It's not a matter of "criticizing" Israel.

[Dexter Van Zile]

At the center of the mainline Protestant narrative about the Arab-
Israeli conflict is a very simple assertion: Israel is in control of
and responsible for the hostility directed at it by its adversaries in
the Middle East. The story is told in various ways, but ultimately
Israel is portrayed as having the ability and the obligation to bring
a unilateral end to the Arab-Israeli conflict through a magical
combination of concessions, withdrawals and peace offers that will
mollify nations, groups and individuals that worked to prevent
Israel’s creation in 1948 and have sought its destruction since then.

This narrative, while comforting, denies the fundamental nature of the
Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel cannot control the enmity directed at it
and the conflict will come to an end when religious and political
leaders that govern the nations in the Middle East choose peace and
stop supporting groups like Hamas and Hezbollah as they attack Israel.
The fact that these leaders have not chosen peace challenges deeply
held mainline beliefs about the perfectibility of human nature and the
ability of mainline churches to influence events in the Middle East.
But the fact remains peace will come to the region when Arab and
Muslim leaders in the region choose peace and not a moment before.

To affirm their brittle and distorted peacemaking narrative,
activists, leaders and staffers from these churches and their allies
in the Middle East have produced materials related to the conflict
that downplay Muslim and Arab hostility toward Israel and Jews in the
Middle East and which portray the Israeli people and their government
as psychologically and spiritually unable to make peace with their
neighbors. To buttress their portrayal of Jews as a people who cannot
be trusted with self-determination, mainline activists, leaders and
commentators enlist the help of Israeli and American Jews whose
unreasonable denunciations of Israel have gotten very little traction
in Israel, but who enjoy substantial support from audiences in Europe
and the United States who exhibit a persistent and unnatural appetite
for stories of Jews behaving badly. Mainline activist, leaders, and
staffers also invoke Christian Zionist support for Israel in a manner
that short-circuits honest discussion the underlying causes and
impacts of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

At times, these activists, leaders, commentators and their allies in
the Middle East resort to scripture to portray Jewish sovereignty as a
violation of the boundaries set for the Jewish people by the New
Testament and Israeli use of force as a cosmological affront to the
Christian nomos and Israelis as enemies of God.

Mainline materials about the Arab-Israeli distort history, judge
Israeli behavior against a utopian standard of conduct while at the
same time denying Israel’s adversaries of moral agency. The overall
impact of this narrative is to render Arab and Muslim violence as
unremarkable and Israeli use of force as the root of the conflict.

[fc...@comcast.net]

 

> The fact that these leaders have not chosen peace challenges deeply
> held mainline beliefs about the perfectibility of human nature

I (a member of a mainline denomination) believe in TOTAL DEPRAVITY.

Chris Anderson

 

[Mike Frost]

I concur with Chris both as a Lutheran and as one serving in the UCC - there is nothing perfectable about human nature.

We strive to be and do better but we cannot.

 

Mike Frost

[Scott Paeth]

Dexter,

The remark quoted below, it seems to me, to reflect the basic
difference between our perspectives on the Arab-Israeli conflict. You
assume, I believe wrongly, that Israel is a powerless victim whose
responses are dictated solely by the actions of others. I believe
Israel is a morally responsible agent, who bears the guilt of its
actions just as its enemies bear the guilt of theirs.

It is because Israel lays claim to a mantle of moral superiority and
because it is an ally of ours, that I believe we have a particular
obligation to speak out. As I've said before: Iran has no reason to
listen to us because it's not an ally, and we don't expect Iran to act
morally vis-a-vis international laws and obligations (though we
believe it should). On the other hand, we expect Israel to do so, and
have the leverage to hold it to those obligations, and I believe we
should.

But as I say, we've gone over this territory before, so I won't pursue
it, though I'd be happy to reply to specific questions.

Scott

[Herb Davis]

Dear Dexter and Scott, I thought that Dexter's and Scott's comments were
very helpful. At least they were helpful to me in understanding where I
sort of come down. Dexter sees Israel as victim that should be supported
and Scott see Israel as a free agent that is somewhat responsible for the
situation. I think I side more with Scott but sympatric to Dexter. My
concern is that USA support may not be helpful in trying to find ways to
lessen Iran's threat and it may give false hope to Israel. If Israel sees
itself as a helpless victim that is very dangerous because she has powerful
weapons and military. I get the feeling Dexter that if you put Israel in
the victim position then they demand special treatment and you keep saying
that is part of the problem. I think I understand my position better
because of your comments. Peace, Herb

---

[Dexter Van Zile]

Thanks for your response, Scott (and Herb). You address the issues I
raise without evasions. I appreciate that. It exhibits a maturity and
seriousness I admire.

My response and I'll keep it short:

I do not think Israel is a powerless victim.

It does not however have the power to bring a unilateral end to the
conflict, as mainline churches have indicated. I'm glad that you
acknowledge that Israel's enemies bear the guilt of its sins. Mainline
churches have, in the main, spoken as if Israel is the only actor
involved in the conflict that has moral choices to make.

Again, thanks gentlemen for your responses.

[steveswope57]

I agree; this discussion has helped me clarify my own sometimes-
visceral response. Dexter and I went round and round on one aspect of
this some time ago and reached an accomodation. Ultimately, I agree
with how Dexter has laid things out in the quoted section below. I
don't think Israel is powerless but neither do I think that Gandhi's
example is going to do it a lot of good. The enmity of its neighbors
is far too great, and their own power equally great. Israel is, in a
sense, dependent on its enemies' actions to end the conflict.

[Willis Elliott]

Dexter:

 

Your statement has the virtue of being factual.

Facts are frustrated by the need to swim through ideological nets.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1716 - Release Date: 10/9/2008 9:44 AM

[Willis Elliott]

Mike & Chris:

 

On "Bill Moyer's Journal" tonight, George Soros said that Marxism & unregulated capitalism share the same fatal "flaw," viz. this: both ideologies wrongly believe that leaders can be trusted to act in the people's interest.

 

Niebuhr called the flaw "original sin."

 

Chris, "total depravity."

 

Jesus (implicitly), loving yourself first, then maybe your neighbor, then maybe even God.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

[fc...@comcast.net]

Willis & Mike,

 

I have been saddened by the fact that Gabe's book THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT AND CHRISTIAN FAITH (Eerdmanns 1982) did not have the readership that it deserved. It is a simple book, a short book but but a solid book. One of his great sentences was "The religious Right's confidence in the 'mighty man' goes absolutely contrary to this basic insight into the corruption of power." (48)

 

Somehow I believe the party spirit within the Christian Church kept this book from being read by people it should have influenced. Gabe should be commended for dealing honestly and respectfully with fellow Christians. As Proverbs 27:6 states: "Well meant are the wounds a friend inflicts, but profuse are the kisses of an enemy."

 

Chris Anderson

--
"A confessor is one who is not ashamed to do something quite useless in a world of serious purposes." Karl Barth (CD III.4 p. 78)

[Gabriel Fackre]

Chris,

 

What a memory! What a library!  J

 

                         G

 

 

 

---

<BR

<BR

[Gabriel Fackre]

Confessors,

 

“John Calvin Got a Bad Rap.” That’s the caption on the New York Times review of Marilynne Robinson’s Pulitzer prize-winning novel GILEAD. Now this faithful UCC member of one of our congregations in Iowa has written a sequel, HOME. We have just begun to read and study its theological themes in our Theological Tabletalk group on Cape Cod. How about taking up this remarkable book here in the Open Forum? I place below the current NY Times review of this latter writing

 

                 --Gabe

……………………………………………………………………………………

Return of the Prodigal Son

Ulf Andersen/Getty Images

Marilynne Robinson

•  

E-Mail

• Print
• Single Page
• Save
• Share
• Linkedin
• Digg
• Facebook
• Mixx
• Yahoo! Buzz
• Permalink

By A. O. SCOTT

Published: September 19, 2008

Early in Marilynne Robinson’s “Gilead,” one of the few recent American novels that have found and deserved both critical praise and readerly love, the narrator, the Rev. John Ames, admits that he has a tendency “to overuse the word ‘old.’ ” This habit, he muses, “has less to do with age . . . than it does with familiarity. It sets a thing apart as something regarded with a modest, habitual affection. Sometimes it suggests haplessness or vulnerability. I say ‘old Boughton,’ I say ‘this shabby old town,’ and I mean that they are very near my heart.”

Skip to next paragraph

HOME

By Marilynne Robinson

325 pp. Farrar, Straus & Giroux. $25

Related

First Chapter: ‘Home’ (September 21, 2008)

'Gilead': Acts of Devotion (November 28, 2004)

In the Magazine: A Moralist of the Midwest (October 24, 2004)

An Online Discussion of Marilynne Robinson's 'Housekeeping'

Ames, an important figure in Robinson’s new novel, “Home,” is also, at least in this passage, allowing his creator to speak through him, and to acknowledge with some slyness a tic of her own remarkable literary style. If anything, the word “old” pops up even more frequently in “Home” — a third-person retelling of many of the events in “Gilead” seen through the eyes of 38-year-old Glory Boughton — than it did in the earlier book. Its meanings are complex, at times contradictory. Robinson uses “old,” as Ames did, to refer to people, places and objects that are dear and intimately known — including Ames himself, well into his 70s in 1956, when both novels take place. The word also suits Robert Boughton — usually called “the old man” — a fellow minister who has been Ames’s friend since childhood. Boughton’s faltering health has brought Glory, the youngest of his eight children and recently abandoned by a no-account fiancé, home to Gilead, Iowa. The big, vine-covered house, in Glory’s childhood an emblem of the family’s prosperity and fertility, holds on to the ghost of its former vitality. “The furniture and the damage done to it in the course of the old robust domestic life were all still there,” she observes. “And the old books.”

Old life, old books, old habits. Glory seems to settle into a world as worn and comfortable as the title of the book. But for her, and for Robinson, what is near and dear — an older brother, say, or a scrap of textbook history, or home itself — can also be unaccountably mysterious, even uncanny. “What a strange old book it was,” Glory thinks as she reads the Bible, a daily practice she maintains partly to keep some connection to that “old life” of habitual piety she knew growing up in a minister’s household, and partly out of a deeper religious feeling. (“Faith for her was habit and family loyalty, a reverence for the Bible which was also literary, admiration for her mother and father. And then that thrilling quiet of which she had never felt any need to speak.”) Surely she knows the book backward and forward, but she discovers that still it has the power to haunt and surprise. “I will open my mouth in a parable,” she reads, “I will utter dark sayings of old, which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us.”

A clue to the intentions behind both “Home” and “Gilead” — which do not coexist in a relation of chronological sequence or thematic priority, but instead turn together like enmeshed gears impelling a single narrative machine — may lie in that passage from the 78th Psalm. It suggests that familiar stories and pieces of wisdom can nonetheless be obscure, even sinister or magical, in their lessons and meanings. And it is a characteristic of Robinson’s prose to proceed with self-evident clarity and simplicity while seeming at the same time pregnant with troubling implications. Most of what might be called the action in “Home” consists of the movements of a few characters — Glory, her father and her brother Jack — around their grand old house, from kitchen to living room, from garden to porch. They speak with sometimes strained politeness as they busy themselves with mundane domestic tasks. But those quotidian facts of what Glory thinks of as “difficult, ordinary life” feel, in Robinson’s hand, like vessels of the terrible, the sublime, the miraculous.

• 1
• 2
• 3

Next Page »

A. O. Scott is a film critic for The Times. He is writing a book about the American novel since World War II.

 

[rjeasleasland]

Gabe and all: Many of us during pastorates or what ever have had to deal with alcoholism and addiction of parishioners or others. I'm reading a sort of new approach entitled, "The Alcoholism and Addiction Cure", it criticizes the 12 step model of AA and others and challenges the idea 'incurability', a premise of most treatment programs. Yes it involes a metaphysical/zen something and pushes "belief". It has more substance than the power of positive thinking stuff. It falls into the "wholeness" category. Some of the "ideas"  I think are worth a read. His treatment method claims a 16% relapse rate which is 5 times higher than most treatment programs.  I think most of his "ideas" could fit into a Chritian framework if adopted graciously. If the church is "dry" of anything it is a new approach to abuse of all kinds.  Anyone out there found new life in Christ in this area? I am also wondering about religeous experientialism as addiction. I know I often experience an adrenaline high from preaching and recognized it as something unhealthy, or is it. Woirship as celebration does have physiological effects along with the spiritual content.  What studies have been done along this line? Willis, what does that computer bank mind of yours have on this.  Just  thinking out on the prairie-------Roger

[Willis Elliott]

An amazing & attractive witness, Gabe, to the realities of sin & grace.

 

We are, I believe, in a new time of "preparation for the gospel."  The yearning for virtue & inner stability is quenching the literati's laughter at the "old" ways of thinking & living.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: Gabriel Fackre

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 10:35 AM

Subject: RE: Marilynne Robinson

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.0/1719 - Release Date: 10/10/2008 4:08 PM

[Herb Davis]

Dear Willis and Chris,  I am not so sure that what George Soros mentioned as fatal flaw and St. Paul understands as the power of sin is the same.  I am not sure that modern secular folks believe that we can't with the proper process, ideology or method conquer the fatal flaw, but for St. Paul  we are helpless against the power of sin.  We need Christ's redeeming act on the cross and the continued reception of God's grace through the body of Christ.  I think that the power of the computer convinced some that we could over come the fatal flaw.

 

we need to remember that sin is not just associated with the powerful.  A transforming book by Marilynne Robinson, (Gabe beloved writer)  "The Death of Adam" which is a wonderful read for anyone who likes Calvin's reminds us that Lord Action remark about power corrupts was used against the Calvinist.  It is also interesting to note that Taylor in his book on the "Secular Age" claims Reformed Churches hastened the arrival of the secular age.  He blames Calvin.  Sin abound in all of us.  I wonder how the UCC will be seen in the future?

 

We need to remember that victims can also use their position as acts of evil.  

 

Sin is a power not a fatal flaw and that is why visions and progressive churches maybe more dangerous than tradition.  Of course tradition is also dangerous.  Peace, Herb 

 

[rjeasleasland]

Herb: Luthern liturgy agrees with Calvin, "If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us". Rock on oh man of God! The truth is stranger than it used to be only to the unbeliever-----the rest of us beg for mercy everyday.   Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Herb Davis

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

[Gabriel Fackre]

Herb,

 

Are we to take this to mean that you will lead us in a discussion of that great new Calvinist novel by Marilynne Robinson, HOME?

 

                              --GABE  

 

---

From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Herb Davis
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 9:31 PM
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: fatal flaw and orginal sin

 

.................we need to remember that sin is not just associated with the powerful.  A transforming book by Marilynne Robinson, (Gabe’s  beloved writer)  "The Death of Adam" which is a wonderful read for anyone who likes Calvin's reminds us ………...  Peace, Herb 

 

[John Cedarleaf]

Gabe, Chris,

Its on my desk as I type this. We conclude an adult class this am on
faith and politics; very interesting conversation about the broader
moral agenda and how , would you believe it, Democrats can be Christians
too!! Even some of my most Republican congregants are seeming to realize
this.Whenever we let ideology trump theology we run into trouble,
whether on the left or on the right. When will we ever learn? When will
we ever learn?

John

>
> Chris,
>
>
>
> What a memory! What a library! J
>
>
>
> G
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Confessi...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of
> *fc...@comcast.net
> *Sent:* Friday, October 10, 2008 11:50 PM
> *To:* Confessi...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: It's not a matter of "criticizing" Israel.

> *From:* Mike Frost <mailto:prm...@ptd.net>
>
> *To:* Confessi...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com>
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 09, 2008 2:10 PM
>
> *Subject:* RE: It's not a matter of "criticizing" Israel.

>
>
>
> I concur with Chris both as a Lutheran and as one serving in
> the UCC - there is nothing perfectable about human nature.
>
> We strive to be and do better but we cannot.
>
>
>
> Mike Frost
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----

> *From:* Confessi...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com>
> [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of
> *fc...@comcast.net <mailto:fc...@comcast.net>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 09, 2008 2:33 PM
> *To:* Confessi...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: It's not a matter of "criticizing" Israel.

[Herb Davis]

[Herb Davis]

Dear Gabe,  How I would love to read Robinson's new novel "Home" with you folks.  Her previous book was a wonderful affirmation of Reformed understanding of pastor as Servant of the Word.  I am just reading her wonderful essays on modern thought, "The Death of Adam."  In a strange way she is raising the question Bloom raised some years ago in the book, "The Closing of the American Mind."  Many of us in CC have deep commitments to some of the concerns she raises.  Often I wonder if we are just a bunch of folks out in right field and then a book like Home comes along and you wonder why so little excitement and interest about this at our national office.  Andy Lang is passionate about some of these issues and I think John Thomas and Lydia but my recent visit there didn't find any great excitement about the concerns of Robinson.  Like a fool, I sort of agree with Willis we maybe on the edge of a opening for the Gospel that our Reformed tradition my speak a strange and powerful word, but I wonder if there is much commitment to that tradition or who will speak the Word?  Have great time Tuesday.  Wish I was with you.  Peace, Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Gabriel Fackre
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 7:31 AM

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: fatal flaw and orginal sin

[Gabriel Fackre]

Herb,

 

It’s late at night and your wheels are turning well. I take that to mean you will lead us in a discussion of HOME to get us back on a Reformed track.

 

For starters, here are some questions worth pondering that we’ll take up at our Cape Theological Tabletalk and might also consider here:

 

      1) Who is Marilynne Robinson? (Check Wikepedia, but not enough there about her church connection. I have some info on that from a friend of hers)

 

2)      Why has her writing gotten such attention?

 

3)      How do we read her work so we understand why she has gotten such acclaim?

 

4)      What is the working theology in her novels?

 

5)      How can we learn from her about communicating the Christian faith?

 

6)      Where  is the connection between Gilead and Home ?

 

7)      When do we get some light on these questions from the section we are reading?

 

                                            --Gabe

 

 

---

From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Herb Davis
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 10:24 PM
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: fatal flaw and orginal sin

 

Dear Gabe,  How I would love to read Robinson's new novel "Home" with you folks.  Her previous book was a wonderful affirmation of Reformed understanding of pastor as Servant of the Word.  I am just reading her wonderful essays on modern thought, "The Death of Adam."  In a strange way she is raising the question Bloom raised some years ago in the book, "The Closing of the American Mind."  Many of us in CC have deep commitments to some of the concerns she raises.  Often I wonder if we are just a bunch of folks out in right field and then a book like Home comes along and you wonder why so little excitement and interest about this at our national office.  Andy Lang is passionate about some of these issues and I think John Thomas and Lydia but my recent visit there didn't find any great excitement about the concerns of Robinson.  Like a fool, I sort of agree with Willis we maybe on the edge of a opening for the Gospel that our Reformed tradition my speak a strange and powerful word, but I wonder if there is much commitment to that tradition or who will speak the Word?  Have great time Tuesday.  Wish I was with you.  Peace, Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Gabriel Fackre
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 7:31 AM
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: fatal flaw and orginal sin

Herb,

 

Are we to take this to mean that you will lead us in a discussion of that great new Calvinist novel by Marilynne Robinson, HOME?

 

                              --GABE  

 

---

From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Herb Davis
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 9:31 PM
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: fatal flaw and orginal sin

 

.................we need to remember that sin is not just associated with the powerful.  A transforming book by Marilynne Robinson, (Gabe’s  beloved writer)  "The Death of Adam" which is a wonderful read for anyone who likes Calvin's reminds us ………...  Peace, Herb 

 

 

<BR

[rjeasleasland]

John: Never, but this should be a time when Democratic Christians offer new
dialogue on how little separates us from being one in Christ. Roger

[Willis Elliott]

Gabe:

1

I'll be most interested in what y'all have to say about your #5.  My guess is that her apparently heavy dose of street-level Niebuhrian realism (with none of your "sloppy agape" sentimentalism) helps readers expose themselves to her Calvinism.  /  Also, a sense of impenetrable yet luminous mystery - what Michael Novak in his latest calls "dark knowledge": "No One Sees God: The Dark Night of Atheists and Believers" - responding specifically to aruments of ""the new-aggressive atheists Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, & Christopher Hitchens. On TV Bookspan yesterday, he spoke between a brilliant male atheist & a brilliant female agnostic, both of them highly respectful of his critique.  Novak is 75, his oeuvre centers in God, & his latest book is the apex: sorry I can't be in a group discussing it.  /  A few words of his from yesterday's trialog: "The end of the secularist age has arrived"; we need an age of "reasoned conversation" based on "mutual respect."

"Dark knowledge" is knowledge in another dimension of human awareness: it is not doubt.  We are getting beyond the arrogant bigotry implicit in the word "Enlightenment."  A person's "first experience of the Infinite" is the discovery of humanity's "unquenchable drive to ask questions" going beyond our senses.  Religion is natural, an essential of human nature; the "supernatural" didn't appear until the 11th c. in Europe.

 

2

The reviews make the book almost interesting enough for me to read.  Partly nostalgia: I was pastoring during the '50s, the decade of her two "Gilead" & "Home" pastors.  (And I knew pastors of their names.)

3

She says there was only a theological "inch" between those Presbyterian & Congregational pastors.  Evidence is the 1801 Comity Agreement using the Hudson River to divide between their churches: east-of the Hudson Presbyterian becoming Congregational, & the reverse to the west of the Hudson.  George Buttrick was my pastor in the early 1920s in the Church of the Circle (Presbyterian-Congregational) in Buffalo, NY (still famous for extensive Tiffany glass).

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Gabriel Fackre

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

[John Cedarleaf]

Roger:

Some theologians wear well and some don't. This is a well wearing time for Rienie Niebuhr. In this political season I keep coming back to him again and again as I try and separate the wheat from the chaff.

John

[Scott Paeth]

John,

You are one among many in the middle of a Reinhold Niebuhr resurgence. He has a lot to say to our present moment. I have assigned my students in "Religion in the Contemporary United States" to read "The Irony of American History," which is very contemporary, though written over 50 years ago.

Scott

[Gabriel Fackre]

Willis,

 

Glad to get your comments on Niebuhr, Michael Novak et al. Amen. (also Scott and John on RN. Scott do you still run a Niebuhr site?).

 

Novak was a resource to our Ethics Task Force of the UCC Long Range Planning Committee “way back when,” especially helpful on the ethics of sexuality, and he knew his Niebuhr. He was good on a critique of Nixon too in Choosing Our King , and on the subject of  “unmeltable ethnics.” At one point he was politically radical, then, oddly, turned into a  neo-conservative. Here’s hoping the rudder has re-appeared in this book which sounds like it returns to themes in his first one, Belief and Unbelief .

 

Here’s hoping too you can get ahold of HOME and share your ideas.

 

                                 --Gabe   

 

---

[Scott Paeth]

I debated Novak here at DePaul a year and a half ago. I found him to be a surprisingly nice and pleasant man (surprising, on the basis of his writing and my attitude toward his viewpoint, I suppose). He was certainly well-versed in the neo-con arguments about the Iraq war, and for a Catholic, surprisingly unconcerned with the statements that both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have made on the subject.

Scott

[Willis Elliott]

Herb:

 

As usual, (1) I agree with everything you said (2) & can't resist commenting.

1

Yes, Soros' "fatal flaw" & Paul's "the power of sin" are not the same.

2

But both of them believe that the flaw is INCURABLE by us: it's "natural," a given in our nature as we know it.  "Incurable" is a therapeutic way to speak of it; & the metaphor provides  an intervention "fatal" does not provide: the disease may come to be "in remission."

3

Paul despairs without divine intervention (Ro.7), Soros prescribes medicine he believes will stop the progress of the otherwise "fatal" disease.  Soros' medicine

is a world-constructed greed-control system.

4

Paul denies the possibility of humanly provided remission: we are already "dead in our sins."  Only grace, through God's own self-sacrifice in Jesus Christ our Lord, can save us.

5

BUT here's a Soros/Paul convergence.  They agree that human beings are responsible for using their powers to improve the human condition.  Paul has a two-level (divine-human) motivation, & (for all I know: I've never heard him or of him on the subject of religion) Soros may have the same.

6

So far, I've commented on the "fatal flaw" (richly-rightly called "original sin") as a defect-deficit.  How (Biblically understood) did it happen?  We weren't "made that way."  We must've done something wrong.  Well, did we start the wrongness?  No, "the power of sin" (as you well call it; Gn.3 & all that, including Rom.1-7) started it.

The Biblical view of evil is more profound than the view that sees evil as only impersonal, like "natural disasters."  There's a personal element -cosmic/societal/individual/historical - in evil.  While "sin" is human, in the cosmos we're not the only sinners.  (As you know, Bonhoeffer was in the habit of encompassing the whole moral-spiritual agonic reality as "the Good Powers" against "the Evil Powers.")  /  The impulse toward Christ begins when a person self-views as a hopeless case (your word below, "helpless"): one does not repent (Hebrew & Greek, "turn" from) of hope.

7

Yes, the computer has so increased our powers as to "convince some that we could overcome the fatal flaw."  But it's illusional: the fatal flaw corrupts all our powers, old & new.

8

As you imply, no one - certainly no class in any society - is free from "sin" & "the power of sin."  (As you say, "victims can also use their position as acts of evil.")  Yes, (as many have been saying) Reinhold Niebuhr - with his profound understanding of the human powers of egocentricity, self-delusion, unconscious as well as deliberate insensitivities - is back.  And the devil persists in the old trick (as in Job) of bringing evil out of good (against the Lord's bringing good out of evil): one component in the credit-crunch is the alliance of greed with compassion & equality.

8a

Excessive COMPASSION:  Churches put pressure on government to pressure lending institutions into "affordable housing," which came to mean loans to people too poor to be able to keep their mortgages paid up.

8B

Excessive EQUALIITY:  A competing religion, egalianity, added the pressure of the ideological conviction that - all being "equal" - if any can afford houses, society should see to it that all should have houses.

9

Finally, a tiny disagreement.  You conclude with a wise warning about "progressive churches" & "tradition": "Sin is a power not a fatal flaw."  That's either/or rhetoric, preaching.  In a reflective (rather than homiletic mode), I think you'll agree that the fatal flaw is one way the power of sin shows itself.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: Herb Davis

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 8:31 PM

Subject: RE: fatal flaw and orginal sin

[rjeasleasland]

Willis: I can't believe how the media is able to manipulate masses of people so that they run past the best minds and most careful economic watch dogs. The so called housing crisis only represents a 3% loss to the entire banking industry. The bad mortaguages could have been written off and the cost spred over the banking industry with little impact to anyones bottom line. Instead the media created panic by having the 3% wag the dog of the whole international financial community. Who will pay for it? Small investors who let media fear rule their heads. Who will gain?--- the smart money that lays in wait for such opportunities. A Japanese firm picked up one of the banks caught in the media mania and made 85% on a few billion in one day. All this does is put larger amounts of economic power in the hands of a fewer and fewer mega wealthy  and robs small investors if they need short term funds. These sucker bets never hurt the rich. When will the church get smart enough to advise its members on economic truth???? On the beautiful sea of grass------------Roger

[Herb Davis]

Gabe,  I have not seen a ground swell for a discussion of "Home."  I think Jim Gorman lead a discussion on"Gilead" some year ago.  I don't think I am the one to lead the discussion.  Why don't you lead it and fed us info off the group on the gap.  I will not get the book until Oct. 30.  I do think we ought to look at her ,"Death of Adam."  Don't get carried away Gabe remember Marilyanne is a sinner.  Herb

[Herb Davis]

Dear Willis,  I think people who are close to death get is wrong or right and since you are pushing a 100 now over 90 I assume you are close to death.  But you have fooled me for years.  Nevertheless I liked you comment earlier that we are in a pre Gospel time.  I hope you are on to something.  Is the UCC in a pre Gospel time?

 

Now on Niebuhr.  I like Niebuhr and he has been a good teacher for me but I think he might be closer to Soro than Paul.  Niebuhr converted me with his emphasis on original sin and hubris but there is very little focus on baptism, Eucharist or the Body of Christ.  Nevin convert me on his Incarnation Theology.   Remember Hauerwas accrues Neibuhr of being a secularist.  I think Gabe defended Neibuhr against that charge but the reason Neibuhr may be a hero to this secular age is that the age maybe coming like you said, "pre Gospel." 

 

The struggle for me is to hold together "the power of sin" from which we cannot deliver ourselves and "new life in Jesus Christ."  I assume that is not a struggle as much as it is the ability to receive a gift, the gifts of sacramental grace in the church and the Word and to live a life of thanksgiving. To live believing in the fatal flaw as the defining mark of history is to be always struggling as Soro is to improve, progress, limit the flaw.  

 

If we are in a pre Gospel time we need to find room not just for progressive politics but for the "body of Christ".   Peace, Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Willis Elliott

Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 5:33 PM
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

[Gabriel Fackre]

Herb,

 

Will take your advice on  not getting carried away, pastor. J

 

What I will do on Robinson, is pass on, from time to time, any insights that crop up in our Theological Tabletalk group and welcome any feedback from Open Forum folk, which I will, in turn, pass on to this group of 10-15 Cape Cod pastors reading it weekly. And am planning to get The Death of Adam from the library this week.

 

                          --Gabe

 

---

From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Herb Davis

Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 7:46 PM
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: RE: Marilynne Robinsonn

[Willis Elliott]

Gabe (& Herb):

 

I'm happy with your decision, & eager for the group's "insights" - a group I pray for, &  grieve not to be with.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: Gabriel Fackre

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.0/1723 - Release Date: 10/13/2008 6:42 PM

[John Cedarleaf]

Herb,

Thanks for the comments. Even though I think Niebuhr wears well this
doesn't mean that he is the Messiah! All have sinned and fallen short of
the glory of God.....

John

> Dear Willis, I think people who are close to death get is wrong or
> right and since you are pushing a 100 now over 90 I assume you are
> close to death. But you have fooled me for years. Nevertheless I
> liked you comment earlier that we are in a pre Gospel time. I hope
> you are on to something. Is the UCC in a pre Gospel time?
>
> Now on Niebuhr. I like Niebuhr and he has been a good teacher for me
> but I think he might be closer to Soro than Paul. Niebuhr converted
> me with his emphasis on original sin and hubris but there is very
> little focus on baptism, Eucharist or the Body of Christ. Nevin
> convert me on his Incarnation Theology. Remember Hauerwas accrues
> Neibuhr of being a secularist. I think Gabe defended Neibuhr against
> that charge but the reason Neibuhr may be a hero to this secular age
> is that the age maybe coming like you said, "pre Gospel."
>
> The struggle for me is to hold together "the power of sin" from which
> we cannot deliver ourselves and "new life in Jesus Christ." I assume
> that is not a struggle as much as it is the ability to receive a gift,
> the gifts of sacramental grace in the church and the Word and to live
> a life of thanksgiving. To live believing in the fatal flaw as the
> defining mark of history is to be always struggling as Soro is to
> improve, progress, limit the flaw.
>
> If we are in a pre Gospel time we need to find room not just for
> progressive politics but for the "body of Christ". Peace, Herb
>
> -----Original Message-----

> *From:* Confessi...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Willis
> Elliott
> *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2008 5:33 PM
> *To:* Confessi...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: fatal flaw and orginal sin

>
> Herb:
>
> As usual, (1) I agree with everything you said (2) & can't resist
> commenting.
> 1
> Yes, Soros' "fatal flaw" & Paul's "the power of sin" are not the same.
> 2
> But both of them believe that the flaw is INCURABLE by us: it's
> "natural," a given in our nature as we know it. "Incurable" is a
> therapeutic way to speak of it; & the metaphor provides an
> intervention "fatal" does not provide: the disease may come to be
> "in remission."
> 3
> Paul despairs without divine intervention (Ro.7), Soros prescribes
> medicine he believes will stop the progress of the otherwise
> "fatal" disease. Soros' medicine

> is /a world-constructed greed-control system/.

> 4
> Paul denies the possibility of humanly provided remission: we are
> already "dead in our sins." Only grace, through God's own
> self-sacrifice in Jesus Christ our Lord, can save us.
> 5

> BUT here's a Soros/Paul /convergence/. They agree that human
> beings are/ _responsible_ /for using their powers to improve the

> human condition. Paul has a two-level (divine-human) motivation,
> & (for all I know: I've never heard him or of him on the subject
> of religion) Soros may have the same.
> 6
> So far, I've commented on the "fatal flaw" (richly-rightly called
> "original sin") as a defect-deficit. How (Biblically understood)
> did it happen? We weren't "made that way." We must've done
> something wrong. Well, did we start the wrongness? No, "the
> power of sin" (as you well call it; Gn.3 & all that, including
> Rom.1-7) started it.
> The Biblical view of evil is more profound than the view that sees
> evil as only impersonal, like "natural disasters." There's a

> /personal/ element -cosmic/societal/individual/historical - in

> evil. While "sin" is human, in the cosmos we're not the only
> sinners. (As you know, Bonhoeffer was in the habit of
> encompassing the whole moral-spiritual agonic reality as "the Good
> Powers" against "the Evil Powers.") / The impulse toward Christ
> begins when a person self-views as a hopeless case (your word
> below, "helpless"): one does not repent (Hebrew & Greek, "turn"
> from) of hope.
> 7

> Yes, the /computer/ has so increased our powers as to "convince

> some that we could overcome the fatal flaw." But it's illusional:
> the fatal flaw corrupts all our powers, old & new.
> 8
> As you imply, no one - certainly no class in any society - is free
> from "sin" & "the power of sin." (As you say, "victims can also
> use their position as acts of evil.") Yes, (as many have been
> saying) Reinhold Niebuhr - with his profound understanding of the
> human powers of egocentricity, self-delusion, unconscious as well
> as deliberate insensitivities - is back. And the devil persists

> in the old trick (as in Job) of _bringing evil out of good_

> (against the Lord's bringing good out of evil): one component in
> the credit-crunch is the alliance of greed with compassion & equality.
> 8a
> Excessive COMPASSION: Churches put pressure on government to
> pressure lending institutions into "affordable housing," which
> came to mean loans to people too poor to be able to keep their
> mortgages paid up.
> 8B
> Excessive EQUALIITY: A competing religion, egalianity, added the
> pressure of the ideological conviction that - all being "equal" -

> if any can afford houses, society should see to it that /all
> /should have houses.

> 9
> Finally, a tiny disagreement. You conclude with a wise warning
> about "progressive churches" & "tradition": "Sin is a power not a
> fatal flaw." That's either/or rhetoric, preaching. In a
> reflective (rather than homiletic mode), I think you'll agree that
> the fatal flaw is one way the power of sin shows itself.
>
> Grace and peace--
> Willis
>
> ----- Original Message -----

> *From:* Herb Davis <mailto:herb....@mindspring.com>

> *To:* Confessi...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com>

> *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2008 8:31 PM
> *Subject:* RE: fatal flaw and orginal sin

[Scott Paeth]

Were he still around, Niebuhr couldn't agree more!

Scott

[Herb Davis]

Dear Scott and John, It's hard to get a fight going in this group. Peace,
Herb

[Herb Davis]

Sermon Note: Oct.26, Twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost, Matt.22:24-46

The two texts in our reading for 24th Sunday after Pentecost are rich but I
think difficult to connect. Yet the texts are so rich that one hates to
select one and forget the other. Oh the dilemma of a preacher!

The reading is two questions, one from the Pharisees who are frustrated by
their failure to trap Jesus. The other from Jesus who wants to question the
Pharisees about their understanding of the Messiah, "The Son of David."

The first question, "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?"
is seen as a friendly question in Mk 12:28, but Matthew always sees the
Pharisees as enemies of Jesus and this question is the final attempt to
destroy Jesus' popular support. Some believed that all commandments are
equal and you can't make one more important than another. Jesus response is
not new. Others had joined Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 together. As we reflect
on his answer we should be careful not to separate love of God and love of
neighbor into two parable tracks, religious and secular. Jesus sees no
separation. In his teaching on the 4th commandment, keeping the Sabbath,
the love of God should not take precedence over the love of neighbor. Truly
to love God is to love neighbor, truly to love neighbor is to love God (I
John 4:20-21). Our love for God empowers us to imitate The Father's
generosity for his children.

The question on who is the Father of the Messiah is Jesus' way of trying to
allow the Pharisees to see the Messiah in a new way. For Matthew the title,
"Son of David" is an important title as witnessed by the birth story.
Nevertheless "Son of God" as witnessed to the Father's words, "This is my
beloved Son" in the Baptism and Transfiguration of Jesus is critical for
Matthew. The Pharisees saw in the title, "Son of David" a Messiah who came
as a conquering hero restoring the Kingdom of David. Jesus had entered the
city to the shouts of the people, "Look, your king is coming to you, humble
and mounted on a donkey..." (Matt.21:5) and affirmed by the crowds with,
"Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of
the Lord!" How can the majority of the Jews who rejected the suffering
servant as Messiah reconcile "Son of David" mounted on a while stallion
with a humble king," mounted on a donkey"?

In my mind I am not sure the use of Ps 110:1 does it. Yet this passage was
one of the central texts in the development of Christology and it is
incorporate in the Apostles Creed. Not only does the Ps confused the Father
question it also reflects a passive Son, who sits on the throne while the
Father turns the enemies into a foot stool. The question addressed to the
Pharisees intends only to provoke reflection concerning what it means to
refer to the Messiah as the Son of God, one whom even David must call Lord.
The question is to invite the Pharisees to see Jesus as Messiah in a new
way. Each one of us have a comfortable Messiah. One who fits our comfort
zone and is easy to handle. We are all blessed with a Jesus that is mine.
How can we invite ourselves and others to enter into the deep mystery and
joys of Jesus Christ. To be blessed with a Jesus that posses us, to whom
we belong?

Any additions or corrections? Any liturgical resources? Peace, Herb

[Richard Floyd]

Herb Davis suggested that P. T. Forsyth, the great British theologian and preacher, might have something to teach us about the relationship between Word and Sacrament in Christian worship.  I have revisited some of his writings and, not to bog this conversation down with text, have started a blog on the subject on the CC website using Forsyth's The Church and the Sacraments.  His words will turn around the common notion that a Congregationalist cannot have a high view of Word and Sacrament.  Here's an excerpt: 

“The Sacraments are not primarily individual acts. They are corporate acts, acts of the Church. It is the Church that does the sacramental act. Nay, more, they are the acts of Christ really present by His Holy Spirit in the Church. It is Christ doing something through the Church as His body. It is only after these two higher senses are met that they are the acts of an individual. In the Communion individual administration is against its nature. Baptism is not primarily an act of the parent nor of the child, but of the Church, and of Christ in the Church. It is our individualism that has done most to ruin the sacrament of Baptism among us. We get a wrong answer because we do not put the right question. We ask, What good does Baptism do me or that child? instead of, What is the active witness and service the Church renders to the active Word of Christ's Gospel in the Baptism of young or old? Baptism is not there primarily for the individual, nor for the family, but for the Church, to confess before God and man the Word of Regeneration. It is not a domestic occasion but an ecclesiastical. Like a great theology, or a great psalm, it belongs to the Church rather than to an individual. To claim private property in a hymn is to sell the Holy Spirit. Baptism, therefore, should not be private in the house but public in the Church." From the Church and the Sacraments. Ind. Press, 1953.

[Mike Frost]

Richard,

 

Thank you for posting that powerful word regarding the sacraments in general, but particularly Baptism.

That has been where I have found myself when families want a baptism scheduled privately, after worship, because it ismore convenient for them.

This is not a family thing.  This is not just a "me and Jesus" thing.  It is the work of God's saving grace in Jesus Christ through the Church incorporating a new member into its number.  When else could we possibly "do" this but when and where the church, the Body of Christ is gathered around Word and Sacrament?

 

Mike Frost  

[Vince]

Thank you very much

Vince

[Willis Elliott]

Herb:

 

Early Christian apologists saw, in the common life of their societies, evidences of the Holy Spirit's "preparation" of the people to hear / hearken to / be persuaded by the gospel.  This POV is implicit in the NT's doctrine of "the fullness of time."  Yes, I do see such evidences in the UCC, in America, & in our chaotic, floundering, hopeful world.

 

Yes, Niebuhr wasn't much on church.  I heard his Detroit co-pastor complain that Niebuhr was seldom around for churchwork; he was, most of the time, on the road speech-making.  But when I heard him on public questions, there was a solid Biblical-Christian base - this connection itself being "praeparatio evangelii."

 

I agree that viewing the fatal flaw as "the defining mark of history" centers attention on how to handle the fatal flaw - whereas the gospel proclaims that it has already been managed, but not by us.  The NT's word for "grace" (viz., charis) covers the whole process: the will to give, the gift, & thanksgiving for the gift.  Living this process requires a full & robust ecclesiology (such as Mercersburg).

 

In my next (pub. tomorrow) "On Faith" column, I suggest that it may be time  for another in America's series of "Great Awakenings."  Our financial & political empires have both been humiliated, & humiliation is one dimension of "preparation for the gospel."

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.0/1721 - Release Date: 10/12/2008 12:00 PM

[The Right Rev'd Richard Hammond Price, OCC, Abbot, Order of Corpus Christi]

Resources for 26 October, Ordinary Time 30/Pentecost 24

Readings

Leviticus 9:1-12, 15-18 or Deuteronomy 34:1-12

Psalm 1 or Psalm 90:1-6, 13-17

1 Thessalonians 2:1-8

St Matthew 22:34-46

Collect

Your love, O God, is boundless.

We who were strangers 

have been made your children.

Who who were defenseless

have been brought into your household.

Keep us mindful of your deeds of mercy,

that we may love you with our whole heart

and love our neighbors as ourselves.

We ask this through Lord Jesus Christ,

your Son,

who lives and reigns with you

in the unity of the Holy Spirit,

God for ever and ever.

Hymns

Gathering: "Great God, Your Love Has Called Us" RYBURN

Homily: "To Be Your Presence" ENGELBERG

Eucharist: "Lord Of All Nations, Grant Me Grace" BEATUS VIR

Sending: "We Are Called" WE ARE CALLED

Resources for 26 October, REFORMATION SUNDAY

Readings

Jeremiah 31:31-34

Psalm 46

Romans 3:19-28

St John 8:31-36

Collect

Gracious Father,

we pray for your holy catholic church.

Fill it with all truth and peace.

Where it is corrupt, purify it;

where it is in error, direct it;

where in anything it is amiss, reform it;

where it is right, strengthen it;

where it is in need, provide for it;

where it is divided, unite it;

for the sake of your Son, Jesus Christ,

our Savior,

who lives and reigns with you

and the Holy Spirit,

one God,

now and forever.

Hymns

Gathering: "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" EIN FESTE BURG

Homily: "Lord, Keep Us Steadfast In Your Word" ERHALT UNS, HERR

Eucharist: "The Church's One Foundation" AURELIA

Sending: "Built On A Rock" KIRKEN DEN EN ET GAMMELT NUS

_ _ _ _ _ 

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Friends,

Although this is seldom noted, neither Calvin nor Luther was entirely
neglectful of the active allegiance to Christ of the members of the
church in the public act of administering and submitting to baptism.
From Luther's House Postil's on this week's gospel reading:

"This spiritual kingdom is a realm in which those are gathered whose
hearts are united in trust of God. For the citizens of this kingdom
have sworn allegiance to God in baptism. Just as a citizen and subject
swears allegiance before the bench of the civil state, so all
Christians solemnly pledge and promise fealty in baptism, that Christ
is their Lord and God. Is this not exactly what we do prior to our
baptism when we disavow the devil, all his works and all his ways, and
say that we believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, pledging with
all our hearts to believe in the one true God and in none other, and
to bring forth good works, to be patient, meek and loving toward our
neighbor? Our Lord God requires of us the vow to cling to Christ
alone, to listen to know other word, and to accept not other belief
than the gospel of Christ and believe in him."

Jim Link

> Church." From the Church and the Sacraments. Ind. Press, 1953.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Herb Davis]

Dear Richard,  What plagues us in the church is our focus on the individual.  So the response, the individual confession normally is the critical question.  In Infant baptism we have a problem because the child cannot make any responsible response and so we shift it to the parents.  The focus is on us not on Christ who acts in the Sacrament.  Forsyth rightly shifts the issue away from the individual to the church, the body of Christ, and to Christ.  The primary question is not as Jim suggest our loyalty to Christ but Christ's loyalty to us.  Will the baptized respond to this wondrous love?  We can't be sure but we are willing to bet on it.  Peace, Herb   

-----Original Message-----
From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Floyd
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 3:36 PM
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: The Relationship between Word and Sacrament

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Herb,

You ask, "Will the baptized respond to this woundrous love?"

Baptizing and being baptized IS the beginning of our response to this
wonderous love, the love of Him who will baptize with the Holy Spirit,
the love of Him who was Himself baptized in water with all the other
sinners, by John, who baptized with water, the love of Him whom we
follow into the water, in orayerful allegiance to Him, as the
beginning of our repentance or turning toward the forigiveness of sins
we have in Him.

Jim Link

[Gabriel Fackre]

Baptism commentary,

 

The ecumenical gold standard for stating the meaning of baptism is the WCC Faith and Order’s Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry. As a remarkable “convergence” document, it comes close to stating the mind of the Church, whatever our personal opinions about this sacrament might be, or our personal responses to or as this rite. Thus, over many years exploration and biblical inquiry, it sought to identify the various dimensions of baptism: ”Participation  in Christ’s Death and Resurrection, “ “Conversion, Pardoning and Cleansing,” “The Gift of the Spirit,” “Incorporation into the Body of Christ,” and “The Sign of the Kingdom” (2-3)

 

As baptism is primarily (though not exclusively) a corporate act, it is helpful to ask what the church corporate/catholic thinks happens in baptism, hence the importance of BEM. Incidentally, the stream of UCC theological digging from the Biblical-Theological-Liturgical Group, through the Craigville Colloquies to Confessing Christ has had a string of gatherings (with published documents) on this subject, And the UCC General Synod made an official response to BEM after much testing among the constituents.

 

                 --Gabe

[Richard Floyd]

Jim,

Thank you for the excellent Luther quote.  I am sure P. T. Forsyth would agree, and although he was Reformed he quoted Luther far more than Calvin.  But of course it isn't either/or but rather where the emphasis falls and Herb is quite right that in our society the individual is supreme and corporate notions of the church and its sacraments are hard to fathom for most people.

For all Forsyth's criticisms of individuality a hundred years ago (and don't they sound fresh today?) he never lost the sense that the individual person is very much an active participant in all this.  One of the problems with citing excerpts is losing what comes before and after.  Here is the paragraph just before the one I cited the other day against individualism in baptism:

“Every member of a Church has a duty by these Sacraments, apart from the personal religious profit they may bring him in a conscious way.  To think always of that alone may be too egoist for Christian faith.  We come together in Church not simply, not indeed primarily, to get good from God, but to confess God, to aid the Church's worship, confession, and preaching of His grace.  For each member the Sacraments are part of the confession.  They are one way of owning and declaring the Church's word.  Each member has to do his part to give them effect.  He has to do his share in the Church's sacramental act as a worshipper — in the energy of common worship, and not as a spectator.

And here is the paragraph that follows it: 

 “And the next thing for the Christian, after taking his part in the act of his Church, after keeping its treasure intact and using it, is to see that it does not lose its meaning but remains rich for himself.  If Baptism have no result for you who take part in it, is that not because you have somehow lost sight or sense of the truth for which Baptism stands — the cleansing of the soul not by a growth in purity simply but by the regeneration of the Holy Ghost, the baptism not into Christ merely but into Christ's death, not simply by self-sacrifice but by the burial with Him, and the rising with Him to newness of life?” (The CHurch and the Sacraments)

The whole citation will appear on my blog here shortly.  Incidentally, all these quotes appear in my A Course in Basic Christianity, along with all the marks of baptism from the BEM document that Gabe cites.  I think BEM is a great teaching tool on the sacraments, and balances the different emphases well.

Rick Floyd

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Rick,

Society's issues are one thing, the church's and the UCC's in
particular, are another--judgment begins in the house of the Lord. The
truth be told, according to the measure of what Holy Scripture has to
say about baptism with water, the UCC, thanks to the practice of
infant baptism, generally lacks a correct understanding of water
baptism as an act of individual as well as corporate repentant
allegiance to Jesus Christ and His church. We rightly try to atone for
this with confirmation as "an affirmation of baptism," but I notice
that no one in our discussion has brought up confirmation in
connection with baptism. And, even there, we generally have made
confirmation into a mass induction into active (voting
responsibilities, etc.) membership by virtue of being a member of a
certain age group.

Jim Link

> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[rjeasleasland]

[rjeasleasland]

Jim: Not many, if any that I know of out in the field of the Church
took-take BEM seriously. Indeed baptismal confusion or misunderstanding is
common. With not much or any top down authority, tradition takes precidence
over sound doctrinal change or emphasis. BEM should have been the great
catalyst and fuel for the ecumenical movement but it has not happened yet.
The decline and reintrenchment of the mainlines and the Cultural captivity
of the church on both ends of the theological spectrum has widdened the gap
and polarized christians. Gabe knows more about this than maybe anyone in
this country. We all must work at holding the vision of unity high. Waiting
on the Lord to have this happen sure is painful.------------ Blessings from
the prairie---Roger From: <link...@aol.com>

To: "Confessing Christ Open Forum" <Confessi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 10:38 AM

Subject: Re: The Relationship between Word and Sacrament

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Roger,

Good to hear from you!

I am glad you brought up BEM, along with Gabe. I don't have my copy in
front of me. Didn't it say something about the need for confirmation
or some sort of confession of faith, like what the UCC calls "an
affirmation of baptism"? How did the Orthodox church respond to this,
not to mention the Roman Catholic, both of which see confirmation as
a sacramental strenthening of the individual through the bishop or
priest's administration of oil (in the case of the Orthodox, at act
which comes right after being baptized!)? Herb? Are you Orthodox?

God bless!

Jim Link

On Oct 16, 12:39 pm, "rjeasleasland" <jeasl...@pie.midco.net> wrote:
> Jim: Not many, if any that I know of out in the field of the Church
> took-take BEM seriously. Indeed baptismal confusion or misunderstanding is
> common. With not much or any top down authority, tradition takes precidence
> over sound doctrinal change or emphasis. BEM should have been the great
> catalyst and fuel for the ecumenical movement but it has not happened yet.
> The decline and reintrenchment of the mainlines and  the Cultural captivity
> of the church on both ends of the theological spectrum has widdened the gap
> and polarized christians. Gabe knows more about this than maybe anyone in
> this country. We all must work at holding the vision of unity high. Waiting
> on the Lord to have this happen sure is painful.------------ Blessings from

> the prairie---Roger From: <linkc...@aol.com>

[Richard Floyd]

Jim,

Some reactions:

First, we live in society as fish swim in the sea, so it takes some
real work to not be conformed by it.

Second, you stand in good company with Karl Barth in your critique of
infant baptism, and your charge that repentance is often given short
shrift in our lot is undeniable.

I really don't want to sign on to another “form and method of baptism”
debate as we have done that here already, but let me just say that
every form and method has it's dangers. I went to a half Baptist
seminary, and have known a lot of good Baptist ministers, and they
lament as we do about baptism, albeit often for different reasons.
It is true that believer baptism can gives emphasis on personal
repentance and faith, but often it is understood as my act, what I
have done, rather than what Christ through the church has done as
Forsyth would say. Forsyth affirms there must be faith for baptism,
in the case of infant baptism, the faith of the parents or sponsors
and the church into which the child grows.

I worked for thirty years to make baptism a sacrament with integrity
in the congregations I served, with mixed result to be sure. But I
stopped doing private ones (except in rare pastoral cases) and I
wanted to see evidence of faith, and stopped doing cultural
“Christenings” and drop-ins. And I moved the font where it was always
visible instead of bringing it out from a dark corner for baptisms.
For these small moves I bear on my body the marks of Christ, but by
the end of my ministry the congregation really owned baptism. I had
the advantage of a 22 year ministry, but all of us pastors and
teachers need to work on this in season and out of season, as I know
many on this list do.

Finally, a member of a church is a baptized person by definition. Any
other understanding has no scriptural warrant. I see newsletters
welcoming the newly-confirmed as members of the church. Ouch.
Confirmation is all about baptism or it is about nothing as our BOW
rites do a pretty good job of emphasizing as you said.

Rick Floyd

[Herb Davis]

Herb? Are you Orthodox?

Dear Jim, I am a 100% orthodox. I have no problem with graceful baptism of
babies and I don't see confirmation as completing baptism. Now I am on my
way to Florida to convert the Baptist to real baptism of grace. So they can
hear again the voice of God in baptism, "this is my beloved child." I'll be
off line until late Sunday or Monday. Sorry I will miss this chat. Peace,
Herb

-

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Rick,

I appreciate your courage. You need not be ashamed that baptism in
water, is pure and simple, your act of obedience, what you are doing
in and with the church, in faithful and prayerful response to the call
of God. As you say of your congregation you may say of yourself, "they
really owned baptism."

John the Baptist was not ashamed, but rather humble, to confess
baptism in water as his own obedient faithful act: "I baptize you with
water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming
after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you
with the Holy Spirit and Fire." Jesus Christ was not ashamed to submit
to this water baptism, in obedience to the Father, "to fulfill all
righteousness." The BEM document is somewhat neglectful, if we are to
judge according to how the gospels tell the story, when it fails to
mention John the Baptist in saying in I 1 "Christian baptism is rooted
in the ministry of Jesus Christ." The public ministry of Jesus Christ
in fact began with his submitting to the water baptism of John, John's
act, to which the Father added his own word and sign of approval.


Jim Link

On Oct 16, 1:45 pm, Richard Floyd <rfl...@berkshire.rr.com> wrote:
> Jim,
>

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[fc...@comcast.net]

> I really don't want to sign on to another “form and method of baptism”
> debate as we have done that here already, but let me just say that
> every form and method has it's dangers. I went to a half Baptist
> seminary, and have known a lot of good Baptist ministers, and they
> lament as we do about baptism, albeit often for different reasons.

Rick Floyd

 

InterVarsity had a book entitled THE WATERS THAT DIVIDE that is a very helpful book concering this debate. Having spent time in Baptistic circles the problem pastors have is as tough as ours (if not tougher). They have parents who ask the pastor to baptize their 12 year old and they are as excited about baptism as many of our youth are excited about confirmation. Their theology is really against such stuff but they are forced to do it or really have church fights.

 

The truth is that both systems are very similar. We offer water for the "family baptism" (Acts 16:33) and we don't offer water at confirmation or membership into the church. They don't offer water but weakly bring our Hanna to "dedicate" their children at birth and then use water at the time we do copnfirmation to speak of conversion and church membership.

 

That is both systems have two entrance times but we merely use water at differing times. To me the Baptistic system is weaker because what the heck is this pulling of Hanna out of the hat for the infant? Baptistic people see our infant baptism as weak but it is not infant baptism it is family baptism as in the case of the Philippian jailer and Lydia's household.

 

Chris Anderson

[Willis Elliott]

Now that you ask, Roger:

1

After my class-session yesterday, a retired judge told me that he averaged 100 divorces per year for 24 years.  Result: 4,800 divorcees in our small city (pop., 30,000 now, after recent rapid growth.  They had married their "love"-feeling, & their marriages ended when the sex-partner's body no longer fed that feeling.  Children are ruled by their feelings, & to let feelings rule is childish: "romantic" marriages begin with feeling & end when the feeling ends ("I just don't love her/him anymore.")  When "children" marry, should not "childish" divorce be expected?

2

Marrying a person is radically different.  It's a futures contract, like buying a lot with intention to build a home.  It's important that the wedding precedes any love-feelings (so, the ideal in many Muslim societies is that the couple not even meet before the wedding).  After the wedding, love-feelings will normally develop, but are not essential to the contract, which is the merger of two wills (not two feelings) toward the merger of two bodies.

3

.....Major premise: FEELINGS cannot be commanded.

.....Minor premise: Jesus commands "love" of God & neighbor.

.....Conclusion: "Love" (as Jesus preaches it) has no feelings-component.  (While love has no feelings-component, it does have feelings-involvement.)

+++

.....Major premise: COMMITMENT can be commanded.

.....Minor premise: Jesus commands love.

.....Conclusion: "Love" (as Jesus preaches it) means commitment, an act of the will.

+++

(On the essence/accident distinction:)

.....Major premise: Jesus says love is essentially commitment.

.....Minor premise: Marriage is essentially commitment &

 accidentally feeling (as in "falling" in love).

.....Conclusion: Since feeling is only accidentally a factor in marriage, it should not determine a marriage's length.

+++

(On the importance of feeling in marriage:)

.....Major premise: Romantic feelings between husband & wife are normal, God-given (on what Freud called "the pleasure-principle" - expanded by Kunkel into "die Wiefuehlen" (we-feeling, natural affection among human beings in all close relationships).

.....Minor premise: Romantic feelings are immoral, promiscuous, indiscriminate, fleeting, fragile.  (In males, the eyeballs are directly connected to the penis, as in the old English ballad, "I did but see her passing by, / and yet I'll love her till I die.")

.....Conclusions: (1) While a good marriage is freeing, it confines-limits-cages romantic action (i.e., sexual play & intercourse) to itself.  (2) Being feelings-controlled & thus pre-moral, pubescent children need chaperoning, no couple of them to be left alone: in pubescence, the sex-hormones magnetize bodies toward each other.  (3) Co-education only before pubescence & after highschool.  We're learning more about the male/female brain-differences; & we've always known that the sex-hormones drive bodies toward brainless ("love is blind") sexual activity.  (4) Excessive stimulus drains off romantic feelings; at all ages, avoid pornography.  (5) Sexual fantasizing is natural, normal, & not to be repented of unless it obsessively occupies one's attention or dysfunctionalizes one's relationships (to God/spouse/world).

4

Roger, I like your musings (below) on ADDICTION.  From watching the presidential debate last night, I conclude that McCain is addicted to (100%-negative-ads) attacking Obama.  (At the break during class yesterday, an MD in private conversation with me evidenced that he has the same addiction: even otherwise intelligent people can "lose it" in political partisanship, feeding only on supportive-media food.)  Millions & our nation & around the world are currently addicted to money-anxiety (deeper than money-worries).  Millions (the jihadists) are addicted to violence.

4a

I'll not into the chemical factor in addiction cause/cure.  Our bodily energy & feelings are chemo-electrical-muscular.  Right now, on the chemical factor, much progress along with much over/under-belief.

4b

Incurability is a pragmatic & political assertion.  Pragmatic: backsliding is so common, even probable.  Political: those institutions (e.g., AA) dependent on a supply of addicts are "interested" (i.e., have an "interest" in) in the institutions' continuance.

4c

As a European, German-speaking psychiatrist competing with Freud, Fritz Kunkel  - for the general public - concealed his Christian commitment by referring to God as "the Archangel" & to salvation as "wholeness."  The week I was with him (55 years ago), I recorded his lectures.  My favorite thus begins: "Things occur in human life that would seem to be unfavorable to whole...."  But since God's intention of love is steady, we are to view everything as favorable to wholeness; & ever to view anything otherwise is to fall into illusion, out of "the mind of Christ" (Phil.2.5; TEV, "attitude").  If you can't see this as fact, take in on faith as a working hypothesis in faithfulness to "'Be holy, for I am holy,' says the LORD your God."  Even call it a willed addiction (though this is oxymoronic) like "the magnificent obsession" (Lloyd C. Douglas' 1929 novel, on Mt.6.1-4 [concealing your good deeds]).  /  Now to my point: Fritz made a clear distinction between (Christian) "love" (which is the commitment to be good news to God & others, especially the needy) & "affection" (a feeling blowing in the wind).  E.g., I remember this sentence: "Be to your children what you believe the Archangel wants you to be; & by the time they are 35, they may "love" - or maybe not."  He meant that if you act toward your children with the intention that they love (i.e., have affection for) you, you can be sure that you are using them & not loving (i.e., intending the best for) them.  (Roger, transpose to the pastor/people relationship: if you love your people (in the self-aggrandizing way), you cannot love God or your people (in the self-giving way).  You have often said it, though in other words.)

5

You mention some zenish stuff you consider more substantive than N.V.Peale's "power of positive thinking."  Peale's PT was pragmatic, driven home by urban personal-success stories (though he & Ruth saw themselves as evangelical Christians).  (When he generated that preaching style, he was in competition with another Manhattan practical preacher, H.E.Fosdick.)  Peale: Get you feelings right, & your thinking will follow.  Fosdick: Get your thinking right, and your feelings will follow.  Kunkel's cognitive therapy: Get your imagining right, & your thinking and feelings will follow.  This zenish character you're reading: how would s/he (in the "wholeness" category, you say) put it?  /  Kunkel had Biblical-theological depth & breadth (without, in his professional practice, Christian language).  I suggest his works for your wanted "new approach to abuse of all kinds."

6

You're wondering about "religious experientialism as an addiction."  Religion is useless if it gives no "high," & delusional-dangerous if "high" is really the deity.  Sarah Palin frightens me (though she's switched from a Pentecostal to a "Bible" (i.e., Biblical inerrancy) church.  Her rallies feed the hate-Obama frenzy, & she lets people cry "Kill him!" without rebuking them.  In their final debate last night, McCain was reeking of hostility toward Obama (the main reason, some pundits are saying, he lost).  /  Obama got "high" on Jesus (in my opinion, an authentic conversion) under Wright's "high" preaching (though some of Wright's "high" was toxic).  Given original sin or fatal flaw or whatever, your "high" in preaching & mine in teaching is impure, so we need to repent (& pure, so we need to rejoice & give thanks).

 

7

Yes, worship is integral, sarks/lev (the visible as well as the invisible self-in-society).  I've been in some worships that reminded me of my experience of highschool pep-rallies (during which I read the Greek NT while glancing at the pretty cheer-leaders).  And I've heard a lot of orators "working the crowd."  And I've suffered through a lot of head-tripping sermons in cool churches.  /  As God wants us to honor equally all four of his gifts to us - body/mind/psyche/spirit - worship should involve all four: (1) BODY: showing up, sitting, rising, singing, maybe kneeling & arms-gestures; (2) MIND: challenges to the intellect; (3) PSYCHE: art: visual & auditory, appeals to the imagination, poetry, drama; (4) SPIRIT: adoration,

confession, thanksgiving, petition, intercession, silent devotion.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: rjeasleasland

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 3:10 PM

Subject: Re: Marilynne Robinson

Gabe and all: Many of us during pastorates or what ever have had to deal with alcoholism and addiction of parishioners or others. I'm reading a sort of new approach entitled, "The Alcoholism and Addiction Cure", it criticizes the 12 step model of AA and others and challenges the idea 'incurability', a premise of most treatment programs. Yes it involes a metaphysical/zen something and pushes "belief". It has more substance than the power of positive thinking stuff. It falls into the "wholeness" category. Some of the "ideas"  I think are worth a read. His treatment method claims a 16% relapse rate which is 5 times higher than most treatment programs.  I think most of his "ideas" could fit into a Chritian framework if adopted graciously. If the church is "dry" of anything it is a new approach to abuse of all kinds.  Anyone out there found new life in Christ in this area? I am also wondering about religeous experientialism as addiction. I know I often experience an adrenaline high from preaching and recognized it as something unhealthy, or is it. Woirship as celebration does have physiological effects along with the spiritual content.  What studies have been done along this line? Willis, what does that computer bank mind of yours have on this.  Just  thinking out on the prairie-------Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Gabriel Fackre

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 10:35 AM

Subject: RE: Marilynne Robinson

Confessors,

 

“John Calvin Got a Bad Rap.” That’s the caption on the New York Times review of Marilynne Robinson’s Pulitzer prize-winning novel GILEAD. Now this faithful UCC member of one of our congregations in Iowa has written a sequel, HOME. We have just begun to read and study its theological themes in our Theological Tabletalk group on Cape Cod. How about taking up this remarkable book here in the Open Forum? I place below the current NY Times review of this latter writing

 

                 --Gabe

……………………………………………………………………………………

Return of the Prodigal Son

Ulf Andersen/Getty Images

Marilynne Robinson

•  

E-Mail

• Print
• Single Page
• Save
• Share
  • Linkedin
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Permalink

By A. O. SCOTT

Published: September 19, 2008

Early in Marilynne Robinson’s “Gilead,” one of the few recent American novels that have found and deserved both critical praise and readerly love, the narrator, the Rev. John Ames, admits that he has a tendency “to overuse the word ‘old.’ ” This habit, he muses, “has less to do with age . . . than it does with familiarity. It sets a thing apart as something regarded with a modest, habitual affection. Sometimes it suggests haplessness or vulnerability. I say ‘old Boughton,’ I say ‘this shabby old town,’ and I mean that they are very near my heart.”

Skip to next paragraph

HOME

By Marilynne Robinson

325 pp. Farrar, Straus & Giroux. $25

Related

First Chapter: ‘Home’ (September 21, 2008)

'Gilead': Acts of Devotion (November 28, 2004)

In the Magazine: A Moralist of the Midwest (October 24, 2004)

An Online Discussion of Marilynne Robinson's 'Housekeeping'

Ames, an important figure in Robinson’s new novel, “Home,” is also, at least in this passage, allowing his creator to speak through him, and to acknowledge with some slyness a tic of her own remarkable literary style. If anything, the word “old” pops up even more frequently in “Home” — a third-person retelling of many of the events in “Gilead” seen through the eyes of 38-year-old Glory Boughton — than it did in the earlier book. Its meanings are complex, at times contradictory. Robinson uses “old,” as Ames did, to refer to people, places and objects that are dear and intimately known — including Ames himself, well into his 70s in 1956, when both novels take place. The word also suits Robert Boughton — usually called “the old man” — a fellow minister who has been Ames’s friend since childhood. Boughton’s faltering health has brought Glory, the youngest of his eight children and recently abandoned by a no-account fiancé, home to Gilead, Iowa. The big, vine-covered house, in Glory’s childhood an emblem of the family’s prosperity and fertility, holds on to the ghost of its former vitality. “The furniture and the damage done to it in the course of the old robust domestic life were all still there,” she observes. “And the old books.”

Old life, old books, old habits. Glory seems to settle into a world as worn and comfortable as the title of the book. But for her, and for Robinson, what is near and dear — an older brother, say, or a scrap of textbook history, or home itself — can also be unaccountably mysterious, even uncanny. “What a strange old book it was,” Glory thinks as she reads the Bible, a daily practice she maintains partly to keep some connection to that “old life” of habitual piety she knew growing up in a minister’s household, and partly out of a deeper religious feeling. (“Faith for her was habit and family loyalty, a reverence for the Bible which was also literary, admiration for her mother and father. And then that thrilling quiet of which she had never felt any need to speak.”) Surely she knows the book backward and forward, but she discovers that still it has the power to haunt and surprise. “I will open my mouth in a parable,” she reads, “I will utter dark sayings of old, which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us.”

A clue to the intentions behind both “Home” and “Gilead” — which do not coexist in a relation of chronological sequence or thematic priority, but instead turn together like enmeshed gears impelling a single narrative machine — may lie in that passage from the 78th Psalm. It suggests that familiar stories and pieces of wisdom can nonetheless be obscure, even sinister or magical, in their lessons and meanings. And it is a characteristic of Robinson’s prose to proceed with self-evident clarity and simplicity while seeming at the same time pregnant with troubling implications. Most of what might be called the action in “Home” consists of the movements of a few characters — Glory, her father and her brother Jack — around their grand old house, from kitchen to living room, from garden to porch. They speak with sometimes strained politeness as they busy themselves with mundane domestic tasks. But those quotidian facts of what Glory thinks of as “difficult, ordinary life” feel, in Robinson’s hand, like vessels of the terrible, the sublime, the miraculous.

• 1
• 2
• 3

Next Page »

A. O. Scott is a film critic for The Times. He is writing a book about the American novel since World War II.

 

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.0/1719 - Release Date: 10/10/2008 4:08 PM

[Gabriel Fackre]

Willis,

 

Another indication as to why the good Lord is keeping you around a little ( or a lot) longer.

 

                        --Gabe

 

 

 

---

<BR

[rjeasleasland]

Father Willis: Thanksgivings for your exraordinary gift and care for me but only withing the flow of the Spirit of the Living God which moves through that brain of yours like the living waters of Gods grace-----------peace and love my friend--- wild and wonderful winds on the prairie-------Roger--

[Janet Keyes]

Wonderful message as usual.  However there is one small error in your # 6.  Re Sarah Palin "letting" people cry "Kill him!" -  Secret Service persons present at the rally in question did NOT hear any such cries- they were apparently only in the imagination of the one reporter who wrote the story.  If they heard no such outburst, then neither did Palin, therefore she had no reason to "rebuke" anyone. If the "Kill him" had really happened you would have seen it on YOU TUBE, and all over the network news broadcasts.  We need to be careful as Christians to cling to some semblence of sanity in the election process.

Janet

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Willis Elliott

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

[Willis Elliott]

A clear, concise statement of the truth, Chris.

Both water-placements have strengths & weaknesses.

As a pastor, I designed a church-building for, & practiced, both.

A slight difference on "weaker":

as culture-religion weakens & commitment-religion grows,

I think pedobaptism will be seen to be weaker.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: fc...@comcast.net

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.1/1728 - Release Date: 10/16/2008 7:38 AM

[Richard Floyd]

Chris,

George Peck, our late dean at Andover Newton and an Australian Baptist, like to say during these discussions, “We baptize children, too. they just happen to be twelve or thirteen.”

Rick

[fc...@comcast.net]

Rick,

 

I just sold one of your atonement books and will be the money to CC BUT....

 

While I was in the Mass Conference there were two great sermons given at the Annual Meeting. The second best was George Peck's and the best was by the then unknown (to me) Peter Gnomes. I can still do the sermon Gnomes did with no preparation...though obviously not as well. It was a sad year (or so) when George Peck and Orlando Costas died and Gabe retired. What a blow to ANTS!!!!

 

Chris

 

--
"A confessor is one who is not ashamed to do something quite useless in a world of serious purposes." Karl Barth (CD III.4 p. 78)

[Willis Elliott]

Jim:

 

In the ancient Church, catechesis preceded baptism.  (I was catechized for a year before baptism--at age 12, in a Methodist church.  My baptism & "confirmation" were simultaneous.)

 

I was the only "catechist" in that one-year course.  All the others were "confirmands" (having been pedobaptized).

 

Barth concluded that pedobaptism had become dysfunctional.

 

Three more cheers for BEM.  A landmark in theology as well as ecumenism.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: link...@aol.com

To: Confessing Christ Open Forum

Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 10:38 AM

[prm...@ptd.net]

Willis,

Not sure, but I believe you would have been a catecumen while your classmates were confirmands. Your teacher was the catechist, correct? I can readily imagine you being a teacher even back then, but I'm guessing you were a catecumen.

Humbly,
Mike Frost

Jim:

Dear Rick,

Jim Link

> ?Every member of a Church has a duty by these Sacraments, apart from

> the personal religious profit they may bring him in a conscious way.
> To think always of that alone may be too egoist for Christian faith.
> We come together in Church not simply, not indeed primarily, to get
> good from God, but to confess God, to aid the Church's worship,
> confession, and preaching of His grace. For each member the
> Sacraments are part of the confession. They are one way of owning and
> declaring the Church's word. Each member has to do his part to give
> them effect. He

[The entire original message is not included]

[Willis Elliott]

Excellent correction, Janet.  I was alerted to my error not long after clicking that fatal button, "Send."  (Shame on me for trusting the WSJ - or was it some other of the half dozen "reliable" newspapers I check daily?)

 

No excuse, but this explanation:

Palin's loose-lip commits such outrages as to make the "Kill him!" non-incident believable.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

----- Original Message -----

Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.1/1729 - Release Date: 10/16/2008 7:12 PM

[Herb Davis]

Dear Jim, Probably Chris is right argument on baptism never go any where,
but I am convinced that the Sacrament of Holy Baptism is not about
repentance or about John the Baptist, but about the Holy Spirit and the gift
of the Holy spirit that is what New Testament baptism is about and that is
the great joy of infant baptism. Not wonder BEM didn't mention John's
baptism. It is a work of God, the election, pure grace. What a joyful,
wild occasion the Sacrament of Baptism. Herb

----

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Herb,

The "sacrament" (as sacrament is defined by you, as a work of God) of
baptism may not be about repentance or John the Baptist, or even about
water, for that matter. But baptism as the call goes forth in the New
Testament is. John (last name, the Baptist) called us to orient
ourselves, repent, in faithful response to the promise of baptism in
the Holy Spirit by the coming Christ (and, as Revelation says, He
contines to be the one who is coming). As the beginning of this
reorientation, we are called to prayerful baptism in water: "Come,
Creator Spirit, Living Water!" What other foundation have we for
understanding baptism than Mr. Baptism himself!--he to whose call
Jesus Christ Himself submitted Himself!, and was baptized as a
repentant sinner in the water?

God bless!

Jim Link

[Herb Davis]

Dear Jim, No one wins in the baptismal argument but I think our chat is
important because Reformation Churches are uneasy about infant baptism
today. Your comments to Rich about not being ashamed often define many
pastors relationship to this Holy Sacrament, we do it because of tradition
but we are always hedging our bids, so we surround God's action with all
sorts of human supports, parents, congregation, confirmation and then hold
our breath. We extract promises from parent which they probably cannot keep
or we ask the congregation to be a witness which we seldom take too
seriously (thank God). Our actions is so out of joint with this age of
individualism that we look sort of silly. Since I am not embarrassed by
infant baptism and since I deplore the Baptist tradition of withholding
God's gracious act until one knows the Lord or has repented of their sins
and since I believe that the Church had is right and Barth got confused, I
wish to add to couple remarks to embolden all those who this week with says,
"...you are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is upon you ... Child of God, disciple of
Christ, member of the church. You are set free from the power of sin."

1. In our age of heightened individualism the focus is on the sovereignty
or dignity of the individual so you must defend that dignity by focusing on
repentance. Not that repentance is bad, but like the law it does not save
and it can become a weapon against God. Reminding God and others of when
one was born again. When we focus on repentance we turn our eyes and ears
from the glorious action of God and the individual is saved. In the Bible
the focus is on the sovereignty of God. It is God who elects, redeems,
saves and it is not dependent on us. This is why election for Barth is not
located in the doctrine of reconciliation or redemption but in the doctrine
of God. The powers of sin has already been mortally wounded and the kingdom
is coming. Weather we are the hands and feet of God or not. (John Updike has
a great discussion of this in his novel, Lilies of the Valley" discussion
between a liberal pastor and a dying Calvinist. About page 66)

2. Christian baptism is not a reflection of John the Baptist. The first
mention of Christian baptism is probably Rom 6: "where the Holy Spirit acts
to unite the person to Christ in his death and therefore to the death of the
sinful self. All things we find upsetting about ourselves, the habits we
cannot seem to shake, the personality traits that get us in trouble, the
secret obsessions and perversions that we struggle to hid even from
ourselves - all of this has been put to death Our old self has been
crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed and we might
no longer be enslaved to sin." In baptism we are set free from the power of
sin, death because we have died to sin so now we have a real choice, now sin
and death do not control us. In a sense we have already died in Christ,
death no longer controls us.

In Acts we find reports, which are late, on Christian baptism which always
seem to have something to do with the Holy Spirit, being received or
confirmed but not in a nice straight line process. Sometime repentance is
mentioned sometime its not. There is no neat path.

Even John the Baptist reminds us that one come who Baptists with water and
spirit. Don't get locked into John 's baptism as a model for the real
baptism. Peace, Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of link...@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 10:03 AM
To: Confessing Christ Open Forum
Subject: Re: The Relationship between Word and Sacrament

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Herb,

How can Christian baptism not be a reflection of John the Baptist when
it is John who baptized with water the Christ, the Annointed, the
Annointed with the Holy Spirit, the repentant Annointed who baptizes
with the Holy Spirit?

By the way, in the Scirptures John the Baptist never says that the one
to come will baptize "with water and spirit." His actions do speak of
an implicit comparision between spirit and water, and he makes
explicit comparision of Holy Spirit and fire. Jesus makes the explicit
link in the Gospel according to John, "born of the water and of the
spirit" but it is clear here that the phrase means something like "the
new life giving water that is the Spirit." Indeee, the Gosple points
out that "it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized
(with water, I would read).

God bless!

Jim

> [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of linkc...@aol.com

> > ----- Hide quoted text -

[Herb Davis]

Dear Jim, I hope we are not boring other folks with this discussion on
baptism. In my early history I struggled with a number of Anabaptist at
Lancaster Seminary. I always lose but we cannot continue to baptize if we
are using John the Baptist as the model. Christian baptism is rooted in
Paul not John the Baptist. John is about repentance, Paul is about new
life, being united with Christ. As long as we stay in John we have to be
Baptist, as we affirm Paul we celebrate Christian Baptism in which we are
united with Christ and live and die as baptized sinner.

Paul understand that the Law, Torah, this amazing gift of God, in the hands
of humans have become a club by which we beat God to death. He is says that
the law has no power to save. I would think this is true of any human
attempt to make ourselves right with God. In this culture in which the
religious elite or the spiritual find their way to God we need to celebrate
God coming to us. The Christian story is that we can do nothing for
ourselves, religiously or otherwise to find our way to God because the iron
grip of Sin and Death separated us from God by such a chasm that there is no
hope for us. It is God who bridges the gap not our efforts, our repentance,
our seeking, our good works, our good ethical life. In baptism we are set
free from the power of Sin and Death so that we can repent, so that we can
rise to new life in Christ, so that we can "work out our salvation in fear
and trembling." We should not condition that, freedom and union with Christ
in Baptism, on Parent promises, or congregational affirmation, but trust the
power and the grace of God. The Sacrament of Holy Baptism as celebrated in
the main line congregations have it almost right. We just can't trust God
to set us free from the power of Sin and Death.

Now remember Luther. He had it right. Being set free from the power of Sin
and Death does not insure that we will make the right ethical, moral, moves.
We are still both justified Saints and sinners. Always in need of the
congregation, the sacrament of Holy Communion, the preaching of the Word.
Sin is a power but no longer the ultimate power. We are no longer slaves to
sin, just sinners. Thanks for your passion on this issue. Peace, Herb

-

[Herb Davis]

----Dear Confessor, As the date for voting is upon us I would like to share
by intentions and see if there is any wisdom for affirmation or admonition.
Since Christian life is lived in community and we trust the brothers and
sisters, secret voting should not be our style. Maybe we should be open and
transparent. If you have any wisdom on my voting please share it.

I plan to vote for Obama for President.

In FL there is a n amendment defining marriage as between one man and one
woman. The amendment is not what I would write but I plan to vote for it.

Any discussion, wisdom, or suggestions? Peace, Herb

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Herb,

You are right in that we cannot set ourselves free. What we may do in
the freedom granted by God, and thus must do, is pray to the Lord as
repentant sinners, which is exactly what John the Baptist and Paul
agreed we are doing as we baptize and are baptized in water, a burial
corresponding to the death of the old humanity in Jesus Christ: we
pray together for the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

By the way, I am not advocating anabaptism, i.e. re-baptism. Prayer
with water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit having been offered for me as an infant, I can either join in
it, or reject it (God forbid!) but I cannot deny that it was said,
even if not well said." "Honor your father and your mother that your
days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you!"

God bless!

Jim

[Trost, Theodore]

I may have missed this reference earlier in the discussion--which is not boring, by the way. It seems to me that the passages relevant to Herb's point are in Acts 19.2-7 where the baptism of repentance is contrasted with the baptism into the Holy Spirit. Not that there's anything wrong with the baptism of repentance; but for the twelve in Ephesus, the "belief" that results from or in relation to John's baptism is qualitatively different from the baptism subsequently delivered through Paul "in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Ted Trost

-----Original Message-----
From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of link...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 9:09 AM
To: Confessing Christ Open Forum
Subject: Re: The Relationship between Word and Sacrament

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Ted,

The point does not seem to be that the "disciples" found in Ephesis
were baptized by Paul, but that, despite their not having received the
Holy Spirit (of which they are even ignorant!) when they became
believers, because these had been baptized by John the Baptist, Paul
was satisfied that they had been baptized into the name of Jesus
Christ, like all "the people" who were baptized in repentant belief
in the coming one whom John proclaimed as the one coming after him.
Thus, Paul does not baptize them, but simply lays his hands on them,
praying that they would receive the Holy Spirit. See Acts 8:14 for
another example of those who had "only been baptized in the name of
the Lord Jesus" and had not yet had "the Holy Spirit come upon any of
them."

You are right that baptism for repentance is contrasted with baptism
in the Holy Spirit; the former is a request for the later. That has
been my point all along. But I would also add that Christian baptism
in water remains, like the baptism of John, a prayerful act of
repentance: "Brothers, what should we do? Peter said to them, "Repent,
and be baptized every one of you in order than your sins may be
forgiven; and you will receive the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38)

God bless!

Jim Link

> > sin, just sinners.  Thanks for your passion on this issue.  Peace, Herb    - Hide quoted text -

[Herb Davis]

Dear Friends, Something seems wrong with our forum. I didn't get Fackre's
note on Bonhoeffer nor did I get Jim's response to my post on baptism. I
didn't get Ted post. I picked up both from post I did receive Jim responding
to Ted and from Larry respond to Gabe. Is there something wrong?

I also sent a post last week asking for help in my voting. I plan to vote
for Obama and for the FL amendment on marriage between man and woman. I
didn't get any response so I assumed you all agreed with me, but Christians
do there political in community and so I would appreciate any help. Now I
assume you didn't get my request. Peace, Herb

-

[Mike Frost]

Herb - and everyone,

As far as I can tell I have not missed any messages. I did get the ones you
seem not to have gotten, from Gabe and Jim.
I did get yours on voting, etc. I simply don't reply or post often enough
for my replies to tell anyone anything about who's getting what.

So, as far as I can tell, nothing is wrong with the system as I perceive
things.

Blessings and Peace,
Mike Frost

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Herb,

I didn't respond yesterday because I would have been over my limit.

For what it is worth, I'll likely be voting for Obama for president--
and maybe voting for Canada if he does not win!

As for the marriage ammendment, I'm sympathetic toward your choice.
The deeper problem we face, though, is understanding marriage itself,
even when defined more closely by the state, for purposes of law, as
"between one man and one woman." What compelling interest does the
state have in acknowledging marriage? I hope it involves some attempt
to mitigate the effects of the broken relationship between males and
females in our society. Where that is what we are attempting to do as
a state, I'm for it.

God bless!

Jim Link

[John Cedarleaf]

Herb:

Of course we all agree!!!! For what it is worth, I'm voting for Obama,
but then I've never voted for a Republican for president in my life. My
first vote was for LBJ in '64.What choice did I have then? Even though
I'm the same generation, 7 years younger than McCain, I'm tired of
fighting the battles of the 60's, Bill Ayers etc. and think it is time
to move on. It is time for the next generation to take over. I hear
Colin Powell saying this, I think. I like Obama because he is calm and
centered and cerebral and not all over the place as McCain has been.
Frankly I also agree with his positions and don't for McCain. As to the
amendment, since NY doesn't have one and won't I won't have to make that
decision. I understand marriage as between a man and a woman and would
not officiate at a same sex marriage if legal . I also believe that
regulating marriage is the role of the state. I would not support an
amendment to the US Constitution on this.

John

[Scott Paeth]

Well, like John and Herb, I'm voting for Obama (no surprises there, I
guess).

Here in Illinois, there is no parallel to the Florida same sex
marriage initiative. But if there were, I'd vote against it. I'm in
favor of same sex marriage. I'm glad that we've now got three states
that have recognized it as a civil right that shouldn't be denied to
same sex couples. At the same time, I know that there are those who
disagree with me on this point, but I've seen too many gay couples
suffering through the failure of the state to protect their rights to
the civil accoutrements of marriage to be satisfied with arguments
based upon an assertion that marriage just "is" between a man and a
woman.

However, I'm convinced that the far, FAR more important questions of
this election are the ones that will be decided when we cast our votes
for President and Congress. In that regard, I think my decisions were
always pretty easy -- Obama, Durbin, Emmanuel.

Scott

[Scott Paeth]

And on the subject of Folly and Barbara Tuchman, here's the definition
she gives in "The March of Folly." Folly is "pursuit of policy
contrary to self-interest." But from the perspective of understanding
what Bonhoeffer might have meant, I think that Tuchman's description
of folly as "wooden-headedness" is very relevant:

"Wooden-headedness, the source of self-deception, is a factor that
plays a remarkably large role in government. It consists in assessing
a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or
rejecting contrary signs. It is acting according to wish while not
allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts. It is epitomized in a
historians statement about Philip II of Spain, the surpassing
woodenhead of all sovereigns: 'No experience of the failure of his
policy could shake is belief in its essential excellence.'"

As it its implications for the present day, I will leave it to others
to discern.

Scott

[Trost, Theodore]

Herb:

I voted for a Republican in a presidential election once. That was
Anderson of Illinois and it was, like all of the voting I have done in
Presidential elections, a protest vote more than anything else. But
this year is different. This is the first election in which I'm
actually voting FOR a candidate, namely Obama--for whom, in fact, I have
already voted by absentee ballot (I will be at a conference on Election
Day).

As for the marriage amendment--as often, my thoughts run parallel to
Scott's on that matter.

Ted Trost

-----Original Message-----
From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

[mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Herb Davis
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:11 AM
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: The Open Forum

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Ted,

I also voted for Anderson for president in 1980! But he was not
running as a Republican, but as an independent.
Wish I had voted for Carter!

Jim Link

> -- Hide quoted text -

[Trost, Theodore]

Jim:

Thanks for reminding me of Anderson's independent status during that election cycle. I agree with you concerning our nation's best ex-President. But in the late 1970s, I was a flight attendant for Pan Am, based in London, and flying on a monthly basis to Tehran. I was surprised to witness an ever-worsening situation there--rocks thrown at the Pan Am crew bus; enforcement of segregated bathing at the Hotel InterContinental pool; anti-American protests resulting in the temporary invasion of the hotel lobby; a general sense of unwelcomedness and malaise. More surprising was that when flight attendants reported this back to our supervisors in London and New York, the response was that as long as the State Department said it was safe to travel to Tehran, it was safe to travel there (what do flight attendants know about political matters, after all?). It was a matter of the State Department having eyes but refusing to see, and that tainted my take on Carter--whose "human rights" foreign policy emphasis I tended to agree with (indeed, the protests in Tehran against the Shah and his SAVAK secret police were to some extend a response to the Carter doctrine).

A few years later Reagan's State Department declared it was safe for US airlines to fly into Beirut despite the protests of airline personnel. That decision was reversed after many marines were killed at the airport in a suicide bombing. . . .

Ted Trost

-----Original Message-----
From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of link...@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:18 AM
To: Confessing Christ Open Forum

[Willis Elliott]

Herb:

 

Thanks for your Nov.4 "transparency."  Loree & I are - as you are - for both Obama & the fencing of the historic sememe of "marriage" against expansion.

 

On seeking.  Biblically, theocentric: GOD is the Seeker, we are reciprocal seekers (made that way by the Creator-Seeker).  Augustine's "Confessions": "I would not seek you if you had not found me."  As long as our analytic brain-hemisphere functions, we can't help being seekers (no difference, in this, among religion/philosophy/science): we can decide on the directions of our seeking.

 

On BAPTISM:

1

I agree with your "new life" emphasis, but your contrast of Paul with Jn.Baptist is excessive.  Boldly, Luther retained repentance in pedobaptism: "Prove that the infant does not repent!"

2

Add the distinction between Baptists & Greek Orthodox (both, immersionists - as the Greek "baptizein" means to immerse, as in the plain reading of Ro.6.4) & Anabaptists (literally, "re-baptizers," who consider pedobaptism invalid: baptism is only for confessors of sin & grace).

3

Add trine baptism: Greek Orthodoxy teaches that valid baptism is action-immersion not in God's name (which would be only one immersion) but in the name of the Father & of the Son & of the Holy Spirit (which is three immersions of the infant or confessor).

4

You seem to imply that Baptists get their immersion emphasis from Jn.Baptist (literally, "John the Immersionist").  Not so.  The textus classicus for Baptists is not from Jn.Baptist but from Paul: again, Ro.6.4.

5

Jewish baptism (immersion, for purity or conversion) is mikvah, in running water (as "the baptism of John") or in a mikvah (built for the purpose - where possible, in the synagogue - as for Christian immersion I designed one in '51 into the new building of the church I was pastoring).

6

Now the plot thickens.  How come Jesus didn't baptize, & Paul baptized only a few?

Was it to conflate Jesus' movement with John's? to distinguish Jesus' movement from John's?  Morton Scott Enslin (NT at Crozer, still there [I think] when MLKing,Jr did his seminary degree there) put the maximum distance between the movements: Jn. the Immersionist & Jesus never met!  Jn.'s movement didn't die out until well into the 2nd century, though the greater growth of the Jesus movement immediately after our Lord's resurrection so left Jn.'s movement in the dust that Jesus' movement could appropriate the immersion-at-conversion mikva ritual (Mt.28.19: Jesus authorizes baptism as immersion-at-conversion as the ritual element in Christian initiation, the other elements being catechesis & the Eucharist).

7

My '50 church design (not the building) included the offering of all eight baptisms in the Christian world.  Christian baptism evolved, & none of its species is extinct; nor can any species validly argue the invalidity of any other species.

8

A non-rolling stone gathers moss.  Baptism gathered (under the Spirit's guidance) meanings: rituals do that.  The "sacrament" is the ritual + the meanings.

9

The Eucharist, the other "sacrament of the Gospel," also evolved.  Hans Lietzmann made a strong case for bread only ("my body") as the original Christian Holy Meal.  While the Spirit oversaw the semantic moss gathering on the Lord's Supper, not all Christians affirm all the moss.  As the original rock of baptism was immersion-into-Christianity, the original rock of the Eucharist was the bread (or bread & wine) of our Lord's re-presencing among his people (however the Presence/elements are inter-conceived).  Rome's "transubstantiation" insistence is an instance of invalid elevation of one species over all the others.

10

The evolutionary view of the Sacraments allows for development (both enrichment & corruption), promotes ecumenism, & forbids authoritarian dogma.  In biology, it parallels Darwin's slow creation-over-millenia rather than fast creation-in-condensed-time.  In "The Origin of Species," Darwin says, "I see no good reason why" evolution "should shock the religious feelings of anyone....'it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development....'" (6th ed., p455).  Geology stretched out time (he says), then biology stretched out life over science-lengthened time.  (This classic mentions "creation" 100x & "the Creator" a fewer number [here are two: "the laws impressed on matter by the Creator" - 462; "breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one" - 463; all, 6th ed.).

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.3/1747 - Release Date: 10/26/2008 9:27 AM

[fc...@comcast.net]

WIllis,

 

I was always of the opinion that the reason that Jesus did not baptize with water was because he was the coming one who baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire. Am I wrong?

 

Chris Anderson

 

 

"Now the plot thickens.  How come Jesus didn't baptize, & Paul baptized only a few?

Was it to conflate Jesus' movement with John's? to distinguish Jesus' movement from John's? "

Willis

 

[Herb Davis]

Sermon Note: Nov.9, Twenty-sixth Sunday after Pentecost, Matt. 25:1-13

I think the Gospel lesson is about time and the kingdom of heaven. To know
the time is to have power. To control time is be powerful. I remember the
film, "All the President's Men" about Nixon and Watergate. As the film
opens the President is landing in his helicopter. The president is due to
land at 2:00 and as the helicopter descends the seconds flash, 1:57, 1:58,
1:59, 2:00 and President Nixon steps out of the helicopter. Powerful people
land on time, the rest of us are often late, or miss the buss, or get stuck
in a storm.

Nevertheless there is a longing to be able to control time. We have
schedules. We set dates. We make plans. Most of the time it works. We
have some power. We even get upset with people who abuse our time by being
late for appointments, missing meetings, forgetting a dates. Sometimes we
abuse our sense of time and think we can know the times. We think we can
read the signs of the times with certainty. Sometime we begin to predict
when Jesus will return, when the kingdom will come. We twist scripture to
confirm our time.

Ten virgins go off to meet the bridegroom. Five are foolish and five are
wise. You notice there is very little difference in the ten virgins. They
are all virgins, pure. They all fall asleep. But the five wise virgins
have an old plastic soda bottle tied to their robe filled with extra oil.
The five foolish virgin travel light, no embarrassing plastic bottle
dangling from their robes. The five wise virgins know you can't predict
when the bridegroom will come. The five foolish virgin assume the
bridegroom will be on their time. If we don't know the time we live
prepared to wait upon the Lord. To wait patiently for the coming. We have
the resources to preserver.

We don't have a clue when the bridegroom will come. All we do is live
knowing that the kingdom is coming and prepare for the celebration. The
bridegroom abuses our understanding of time. He does not respect our dates.
So if we are to celebrate we need to be ready day or night, seed time or
harvest. We don't want to be dashing off to get some oil when the band
begins to play. So we have old plastic soda bottle dangling from our belts
filled with the resources so we can wait.

Any additions or corrections? Any liturgical resources? Peace, Herb

----

[Herb Davis]

Dear Jim, It is very difficult for you to make God the subject in the
sacrament of baptism. It seems to be that the baptized is always the
subject. Does God act in the sacrament of baptism or is this just a human
ritual that dramatizes our repentance. Is the focus on us or is their an
objective change that occurs by God act. If God is not acting and I have
the sense that this may be true in mainline protestant churches then we
really have to tap dance faster.

I think the record in Acts is confusing, since baptism has always been a
wild sacrament. Was it John's baptism? Did they receive the Holy Spirit?
They received the Holy Spirit but weren't baptist, so get somebody down
there to baptism them.

I am not sure I understood your comment on the 5th commandment. I don't
want to believe you were saying that like at my baptism my father had his
fingers crossed because he wasn't a church member I should still honor my
father at least having me done. For me the Sacrament of Baptism is more
about the First Commandment, "Remember oh Israel I am the Lord you God who
brought you out of the land of Egypt, Have no other gods before me." So in
baptism God brings us out of Egypt's rule into Canaan paradice, out of
darkness into light, out of death into life.

Peace, Herb

[rjeasleasland]

[rjeasleasland]

Herb. I think being prepared has to do with the oil, the gifts of God the
Holy Spirit. We are to use the oil to send the light it produces to announce
to the world that the worlds time and Gods time are not the same. Every
faithful believer and Christian community needs to USE the surplus of Grace
symbolized by the oil. The surplus of Grace is Gods ACTIVITY of holiness
which pours forth from the cross as we experience Gods awesome
self-humiliation on our behalf and this same ACTIVITY also becomes alive in
us as hope when we remember and ponder the resurrection. These two pillars
of orthodoxy form the foundation of Christian faith, but to live the
Christian life in such a way as to be an effective witness for the
inbreaking and full coming of the Kingdom of Heaven and its King requires
more. The surplus of Grace is the uncreated energy gifted by God the Holy
Spirit EMPOWERING the Church to represent the Kingdom until it fully arives
doing peace and justice and ministering to individuals in dozens of ways and
in the here and now--------just a couple of thoughts from the
prairie---------Blessings Roger

----- Original Message -----
From: "Herb Davis" <herb....@mindspring.com>
To: <Confessi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 8:56 PM

[Gabriel Fackre]

Confessors,

 

Will I see any of you at the symposium on "the church and the public square" at the Henry Ward Beecher church in my old hometown, Brooklyn, this week? (Tony Robinson and Peggy Bendroth also speaking. For details see the Plymouth Church of the Pilgrims website.)

 

By return, we'll know who our next president is.

 

                   Gobama,

 

                        Gabe

 

[Scott Paeth]

No, I'll be at the American Academy of Religion here in Chicago this weekend. But I'd be very interested in knowing what you hear at the symposium.

Scott

[The Right Rev'd Richard Hammond Price, OCC, Abbot, Order of Corpus Christi]

Resources for 9 November, Ordinary Time 32/Pentecost 26

Readings

Amos 5:18-24 or Wisdom 6:12-16 or Joshua 24:1-3a, 14-25

Psalm 70 or Wisdom 6:12-16 or Psalm 78:1-7

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

St Matthew 25:1-13

Collect

Brighten your Church, O God,

with the promise of your kingdom

and waken our hearts to its light.

Bid us hasten with faith undimmed

to greet the bridegroom's return

and to enter the wedding feast.

We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ,

your Son,

who lives and reigns with you 

in the unity of the Holy Spirit,

God for ever and ever.

Hymns

Gathering: "Come, We That Love The Lord" MARCHING TO ZION

Homily: "When Long Before Time" THE SINGER AND THE SONG

Eucharist: "Soul, Adorn Yourself With Gladness" LENGO A TI, JESUS AMADO

Sending: "Let Streams Of Living Justice" THAXTED

[Richard Floyd]

Ted, Scott, John and Jim,

I too, have never voted for a Republican for President, and, like Jim,
regret my vote for Anderson, which was a protest vote.

Like Ted, I have some enthusiasm for Obama that I have lacked for some
time in previous elections. But being from Massachusetts my vote
means little.

As to the marriage amendment, I am with John Cedarleaf in not
believing in gay marriage, but thinking that the states should make
that decision ( and not the courts as they do here in the
Commonwealth). I acknowledge that this is most likely a generational
issue, as both my children are for gay marriage. John and I are in a
cohort well above Ted and Scott. And although I am convinced that
there cannot be such a thing as same-sex marriage from a Christian
perspective, I am equally convinced that I am on the wrong side of
history on this issue, at least in the US, and share little in common
with most of the folks in favor of national ban on such unions.

I do fervently hope Obama wins, yet I know not to put my trust in
leaders. He will face tremendous challenges: a tanking economy, two
wars of attrition, and the wreckage of an administration that really
didn't get much right. He also might have to deal with a Democratic
Congress without a strong minority to check and balance it.

So as Scripture enjoins us, we should pray for our leaders whoever
they may be.

Rick

[John Cedarleaf]

Rick:

Thanks for your comments on the election and the gay marriage issue. I'm
not so sure that it is a generational thing. Both my sons, age 34 and 30
are not for it and in fact vote Republican. Of course one is a financial
type and the other an FBI agent, so maybe that has something to do with
it, or maybe they are still rebelling against Mom and Dad voting
Democrat for all these years. I wonder if the cohort we're in(and Herb's
cohort) are the "old line Democrats"(Humphrey etc.) which always seems
to be in competition for control of the party with the far left. Who knows.

John

[fc...@comcast.net]

In reply to my own posting, here are a couple of jokes.

 

A Baptist minister was out of town and a member of his church died. The deacons called the Episcopal minister and asked him if he could do the funeral. Being a good priest the Episcopal minister called the Bishop and asked him if he could bury the Baptist. The Bishop responded: "Sure. Bury as many Baptists as you can."

 

Or have you heaard about the Ecumenical group that was on a flight that had engine problems and almost crashed in the Atlantic? When they were leabing the plane a repprter asked the various members of the denominations about the trip. In asking people responded that they were Presbyterians, Baptists, Reformed, Roman Catholic and one answered that he was an Ecopalian. The reporter had never heard of that denomination and so he asked "What is an Ecopalian?" The person replied, "An Ecopalian is a person who had the piss scared out of him."

 

Chris Anderson

 

--
"A confessor is one who is not ashamed to do something quite useless in a world of serious purposes." Karl Barth (CD III.4 p. 78)

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Herb,

God is ever the subject in the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I think we
are agreed on that, with the whole catholic and apostolic church.

Both the baptized in and the baptizer with the water are subjects in
baptism in water (unless of course, the baptized is an infant or
incapable of making his or her decision to be baptised known to the
baptizer, which I don't think is a good move on the part of the
church).

The act of baptizing and being baptized is as a form of prayer for the
baptism of the Holy Spirit; thus, as prayer it has its origin in God,
but remains a human act, like human faith, hope and love and all the
gifts of the Spirit, all of which have their origin in God, without
God becoming himself the subject. Perhaps we could say that God is
ever the Subject when Human beings become Subject, he is our redeemer,
he frees us for freedom to serve him. We become witnesses or
messengers according to the commissioning will of God, and we bring a
royal word, but the messenger is not the king, else he or she would
not be the messenger. "As the people were filled with expectation, and
all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might
be the Messiah, John answered all of them by saying, "I baptize you
with water; but one who is more powerful than I is coming, I am not
worthy to until the thong of his sandals. He will baptize you with the
Holy Spirit and fire." (Luke 3:13) When I baptize, I quote John word
for word here, because I believe that is exactly what I am being
called to do: baptize with water in prayerful anticipation of the one
who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Come, Creator Spirit! If Acts is
confusingto us, it is only because we confuse baptism in water with
baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Thus, baptism in water does not "dramatize" our repentance but does
form our public beginning in ministry together as repentant sinners,
following Jesus Christ our Lord as he made his public beginning in
ministry.

God bless!

Jim

On Oct 28, 10:13 pm, "Herb Davis" <herb.da...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Dear Jim,  It is very difficult for you to make God the subject in the
> sacrament of baptism.  It seems to be that the baptized is always the
> subject.  Does God act in the sacrament of baptism or is this just a human
> ritual that dramatizes our repentance.  Is the focus on us or is their an
> objective change that occurs by God act.  If God is not acting and I have
> the sense that this may be true in mainline protestant churches then we
> really have to tap dance faster.
>
> I think the record in Acts is confusing, since baptism has always been a
> wild sacrament.  Was it John's baptism?  Did they receive the Holy Spirit?
> They received the Holy Spirit but weren't baptist, so get somebody down
> there to baptism them.  
>
> I am not sure I understood your comment on the 5th commandment.  I don't
> want to believe you were saying that like at my baptism my father had his
> fingers crossed because he wasn't a church member I should still honor my
> father at least having me done.  For me the Sacrament of Baptism is more
> about the First Commandment, "Remember oh Israel I am the Lord you God who
> brought you out of the land of Egypt, Have no other gods before me."  So in
> baptism God brings us out of Egypt's rule into Canaan paradice, out of
> darkness into light, out of death into life.
>
> Peace, Herb
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
>

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[rjeasleasland]

[Trost, Theodore]

John, Rick, and others:

For me it is simply a matter of living with gay and lesbian people as
roommates and family members for most of my life; having them as
colleagues and friends; and understanding that the longing resolved in
Adam's song "This at last is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" is
the resolution to their longings as well.

There is a physicality to this that many heterosexuals do not like to
contemplate; I understand that. There is also a metaphysicality to it,
one that seeks institutional acknowledgement, and is related not only to
Eve and Adam but also to Christ's expressed longing "that they may all
be one." Marriage is the metaphor for this "oneness" in John's Gospel
beginning at Cana, continuing to the well at Samaria, and on into the
extended discourse at the Last Supper. Among Jesus' final acts in John
is the creation of new relationship: "Mother behold thy son." To my
mind, commitment to one another is the virtue Jesus holds up above all
others--and gay marriage participates in this virtue: "This is my
commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you" (John
15.12ff).

Ted Trost

-----Original Message-----
From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Cedarleaf
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 9:40 AM
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Open Forum

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Ted,

Marriage is not a metaphor for the oneness of the disciples in the
Gospel according to St. John. Marriage is here, as in Paul, and in
Revelation's Marriage feast of the Lamb, a sign of the oneness of
Christ and the Church, a sign consisting of two who are distinct
according to the fundamental created distinction within humanity, male
and female, joined as one by God and living together for life in the
totality of that unity.

God bless!

Jim Link

> > Rick- Hide quoted text -

[fc...@comcast.net]

Ted,

 

Your thoughts remind me of a conversation I had once with Norman Kansfield. This was after he had officiated at the union of his daughter to her female partner. He had some interesting thoughts on the terms we use for the covenants between heterosexual and homosexual couples. He argued that we should use the term "marriage" for homosexual couples and we should use the more biblical term "union" for heterosexual covenants because the text says "and they shall become one flesh."

 

My problem is that alnguage is often so imperfect in so many ways. We call where we park our cars the driveway and where we drive our cars the parkway. I think they should be reversed but it is not going to happen and it would not be worth the effort to chagne it. I have therefore changed my mind on the use of the word "marriage" to identify merely heterosexual couples. I believe that they should have the right of this desired "oneness" and the nominclature is not as important as we think it is. Does that  mean I have become a phenomenaligist?

 

Chris Anderson

 

--
"A confessor is one who is not ashamed to do something quite useless in a world of serious purposes." Karl Barth (CD III.4 p. 78)

 

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Trost, Theodore" <ttr...@as.ua.edu>

>
> John, Rick, and others:
>
> For me it is simply a matter of living with gay and lesbian people as
> roommates and family members for most of my life; having them as
> colleagues and friends; and understanding that the longing resolved in
> Adam's song "This at last is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" is
> the resolution to their longings as well.
>
> There is a physicality to this that many heterosexuals do not like to
> contemplate; I understand that. There is also a metaphysicality to it,
> one that seeks institutional acknowledgement, and is related not only to
> Eve and Adam but also to Christ's expressed longing "that they may all

> be one." Marriage is the metaphor for this "onenes s" in John's Gospel

> beginning at Cana, continuing to the well at Samaria, and on into the
> extended discourse at the Last Supper. Among Jesus' final acts in John
> is the creation of new relationship: "Mother behold thy son." To my
> mind, commitment to one another is the virtue Jesus holds up above all
> others--and gay marriage participates in this virtue: "This is my
> commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you" (John
> 15.12ff).
>
> Ted Trost
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Cedarleaf
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 9:40 AM
> To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: The Open Forum
>
>
> Rick:
>
> Thanks for your comments on the election and the gay marriage issue. I'm
>

> not so su re that it is a generational thing. Both my sons, age 34 and 30

>
> are not for it and in fact vote Republican. Of course one is a financial
>
> type and the other an FBI agent, so maybe that has something to do with
> it, or maybe they are still rebelling against Mom and Dad voting
> Democrat for all these years. I wonder if the cohort we're in(and Herb's
>
> cohort) are the "old line Democrats"(Humphrey etc.) which always seems
> to be in competition for control of the party with the far left. Who
> knows.
>
> John
> > Ted, Scott, John and Jim,
> >
> > I too, have never voted for a Republican for President, and, like Jim,
>
> > regret my vote for Anderson, which was a protest vote.
> >
> > Like Ted, I have some enthusiasm for Obama that I have lacked for some
>

> > time in previous elections. But being from Massach usetts my vote

> > means little.
> >
> > As to the marriage amendment, I am with John Cedarleaf in not
> > believing in gay marriage, but thinking that the states should make
> > that decision ( and not the courts as they do here in the
> > Commonwealth). I acknowledge that this is most likely a generational
>
> > issue, as both my children are for gay marriage. John and I are in a
>
> > cohort well above Ted and Scott. And although I am convinced that
> > there cannot be such a thing as same-sex marriage from a Christian
> > perspective, I am equally convinced that I am on the wrong side of
> > history on this issue, at least in the US, and share little in common
>
> > with most of the folks in favor of national ban on such unions.
> >
> > I do fervently hope Obama wins, yet I know not to put my trust in

> > lead ers. He will face tremendous challenges: a tanking economy, two