the acceptance of something new.

But what does this rejection look like? Traditionally the Religion of Christianity would say that it is specifically rejecting Christ, and then would go on to apply this to Jews and Muslims, and nearly every other faith. Again, attempting to reinforce their exclusivity. I believe Christ is God’s Grace incarnate. I think it isn’t so much rejecting Christ as it is rejecting God’s Grace.

I recently got into a conversation with a Christian Fundamentalist friend of mine about whether or not a homosexual could really be a Christian. I had never really even considered this an issue before. “Of course!” was my train of thought. But apparently not. I was told in clear and concise terms that homosexuality was abhorred and loathsome to God. It said so in the bible – most especially in the Old Testament. He then proceeded to quote the actual verses to me. I won’t bother you with these references.

“Well, I’m damned to hell too,” I said, “because I have tattoos. Leviticus 19:28 clearly forbids it.”

As he began to explain why this didn’t apply to me I continued, “And so are you because you’re clean shaven! Leviticus 19:27 forbids it!”

He continued by explaining that we are freed from the Law by faith in Christ. We are ‘covered’ by God’s Grace...we are seeing the impossible concept of a conditional grace rising it's ugly head again.

Jesus said,

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”8

I think this is clear. If you are to judge and condemn a homosexual according to the Law, then you too will be judged and condemned according to the law. You can choose Grace, or you can opt out and choose justice through Righteous Judgment. To me, judging others is one possible method of rejecting God’s Grace, or at least showing contempt towards it. In romans 2:1-4 Paul is clearly making the distinction between God's Righteous Judgment (Justice) and man's judgment (Injustice).

I’m not sure what rejecting Grace looks like. I suppose becoming an actual Atheist would do it. But how can we

truly tell the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic? I am very hesitant at systemizing this. I don’t think it’s that cut and dry. I really don’t think this is the point. In fact, if we begin to obsess about how do we reject Grace, or how do we opt out of it, we are returning to that old paradigm. It isn’t our place to judge. This is something between God and the individual. We have no business there. After all, we were called to make students. A student’s job is to learn. We learn by asking questions. Our job at evangelizing is an open invitation to celebration and exploration. It doesn’t matter who you are. If you’re interested, then you are engaged. In you are engaged you have begun that journey. If you have begun that journey, you are a student. I think it’s as simple as that.

Mission: Impossible

In the movie Mission: Impossible 2, Tom Cruise answers Anthony Hopkin’s character, “This is going to be difficult.” Without missing a beat Anthony Hopkin answers, “Well this isn’t ‘Mission: Difficult’, this is ‘Mission: Impossible’; ‘Difficult’ should be a walk in the park for you Mr. Hunt.”

I love that line. And we as the movie viewer fully believe Ethan Hunt can pull it off! We have enormous faith in Tom cruise… so why don’t we have that kind of hope and faith in God?

“[God] …our Saviour… who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” 9

If this is what God wants and hopes for, could we not say this is also the will of God? I have been told that I have misinterpreted 1 Timothy 2:4; that it means that God hopes, desires, and wishes for all to come to Him and be saved, but that in actual fact, not all will. Why not? Is this “Mission: Difficult” or “Mission: Impossible”?

I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted.10

Job clearly states that God’s will and plans cannot be altered. Whose will is greater, man’s or God’s?

“This interpretation makes the will of man more mighty than the will of God. God wills (or wishes) all men to be saved, but His is not able to get His will (or wish) fulfilled. Man wills not to be saved, and he is perfectly able to have his will fulfilled! That deifies man, and dethrones God. Man is able to get his will done, but God is not.”11

Pope John Paul II focused on this very verse when addressing this same issue and problem,

In Christ, God revealed to the world that He desires “everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). This phrase from the First Letter to Timothy is of fundamental importance for understanding and preaching the Last Things. If God desires this – if, for this reason, God has given His Son, who in turn is at work in the Church through the Holy Spirit – can man be damned, can he be rejected by God? … But the problem remains. Can God, who has loved man so much, permit the man who rejects Him to be condemned to eternal torment? … The Holy Scriptures include the concept of the purifying fire. The Eastern Church adopted it because it was biblical, while not receiving the Catholic doctrine on purgatory…. The “living flame of love”, of which Saint John [of the Cross] speaks, is above all a purifying fire.12

A Living Flame of Love

Most Protestants readily agree that, even though saved, they are still in sin. The fact of the matter is even more obvious: we still commit sin. We may be more aware of it, and we may put significantly more effort into trying to avoid sin, but we are still sinners. Catholics share this same belief. If they didn’t there would not exist the Sacrament of Confession.

Most Christians also believe that this process of becoming Christ-like is never accomplished – at least in this lifetime. We strive and hope to become more and more holy and pure. I would be very suspicious of anyone living who claimed to be sinless, Holy, pure, and perfectly Christ-like. It simply isn’t going to be accomplished in this world!

Most Christians also believe that God is absolutely Pure, absolutely Holy, and absolutely Perfect – so much so in fact that His very nature cannot abide the presence of Sin – or maybe, inversely, Sin cannot survive the presence of His Perfection.

But these beliefs create a problem. Somehow from the moment we are “saved” (whenever and however that works) to the moment we stand in God’s presence (whenever and however that happens) we absolutely must go through some sort of transformation or purification. And since we’ll readily agree that this transformation or purification “process” may only begin in this life – in this world – but is never completed here, then it must be completed after death. There is no way around this issue. If not, then Sin will be allowed to enter Heaven: We will carry all of our sin and problems with us.

Catholicism has the Doctrine of Purgatory, which is a bone of contention to most Protestants. Yes, in the past the Church used the Doctrine of Purgatory to make the abuses of Indulgences, and possibly still does today, but I’m not interested in the history of Purgatory or the abuses of Indulgences.

What I am talking about here really isn't Catholicism's Purgatory, but may be better referred to s the small “p” purgatory. The fact of the matter is, somewhere, somehow, after death this purification process must be made complete. For the moment I’m not interested in whether the process lasts for decades (like Catholicism’s Purgatory might suggest) or if it’s a near-instantaneous process of being ‘cleansed’ by fire, but only that this purification, or purgation, has to exist. In Mark 9:49, Jesus says “Everyone will be salted with fire” gives us some sort of suggestion of this.

Catholics cite 1 Peter 3:19-20 and 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 as scriptural “evidence” of Purgatory. Protestantism has done away with the books of the Apocrypha and so have written off the authenticity of the 2 Maccabees reference. The Apocrypha are completely another topic that I don’t wish to explore at this time, so we’ll look at 1 Peter 3:19-20.

“By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.”13

Most Protestants do not interpret these verses as evidence of purgatory but meaning only that it was the Spirit of God, or the Spirit of Jesus, who completed and motivated Noah to preach to the pre-flood people (Antediluvians). The reference to “those in prison” is meant to mean those that are now in prison (awaiting judgment). That is definitely one interpretation. I cannot really argue with that. But it is 1 Corinthians 15:29 that really catches my attention.

“Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized

for the dead?”14

Taken as a historic fact, being baptized for the dead was indeed practiced in New Testament times, and apparently supported by the Apostles also. This cannot be ignored. If no postmortem state of purgation existed, then the dead are either saved and in heaven, or already condemned and in Hell and beyond hope.

What I’m going to propose is this: That there exists no Hell in the traditional sense of the Doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment. That Hell is simply a state of non-existence (utter separation from God), or annihilation. For those who are not saved and ‘condemned’ to hell, there is no suffering but they are simply extinguished.

But to those who are not condemned to hell we are still faced with this problem of being impure before God. What I am proposing and exploring is that all (Believers and Non-believers alike) will be subjected to this Fire. This Living Flame of Love is not hell (although this process could potentially be hellish ). This Fire would best be compared to that of the Blacksmith’s – it is for the purpose of refinement and purification.

“Remove the dross from the silver, and out comes material for the silversmith” 15

I think this is a very good analogy. This Fire burns off the dross and leaves only the pure and refined silver. I believe this is part of the process I am speaking of.

On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine – the best of meats and the finest of wines. On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; he will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove the disgrace of his people from all the earth.16

This theme, however, seems to follow the idea of Universal Reconciliation, in that everybody would seem to be saved. However, verses like Ezekiel 22:18-22, Jeremiah 6: 29-30, Proverbs 27:21 and Zech. 13:9 (to name only a few) seem to very strongly suggest that not all will survive this process; not all will be saved – or that some are nothing more than only dross, and after the dross is ‘burnt’ away, there is nothing left. Again, we are revisiting the idea that “hell” (or a permanent separation from God) does not involve Eternal Conscious Torment, but annihilation. But this concept of hell makes it not so much of a place but more of a state of being (or in this case, non-being).

…[Pope John Paul II] explained, heaven and hell and purgatory are not abstractions or physical places, at least in our experience of place. They are relationships, or lack of relationships, with the Holy Trinity.17

Pope John Paul II makes good sense when he relates these “states” in terms of one’s relationship to God. They are states of being rather than actual physical places or locals. For if heaven or hell (or even purgatory for that matter) were actual physical places then we would be subscribing to a pantheistic belief system, which I firmly do not belief Christianity or the bible supports.

God is described numerous times in the bible as being “up”, or “in heaven”, or “above”, or various terms suggesting anywhere but here. God is described as being, not natural (pantheistic), but Supernatural. But He is also described as being here amongst us. Paul describes Him as the medium in which we exist (Acts 17:28). What we have here is not a naturalistic or materialistic God (pantheistic), but a panentheistic God. He is both supernatural and pantheistic. All of the universe, all of reality, all of Creation and existence resides within Him, but yet God is still “more” and beyond.

But it is here that we run into a problem with the Traditionalist’s Hell and the Doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment.

Christianity is definitely a panentheistic belief-system. As such, we can readily accept heaven as a “place” or state of being “within” God. But hell becomes much more difficult to accept. Either hell - within a panentheistic belief - is a permanent separation from God in a state of non-existence (annihilation) - since all that exists must exist “within” God. Or hell must be deliberately designed, ruled, and maintained by God for the explicit purpose of torture for no other reason than to inflict pain and punishment, but teach nothing. This hell truly has no hope.

There can be no argument that this possibility is within God’s power, right, and authority. However, is it within God’s nature? 1 John 4:16 says that “God is love”. It does not say that God is loving. It says that God is love itself, and love and hope are intricacy connected. 1 John 4:18, reads:

"There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."

And again, Psalm 103:13:

"The Lord is like a father to his children, tender and compassionate to those who fear him."

Please don't miss my point here. Some Christians see "fearing God" as a judge or master and tremble in fear of punishment. However with the verses I've quoted this doesn't fit at all, especially 1 John 4:18.

There are two types of fear, servile fear and filial fear. I believe the only justified fear (for a Christian) is filial fear. Servile fear is the fear of a slave and has nothing to do with the type of fear that is the origin of wisdom. Filial fear (of the father-son kind) "drives out all fear" (1 John 4:18), it drives out servile fear - it drives out the fear of a slave - the fear of punishment, the fear of "holy terror".

I would say that filial fear really isn't fear at all. It is interesting because if these types of Christians are scared to death of what God thinks of you or what he may do to you to punish, then, as 1 John 4:18 says, "...because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."

It kinda makes me wonder about these people. Sounds to me like they're more slaves than children. In short, the Traditionalist’s Hell and the Doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment fall clearly within the realms of a servile fear of God and what He, as a Slave Master, can or will do to you.

But for the Christian’s panentheistic belief-system, if we can understand and allow heaven and hell to be “states” of being rather than actual places, then we need to take a hard look at the concept of purgatory... or maybe the state of purgation.

… [Pope John Paul II] challenges us to take a fresh and thoughtful look at what we say we believe. When we hear key words of our faith, we often pay more attention to familiar and popular images than to the doctrines themselves. “Heaven”, “purgatory”, and “hell” are all strongly evocative words for Christians. A little reflection should warn us to be cautious, however, about the pictures and ideas these words inspire.

What Pope John Paul II has done is make explicit what has been implicit all the time. Does anyone really believe, for example, that heaven and hell are places in our ordinary sense of that term? Are they somewhere out in material creation on an unknown planet? In a galaxy on the other side of a distant black hole?

The same must be said of purgatory. It is not a “place”, he explained, but a “condition” of purification for the saved whereby Christ “frees them from their imperfections”. As the catechism says, purgatory is a process of purgation, of cleansing.

… we need to walk carefully here. When it says heaven is a “place”, it puts the word in quotation marks, indicating that, in this context, it does not have its usual meaning. Similarly, in the words of the catechism, the condition of self-exclusion from communion with God is what be call “hell”.

As for the graphic biblical descriptions of heaven and hell, John Paul II repeats the best long-standing Scripture scholarship when he says the symbolic and metaphorical language we find in the New Testament attempts to put into human words the reality of eternal “joyful communion with God”, or “the complete frustration and emptiness of a life without God”.

Far from downplaying the terrors of damnation, he contends that “the situation in which one finds himself after freely and definitively withdrawing from God, the source of life and joy”, can only be approached figuratively with images like “inextinguishable fire” and “the burning oven” .18

1 Dr. Loyal Hurley, The Outcome of Infinite Grace, http://www.tenmaker.org/books/infinitegrace.htm

2 Marcus J. Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pg. 11

3 Bart Campolo, The Limits of God’s Grace.

4 Dr. Loyal Hurley, The Outcome of Infinite Grace, http://www.tentmaker.org/books/infinitegrace.htm

5 Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Life, pg. 36

6 Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Life, pg. 47

7 A parallel to this saying appears in an inscription from a mosque at Fatehpur Sikri, India: “Jesus said, ‘This world is a bridge. Pass over it, but do not build your dwelling there.’”

8 Matthew 7:1-2 (NIV)

9 1 Timothy 2:4 (NIV)

10 Job 42:2 (NIV)

11 Dr. Loyal Hurley, The Outcome of Infinite Grace, http://www.tentmaker.org/books/infinitegrace.htm

12 Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, pg. 185-186

13 1 Peter 3:19-20, (KJV)

14 1 Corinthians 15:29 (KJV)

15 Proverbs 25:4 (NIV)

16 Isaiah 25:6-9 (NIV)

17 John J. Dietzen, Catholic Q & A, pg. 469

18 John J. Dietzen, Catholic Q & A, pg. 488-489

Continued on The Woven

2008-04-08T19:03:00.000-07:00

For further postings see The Woven.

Dead Off-Center

2007-11-13T08:48:00.000-08:00

Paul so often talks about Grace over the Law. There is an odd and strange tension between the two.

But what concerns me are two things: Firstly, either extreme manifests serious and dangerous issues. Jesus repeatedly and unrelentlessly attacked Legalism because of it's indifference and hard heartedness. But the other end of the spectrum, is a chaotic free for all! The belief that Christ's atonement has been complete and absolute, to the critical point where we no longer carry any accountability. The belief that we have been given free licence to do whatever we want with no consequences. After all, God will forgive us, right? This is Licentious.

My second concern is its effect on dialogue; on how Christians communicate (or miscommunicate) and suffer severe misunderstanding over this issue. We have a dichotomous scale with Legalism at one extreme end and Licentiousness at the other.

Both will warn the other of its potential danger, and rightfully so! Fundamentalism is a move, a shift towards the dangers of Legalism, while the "Emergent Movement" runs the risk of entering into the Licentious. But to point out flaws and errors while not offering any sort of solution or goal is not complaining, but bickering at best, or bitching at worst. Bitching and bickering are not only counterproductive, but also divisive.

But what is the answer? If we are not to be legalists and we are not to be licentious, what are we supposed to be?

I am not content with the cookie-cutter answer of, "we are to try to be like Jesus". Although the answer is true, it is lame, a cop-out, and poorly thought out at best.

Was Jesus a legalist? Absolutely not! Was Jesus given to free licence? No. So are we to believe that Jesus maintained a perfect balance between the two; the exact epicenter; the balance point of this scale?

Many would say, yes, but I would completely disagree. From what I have seen, this "balancing point" is a sellout and a watering down of all truth.

Jesus does not represent 50% Grace + 50% Law. Jesus is 100% Grace and 100% Law. This position does not exist on this dichotomous scale. I've come to the conclusion that this scale is only useful in determining where we begin our journey, but cannot be used to map our journey itself. To move in any direction on this one-dimensional dichotomy represents absolutely no spiritual growth.

This paradigm - especially within ecumenical discussions - must be laid to rest. There is a third option, a third direction in which we all need to focus on and move in.

Legalism: Exaltation of law or formula, red tape. Preference of the Law to the gospel, doctrine of justification by works.

Licentious: Lascivious, lewd. Disregarding accepted rules or conventions.
Liberty: Being free from captivity, imprisonment, slavery, or despotic control.

We are free to break the Law, but only for the right reasons.

What we really need to be aware of is that this message, this gospel, this good news, this Jesus, is an extremely dangerous one. One that is a threat to nearly every kind of establishment and institutionalism that we know of.

Are we ready to explore what this new avenue means?
Are we prepared to follow his lead?

I don't see this as a perspective or a certain point of view. I would hope this is something we could all collectively agree upon. Namely, that our spiritual maturity, our growth must not be in any sort of horizontal direction on this diagram, but only vertically, only "up"; only towards christlikeness.

It is the clearest it has ever been made to me personally. It seems clear to me this is the core of Christianity, framed in the context of "love thy neighbour".

If I had to trim Christianity down to it's core essentials, I think this would summon it up perfectly in its profoundest simplicity.

This is a christianity I can wholeheartedly embrace. This is a kind of christianity that I could cease being a Rogue in; that I could cease "living apart from the herd".

If this truly isn't the core of christianity; of God's will, then I'm not sure I want anything to do with it.

Please allow me to give credit when credit's due.
The core idea behind this post was from a friend of mine - a baptism youth minister - on his last and final sermon. You can listen to it here.
Freedom ... free from or free to?

Ijtihad

2007-11-10T03:30:00.000-08:00

I have fallen in love with Irshad Manji's concept of ijtihad.

The third source, or root, of Islamic law is called ijtihad (“responsible individual opinion”). It has been used when an issue was not covered by passage in the Qu'ran; a jurist may then resolve the issue by using analogical reasoning. Such reasoning was first employed when Islamic theologians and jurist in conquered countries were confronted with the need to integrate local customs and laws with the Qu'ran.

It led to the Golden Age of Islam. The Muslim principle of ijtihad (independent judgment) should encourage and be receptive to new ideas. The Qu'ran itself demanded constant revision and self-examination. (Although it is obvious that much of Islam today has lost or abandoned this). Knowledge was not simply a matter of acquiring information but a process of transformation.

There was emphases on the unity of truth, which must be sought everywhere. A seeker after truth must shun no science, scorn no book, nor cling fanatically to a single creed. However, this form of ijtihad existed in the Golden Age of Islam and has unfortunately been abandoned by most Muslims, resorting to indoctrination over education, blind-faith over thoughtfulness. How many Christians do I know that do indeed shun science, read only certain books, and definitely cling fanatically to their creeds?

It is a shame that much of Christianity frowns upon analytical thinking, most often times resorting to accusations of putting one's thoughts or authority above God's and quoting Proverbs 14:12 (“There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death” - I know that one was thrown at me more than once). But yet in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 says, “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” Sounds a lot like placing emphases on truth, which must be sought everywhere. A seeker after truth must shun no science, scorn no book, nor cling fanatically to a single creed. It would seem that most Christians suffer from this closemindedness.

I think there is a good lesson and a great richness to take from ijtihad.

Ijtihad is something I'd like to learn more of and incorporate into my "theology" - into my life. In fact, to some degree, I already have.

The Darkly-Enlightened Brothers

2007-11-03T14:11:00.000-07:00

The Enlightenment of the 17th century said that Reason and Faith; Science and Religion were incompatible. And like puppets, people accepted this statement as truth and chose which side they were going to defend: Reason and Science, or Faith and Religion.

Secular-Atheism and Fundamentalism were born from this forced erroneous dichotomy. Christian Fundamentalism was one byproduct of The Enlightenment. I believe the Evangelical is a child of Christian Fundamentalism.

Who are these “Enlightened”? Granted, there are two schools of thought (at least), but both are children of The Enlightenment. These two children are both The Darkly-Enlightened and it has become obvious (to me at least) that both are mistaken. Both schools of thought/belief (Secular-Atheism and Christian Fundamentalism) have been “enlightened” darkly.

A pastor friend of mine has suggested the possibility that the story of Jonah being swallowed by a fish for 3 days could possibly have been a parable or a metaphoric truth. Apparently some people in his congregation (including an elder) didn’t agree with even allowing this possibility. I suppose the argument might have been that since Jesus quotes or refers to Jonah it must be (literally) true (Mat. 12:40-41). Huh? I like quoting Harrison Ford as the President of the United States in Air Force One:

“Peace is not just the absence of conflict, but also the presence of justice.”

It is a great line and absolutely true, in spite of the fact that the movie is a work of fiction.

If we are going to go by this odd standard, than anything Jesus quotes, says as a parable, or refers to must be a literal-factual-historical truth. If this is the case, then there are some pretty big issues that must be re-addressed, because Jesus also quotes from books of the Apocrypha.

The Darkly-Enlightened are not going to dictate the criteria or boundaries of the truth to me. I do not accept their dichotomy of Secular-Atheism (Naturalism) or Christian Fundamentalism. I openly reject The Enlightenment’s (modernity’s) either/or-paradigm. I do not accept that Reason and Faith, & Science and Religion are incompatible!

I embrace the both/and-paradigm. Not only do I believe that Reason and Faith are indeed compatible, I believe they are necessary; the absence of one weakens and cripples the other.

It is interesting that some denominations lack mysticism. We all have natural facilities, innate abilities, or learned methods to help us seek, explore, and "experience" God. These are "methods" of man reaching out to God.

1.The Philosophical method (using our facilities of Reason and Logic)
2.The Academic method (using our facilities of Knowledge and Theology)
3.The Empirical method (using the scientific method)
4.The Mystical method (using our facilities of Creativity, Symbolism, and Imagination)

All of the above listed 4 “methods” are man searching or reaching out to God. There is a 5th, but it isn’t really a method and relies on absolutely none of our natural facilities. We cannot practice this 5th method nor do anything to improve it. But I’ll list it only to make this more complete. The 5th “method” is Revelation (through the “facility” of prophecy), but this isn’t man searching or reaching out to God. This is God reaching out to man.

The Darkly-Enlightened have crippled or outright killed the Empirical, the Philosophical, and the Mystical methods. If Reason and Science cannot be compatible with Faith and Religion, then little is left but the Academic and the Mystical. But if our facility of imagination is made synonymous with pretending, then the mystical experience is also lost. One of The Darkly-Enlightened brothers (Christian Fundamentalism) has embraced the Academic only, which I believe is manifested within most of Protestantism by Sola Scriptura (Scripture only). The other Darkly-Enlightened brother (Secular-Atheism) has laid claim to the Empirical only, which is manifested within modernity’s Naturalism. And both of these dark brothers make their warfare at the expense of all other methods, in essence blinding us and blocking our paths to God.

Catholicism is rich in the mystical. It is the reason why I’m looking more and more seriously into it. It is also right to assume that Orthodoxy is also rich with symbolism and powerful icons. These are not idols and for those who ‘write them off’ as idolatry and ignore them as such, a rich source of powerful spiritual ‘connectiveness’ is lost – deliberately abandoned.

When this Mysticism is used at the abandonment of other methods, it crosses the line between Imagination into pretending or the “make believe”. The Pentecostal’s regular and necessary use of Speaking in Tongues, I feel, is a perfect example of this. Tongues used regularly and by necessity are pretending and make believe.

When the Empirical is used at the abandonment of other methods, you get results like Young Earth Creationism (at the expense of established science), or, the other side of the coin, a sort of Richard Dawkinian-Evolutionism (atheism)(and you’ll notice I didn’t say Darwinian).

When the Philosophic is used at the abandonment of the other methods you get results like the Greek Stoics. God has become abstract and disconnected. God becomes some supernatural entity “out there”, detached and indifferent - a Clockmaker God. There is no “presence” within our world, our lives, nature, our services, churches, or masses. God has become an abstract.

When the Academic is used at the abandonment of other methods you ultimately get Fundamentalism and Biblical-Literalists. Father John Whiteford, of the Orthodox faith, has this to say about the problem with Sola Scriptura:

"An assumption is something that we take for granted from the outset, usually quite unconsciously. As long as an assumption is a valid one, all is fine and well; but a false assumption inevitably leads to false conclusions. One would hope that even when one has made an unconscious assumption that when his conclusions are proven faulty he would then ask himself where his underlying error lay. Protestants who are willing to honestly assess the current state of the Protestant world, must ask themselves why, if Protestantism and its foundational teaching of Sola Scriptura are of God, has it resulted in over twenty-thousand differing groups that cant agree on basic aspects of what the Bible says, or what it even means to be a Christian? Why (if the Bible is sufficient apart from Holy Tradition) can a Baptist, a Jehovah’s Witness, a Charismatic, and a Methodist all claim to believe what the Bible says and yet no two of them agree what it is that the Bible says? Obviously, here is a situation in which Protestants have found themselves that is wrong by any stretch or measure. Unfortunately, most Protestants are willing to blame this sad state of affairs on almost anything — anything except the root problem. The idea of Sola Scriptura is so foundational to Protestantism that to them it is tantamount to denying God to question it, but as our Lord said, "every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a bad tree bringeth forth evil fruit" (Matthew 7:17). If we judge Sola Scriptura by its fruit then we are left with no other conclusion than that this tree needs to be "hewn down, and cast into the fire" (Matthew 7:19)."

If allowed to run to its natural conclusion you end up with a belief-system that puts the bible in its center and not God. This is biblio-idolatry.

In short, not only do we have a great deal to gain and learn from one another, only collectively do we have the keys to God. Only through unity do we have any hope to combat the devestating effects of the Darkly-Enlightened Brothers.

The Innerrantist, Part Four: Extinction

2007-10-05T01:05:00.000-07:00

“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” Nelson Mandela

That is why fundamentalist regimes like the Taliban and Hezbollah oppose change of any sort and discourage learning and education. Keep the masses ignorant and you maintain control. If you can maintain control, you can prohibit change.

When these fundamentalist regimes begin to lose that control is when their ability to remain civil is also lost and any course of action they choose can be justified, including acts of terrorism, sabotage, personal attacks, intimidation, and/or bullying.

The moment we come to believe we have all the answers is the moment we have crippled our ability to learn and grow, if not outright kill it. The moment we believe “we’ve arrived!” is the moment we’ve failed our journey.

The Religion of the Institutional Church has attempted to make itself synonymous with the authority of God. The Religion of ‘Churchianity’ has earned people’s mistrust. This mistrust has erroneously carried over onto God, and Faith has been crippled in many people. The distinction between ‘Faith in God’ and ‘Faith in Church’ has been lost and needs to be reclaimed.

The Religion of ‘Churchianity’ responds to people’s apparent lack of Faith by withdrawal into Fundamentalism. “We are the select few who hold the Truth” becomes their gnostic mantra. They retreat into an extreme state of social isolation. The only question that awaits an answer is how will this extremism manifest itself, through terrorism or extinction? And don’t fool yourselves, The Religion of ‘Churchianity’ has already attempted “terrorism” by it's bullying and intimidation through it's ‘Fire and Brimstone' Sermons.

I think the final stage the Christian denomination of ‘Churchianity’ has left to enter is Extinction. Once it becomes extinct people may once again reclaim their Faith in God because that barrier has been removed. Now please allow me to make it clear what I am, and am not, saying; I am not talking about the death and extinction of the Christian Faith. I am talking about the death and extinction of that aspect, that ‘denomination’ called ‘Churchianity’; the end of the Institutionalized Church. I am not expressing my hopes or desires, but I am expressing what I foresee on the horizon.

Trust, like mistrust, is earned but not given.
Trust leads to Faith.
Faith without Reason leads to Blind-faith.
Blind-faith leads to degenerative Fundamentalism.
Degenerative Fundamentalism prohibits change and cripples education.
Degenerative Fundamentalism leads to isolationism.
Isolationism eventually leads to extremism.
Extremism manifests itself as either terrorism or extinction

The Innerrantist, Part Three: Led Astray

2007-10-02T17:02:00.000-07:00

Once we embrace this paradigm it leads to other problems. The train of thought runs like this:

We know that God in immutable – He doesn’t change. I think often times we turn this into meaning, God is stationary and doesn’t “move”.

Now there are many lost people out there in the world today. All they need is to search, or seek out God – all they need to do is find God! After all, you’ve heard the expression, “There’s a God-shaped hole in all our hearts”.

This means they don’t currently have God and therefore God must be somewhere else, and since God is immutable (doesn’t “move”) then they need to move and search and find God – wherever it is that He is.

Now there are also agents of God active in this world: God’s ambassadors. (Here enters the Innerrantist): They know where God “is” and can tell you how to “find” Him. They know and have experienced “the way” or “the path” to follow. They can lead you to God because they have the absolute and unquestionable “rulebook” in their possession. They have “The Truth”.

“The Truth” (or “the way”) turns out to be a series of checkpoints, or criteria, to convince yourself and them that you’ve “made it”. A public confession of your faith, the Sinner’s Prayer, baptism classes, baptism by water, membership classes, church membership, finding your “spot” in their congregational life, etc.

I have a problem with this when it is taught or implied to be the only way.

The Innerrantist’s trick is making a slight switch or change and redefining a term. This example begins with God’s immutability (He doesn’t change), and switching it to mean being stationary and not “moving”... to not meeting us wherever we are... to meaning we have to go to where God really is (the Innerrantist’s “location”)... to having to believe and become just LIKE the Innerrantist... to become, by their definition, a “true believer”.

And it is at this point where we start hearing language like “Big-C-Christians” vs. “Little-c-christians”, or “lukewarm Christians”, and “Being on fire for God!” Ultimately this slippery slope is all about manipulation and the achievement of an all too human agenda. If you can discredit me, then my beliefs and my ideas are no longer valid because I no longer fit a predefined description of a “true believer”. Uh, uh, no way. That’s a slippery slope I’m not going to let us slide down. This type of methodology doesn’t address the question but attempts to make the question moot by discrediting the person asking the question.

“[Fundamentalism] leads to a literal interpretation of the Bible… They focus on the individual and try to make them the same as all the other “true believers”. They quote Bible verses and use zeal to compensate for their lack of understanding. However, when you identify something they can’t explain, their ultimate response is ‘We aren’t supposed to know the answer’.” The Problem with Modernism by J.G. Lenhart

We know that God in immutable – He doesn’t change. I think often times we turn this into meaning, God is stationary and doesn’t “move”.

Let’s go back to the assumption that God doesn’t “move”. I don’t believe this is true. I believe that God searches for us and God finds and meets us wherever we currently are, in whatever state or “place” we find ourselves in.

If Jesus is the perfect reflection of the Father, this is exactly how He met and reached people.

(Next... Part Four: Extinction)

The Innerrantist, Part Two: A Two-Sided Coin

2007-09-30T14:29:00.000-07:00

The Inerrentist functions only with absolutes. Everything becomes terms of black and white – everything must be objective dichotomy. The Innerantist is aware of subjective “truths” and opinions and to avoid their opinions and beliefs to be labeled “subjective” they absolutely need a non-opinionated standard, or “rulebook”.

The bible becomes their idol, their “rulebook”. But this rulebook – their bible – must also be an absolute: not subjective. Thus is introduced the “Inerrant-Bible-Theory”. If it is inerrant, it is beyond questioning and therefore completely objective and absolute in its authority.

This is the Achilles’ Heel for the Inerrantist who is obligated by definition to defend this Inerrant-Bible, often to ridiculous ends, manifesting itself in a literal interpretation, and most often times resorting to a belief in magic, or circular thinking.

The Secular-atheist’s “faith-system” - in relation to the bible - is a negative belief. It necessarily believes in the unreliability of the bible. Which, when thought about, puts as its center exact the same point of the Inerrantist's. This Secular-atheist inherently believes that they have the ability to collapse the whole of Christianity by simply finding one weak link in the Inerrant-Bible’s armor. If they can do this, then they succeed. The Inerrantist and the Secular-atheist share the same center of belief, but represent either side of that coin – the Inerrent-Bible. One believes it must absolutely be defended at all costs, while the other believes it must be (and has been) defeated and discredited. And while this battle runs on the basic message is left unnoticed and its wisdom lost.

Both the Innerrantist and the Secular-atheist put the authenticity and authority of the bible in the center of their faiths to some greater or lesser degree. Although they have different issues and different believes, they share that one common denominator: the coin itself. Their belief-systems are only then built upon one of these two assumptions. Both subscribe to an either/or paradigm.

I think that is a danger. I'd like to believe there is an both/and paradigm, or even a neither/nor paradigm.

To some degree, it can be said that they both have adopted a modern scientific methodology... and like I just said, I think this either/or paradigm is very risky business.

(Next...Part Three: Led Astray)

The Innerrantist, Part One: The Gold of the Golden Calf

2007-09-30T06:25:00.000-07:00

The bible is not the center of my faith. The bible, and its inerrancy, is not my Achilles’ Heel. Whether the bible is with or without errors; whether the bible is a literal historical truth, or a metaphoric truth; regardless of what degree of authority the bible does or doesn’t command, has little bearing on my faith and my relationship with God – for it wasn’t through the bible that I came to Him.

I’m not here to present an argument to convince you of errors in the bible or the inerrancy of it. I’m here to voice the concern that the Innerrantist should not prohibit others from making that exploration and conclusion for themselves.

For every person’s faith you say may be harmed by allowing errors in the bible, an equal amount of people’s faith will be harmed by the insistence of biblical inerrancy, or the subscription to the Inerrant-Bible-Theory.

I don’t like answering the question of biblical inerrancy. However, I am also aware of the potential risks of leaving this question open-ended.

What if there existed a belief-system, which wasn’t based upon the Inerrant-Bible-Theory? Then you could – hypothetically or potentially – introduce or discover an error in the bible and not have that belief-system shaken or collapse. It doesn’t stand on the foundation of a book (sand), it stands on the foundation of God (rock).

So what’s my take on biblical inerrancy? Let me put it this way: based upon my personal experiences and from what I’ve taken and learned from the bible, I’ll say that I don’t believe in coincidences. When you accumulate enough of them, they stop being coincidences and become orchestrations. Whoever that orchestrator is, I believe in Him!

Now it is important to make the distinction between Biblical Inerrancy and an “Inerrant-Bible-Theory”. An “Inerrant-Bible-Theory” puts the bible at the center of one’s faith, not God. It makes the bible an idol – in short, it suffers from biblio-idolatry.

The gold that the Israelites built the Golden Calf out of was their gold earrings (Exodus 32:2-3). This gold was then melted down and cast into the shape of a calf. After Moses destroyed the idol, he burnt it in the fire, ground it to powder, scattered it on the water, and made the Israelites drink it. It is interesting that Moses didn’t just destroy it. Why would he make them drink it? What’s important is that the material – the gold of the Golden Calf – was always among the Israelites: before, during, and after the Golden Calf. It’s not that the gold wasn’t valuable, it’s just that it wasn’t important enough to worship in God’s place. There’s a lesson to learn here from this story.

I see the bible in these same terms as the gold but not the Golden Calf. I am not comfortable saying that I believe in an “Inerrant-Bible” because it runs the risk of making the bible my faith’s center and becoming an idol – making that transition from precious gold to Golden Calf. To go that far is to go too far: just like the Israelites making their precious and valuable gold and reshaping it into a god. But that’s not to downplay its importance and value. The Israelites drank it and absorbed it within themselves. It is worth making part of our beings. It is worth consuming. It just isn’t worth worshiping. The bible is golden but it isn’t a Golden Calf.

The Inerrantist’s hypnotic mantra becomes, “We believe the Bible is consistent and without contradiction” (which conveniently does away with any exploration or questioned inconsistencies. Isn’t this circular thinking? Isn't this denial or some sort?)

The validity of the Inerrantist’s whole theological-faith-system is based completely on this “Inerrant-Bible-Theory” – not God, and not Christ. The bible itself – and their interpretation of it – becomes the center and foundation of their faith. Remove this and you remove the legitimacy of their faith.

(Next... Part Two: A Two-Sided Coin)

Three Syntheses: A Confession of Faith, of Sorts

2007-09-13T09:04:00.000-07:00

Although I am going to present this an an "academic" conclusion I've arrived at, this isn't really the case. It is true, to a degree, that I have "intellectually" worked my way to this point of making some sort of belief or mental assertion. However, the greater truth lies within my own honesty.

We all, as Christians, know the squirrel-answers, those cookie-cutter beliefs we are supposed to, and expected to have. But when I honestly looked past these external expectations, when I stopped my quasi-deception, when I seriously looked into my heart of hearts, this is what I discovered. But I cannot easily nor accurately explain with words that kind of realization. So, if you'll forgive me and allow me to explain it in the context of an intellectual assent, an academic conclusion, I'll continue:

In Postdenominationalism I talked about a denominational-paradigm and how it comes to explore, collect and understand the truth. The denominational-paradigm begins the process with the truth and ends the process with the truth. It begins with the assumption that their truth and thesis is synonymous: that their truth is whole and complete. It stands to reason that anything added to this truth can only produce a non-truth, or at best, a watered-down truth.

When we add anything to this truth the result can only become a stained version of it's former pures self (as the pure white line turning pink shows). The antithesis added can only yield a synthesis that is not truth.

Okay. Alright, I get it. I understand the concept. If we follow it to it's logical conclusions, the more that is added, or "absorbed", can only lead us on a journey farther and farther from the truth. The more we assimilate and incorporate into what was once pure and white, the more unclear and muddy our perceived truth , our synthesis, becomes.

With this process, it doesn't get better or clearer, it only ever gets worse. Eventually we will find ourselves at a point when we don't know what the truth is.

I can't argue with this logic. It has to be be theoretically accurate. But when I look at Protestantism and it's 23,000 denominations (and this number only goes up if we include Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox) I begin to wonder. This denominational-paradigm works in theory, but fails miserably in practice. How do we come to terms with this? How do I come to terms with this? (Outside of boldly saying that I'm right and everybody else is wrong)?

The denominational-paradigm begins with an assumption; that the whole and complete truth is synonymous with the thesis. As a solution, I had offered a postdenominational-paradigm in which this assumption wasn't made; that the truth (or at least a closer understanding of it) was arrived at only in the synthesis. But the problem is that even this bases itself only an assumption. The only real difference between these two is whether or not we do indeed have in our possession a whole and complete truth.

I like what Irshad Manji said in her book "The Trouble with Islam Today". She said that only God fully understands the truth of anything and that only God can punish the non-believer because only God knows what true belief is.

I agree. And if only God fully understands the truth in anything then only God's truth is synonymous with the thesis. (And by implication our "truths" are all antitheses).

So why the 23,000+ denominations? In a word, Tribalism. We have not overcome our tribal natures. We have, somewhere mixed and half hidden in our mud, the truth. but we are not content with only the truth and contaminate it when we add our subjective versions of our truths and our beliefs either instead of, in condition of, or along side of God's truth.

I believe it when Jesus said He Himself was the Truth, but I don't believe it when we simply assume that carries over and applies to us by necessity when we evoke His name.

I believe that the heretical Jewish Rabbi, Yeshua of Nazareth was - somehow - God limited, but incarnate in flesh. I believe that His crucifixion, death and resurrection somehow healed and made whole and complete the world; that He brought soter to it. But beyond that? Well...

My Confession of Faith is that of , what I'll call, the Three Syntheses. I believe, over the centuries, over the millennia, the truth had been, to some small or large degree, compromised.

I still do believe that any addition to a pure, whole and complete truth can only lead to a muddy and unclear (indeed, veiled) perception of what is and isn't.

The difference is, I don't believe man ever had it in his possession. I believe that Moses (and by implication, Mosaic Law) was a blend of divinely ordained laws and truths and of man-made laws and "truths".

I believe that the Apostle Paul inadvertently gave birth to a Pauline Christianity. I also believe what Paul spoke of in the epistles was a blend of divinely ordained and inspired laws and truths along side with man-made laws and "truths".

I also believe that God spoke to the Prophet Muhammad. Like it or not, there is truth and wisdom in the Qu'ran. But on the same note, I also believe it's "pure divine truth" has been made unclear and muddied by man's tribalism.

I believe that Moses blended divine truth (thesis) with man-made truth (antithesis) and led to a Mosaic Synthesis and manifested itself as the religion of Judaism.

I believe Paul blended divine truth (thesis) with man-made truth (antithesis) and led to a Pauline Synthesis and manifested itself as the religion of Christianity.

I believe Muhammad blended divine truth (thesis) with man-made truth (antithesis) and led to a Muhammadan Synthesis and manifested itself as the religion of Islam.

I believe in the Three Syntheses.

I also believe there are scripture that supports and confirms these things. Although I am tempted to list them, I won't. It is not my intent to prove my truth, or to make my "tribalism" a necessity.

After "coming to this conclusion" (in truth I think I've believed this for a very long time, I've just now being honest with myself), I realize there are some implications that I'm going to need to explore and work through. I'm not overly interested in people trying to convince me why I'm wrong, or that my "interpretational methods" - my hermeneutics - is faulty. I need an environment which allows me to work through this. I am not nor never have been "religiously" set in my ways, but it is where I find myself. and I need to accept that and work from there. Anything else is simply me lying to myself. I just fear I won't find any help or even allowance in this endeavour; just assault, criticism, or (worse of all) silence.

Postdenominationalism

2007-08-12T15:10:00.001-07:00

The Division of Denominations

We need to ask the question, what is it that makes the various denominations within Christianity different? Not specific issues; no, I'm not talking about an in-depth study or analysis into the minutiae. We need to ask, what is it that denominations, collectively, and actively do?

I think denominations are about practices: How do we live out or practice our faith? It usually includes traditions (our orthopraxy) or possibly our "habits".

I think denominations are also about beliefs and doctrine: How do we understand and what do we actually believe in? (our orthodoxy).

So we can say that denominations are about tradition and practice (orthopraxy), and belief and doctrine (orthodoxy). But these must also be a third function: Growth. I feel safe to say that we – as individuals and communities – are meant to learn and grow.

Ultimately for those who belong to denominations believe in growth, learning, and doctrine education through some form or variation of indoctrination. Now, I know “indoctrination” doesn't sound like a nice word, so allow me to explain this method of growth differently:

This methodology believes that thesis + antithesis = synthesis is in error.

We have a thesis (an idea, a theory, a perception of the truth) that the sky is blue. We'll call this my Blue-Sky-Doctrine. In time I come across some one who also has their own thesis, which is contradictory to mine: They believe the sky is paisley. We'll call it their Paisley-Sky-Doctrine. Their idea or perception of the truth, is the antithesis. Two contradictory facts cannot both be right.

We sit and discuss the issue and merge the thesis (my Blue-Sky-Doctrine) with your antithesis (Paisley-Sky-Doctrine) and find our “politically correct” synthesis. In short, we agree that the sky is blue and paisley, maybe, possibly, sometimes bluish-paisley (or paisley-ish-blue).

If I have a bucket filled with the purest spring water and come along and urinate in it – even if only a little bit – the bucket is contaminated. I wouldn't drink from it even though there is a vast amount more pure spring water than urine. And in addition to that, since it was originally filled with water, some of that got displaced and spilled out to accommodate for the extra urine. This synthesis can only take away from, or water-down, the truth.

I had attended an Opus Dei retreat in which the speaker (a Roman Catholic priest) had said “...in matters of doctrine or education, dialogue and discussion of opinions are of no use and fruitless...”.

This line perfectly demonstrates the growth method of the denominationalist. If you are part of a denomination, you are subscribing (knowingly or not and to some degree) to that denomination's practices and beliefs. This is the Denominational-paradigm: It says that thesis + antithesis = synthesis is wrong and in error. However this Denominational-paradigm only works if the whole and complete truth is the thesis. The truth and the thesis must begin as synonymous.

The Denominational-paradigm begins it's growth from a position of assuming it has the whole and complete truth in its grasp and simply doles it out. It may even be argued that this isn't really growth at all, but only indoctrination. This also plays into potential issues of authority.

However, the very existence of numerous denominations – of the division of denominations themselves – makes this starting point – this assumption – difficult to substantiate and hold. However, it must be acknowledged that there is another method, or paradigm of learning and growth.

Postdenominationalism (After denominations)

The Post-denominational-paradigm sees, searches, collects, and claims truth differently.

If we can return to the previous Blue-Sky-Doctrine example we can see it much clearer:

We have a thesis (an idea, a theory, a perception of the truth) that the sky is blue. We'll call this my Blue-Sky-Doctrine. In time I come across some one who also has their own thesis, which is contradictory to mine: They believe the sky is black. We'll call it their Black-Sky-Doctrine. Their idea or perception of the truth, is the antithesis. Two contradictory facts cannot both be right.

We sit and discuss the issue and merge the thesis (my Blue-Sky-Doctrine) with your antithesis (Black-Sky-Doctrine) and come to a synthesis. What we have discovered is that sometimes the sky is blue and sometimes the sky is black. Ultimately we have discovered a larger truth: Day and Night.

Postdenominationalism is akin to wringing the truth out of a thousand lies.

I subscribe to a Post-denominational-paradigm of growth and learning. But since we currently live in a denominational-Christianity, this puts me into somewhat of a conundrum.

Denominations manifest themselves in the real world as churches. So I either belong to all churches, or I belong to none. And since the church itself also has a say in this matter... it become complicated and difficult.

I think there exists the potential of moving into a Postdenominational-Christianity, but we're not there yet.

I am deliberately going to stay away from terms like “emergent”, the “emerging church”, Postmodern, and postmodernity because there exists far too much ambiguity. There is too much confusion between a secular postmodern society vs. a postmodern philosophy and an emergent postmodernity within the church. No, I'm going to keep it simple:

The traditional church (the Institutional church based upon the economic Business Model) as we know and understand it today (and all religion for that matter) is in crisis. I believe it is dying and the question is what are we going to be about it?

I think there are three responses to this question:

Denial: “If it's not broken, don't fix it” is their motto. “There's nothing wrong with Christianity, it's the rest of the world.” This is Fundamentalism and will eventually lead to isolationism. When the shrinking world no longer allows them to exist in isolation, the reaction will be extreme. This extremism will manifest itself as either terrorism, or extinction.
Aggressiveness: This is the “take it out behind the shed and shoot it” extreme. The problem with this is twofold. It offers noting in it's place and it addresses the symptoms but not the disease. A symptom is the Institutional Church (or Christianity) as we know it, but the disease is religiosity.
We move into a Postdenominational age. As the world becomes increasingly smaller and various beliefs, denominations, cultures, and “tribes” are no longer allowed to exist in isolation – are forced into contact or collision – it should become obvious that to wholeheartedly believe that the truth we hold in our possession is the absolute, whole, and complete truth, is not only arrogant, but also ignorant.

I believe we are witnessing the slow and painful death of the Denominational-paradigm. I believe we are also witnessing the labour-pains of Postdenominationalism. But what would or does this look like? Are there any examples of this? Are there any examples of this Centrist Christianity? Are there any examples of a Churchless Christianity? Can we truly have a “doctrineless” Christianity while not be Non-denominational or Unitarian-Universalists?

"Non-denominational" can itself be a denomination. TheOoze (only for an example) is definitely a community rather than just some discussion board. I would even say TheOoze is a church in a certain way. There is no predominant denomination present (or dominant theological perspective) here, which was so ingeniously proven in one thread. But at the same time couldn't TheOoze be called "Non-denominational"? Multi-denominational, maybe, but Non-denominational.? No, I don't think so. I mean some people there belong to their own denominations, but it's something even beyond that. TheOoze isn't just a side dish of a main course.

It has a life of it's own: we all bring something to the table. And this is interesting and worth exploring. Unitarian-Universalists (UUA) is a denomination onto itself. Basically - as far as my limited knowledge here goes - a UUA church hold no official doctrines.

In a way I can see why some would attempt to label TheOoze as being UUA: There are no officially held doctrines at TheOoze. When encountering a creature never before seen and desperately attempting to categorize it, to make it "fit", into the only way they know of: the UUA becomes a close fit. But TheOoze is not UUA and neither is it "Non-denominational". I think this is where some get confused or sidetracked - seeing the "Universal Church" in the Catholic sense of the word. Embracing the ecumenical richness of the various denominations was seen as a bad thing and corruption - in fact, any sort of ecumenical "cross-over" or seemed to be the devil's work. TheOoze is definitely embracing the concept of the "Invisible Universal Church". We all, as Christians, are members of, and bound by, this "Invisible Universal Church". But isn't that the very core that holds Christianity together? Those invisible bonds of the Holy Spirit - like the wind - unpredicitable and uncontrollible by men?

I think it is man's attempt to reign it and control these bonds that give rise to denominations and divisions. After all, they're man-made - they are byproducts of our fallen state and we've embraced them. That's why so many people feel "free" at TheOoze: Those "shackles" have been removed.

I still believe we are and must move out of this disassemble/reassemble cycle and into a Postdenominational Christianity - another word, I suppose, would be Unity.

I think TheOoze may be a step in this direction. I think that's why so many people have a difficult time labeling it, or putting their finger on it... we've never seen this before.

'Seph