Relevant Questions

From: "Wim Baarschers" <wbaarsch@flash.lakeheadu.ca> 

Date: 26 Jan 2000 19:50:19 -0500 
Subject: A Few Questions 


A Few Questions:
I have been following the debate on Peter VanderKam's proposal. I would like to add
a few additional thoughts. I do this in the form of some questions, so that it is
clear that I am not "teaching." I would not want to run the risk of being "hauled
before Presbytery." Does the United Church still operate something like the 17th
century "General Congregation of the Inquisition" that can "haul" people before
Presbytery? Anyway, here are some questions I have been wrestling with, unsuccessfully,
for some time.
(1). Peter, you refer somewhere to these documents (e.g., 20 articles, the creeds,
etc.) as the "foundations of our faith." Should the first step be to make a choice
between either patching-up these foundations or replace them with something new?
(2). Is there still a need for 20 statements, various creeds dating back hundreds
of years, and 10 commandments dictated by a cruel God who "seeks vengeance?"
(3). Do we want to retain the belief in a "loving, caring God?" If so, how do we
explain that He (?) is only loving and caring towards "us" but obviously not towards
"them" (e.g., "them" in Rwanda, Somalia, Kosovo, etc.). Is the standard answer that
"we cannot understand God's mysterious ways" still acceptable?
Relevant to this point, David Hume reminded us that: "Epicures' questions are still
unanswered. Is he (God) willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent.
Is He able, but not willing? then He is malevolent. Whence then is evil?" While
we think about possible answers, should we at least acknowledge that the question
is still there? May I add a third option to Epicures' question? Our ageing population
sees a lot of misery from degenerative diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's and
a few others. These are now recognized as naturally (Naturally, if you wish) built
into the genetic code. If God has deliberately incorporated these flaws (?) in the
design, do we have to add cruelty to Epicures' question?
(4). Do we want to keep a belief in a God who (?) is "guiding and controlling" and
"looking after" his creation and who is "in control?" Somewhat like a Divine Puppet
Master? Should we begin to ask, instead of the "who is God" question, "what is God?"
(5). The "God is in Control" notion is also the basis for the "Father - Child" relationship
that is a major stumbling block for many who are living "in Exile," like myself.
Does the church want to retain this left-over from a both ancient and recent patriarchal
society? This also relates to the idea of "being saved" I noticed a few times in
the debate. Should we be a bit more specific? And state specifically "saved from
what?" Do we still retain the concept of "hell?"
(6). In thinking about these questions, I note that John Spong has made extensive
comments on all these points. Are his thoughts relevant to this debate?
Wim Baarschers

From: "John Maich" <jkmaich@nf.sympatico.ca> 
Date: 27 Jan 2000 08:43:51 -0500 


Wim:

>I have been following the debate on Peter VanderKam's proposal. I would like
>to add a few additional thoughts. I do this in the form of some questions,
>so that it is clear that I am not "teaching." I would not want to run the
>risk of being "hauled before Presbytery." Does the United Church still operate
>something like the 17th century "General Congregation of the Inquisition"
>that can "haul" people before Presbytery?

No Inquisition exists yet all members of the Church, clergy and laity alike have the opportunity to question the validity of anything taught in any forum of the Church (i.e., Bible Study, Sermons, Vacation Bible School etc.) While no one suggested Peter was going to be held accountable to the Church for his revisions I did say
that if such were the case, and I was called upon to determine the validity of the accusation I would be hard pressed to say that Peter had not crossed a boundary. 
Others will disagree that the Church has boundaries, but in using personal language, the "I" statements I had hoped to make it clear that the revised statements are a complete reworking of classic Christian Theology and as such they can be considered 'non-Christian.' As I have stated in other posts Peter uses the term Christian but does not define Christ at all hence my tendency to say that the revised articles do not reflect the beliefs of the Christian Church. Are they United Church? Perhaps they are and if so I am confronted with two options. I can use the procedures set out by the United Church to renounce/rebuke Peter (but he is not teaching, as far as I can tell) or if Peter speaks from the dominant ethos I may have to consider that God is calling me elsewhere.

Anyway, here are some questions
>I have been wrestling with, unsuccessfully, for some time.

>(2). Is there still a need for 20 statements, various creeds dating back hundreds
>of years, and 10 commandments dictated by a cruel God who "seeks vengeance?"

Community is often defined in terms of who belongs and the boundaries it affirms. Canada has boundaries and there are certain guidelines which are understood in how I become a Canadian. I can be born or naturalized to citizenship in Canada but there must be some relationship. The child born in the Sudan to Sudanese parents does not become a Canadian just because Canada seems to be a better place to live. Likewise Christianity has understood a Christian to be defined in a certain way, Church affiliation and subscription to doctrine (formal or informal) are two of the most common requirements. I would still say that there are a need for articles of faith 20 is either too much or not enough (I personally think we need more) the Ten Commandments are still necessary since they are in effect the clauses of the two great commandments Jesus defines in Matthew. It may be your belief that the God who established them was cruel but as they have been affirmed by Christians ever since the movement began and, according to the earliest testimonies the Christ promised that he came to fulfill the law rather than abolish it. In the commandments themselves I can find no basis for the label of "cruel" or the vengeful nature that you ascribe to God. Certainly there are commandments outside of the ten which carry some harsh consequences. I would think that a God who acted without warning would be cruel but a God who sets the limits and enforces them is being just.

>(3). Do we want to retain the belief in a "loving, caring God?" If so, how do we explain that He (?) is only >loving and caring towards "us" but obviously not towards "them" (e.g., "them" in Rwanda, Somalia, Kosovo, >etc.). Is the standard answer that "we cannot understand God's mysterious ways" still acceptable?
>Relevant to this point, David Hume reminded us that: "Epicures' questions are still unanswered. Is he (God) >willing to prevent evil, but not able?  Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? then He is malevolent.
> Whence then is evil?" While we think about possible answers, should we at least acknowledge that the >question is still there? May I add a third option to Epicures' question? Our ageing population sees a lot of >misery from degenerative diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's and a few others. These are now recognized as >naturally (Naturally, if you wish) built into the genetic code. If God has deliberately incorporated these
>flaws (?) in the design, do we have to add cruelty to Epicures' question?

This is where the "original blessing" theory causes so many problems. Classically Christianity has maintained that the Created Nature of humanity was without flaw, not without limit, without flaw. The doctrine of "original sin" in essence states that after the initial disobedience human nature has become corrupted/twisted from
its original image, only God can overcome that corruption but the consequences still remain. Death now exists, through the resurrection there is the potential for eternal life but only in a body that is resurrected. The consequence of sin is responsible for all disease. Again God warned "do not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil or you will die." Only a literalist can belief that God meant for the death to be immediate, perhaps death can also be painful and lingering? Our choice, our consequences. Even once I have been united to Christ my body will suffer and I will experience disease, doctors will say this is natural and it is since my nature is not now what it was at the original blessing. Trying to blame our weak bodies on God is yet another character trait we have inherited from our first parents. Adam blames Eve, Eve blames the serpent, the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve blame God for being so cruel as to enforce his own boundaries.

>(4). Do we want to keep a belief in a God who (?) is "guiding and controlling"
>and "looking after" his creation and who is "in control?" Somewhat like
>a Divine Puppet Master? Should we begin to ask, instead of the "who is God"
>question, "what is God?"

Personally I want to keep the belief that God is in control. God is just and since I, like the Adam and Eve of the story, often do what I would be better off not doing, I have to pay the price. God has also demonstrated a benevolent character, through the grace of God my life has been blessed. Most often that blessing has come when I have exhausted every avenue and I am on the edge of despair. You would see that perhaps as evidence of the cruel/vengeful God I have come to see it as the God who is strong in my weakness. God's intervention without that despair has often been interpreted by me as fortune. Ultimately I trust God and so I don't have a problem with God controlling the Universe.

>(5). The "God is in Control" notion is also the basis for the "Father - Child"
>relationship that is a major stumbling block for many who are living "in
>Exile," like myself. Does the church want to retain this left-over from
>a both ancient and recent patriarchal society? This also relates to the
>idea of "being saved" I noticed a few times in the debate. Should we be
>a bit more specific? And state specifically "saved from what?" Do we still
>retain the concept of "hell?"

Before I knew the history of patriarchy I read about Jesus addressing God as "Father" and "Daddy." perhaps growing up with an alcoholic dad made me wish for something better. Who could say he loved me without being three sheets to the wind, who would remember where I was when I needed to be picked up, who would provide for me and my needs rather than satisfy the request of a drinking buddy. Jesus' daddy was just
like that and both He and Jesus said that I could belong to their family. I have a biological dad but I also have a real Father in God. Other scholarship which has been fascinating is the knowledge that the Hebrews refused to speak God's 'revealed' name, they used titles and these titles subvert traditional use, rather than affirm it.

>(6). In thinking about these questions, I note that John Spong has made extensive
>comments on all these points. Are his thoughts relevant to this debate?

If we want to create a new religion Spong is helpful, if we want to examine Christianity Spong is not. His idea of rescuing the Bible and the Church from 'fundamentalism' is to embrace and lift up that which brighter minds cast off as rubbish years ago. It is an enlightenment revision of what 'really' happened.

From: terpet@accel.net (Carolyn Terry) 
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 05:05:40 GMT 

On 26 Jan 2000 19:50:19 -0500, "Wim Baarschers" <wbaarsch@flash.lakeheadu.ca> wrote:

>(3). Do we want to retain the belief in a "loving, caring God?" If so, how do
we explain that He (?) is only loving and caring towards "us" but obviously not towards
"them" (e.g., "them" in Rwanda, Somalia, Kosovo, etc.). Is the standard answer that
"we cannot understand God's mysterious ways" still acceptable?

Hi Wim, I've had an easy life, so I'm very hesitant to make statements about the evil in the world. But I have noticed that many people cling to God and get real help from God when they're told they have cancer, or when a close family member is in a bad car accident. In some way God helps. I think many of us do need to believe in a caring, loving God.

I wonder, though, whether we can know that God is omnipotent? We can know (or perhaps believe) that he has immense power to bring good out of evil. But how can we understand omnipotence?

From: "Wim Baarschers" <wbaarsch@flash.lakeheadu.ca> 
Date: 28 Jan 2000 15:41:34 -0500 

I am intrigued by the peculiar use of language in this debate. John Maich refers to the "original blessing theory." To me, a theory is the next stage after you have made some observations concerning a hypothesis. Once you reach the stage of a theory you can try (!) and obtain some evidence to support or disprove that theory. Is
that were the church is at with respect to "original blessing?" Or is "original blessing" more like a dogma, or a matter of belief, or a paradigm? To say, John, that "greater minds" have "cast off" John Spong's ideas, is quite a statement. Could you be specific? Who are these "greater minds" and who determined that they were indeed "greater" and greater than who? I know of several "minds" who, like John Spong, have asked the kind of questions that I just asked. I am thinking of Gerald Schroeder, Paul Davies, Chet Raymo, Harold Kushner, etc. I don't know if they are "greater minds" but I like to consider them as well-respected thinkers. Are they all to be "cast off?" And if (!) my questions suggest to you, Trudy, that I am outside "my denomination's customary thought patterns" I don't see that as being "trapped." Being trapped means you are inside something, like in a trap. Being "outside" something, like thought patterns, does not mean being trapped. Being outside means being excluded, unwelcome. Is that how you consider people who ask questions about their faith? Are you sure
that in order to be part of a denomination one has to think in "customary patterns?" Is that not precisely what we are trying to get away from in this discussion, to think in customary patterns?

From: "John Maich" <jkmaich@nf.sympatico.ca> 
Date: 28 Jan 2000 22:03:49 -0500 


Wim:

The use of the word 'theory' is inappropriate. "Original Blessing" is a theological  position which contrasts with the theological position outlined in "Original Sin."  The use of the term 'greater minds' is also subjective in nature. I thank you for pointing out these deficiencies in my positions.

As to the theological positions of Spong's that are previous cast offs. I cannot go into this at length because what little I have read of Spong does not invite or induce me to read more. Spong denies the traditional position of Resurrection and the Virgin birth, and he is not alone nor is he original in questioning these particular
faith positions.

The inclusion of the Virgin Birth in the creeds of the early Church, point to contention in this regard. That the hymnody and faith statements of most Christian Churches affirm the virgin birth indicates that a human paternal involvement is out of the question. The United Church has in the last thirty years addressed Jesus, his Lordship
and his nature. Providing this old 'heresy' with an invitation to once more have a voice in the debate. Much of this is the same in regards to the "resurrection." Spong's teaching is not new in the sense that he has created it but it is new in that for centuries the Church has not discussed the questions that Spong wants addressed.
For my subjective presentation of 'greater minds' I list, Augustine of Hippo, Jean Calvin, John and Charles Wesley, J Gresham Machen, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Francis Schaeffer, Albert Wolters and John Bolt.

From: "John Maich" <jkmaich@nf.sympatico.ca> 
Date: 28 Jan 2000 22:19:49 -0500 

Wim:

Thank you for pointing out the 'peculiar use of language.' I apologize for the imprecise language.

You are correct in your supposition that "Original Blessing" is dogma as opposed to theory. It is meant to contrast with the traditional Christian doctrine of "Original Sin"

The 'greater minds' label is of course purely subjective, I will provide some examples of Christians whose minds are, in my opinion, greater than Spong.

The phrase 'cast off' was not meant to denigrate the person or their character. The argument championed by the individual is what should be, or has been cast off.

Two distinct positions that Spong has brought to light are 'bodily resurrection' and the 'virgin birth.' Spong is not the first to question these statements of faith, their inclusion in the creeds of the early Church indicates that they were a centre of controversy at one point. I believe that it is fair to say that the hymnody of the Church for centuries has attested to both these beliefs so the writers of the creeds won the day. Spong appears to want a rematch around these issues. 

Both the virgin birth and the resurrection of the body have been accepted and defended by: Augustine of Hippo, Jean Calvin, John and Charles Wesley, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, J. Gresham Machen, Francis Schaeffer, Albert Wolters and John Bolt.

From: "Peter" <peterv@superiornet.net> 
Date: 29 Jan 2000 07:42:05 -0500 


John Maich,,

This is a debate that is going on between you and Wim Baarschers, and who am I to but in, as neither of you needs my help! (smile) Even so allow me to make a comment about one particular aspect.

"John Maich" <jkmaich@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote:

>You are correct in your supposition that "Original Blessing" is dogma as opposed
>to theory. It is meant to contrast with the traditional Christian doctrine
>of "Original Sin"

I was introduced to the term "Original Blessing" not too long ago. I intuitively understood what it meant, but I never thought to ask where it originated, or when. Do you have any knowledge that can shed light on these two questions? Would appreciate an explanation.

I am going to juggle the text a bit here. I need to do so to make my point.

Wim mentions several thinkers who think like Spong, among others Sagan and Ramo.
To this you come back with your list of "Experts", as follows:

>Both the virgin birth and the resurrection of the body have been accepted
>and defended by: Augustine of Hippo, Jean Calvin, John and Charles Wesley,
>C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, J. Gresham Machen, Francis Schaeffer, Albert
>Wolters and John Bolt.

This, to me, is not acceptable as you haven't made your point one way or the other. What is the point here? The point is that anybody can come up with a list of "great thinkers". The criteria for being called a "Great Thinker" usually means that the quoted person supports one's position. It doesn't mean a thing and proves nothing. The example we are all familiar with is that of a world full of people (lay and expert alike), who "knew" that the earth was the centre of the universe. Till Copernicus and Galileo came along. As you are well aware of course, it is Pope John Paul ll who finally made it official that Galileo was right after all. To repeat, being able
to quote supporting "Experts" doesn't make it so.

Shalom,