We just really...

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Simon Gray

unread,
Oct 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/7/97
to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This week, since I no longer have any connexion to Birmingham
Conservatoire, but am still connected with UCE as a whole,
I decided that I would switch my allegiences from the conservatoire
cf to the main uce cu, & one[1] particular thing struck[2] me:

What is it about 'young'[3] christians that when it comes to
prayer time, rather than 'we pray blah blah', they tend to
'we *just* pray blah', or 'we *really* pray blah blah blah' ?!
Am I alone in noticing this phenomenon ?!

[1] Well, obviously several things struck me, but
[2] only this seemed worth posting to netnews over.
[3] Using your favourite definition of 'young'
[4] Unreferenced footnote. System error.
[5] tm iaiaiaiaian bowen.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNDqwR0dRFO5sC2Q6EQLBVgCeLCXjAlnXaamFiH5DPmE1wqK6+iIAn1Bo
Ki4e/teTVW6CL5JOagTGB7km
=CFU2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
No PGP ? Then the message is not from me ! Public key at website.
http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/ <--- now with Sights & Sounds !

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Oct 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/7/97
to

Simon Gray wrote:

> What is it about 'young'[3] christians that when it comes to
> prayer time, rather than 'we pray blah blah', they tend to
> 'we *just* pray blah', or 'we *really* pray blah blah blah' ?!
> Am I alone in noticing this phenomenon ?!

Absolutely not. It's well known. "Just" and "really" are the
evangelicalese translations of "um" and "er". As, far too often,
I fear "Lord" is. In my less charitable moments I'm inclined to
take this latter as a breach of the Third Commandment.

--
Gareth McCaughan Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gj...@dpmms.cam.ac.uk Cambridge University, England.

Simon Gray

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

Yo word up bro, massiv respeck. I wuz rappin wiv the
uk.religion.christian posse, & ma main bro Gareth McCaughan dug us dis:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

~ > What is it about 'young'[3] christians that when it comes to
~ > prayer time, rather than 'we pray blah blah', they tend to
~ > 'we *just* pray blah', or 'we *really* pray blah blah blah' ?!
~ > Am I alone in noticing this phenomenon ?!
~
~ Absolutely not. It's well known. "Just" and "really" are the
~ evangelicalese translations of "um" and "er". As, far too often,
~ I fear "Lord" is. In my less charitable moments I'm inclined to
~ take this latter as a breach of the Third Commandment.

Like the frequent practise of finishing everything off with the
mantra 'injesuspreciousnameamen' ?!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNDtEyEdRFO5sC2Q6EQK0LACeMHgWrQ1kIH8d+mRzky4TwvjrZN0An33U
4wIjIe4A8MGhoVwSTWTH9V3y
=BD1R

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

si...@star-one.org.uk (Simon Gray) writes:

> Yo word up bro, massiv respeck. I wuz rappin wiv the
> uk.religion.christian posse, & ma main bro Gareth McCaughan dug us dis:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1

...


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
> Charset: noconv
>
> iQA/AwUBNDtEyEdRFO5sC2Q6EQK0LACeMHgWrQ1kIH8d+mRzky4TwvjrZN0An33U
> 4wIjIe4A8MGhoVwSTWTH9V3y
> =BD1R
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

aargh.

> ~ Absolutely not. It's well known. "Just" and "really" are the
> ~ evangelicalese translations of "um" and "er". As, far too often,
> ~ I fear "Lord" is. In my less charitable moments I'm inclined to
> ~ take this latter as a breach of the Third Commandment.
>
> Like the frequent practise of finishing everything off with the
> mantra 'injesuspreciousnameamen' ?!

Acksherly, I've *never* heard that. "In Jesus' name", yes, but
never "precious".

Mark Goodge

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

Simon Gray wrote:
>
> This week, since I no longer have any connexion to Birmingham
> Conservatoire, but am still connected with UCE as a whole,
> I decided that I would switch my allegiences from the conservatoire
> cf to the main uce cu, & one[1] particular thing struck[2] me:
>
> What is it about 'young'[3] christians that when it comes to
> prayer time, rather than 'we pray blah blah', they tend to
> 'we *just* pray blah', or 'we *really* pray blah blah blah' ?!

Same reason as my (fifty-something) pastor sticks "right" into every
other sentance.

Redundant adjectives and irrelevent interpositions are [really just]
there out of habit.

> Am I alone in noticing this phenomenon ?!

No!

Mark

Paul Wright

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

In article <3464aec1....@news.demon.co.uk>,

Simon Gray <si...@star-one.org.uk> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1

Who-hoo....

>What is it about 'young'[3] christians that when it comes to
>prayer time, rather than 'we pray blah blah', they tend to
>'we *just* pray blah', or 'we *really* pray blah blah blah' ?!

>Am I alone in noticing this phenomenon ?!

No. I would add the words "challenge" and "encourage" (this is a
favourite of the curate at the Round) to the list of evangelical jargon
words, as well as the phrase "nonchristunfrends" to refer to those who
aren't members of our joyful throng. Anyone think of any more?

http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/home/pw201/ciccu.html
has a sort of glossary for beginners.

While we're on the subject: Gareth, Melvyn Tinker has a thing in the
latest issue of Evangelicals Now which explains the imputed
righteousness business fairly well IMHO. I could post a summary if you
haven't got access to a copy.

--
Paul Wright, Churchill College, Cambridge | NatSci Part III Physics
http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/home/pw201/ | pw201 at hermes.cam.ac.uk, FFPGP

Annabel Smyth

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Simon Gray <si...@star-one.org.uk> wrote to
uk.religion.christian:

>Hash: SHA1


>
>This week, since I no longer have any connexion to Birmingham
>Conservatoire, but am still connected with UCE as a whole,
>I decided that I would switch my allegiences from the conservatoire
>cf to the main uce cu, & one[1] particular thing struck[2] me:
>

>What is it about 'young'[3] christians that when it comes to
>prayer time, rather than 'we pray blah blah', they tend to
>'we *just* pray blah', or 'we *really* pray blah blah blah' ?!
>Am I alone in noticing this phenomenon ?!
>

No, you aren't! Read Adrian Plass sometime; at least one of his
characters can't utter without saying "really, just....".

Actually, it so depends on what is done in that particular context.
I've been to places where prayers had to start "Dear Lord, we really
pray Lord that you will just Lord" (the word "Lord" doing duty for a
comma or an um or an er!), but I've also been to places where prayers
were one sentence long: "We pray for [whatever]", with no attempt to
tell God how to answer the prayers! (My favoured style, nowadays).

I was even, briefly, with one Christian community where when you prayed,
everybody prayed out loud in tongues at the same time, which struck me
as totally unBiblical, but there you are. It's what that fellowship
did, and not for me to criticise!
--
Annabel Smyth Ann...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
"These are my daughters, I suppose,
But where in the world have my children gone?" (don't know author)

James Wilkinson

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

Simon Gray wrote (among a lot of extra waffle...:-):

> What is it about 'young'[3] christians that when it comes to
> prayer time, rather than 'we pray blah blah', they tend to
> 'we *just* pray blah', or 'we *really* pray blah blah blah' ?!
> Am I alone in noticing this phenomenon ?!

I thought it was an evangelical phenomenon rather than a 'young
christian' phenomenon - unless you're talking about their spiritual
age (many people seem to 'graduate' to higher things - well, higher
churches). We don't have any of it in the Anglican Society. (That's
not because we don't approve, just our prayer is more in the ASB mould).

James.
(who had been wondering what had happened to the group...)
--
James Wilkinson * "Sometimes I think John's
University of Exeter * got an inferiority complex."
President of the Anglican Society - * "I have! I'm very inferior
http://gosh.ex.ac.uk/society/anglican/ * and proud of it!"

Ronnie Gibson

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

Annabel Smyth <Ann...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>

>I was even, briefly, with one Christian community where when you prayed,
>everybody prayed out loud in tongues at the same time, which struck me
>as totally unBiblical, but there you are. It's what that fellowship
>did, and not for me to criticise!

An interesting point and one which I spent quite a while discussing with
a friend of mine a year or two back.

Is it worth a new thread and discussion ?

>Annabel Smyth

Ronnie

--
..............................................................
: Ronnie Gibson Telephone 0141 548 2705 :
: Multimedia Programmer Fax 0141 552 5182 :
: AV Media Services, :
: University of Strathclyde ronnie...@strath.ac.uk:
: 155 George Street,Glasgow G1 1RD :
:............................................................:

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

Paul Wright wroght:

> While we're on the subject: Gareth, Melvyn Tinker has a thing in the
> latest issue of Evangelicals Now which explains the imputed
> righteousness business fairly well IMHO. I could post a summary if you
> haven't got access to a copy.

This must be some new meaning of the phrase `on the subject'
of which I was not previously aware, but ...

1. That sounds interesting.

2. I have no idea whether I have access to a copy of `Evangelicals
Now'; do your principles permit you to UMS me a photocopy of the
article? (I would have thought they should -- mumble research
purposes mumble.)

3. Do you mean it explains what's *meant* by i.r. (which I think
I understand just fine), or it explains why people *believe* in
i.r. (which I more or less understand, though I'm not convinced
they're right), or it explains why i.r. is *clearly taught in
scripture* (which is what I was denying, way back when)?

David Aldridge

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>
> Simon Gray wrote:
>
> >["just"s and "really"'s in charismatic/evangelical prayer]

> > Am I alone in noticing this phenomenon ?!
>
> Absolutely not. It's well known. "Just" and "really" are the
> evangelicalese translations of "um" and "er". As, far too often,
> I fear "Lord" is. In my less charitable moments I'm inclined to
> take this latter as a breach of the Third Commandment.

The other word, of course, is "honestly". The use of these kinds of
phrases is humourously summarised by the Winebibber cartoon (I may not
have the dialogue absolutely correct):

----------

[Three people, A, B, and C, are sitting on chairs getting ready to pray,
and as they start.....]

A: Lord. We really want to pray. Amen

B: Yes Lord. We honestly, really do just want to pray. Amen.

C: [Thinks for a bit, before a light bulb (idea) appears above his
head, then prays...] Lord, we really do want to just really say just
honestly. AMEN!

A&B just look on in amazement.
-------------
(Well, I thought it was funny, anyway! :-)

David
--
David C. Aldridge <><
email: emp...@brunel.academic.uk
WWW: http://www.brunel.ac.uk/~empgdca/
SPAM PREVENTION - replace "academic" by "ac" to email

- A stroke of the brush does not guarantee art from
the bristles - Ambassador Kosh

Gary Brun

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

I liked the part when it said "Buy a bull frog and call it Keiser Bill"
Annabel Smyth wrote in message ...

>On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Simon Gray <si...@star-one.org.uk> wrote to
>uk.religion.christian:
>
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>This week, since I no longer have any connexion to Birmingham
>>Conservatoire, but am still connected with UCE as a whole,
>>I decided that I would switch my allegiences from the conservatoire
>>cf to the main uce cu, & one[1] particular thing struck[2] me:
>>
>>What is it about 'young'[3] christians that when it comes to
>>prayer time, rather than 'we pray blah blah', they tend to
>>'we *just* pray blah', or 'we *really* pray blah blah blah' ?!
>>Am I alone in noticing this phenomenon ?!
>>
>No, you aren't! Read Adrian Plass sometime; at least one of his
>characters can't utter without saying "really, just....".
>
>Actually, it so depends on what is done in that particular context.
>I've been to places where prayers had to start "Dear Lord, we really
>pray Lord that you will just Lord" (the word "Lord" doing duty for a
>comma or an um or an er!), but I've also been to places where prayers
>were one sentence long: "We pray for [whatever]", with no attempt to
>tell God how to answer the prayers! (My favoured style, nowadays).
>
>I was even, briefly, with one Christian community where when you prayed,
>everybody prayed out loud in tongues at the same time, which struck me
>as totally unBiblical, but there you are. It's what that fellowship
>did, and not for me to criticise!

David Anderson

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

Paul Wright wrote:
>
> In article <3464aec1....@news.demon.co.uk>,
> Simon Gray <si...@star-one.org.uk> wrote:
>
> No. I would add the words "challenge" and "encourage" (this is a
> favourite of the curate at the Round) to the list of evangelical jargon
> words, as well as the phrase "nonchristunfrends" to refer to those who
> aren't members of our joyful throng. Anyone think of any more?
>
Yes. 'convict of sins' as in 'We just really would' - that's another
one: always pray in the subjective mood - 'really just would Lord pray
that you would just really convict our nonchristunfriends of their sins
Lord'. Am I wrong in thinking that 'convict' means 'find guilty' so
that our young evangelical has just prayed that his/her friends will be
sent to Hell? I think it's a malapropism for 'convince'.
David
No institution is responsible for these views, etc.

Graham Weeks

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>
> Simon Gray wrote:
>
> > What is it about 'young'[3] christians that when it comes to
> > prayer time, rather than 'we pray blah blah', they tend to
> > 'we *just* pray blah', or 'we *really* pray blah blah blah' ?!
> > Am I alone in noticing this phenomenon ?!
>
> Absolutely not. It's well known. "Just" and "really" are the
> evangelicalese translations of "um" and "er". As, far too often,
> I fear "Lord" is. In my less charitable moments I'm inclined to
> take this latter as a breach of the Third Commandment.
>

I have found it helpful to point out to the *jus*t user that if he/she
were to subsitute the synonym, merely, they may understand what is being
conveyed.

Graham Weeks

The just shall live by faith, not by mis-use of language.

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

Paul Wright Wroght:

> >2. I have no idea whether I have access to a copy of `Evangelicals
> >Now'; do your principles permit you to UMS me a photocopy of the
> >article? (I would have thought they should -- mumble research
> >purposes mumble.)
>

> Yes. Gareth McGaughan at the DPMMS do?

Make it Mc>C<aughan, and yes. Peterhouse would be even better.

> >3. Do you mean it explains what's *meant* by i.r. (which I think
> >I understand just fine), or it explains why people *believe* in
> >i.r. (which I more or less understand, though I'm not convinced
> >they're right), or it explains why i.r. is *clearly taught in
> >scripture* (which is what I was denying, way back when)?
>

> The third one, basically. It's a sort of review article on justification
> by faith. Will photocopy and let you have a copy. Also will post summary
> here at some point, although I don't have it on me at the moment.

Excellent.

Paul Wright

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

In article <86zpojn...@g.pet.cam.ac.uk>,

Gareth McCaughan <gj...@dpmms.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> The third one, basically. It's a sort of review article on justification
>> by faith. Will photocopy and let you have a copy. Also will post summary
>> here at some point, although I don't have it on me at the moment.
>
>Excellent.

OK, here's a shortened paraphrase of the article. It's called
"Justifying Justification", by Melvin Tinker, p. 14 of the October 1997
issue of EN.

Luther thought justification by faith was a jolly important thing, as
did several other evangelical heroes of the faith. But today some people
seem embarrassed by the doctrine. Oblitatory quote from 1 Cor 1:16-17.
Key term is "righteousness of God" (dikaiosune theou). What does this
mean?

Three basic views:
1. Moral quality of God: all his actions are right. Rom 3:25-26 God
demonstrates his justice (dikaiosune) by presenting J as a sacrifice. He
does not ignore sin (v.25b) but deals with it.
2. Divine activity whereby God intervenes to save his people (eg Isa
46:13)
3. What God achieves *for* us, whereby we're acquitted by God and stand
in a right relationship with him, credited as righteous. This is
sometimes referred to as imputed righteousness.

Analogy from Hebrew law court: the "justified" person is the one who the
judge says is in the right, nothing to do with moral character.

More on the imputed righteousness bit: N.T. Wright (the "What Paul
really said" bloke) takes "justify" solely in this sense, whilst taking
the "righteousness of God" to refer solely to the saving activity of
God. But this doesn't take into account 2 Cor 5:21 as well as the texts
in Rom 4 which speak of righteousness being accreditted to those who
have faith (a commercial term taken from the world of accountancy). [
interestingly this was the same answer I got when I asked an ex-CICCU
exec person this, so I think it's the common argument for this one ]

So which of the 3 interpretations is right? All of them (reference to
Stott's comment, from his commentary on Romans, that he's never seen
why he should have to choose just one). Philosophy jargon for this is
a "polymorhpous concept".

More stuff on how important this all is, quotes from Gal 1:6ff etc. and
dire warnings about neglecting the teaching of justification by faith.

FIN

Discuss.

Will send Gareth the full text by CUSU-MS to Peterhouse when next I am
in Churchill (I think undergraduates aren't allowed to use the proper
UMS, but will check).

Annabel Smyth

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Mark Goodge <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote to
uk.religion.christian:

>Incidentally, I've just opened a packet of Doritos and found a small
>piece of red card signed "love, Geri" on it. The funny thing is, it's
>got a little x as a kiss sybol next to the signature, except that the
>x is hand drawn (of course), and it loops round so it actually looks
>like a fish symbol. Could this be A Sign? Oh heck, I'm rambling now.
>
Does this mean you have Won Something?

Annabel Smyth

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Georgina Allen <Geor...@akra.demon.co.uk> wrote to
uk.religion.christian:

>In article <N.100997....@demon.co.uk>, John Mitchell
><j...@rheom.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>Now, I do believe that "there's power in Jesus' name" as the hymn says
>>but does praying in "Jesus' name" just mean "use the formula", or is that
>>just trivialising it (as I feel) ?
>
>I think it depends on the tone of voice and the frequency that it is
>used in.
>
The trouble is, so many people use it to mean "I've finished my prayer
for now; it's someone else's turn".

>On the other hand, I think I am happier with people praying in a way
>that they feel comfortable with, rather than them not praying at all
>:-). I've got a sneaky feeling that God might not mind toooo much
>either, so long as it's in the right spirit ...
>
How very true! The trouble comes when we don't realise there are more
ways of praying than the one they use in the prayer meeting.....

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

Paul Wright wrote:

> Will send Gareth the full text by CUSU-MS to Peterhouse when next I am
> in Churchill (I think undergraduates aren't allowed to use the proper
> UMS, but will check).

I thought you were when sending stuff to Fellows. Or does that only
apply when it's academic work?

Patrick Herring

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

John Mitchell wrote:
>
> On 08/10/97 01:38, in message <3483449c....@news.demon.co.uk>,

> Simon Gray <si...@star-one.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > Like the frequent practise of finishing everything off with the
> > mantra 'injesuspreciousnameamen' ?!
>
> At my last Church we had a couple who were preparing to go out as
> missionaries to Nepal.
>
> They were occasionally asked to do the intercessions during the service,
> but were criticised for ending their prayers simply "Amen" instead of
> "Injesuspreciousnameamen". The Vicar told them they must use the In Jesus
> Name formula: "otherwise for all we know you might be praying to Buddha."

ROTFL! Gives me the image of the Great Sorting Office In The Sky: Peter
- no address on this one, J? Jesus - nope I've had my quota of petitions
for today, Peter - I'll put it in Bud's tray then, where is he anyway,
don't tell me he's gone and reincarnated again, that's the 3rd time this
century.

> They were quite flabbergasted (as was I).


>
> Now, I do believe that "there's power in Jesus' name" as the hymn says
> but does praying in "Jesus' name" just mean "use the formula", or is
> that just trivialising it (as I feel) ?

ISTR it's a Jewish phrase that means something like 'by his authority' &
the closest Western equivalent is a personal seal on a letter. I would
say that just using the words rather than seeking the spirit is a
trivialisation in this case as it is in any other.

yours, Patrick
________________________________________________________
Patrick Herring at work, herr...@rlsclare.agw.bt.co.uk
Disclaimer: The form is BT but the essence is me.

"Occam's razor is so sharp, I bought the whole argument"

John Mitchell

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

On 08/10/97 01:38, in message <3483449c....@news.demon.co.uk>,
Simon Gray <si...@star-one.org.uk> wrote:

> Like the frequent practise of finishing everything off with the
> mantra 'injesuspreciousnameamen' ?!

At my last Church we had a couple who were preparing to go out as
missionaries to Nepal.

They were occasionally asked to do the intercessions during the service,
but were criticised for ending their prayers simply "Amen" instead of
"Injesuspreciousnameamen". The Vicar told them they must use the In Jesus
Name formula: "otherwise for all we know you might be praying to Buddha."

They were quite flabbergasted (as was I).

Now, I do believe that "there's power in Jesus' name" as the hymn says
but does praying in "Jesus' name" just mean "use the formula", or is that
just trivialising it (as I feel) ?

--
John Mitchell.
"The Amish culture and lifestyle is unforgettably portrayed in this
high-tech, multimedia presentation.." (From an American Tourist Brochure)

Ben Edgington

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

[Hi all, I'm still around! Just a bit busy lately...]

Gary Brun <nigh...@online.no> writes:
[re Adrian Plass, I suppose]


> I liked the part when it said "Buy a bull frog and call it Keiser Bill"

IIRC it was a tree frog. And "Kaiser Bill". So there. Yep, I liked it
too!

God bless,
Ben

--
Ben Edgington + Psalm 100:5
+++++
b...@met.rdg.ac.uk + The Lord is good and
http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~ben/ + his love endures forever

Paul Wright

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

In article <08ikpyBf...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk>,
Annabel Smyth <Ann...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>And there are the appalling Evangelical guilt-producers, mostly
>acronyms, but not all:
>
>JOY is spelt Jesus first, Others Second, Yourself last (= nowhere).

Actually, I learnt this one from a Catholic nun, so I think it's an Xian
guilt producer rather than a specifically evangelical one. Last !=
nowhere, shurely?

>If God seems far away, who moved (right, like our relationship with God
>is our responsibility? I don't think so!)

Not sure about this one, it's a half-truth basically, isn't it? We can
move away but sometimes hard times happen for no apparent reason. Like
for Job.

I have another one: the use of the word "appropriate". The phrase "not
appropriate" is used to describe something like axe-murder, going out
with non-Xians, smoking etc.

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

Archimandrite Kyril Jenner wrote:

> It is one reason why I am very happy to belong to a 'liturgical' Church
> where public extempore prayer is only permitted for Bishops.

Really? What does "extempore" mean here? Anything not contained
in the liturgy? If so, does that mean that a congregation can't
pray as a whole for specific varying issues unless there is a
Bishop present to lead them?

Malcolm Jenner

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

In article <86vhz7e...@g.pet.cam.ac.uk>, gj...@dpmms.cam.ac.uk
says...

>
>Archimandrite Kyril Jenner wrote:
>
>> It is one reason why I am very happy to belong to a 'liturgical'
Church
>> where public extempore prayer is only permitted for Bishops.
>
>Really? What does "extempore" mean here? Anything not contained
>in the liturgy?
Improvised forms of prayer.

>If so, does that mean that a congregation can't
>pray as a whole for specific varying issues unless there is a
>Bishop present to lead them?

There are ways of including special needs within the liturgical
framework.

See C.S.Lewis for an excellent discussion of why liturgical prayer is
preferable to extempore prayer in worship.

Archimandrite Kyril Jenner.

Georgina Allen

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

In article <N.100997....@demon.co.uk>, John Mitchell
<j...@rheom.demon.co.uk> writes

>Now, I do believe that "there's power in Jesus' name" as the hymn says

>but does praying in "Jesus' name" just mean "use the formula", or is that
>just trivialising it (as I feel) ?

I think it depends on the tone of voice and the frequency that it is
used in.

On the other hand, I think I am happier with people praying in a way


that they feel comfortable with, rather than them not praying at all
:-). I've got a sneaky feeling that God might not mind toooo much
either, so long as it's in the right spirit ...

--
Georgina Allen
Computers ... they'll never catch on ...

Jeremy Parsons

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

David Anderson wrote in message <343BDD...@sussex.ac.uk>...
>Paul Wright wrote:
>>
>> In article <86u3esck...@g.pet.cam.ac.uk>,

>> Gareth McCaughan <gj...@dpmms.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> >3. Do you mean it explains what's *meant* by i.r. (which I think
>> >I understand just fine), or it explains why people *believe* in
>> >i.r. (which I more or less understand, though I'm not convinced
>> >they're right), or it explains why i.r. is *clearly taught in
>> >scripture* (which is what I was denying, way back when)?
>>
>> The third one, basically. It's a sort of review article on
justification
>> by faith. Will photocopy and let you have a copy. Also will post
summary
>> here at some point, although I don't have it on me at the moment.
>>
>Does it take account of N.T.Wright's brilliant book 'What Saint Paul
>Really Said'? (Published as a response to AN Wilson).
>Basically, Wright says that imputed righteousness is a mistranslation
>and Paul is actually talking about God's covenant love, etc.
>David

I offered a couple of weeks back to post the tree of translation options
that he put in the book for everyone's interest. Perhaps I'll do it
after all - it's very interesting (honest!).
--
Jeremy Parsons

Georgina Allen

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

In article <343E39...@sussex.ac.uk>, David Anderson
<ea...@sussex.ac.uk> writes
>Yes, but why do people use these formulae: 'just', 'really'?
>They may believe that if they do it in the way they would be comfortable
>with, they won't be holy enough, so they have to use the formulae to fit
>in.

I agree, but to a certain extent we all slip into formulas even with
private prayer. Using a "formula" such as A C T S (Adoration Confession
Thanksgiving Supplication) can be very useful to get into prayer mode,
or it can do nothing for you whatsoever. Personally, I am in the latter
category!

I guess what I am trying to say is that formulas can work for you or
against you.

>It sounds like jargon, ie someone not thinking about the meaning of what
>they say.

Yep.

I remember that when I was younger and slightly intimidated by prayer
groups (to a certain extent I still am - I would far rather stay at home
and mutter a few words to God over a cup of coffee :o) ) that I would
slip into the "accepted christian jargon" to pray. However, at least it
gave me the confidence to have a chat to God in front of all of those
other people, rather than me sitting in the corner quietly, adding the
odd amen and getting more and more uncomfortable.

Night Owl

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

Yes your right..still spelling the NOG way.....any one remember the program
Noggin The Nog? Nobody has a clue what I am talking about over here.
Ben Edgington wrote in message ...

David Anderson

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

Georgina Allen wrote:
>

> On the other hand, I think I am happier with people praying in a way
> that they feel comfortable with, rather than them not praying at all
> :-). I've got a sneaky feeling that God might not mind toooo much
> either, so long as it's in the right spirit ...
>

Yes, but why do people use these formulae: 'just', 'really'?
They may believe that if they do it in the way they would be comfortable
with, they won't be holy enough, so they have to use the formulae to fit
in.

It sounds like jargon, ie someone not thinking about the meaning of what
they say.

David

Night Owl

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

Why is it prayer meetings that we find it very hard to be silent and just
listen. Meetings I have attended have a maximum of 30seconds silence before
someone feels the need to say a few words.
David Anderson wrote in message <343E39...@sussex.ac.uk>...

Mark Goodge

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

Annabel Smyth wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Mark Goodge <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote to
> uk.religion.christian:
>
> >Incidentally, I've just opened a packet of Doritos and found a small
> >piece of red card signed "love, Geri" on it. The funny thing is, it's
> >got a little x as a kiss sybol next to the signature, except that the
> >x is hand drawn (of course), and it loops round so it actually looks
> >like a fish symbol. Could this be A Sign? Oh heck, I'm rambling now.
> >
> Does this mean you have Won Something?

A free packet of Doritos. But that was a separate voucher to the "love,
Geri" card.

Mark

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

David Anderson wrote:

> Yes, but why do people use these formulae: 'just', 'really'?
> They may believe that if they do it in the way they would be comfortable
> with, they won't be holy enough, so they have to use the formulae to fit
> in.
> It sounds like jargon, ie someone not thinking about the meaning of what
> they say.

I don't think that's it. I think the words are precisely equivalent
to `um' and `er', and that people just [oops] pick up the habit
through hearing others do it. Those with an acute sense of the
ridiculous don't. I don't think `not being holy enough' comes into
it at all.

Rhiannon Macfie

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

David Anderson assembled this on a fridge door:
> Georgina Allen wrote:
> >

> > On the other hand, I think I am happier with people praying in a way
> > that they feel comfortable with, rather than them not praying at all
> > :-). I've got a sneaky feeling that God might not mind toooo much
> > either, so long as it's in the right spirit ...
> >

> Yes, but why do people use these formulae: 'just', 'really'?
> They may believe that if they do it in the way they would be comfortable
> with, they won't be holy enough, so they have to use the formulae to fit
> in.

I wouldn`t agree at all. I think that people do it out of habit, and the need
to keep the flow of talk going, or else people won`t know whether the prayer
is finished or not. When one person is praying and the rest of the room is
silent, or full of low murmurings, a gap in talk can sound awfully exposed,
and i think people are selfconscious about it. Personally I would rather
wait as long as it takes to find a suitable word (bearing in mind that
God knows what I mean anyway!): however, I often get the feeling that this
makes it hard for people to know when I`ve finished!

I think there`s a very limited understanding of group prayer sometimes. We
sit in our little circles with our hands in our laps and our hair in our eyes,
and one person prays in a `holy voice` - all slow and muted - while the
rest of us sit there and nod to ourselves, or say `Mmmm` at intervals.
In short, we pretend as much as we can that everyone else in the group
doesn`t exist.

Now, I can understand this to a certain extent. People are embarrased
or shy or afraid, and it`s our way of coping. But it`s *group* prayer,
for heaven`s sake! I often feel there should be more interaction between
the group, or else it`s just a collection of individuals who just
happen to be praying to God in the same place. I`m not saying we should
chorus our prayers in perfect unison (though there is a place for that
in liturgy). What I am saying is that there are little ways in which we
can acknowledge that we are a group with a common cause coming to God
together.

For example, when I am in a group, and we pray for another person
within that group, I like to look at that person. It helps me to
concentrate on her need, and to pray for her more effectively. I think we
could try holding hands as we pray, to emphasise our `groupness`. We could
try having real silence together - not the silence we usually get in these
groups, which is often full of people thinking things like "Should I
pray now?" "I didn`t quite mean what I prayed the way it came out.."
"Everyone else has prayed, are they waiting on me?" "I don`t know what to
say" "We`ve been sitting here for ages and no-one`s said anything - is it
time to stop?" - but real silence, consciously decided on beforehand
for a set period of time, not to be alone with God but to be *together*
with God. I don`t think I`d be very good at it. I don`t even know if it
would work or not. But I think it could be worth a try. I think people
often limit themselves to one type of prayer, and deprive themselves
of a great richness.

> It sounds like jargon, ie someone not thinking about the meaning of what
> they say.

Well, that too. But I think it`s less jargon than fill-in words - the same
sort of thing that `sort of` or `like` or `you see` have in ordinary
conversations.


Rhiannon

--

http://www.ed.ac.uk/~rhi ENTP
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My disk space is valuable. Therefore I charge a handling fee
for all unsolicited commercial email I receive
(see http://www.ed.ac.uk/~rhi/conditions.html for details).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
696 - kinky beast

Georgina Allen

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

In article <exK+qEA5...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk>, Annabel Smyth
<Ann...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk> writes

>The trouble is, so many people use it to mean "I've finished my prayer
>for now; it's someone else's turn".

Sometimes advantageous!! I remember one prayer meeting when someone
went on and on and on and on and on. I would have really liked to have
heard the words "In Jesus Name, Amen" then! (Especially as it could
have been prayed in two lines flat - maybe she thought that God would be
more inclined to answer it, if just to shut her up!)

>>On the other hand, I think I am happier with people praying in a way
>>that they feel comfortable with, rather than them not praying at all
>>:-). I've got a sneaky feeling that God might not mind toooo much
>>either, so long as it's in the right spirit ...
>>

>How very true! The trouble comes when we don't realise there are more
>ways of praying than the one they use in the prayer meeting.....

I agree. Has anyone here read Richard Foster's "Prayer"? I would
thoroughly recommend it to anyone and everyone. It can be very easy to
get stuck in a rut with prayer.

Simon Gray

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

Yo word up bro, massiv respeck. I wuz rappin wiv the
uk.religion.christian posse, & ma main bro Night Owl dug us dis:

~ Why is it prayer meetings that we find it very hard to be silent and just
~ listen.

We don't where I go...

~ Meetings I have attended have a maximum of 30seconds silence before
~ someone feels the need to say a few words.

...sometimes 30 minutes can pass before anybody speaks !

--
News Flash: The Albert Memorial is still there
http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/ <--- now with Sights & Sounds !

Mark Goodge

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

On Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:04:57 GMT, Annabel Smyth
<Ann...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>How very true! The trouble comes when we don't realise there are more
>ways of praying than the one they use in the prayer meeting.....

And also that there are far more ways than one of praying *in* a
prayer meeting, as well.

Mark
--
Visit Mark's World at http://www.good-stuff.co.uk/mark/

Annabel Smyth

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Night Owl <nigh...@online.no> wrote to
uk.religion.christian:

>Why is it prayer meetings that we find it very hard to be silent and just

>listen. Meetings I have attended have a maximum of 30seconds silence before


>someone feels the need to say a few words.

Because sitting in silence and listening can be enormously threatening!
There is a branch of the church which does practice silent prayer,
called Julian prayer, I think - someone else is bound to have an address
from which you can find out details.

But unless you are used to it, silent prayer in a group is horribly
threatening, and many people can't take it. I've known people pray
things like "Thank you Lord for a lovely day" when it's pouring with
rain, simply to break a silence they couldn't take any more!

Calum MacGregor

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

In article <61g323$4q6$1...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, Paul Wright
<pw...@cam.ac.uk> writes
>In article <3464aec1....@news.demon.co.uk>,
>Simon Gray <si...@star-one.org.uk> wrote:
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>
>Who-hoo....

>
>>What is it about 'young'[3] christians that when it comes to
>>prayer time, rather than 'we pray blah blah', they tend to
>>'we *just* pray blah', or 'we *really* pray blah blah blah' ?!
>>Am I alone in noticing this phenomenon ?!
>
>No. I would add the words "challenge" and "encourage" (this is a
>favourite of the curate at the Round) to the list of evangelical jargon
>words, as well as the phrase "nonchristunfrends" to refer to those who
>aren't members of our joyful throng. Anyone think of any more?
>
My last church used to use 'prayforthoseintheirbedsofsickness' fairly
often.


Calum
ca...@econnect.demon.co.uk

Georgina Allen

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

In article <HMAiqaAK...@rauko.demon.co.uk>, Marc Read
<Ma...@rauko.demon.co.uk> writes

>Georgina Allen <Geor...@akra.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>I think it depends on the tone of voice and the frequency that it is
>>used in.
>
>Good grief! Not a member of the Bene Gesserit, by any chance?

Bene Gesserit ... Bene Gesserit ... that name rings a bell, where have I
heard that before? ...

... Oh ... wasn't that the name of the religious group in the "Dune"
series? It's a LONG time since I read that :o), so I have totally lost
your reference!

--
Georgina Allen
Terminally confused ...

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

Annabel Smyth wrote:

> >Incidentally, I've just opened a packet of Doritos and found a small
> >piece of red card signed "love, Geri" on it. The funny thing is, it's
> >got a little x as a kiss sybol next to the signature, except that the
> >x is hand drawn (of course), and it loops round so it actually looks
> >like a fish symbol. Could this be A Sign? Oh heck, I'm rambling now.
> >
> Does this mean you have Won Something?

Yes. It means he's won the Spice Girls. Poor chap.

John Mitchell

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

On 08/10/97 23:32, in message <343C7A...@dircon.co.uk>, Graham Weeks
<wee...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
> I have found it helpful to point out to the *jus*t user that if he/she
> were to subsitute the synonym, merely, they may understand what is being
> conveyed.
>
> Graham Weeks
>
> The just shall live by faith, not by mis-use of language.

The 'merely' shall live by faith ???

Hmmmmm.

Andrew McFarland

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

Annabel Smyth wrote:

> But unless you are used to it, silent prayer in a group is horribly
> threatening, and many people can't take it. I've known people pray
> things like "Thank you Lord for a lovely day" when it's pouring with
> rain, simply to break a silence they couldn't take any more!

I like the rain, myself. Unless it starts when I don't have my unbrella.

Andy

John Mitchell

unread,
Oct 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/12/97
to

On 10/10/97 06:19, in message <61la14$o8s$1...@news1.sol.no>, Night Owl
<nigh...@online.no> wrote:

> Yes your right..still spelling the NOG way.....any one remember the program
> Noggin The Nog? Nobody has a clue what I am talking about over here.

Oh, yes ! We've got it on Video and my children love it. They don't even seem to
notice it isn't in colour.

<sigh> they don't make programmes like that any more !

--
John Mitchell
Announcement at the London Aquarium on 19-8-97 at 1:38 p.m.:
"Would Mr. Fish please go to the telephone." I know, I was there.....

John Mitchell

unread,
Oct 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/12/97
to

> Annabel Smyth wrote:
> > I've known people pray
> > things like "Thank you Lord for a lovely day" when it's pouring with
> > rain,

There was a classic Gilescartoon some years ago showing a Hanvest
Festival service in a rural - nay rustic - Parish Church . The Vicar was
saying:

"...and in view of the recent widespread flooding I think we'll omit the verse
about 'soft, refreshing rain.'"

Robert Billing

unread,
Oct 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/12/97
to

In article <N.101197....@rheom.demon.co.uk>
j...@rheom.demon.co.uk "John Mitchell" writes:

> <sigh> they don't make programmes like that any more !

Probably due to political correctness. Noggin the Nog and Nogbad the
Bad are all right, but Olaf the Black sounds too much like a nig-nog.

:*) <-- For the humour challenged this is a smiley and the whole
posting is intended as a joke. Taking it seriously is a *very* *silly*
thing to do.

--
I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal
lover, I live near 0:46W 51:22N. http://www.tnglwood.demon.co.uk/
"Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock
phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three"

Marc Read

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to
Yes, it is from Dune. I guess this is one of those jokes which weren't
terribly funny to begin with and lose all vestiges of humour when
explained. It's just that the BG use something called "Voice" (with a
capital vee) which makes people respond without thinking, by using
precisely chosen frequencies.

--
Marc Read http://www.rauko.demon.co.uk <*> ma...@rauko.demon.co.uk <><
"It is always easy to tell whether people are doing good philosophy: they are
if they are laughing." (Charles Daniels, quoted by Bas van Fraassen)

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

Paul Wright wrote:

> >If that's all `imputed righteousness' means then I have no objection
> >to CICCU or anyone else claiming it's clearly taught in scripture
> >(I'm not sure they're right, but they have a decent case). But the
> >CICCU doctrinal basis says more than that: it says not only that
> >we are credited with righteousness, but that *the righteousness
> >with which we are credited is Christ's*. It is this that I suspect
> >of being baseless; I think it arises from an overly mechanistic
> >view of God's operations, based on a principle that I suppose
> >physicists would state as `righteousness is conserved'.
>
> What about the bit about the "righteousness of God" in 2 Cor? Paul's
> use of accountancy terminology in Romans 4 suggests that
> "righteousness" is a thing which you can be credited with, combination
> of the two is that God gives us his own "righteousness".

The Greek genitive is, I believe, rather broader in meaning than
the English. If so, then surely "righteousness of God" could mean
- righteousness which is God's;
- righteousness given by God;
- godly righteousness.

Could someone who knows more Greek than I do comment?

> I've finally made it to Churchill so I'll bung a photocopy of the
> article in the ICMS in a minute...

Hooray!

Paul Wright

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

In article <86soube...@g.pet.cam.ac.uk>,
Gareth McCaughan <gj...@dpmms.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Paul Wright wrote:
>
>> Oblitatory quote from 1 Cor 1:16-17.
>
>I'm confused.
[snip]
>*Romans* 1:16-17, perhaps?

Yes, sorry, typo there.

>> 3. What God achieves *for* us, whereby we're acquitted by God and stand
>> in a right relationship with him, credited as righteous. This is
>> sometimes referred to as imputed righteousness.


>
>If that's all `imputed righteousness' means then I have no objection
>to CICCU or anyone else claiming it's clearly taught in scripture
>(I'm not sure they're right, but they have a decent case). But the
>CICCU doctrinal basis says more than that: it says not only that
>we are credited with righteousness, but that *the righteousness
>with which we are credited is Christ's*. It is this that I suspect
>of being baseless; I think it arises from an overly mechanistic
>view of God's operations, based on a principle that I suppose
>physicists would state as `righteousness is conserved'.

What about the bit about the "righteousness of God" in 2 Cor? Paul's
use of accountancy terminology in Romans 4 suggests that
"righteousness" is a thing which you can be credited with, combination
of the two is that God gives us his own "righteousness".

>> Analogy from Hebrew law court: the "justified" person is the one who the
>> judge says is in the right, nothing to do with moral character.
>
>I think I have a problem with this. If it's `nothing to do with
>moral character' surely this is for one of two reasons:

[snip]

I don't think my paraphrase made that bit clear. The point was that the
author disputed that the Hebrew law court model was all there was to
"righteousness", but that this was denied by N.T.Wright, for example.
The next paragraph about "this view" refers to the law court
explanation.

I've finally made it to Churchill so I'll bung a photocopy of the
article in the ICMS in a minute...


--
Paul Wright, Churchill College, Cambridge | NatSci Part III Physics
http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/home/pw201/ | pw201 at hermes.cam.ac.uk, FFPGP

Marc Read

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

Simon Gray <si...@star-one.org.uk> wrote:

>...sometimes 30 minutes can pass before anybody speaks !
>

I find it *much* easier to be silent when I know the people I am with
well. I'm quite a gregarious person by nature: this maybe makes me value
silence highly, since it's hard for me on the whole when other people
are around. OTOH, I have been known (very seldom) to sit for 30 minutes
in silence. As it happens, I was praying; I don't know what the others
were doing![1]

Marc

[1] Before anyone else cuts in with this, the answer was *not* "getting
on with their exam papers..." :)

David Anderson

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

Georgina Allen wrote:
>
> In article <343E39...@sussex.ac.uk>, David Anderson
> <ea...@sussex.ac.uk> writes
> >Yes, but why do people use these formulae: 'just', 'really'?
> >They may believe that if they do it in the way they would be comfortable
> >with, they won't be holy enough, so they have to use the formulae to fit
> >in.
>
> I agree, but to a certain extent we all slip into formulas even with
> private prayer. Using a "formula" such as A C T S (Adoration Confession
> Thanksgiving Supplication) can be very useful to get into prayer mode,
> or it can do nothing for you whatsoever. Personally, I am in the latter
> category!
>
> I guess what I am trying to say is that formulas can work for you or
> against you.
>
'Formula' was probably the wrong word on my part. I find ACTS
moderately helpful in private prayer, when my thoughts usually stray
onto an irrelevant subject in a matter of seconds.

> >It sounds like jargon, ie someone not thinking about the meaning of what
> >they say.
>

> Yep.
>
> I remember that when I was younger and slightly intimidated by prayer
> groups (to a certain extent I still am - I would far rather stay at home
> and mutter a few words to God over a cup of coffee :o) ) that I would
> slip into the "accepted christian jargon" to pray. However, at least it
> gave me the confidence to have a chat to God in front of all of those
> other people, rather than me sitting in the corner quietly, adding the
> odd amen and getting more and more uncomfortable.
>

Does that say something about the atmosphere of the group?
But since it gives you confidence to pray aloud, its a good thing.
David

John Mitchell

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

On 08/10/97 12:18, in message <343BDC...@sussex.ac.uk>, David
Anderson <ea...@sussex.ac.uk> wrote:

> Yes. 'convict of sins' as in 'We just really would' - that's another
> one: always pray in the subjective mood - 'really just would Lord pray
> that you would just really convict our nonchristunfriends of their sins
> Lord'. Am I wrong in thinking that 'convict' means 'find guilty' so
> that our young evangelical has just prayed that his/her friends will be
> sent to Hell? I think it's a malapropism for 'convince'.

AIUI:

'Convict' I think is churchspeke for "convince us we are guilty" which is what
the Holy Spirit does (John 16:8) as a preparation for realising what Jesus has
done for us.

'Condemn' is what Satan does (the name means 'accuser'), convincing us
there is no hope for us full stop.

Unfortunately the distinction often gets blurred and christians often think that a
feeling of condemnation is 'normal'.

There was also a wonderful old word "compunction" which meant a heartfelt
sorrow for sin. But that is an unfashionable concept these days.

John Osborn

unread,
Oct 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/15/97
to

Gareth McCaughan wrote:

>
> Paul Wright wrote:
> > 3. What God achieves *for* us, whereby we're acquitted by God and stand
> > in a right relationship with him, credited as righteous. This is
> > sometimes referred to as imputed righteousness.
>
> If that's all `imputed righteousness' means then I have no objection
> to CICCU or anyone else claiming it's clearly taught in scripture
> (I'm not sure they're right, but they have a decent case). But the
> CICCU doctrinal basis says more than that: it says not only that
> we are credited with righteousness, but that *the righteousness
> with which we are credited is Christ's*. It is this that I suspect
> of being baseless; I think it arises from an overly mechanistic
> view of God's operations, based on a principle that I suppose
> physicists would state as `righteousness is conserved'.

I presume that the statement that we are credited with Christ's
righteousness is based on 1 Cor. 1:30:
'He [God] is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made
our wisdom, *our righteousness* and sanctification and redemption.'
It seems to me that in saying that Christ has been made our
righteousness, something more is meant than simply the fact that
God has credited righteousness to us. I think that it is reasonable
to interprete this to mean that the righteousness with which we
areredited is Christ's. If 1 Cor. 1:30 simply means that Christ is
God's means of giving us righteousness (without implying that this
is Christ's righteousness) then it seems to me to be a strange way
of saying it.

--
John Osborn
University of Bradford.
To reply by email, replace "br" by "bradford" in my email address.

David Anderson

unread,
Oct 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/15/97
to

John Mitchell wrote:
>

> 'Convict' I think is churchspeke for "convince us we are guilty" which is what
> the Holy Spirit does (John 16:8) as a preparation for realising what Jesus has
> done for us.
>

I agree it is churchspeke for 'cuwag': but in everyoneelsespeke eg the
OED is it not find guilty, condemn. As in the court convicted Bloggs of
theft means sent Bloggs to prison for theft.

David

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Oct 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/16/97
to

John Osborn wrote:

> I presume that the statement that we are credited with Christ's
> righteousness is based on 1 Cor. 1:30:
> 'He [God] is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made
> our wisdom, *our righteousness* and sanctification and redemption.'
> It seems to me that in saying that Christ has been made our
> righteousness, something more is meant than simply the fact that
> God has credited righteousness to us. I think that it is reasonable
> to interprete this to mean that the righteousness with which we
> areredited is Christ's. If 1 Cor. 1:30 simply means that Christ is
> God's means of giving us righteousness (without implying that this
> is Christ's righteousness) then it seems to me to be a strange way
> of saying it.

But if that's how that verse works then we'd also have to say
that we're credited with Christ's wisdom. I've never heard anyone
proclaim a doctrine of imputed wisdom.

John Mitchell

unread,
Oct 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/17/97
to

On 15/10/97 11:55, in message <344511...@sussex.ac.uk>, David
Anderson <ea...@sussex.ac.uk> wrote:

> I agree it is churchspeke for 'cuwag': but in everyoneelsespeke eg the
> OED is it not find guilty, condemn. As in the court convicted Bloggs of
> theft means sent Bloggs to prison for theft.

Hmmm, probably yes, but I still think that to 'convict' *only* means to
'find someone guilty', strictly speaking you are 'condemning' or
'sentencing' someone when you send them to prison as a result of the
conviction. They are two separate acts. In christian terms salvation
intervenes between them. We are 'convicted' of sin but "in Christ there
is no condemnation". Just as well, really [1].

I suppose the really important thing is that, as you indicate, the words
do mean different things to different people, and there are often
misunderstandings.

[1] this is Anglicanspeke for "Hallelujah". :-)

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Oct 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/17/97
to

Mark Goodge wrote:

[1 Cor 1:30]


> >But if that's how that verse works then we'd also have to say
> >that we're credited with Christ's wisdom. I've never heard anyone
> >proclaim a doctrine of imputed wisdom.
>

> But surely the two aren't comparable in that way? Christ has many
> attributes, including wisdom (and, during his incarnation, height and
> weight), but none of these have a direct relevence to the atonement.
>
> Jesus didn't die for us because we were foolish and in need of wisdom.
> He died for us because we were sinful and in need of righteousness.
> So, if anything is going to be imputed, it's going to be
> righteousness.

Sure. All I'm saying is: if that verse proves that Christ's
righteousness is imputed to us, then it also proves that his
wisdom is imputed to us. I happen to think it doesn't prove
either of them.

John Osborn

unread,
Oct 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/17/97
to

Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>
> John Osborn wrote:
>
> > I presume that the statement that we are credited with Christ's
> > righteousness is based on 1 Cor. 1:30:
> > 'He [God] is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made
> > our wisdom, *our righteousness* and sanctification and redemption.'
<snip>

>
> But if that's how that verse works then we'd also have to say
> that we're credited with Christ's wisdom. I've never heard anyone
> proclaim a doctrine of imputed wisdom.

I think that wisdom may mean more than one thing. In the sense that
God is infinitely wise ('all-wise'), it would certainly be
preposterous to say that this wisdom is given to us. However chapter
2 of 1 Cor., just after the verse I quoted, talks about the 'secret
and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our
glorification' (v. 7). The chapter concludes by saying that 'we have
the mind of Christ' (v. 16). I think that this means that in some
sense we have been given Christ's wisdom, although the word 'imputed'
might convey the wrong impression. I am not suggesting that wisdom is
necessary for salvation, of course.

I am open to other possible interpretations of 1 Cor. 1:30 besides
the one which I gave in my previous posting. What do you think it is
saying? If it means merely that God, acting through Christ, has
given us righteousness, why does it say that Christ became or was
made wisdom and righteousness?

liz williams

unread,
Oct 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/18/97
to

In article <86en5k3...@g.pet.cam.ac.uk>, Gareth McCaughan
<gj...@dpmms.cam.ac.uk> wrote:

[snip of Mark's comments]
>
> Sure. All I'm saying is: if that verse [1 Cor 1:30] proves that Christ's


> righteousness is imputed to us, then it also proves that his
> wisdom is imputed to us. I happen to think it doesn't prove
> either of them.

It may not prove it, but I think the whole drift of Romans is that
Christ's righteousness is imputed to us when we believe in him, as prior
to Christ righteousness was imputed to Abraham and his descendants by
virtue of Abraham's faith in God - see e.g. Rom 4, especially vv. 3, 11,
17, 22, 24. I think the doctrine of imputed righteousness is an accurate
summary of the Biblical position even if it is not proved by a single
proof text (apologies for the tautology but you know what I mean - I
hope.)

Liz

--
Liz Williams
http://www.otranto.demon.co.uk

------------------------------

Non tui es, quia servus omnium,
Non tu es, quia Dei minister,
Quid es ergo? Nihil et omnia.

(You are not your own, because you are the slave of all,
You are not yourself, because you are the servant of God,
What are you therefore? Nothing and everything.)

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Oct 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/20/97
to

Liz Williams wrote:

> It may not prove it, but I think the whole drift of Romans is that
> Christ's righteousness is imputed to us when we believe in him,

I think the whole drift of Romans is that *righteousness* is imputed
to us when we believe in Christ. The only thing I'm saying is wrong
is the very specific claim that *it is Christ's righteousness*; and
I'm not even saying that that claim is wrong, merely that that
particular claim is not clearly taught in scripture.

This is such a nit-picking little thing that perhaps I had better
explain why I'm making a fuss about it. Someone posted here a
`doctrinal basis' used by e.g. the Cambridge Inter-Collegiate
Christian Union[1] which began by saying something like `The
doctrinal basis of the Fellowship shall be the basic truths of
Christianity as taught by Scripture, including ...', and one
of these alleged basic truths as taught by Scripture was the
doctrine that *the righteousness of Christ* is imputed to us.
I consider that whether or not this is actually true, to call it
a basic truth of Christianity is ridiculous.

Incidentally, CICCU's web site now contains its Doctrinal Basis,
which doesn't begin with that preamble about the `basic truths
of Christianity'.


[1] Cambridge, Oxford and Durham have incredibly badly chosen
names for their Christian Unions. CICCU, OICCU and DICCU.
Did the relevant people just not think about how they would
sound?

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Oct 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/20/97
to

John Osborn wrote:

> I am open to other possible interpretations of 1 Cor. 1:30 besides
> the one which I gave in my previous posting. What do you think it is
> saying? If it means merely that God, acting through Christ, has
> given us righteousness, why does it say that Christ became or was
> made wisdom and righteousness?

I think it is a dramatic way of saying that Christ is the source
of our wisdom and our righteousness, just as `he is our peace' in
Ephesians 4 means that he is the source of our peace.

Paul Wright

unread,
Oct 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/20/97
to

In article <86bu0k3...@g.pet.cam.ac.uk>,

Gareth McCaughan <gj...@dpmms.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Liz Williams wrote:
>
>> It may not prove it, but I think the whole drift of Romans is that
>> Christ's righteousness is imputed to us when we believe in him,

>This is such a nit-picking little thing that perhaps I had better


>explain why I'm making a fuss about it. Someone posted here a
>`doctrinal basis' used by e.g. the Cambridge Inter-Collegiate
>Christian Union[1] which began by saying something like `The
>doctrinal basis of the Fellowship shall be the basic truths o