|
20
ARTICLES !!! are they going to be changed?
adam hall on January
20, 19100 at 10:41:10:
That is my question.
Are the 20 articles going to be changed?
I have read the new so
called articles, they are not even Christian!
Adam
David Shearman on January
20, 19100 at 21:00:32:
In Reply to adam hall
Where have you read that
they are going to be changed? It would be helpful if you told us where you heard
or saw this.
The Basis of Union
(including the 2 Articles of Faith) *can* be changed, but only through a voting
process we call a Remit. This process is described in Section 8.6.2 (1) of the
Basis of Union. It is not a popular vote, but a vote by each presbytery of the
United Church of Canada.
Please, if you are
concerned, share with us the source of your concern so we can understand what
you are telling us.
Greg Smith-Young on January
21, 19100 at 06:29:39:
In Reply to David Shearman
on January 20,
19100 at 21:00:32:
I assume that Adam is referring to the "Project 2000" material to which Peter Vanderkam
directed us a few posts back.
I for one would welcome a
serious discussion on the 20 Articles within the UCC. Maybe we would learn
something. I see no reason to change them ("updating the language"
would be fine, but I am leery that this would quickly become "updating
the ideas.") And I agree with Jim Love's criticisms of the ones
proposed at the Project 2000 website. But I am also troubled by the fact that we
put new ordinands, who fit into the "dominant ethos" of the UCC, in
the position of making a half-hearted affirmation of the Articles in order to
get ordained. I myself think that it is the "dominant ethos" that
needs to be changed, not the Articles. But what is the point of having ordinands
affirm them if "the church" doesn't believe them?
I just read a discussion
about the authority of Scripture, in which the authors of the book made the case
that authority does not lie in how the words got on the page (a preoccupation
with both theological liberalism and conservatism), but on whether or not we
take them off the page and live them in our lives. The same is true with the 20
Articles. So what if we continually play lip service to them. If we don't
believe them (and be "we" I mean those of us in the UCC in general),
then the lip-service is nothing but hypocrisy.
So lets discuss them and
even argue about them. What do we really believe as a denomination? If we no
longer believe them, then lets relegate them as a "historic document"
and hammer out what we do believe. I for one would probably find it difficult to
be in "essential agreement" with the new version (because I take the
words "essential agreement" to imply some sort of agreement), and may,
if the Spirit leads, have to leave our denomination. But at least it would be an
honest parting of the ways.
Trudi J. Jones on January
20, 19100 at 16:49:10:
In Reply to adam hall on
January 20, 19100 at 10:41:10:
: That is my question. ARe
the 20 articles going to be changed?
: I have read the new so
called articles, they are not even Christian!
: adam
Do you say they are not
Christian because of their modernness or because they omit some crucial point or
because they added in something new that looks to you like it was again st
Christianity or something else all together. I have an interest in your answer
particularly if an important concept has been left out. ~TJJ
Jim Love on January 20,
19100 at 17:44:45:
In Reply to Trudi J. Jones
on January 20,
19100 at 16:49:10:
Here's my take on it.
I have difficulty seeing
them as Christian since the first article does not affirm the essential Triune
nature of Christianity. Also, the incarnation seems to be denied, as well, the
cross and resurrection seem to be replaces with some sort of exemplary
Jesusology. I don't say Christology since the Project2000 avoids the use of the
word Christ in connection with Jesus, therefore I would conclude that the
Messiahship of Jesus is denied.
As for modernism, clearly
project2000 is steeped in a modernist approach to faith and reality. This is
ironic since modernists are the strongest forms of conservatives in the Church.
They attempt in their claims are making faith "relevant" to make one
last ditch attempt at expressing Christianity within a modernist context.
Certainly this is possible, but not by captilating our faith language to the
core concepts of modernism.
As for me, I could not be
part of any group which affirms such articles, so if this is where the United
Church is going, let us operate in the light and use the agreed upon polity of
the church to change the articles. Then if those of us who cling to a catholic
expression of faith can remain within the catholic church, and others can go
where they think the spirit is guiding.
Jim Love on January 20,
19100 at 13:18:49:
In Reply to adam hall on
January 20, 19100 at 10:41:10:
It seems to me that some
are attempting to change the polity of the United Church by using service books
or studies (mending the world) in order to change the articles of faith.
I for one challenge those
involved in the CGP service book to explain to me how the inclusion of
non-classical trinitarian forms is not an abuse of our polity. If there are
people who wish to change the articles of faith to include other forms then
follow the rules set out! You can't put such changes in formal documents without
it being a violation of the polity. If I am wrong about this I invite your
correction.
John Moses on January 20,
19100 at 19:26:09:
In Reply to by Jim Love on
January 20, 19100 at 13:18:49:
at is mIt does seem to me
that we are always being confronted with one fait
accompli or another.
For example, I often hear
that we are "a lectionary-based church." Since when? Who decided?
Search me.
Steven Davis on January 20,
19100 at 15:57:57:
In Reply to Jim Love on
January 20, 19100 at 13:18:49:
Absolutely! It seems to me
that the doctrine of the church is being changed (although those who support the
changes would probably say "updated") by a minority within the UCC.
Why do I assume it's a minority? For exactly the reason you mention, Jim. If the
"revised doctrine" of the church (and it has been revised in practice
if not in theory) had the support of the church, then surely the proper
procedures (ie, remits) would be followed. Instead, a clique hijacks the process
because they can't succeed using the proper procedures of the church. Strong
language, I know, and - sincerely - not meant to be offensive, but just to
describe the current situation.
Theological students now get
asked the mandatory "are you in essential agreement with the Articles of
Faith in the Basis of Union" and the students answer the mandatory
"yes" and everyone goes "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, we know you
really don't mean it, but don't worry about it!" It's a sad thing, and I
have no real idea how to stop it and convince people to play by the procedures
that the founders of the United Church spelled out in order to ensure that there
would be adequate debate and discussion, and so that such important matters
would have to be referred to the wider church.
: I for one challenge those
involved in the CGP service book to explain to me how the inclusion of non-classical trinitarian forms is not an
abuse of our polity. If there are people who wish to change the articles of
faith to include other forms then follow the rules set out! You can't put such
changes in formal documents without it being a violation of the polity. If I am
wrong about this I invite your correction.
John Moses on January 20,
19100 at 12:00:05:
In Reply to adam hall on
January 20, 19100 at 10:41:10:
: That is my question. ARe
the 20 articles going to be changed?
: I have read the new so
called articles, they are not even Christian!
: adam
Where have you read
"the new so called articles"?
Could you post what you
have read or direct us to it?
--John
David Keating on January
20, 19100 at 14:36:36:
In Reply to John Moses on
January 20, 19100 at 12:00:05:
: Where have you read
"the new so called articles"?
: Could you post what you
have read or direct us to it?
I think folks are referring
to Peter Vanderkam's "Project 2000", which is a discussion about the
wording of the Articles.
The discussion is NOT an
official activity of the UCCan, but rather a grassroots discussion, where Peter
hopes to give people an opportunity to do some "what if" stuff around
changes that could update the language used in the Articles.
Its at the link below.
http://www.osiem.org/cgi-bin/project2000.exe?cmd=xover&group=public.project2000&utag=
Project 2000 Articles discussion
Mike Jones on January 20,
19100 at 11:26:38:
In Reply to adam hall on
January 20, 19100 at 10:41:10:
I would hope that the
articles will be changed, if only to update the language.
Mike
Richard J Fairchild on
January 21, 19100 at 00:11:15:
In Reply to Mike Jones on
January 20, 19100 at 11:26:38:
: I would hope that the
articles will be changed, if only to update the language.
I would vote for a change
only if the articles became more Catholic and more difficult to change than they
already are....
And yes - I do think some
of our task forces and working groups and worship committees hi-jack our
theology and replace it with a very poor substitute. Having done some work in
the liturgical line for two separate Conferences of this church I have seen how
easy it is (and how hard it can be) to create liturgies based on questionable
concepts of ecclesiology, sanctification, discipleship, etc. And having done a
little bit of study in theology and history I also know how dismally ignorant
most UCC clergy are of the doctrines and concepts that they the so eagerly
reject in favour of equally old heresies!
Indeed I challenge folks
out there to produce for our examination anything in the new forms of
theological reflection that hadn't already been substantially discussed (and
accepted or rejected) by the church by the time Constantine had his first
vision.
Posted by Peter VanderKam on January 22, 19100 at 04:42:19:
In Reply to: Re: 20 ARTICLES !!! Changing?? Not Officially posted by Richard J Fairchild on January 21, 19100
at 00:11:15:
Mike Jones said:
: : I would hope that the articles will be changed, if only to update the language.
To which you replied:
: I would vote for a change only if the articles became more Catholic and more difficult to change than they
already are....
My question:
How do we make the Articles more Catholic?
" ...making them more difficult to change than they already are", means ...Carving them in stone?
.....snip ....
: Indeed I challenge folks out there to produce for our examination anything in the new forms of theological
reflection that hadn't already been substantially discussed (and accepted or rejected) by the church by the time
Constantine had his first vision.
Couple of sayings come to mind Richard:
The more things change, the more they stay the same, and
Been there, done that, and
There is nothing new under the sun.
Speaking for myself, I would appreciate hearing (and seeing) a few examples of the ideas and concepts that
were old hat by the time Constantine came on the scene. Is there any place where one can find those bundled in
order to get an overview of those "rehashed" topics?
On further reflection Richard, I find it rather disheartening to think that everything after Constantine is a rehash.
Is that what you meant to say?
Shalom.
Peter
Posted by John Shearman on January 21, 19100 at 13:22:17:
In Reply to: Re: 20 ARTICLES !!! Changing?? Not Officially posted by Richard J Fairchild on January 21, 19100
at 00:11:15:
: Tormenting you all from Golden, BC :-)
: Shalom, Richard
Richard, here's a little more torture for you!
R.C. Chalmers' assessment of the DBU in his 1945 thesis *See The Christ Stand.* He said that even when finally
collated in 1911, it was already considered out of date. The average age of those who framed it was already
well over 50, most of who had been trained in the second and third quarters of the 19th century. Nine
Congregationalists averaged 48; 38 Methodists avergaed 60; and 35 Presbyterians averaged 57.
The Committee itself admitted that their work was not up to date, but they had no intention of drafting a new
creed. They only sought to harmonize the existing creeds of the three uniting churches with tactful omissions and
compromises.
"It is nevertheless true that the leaders of religious thought in the United Church give very little attention to the
Doctrinal Basis of Union. As it stands it is of little value religiously or theologically in our Church's life. It would
appear to this writer that in order to arrive at a creedal position that is both theologically and religiously prophetic
for this age there must come about a whole clarification of the statuys of religion in the modern world, its place,
its purpose, and its truths, together with a crytstallization of the thought-forms which may best express the faith
of such a clarified - and we hope, glorified - religion."
Hallelujah anyway! Grace and peace'
John Shearman.
Posted by Jim Love on January 21, 19100 at 14:50:45:
In Reply to: Re: 20 ARTICLES !!! Changing?? Not Officially posted by John Shearman on January 21, 19100 at
13:22:17:
: "It is nevertheless true that the leaders of religious thought in the United Church give very little attention to the
Doctrinal Basis of Union.
Why? If we are called to try to be honest then maybe we should change the Basis of Union. Certainly we have a
flexible church since we are non-doctrinal, but when some clergy in the United Church deny the
incarnation/Trinity/Divinity of Jesus etc then perhaps we should have a frank discussion about what kind of
Church we are. It seems to me that we are not really a denomination at all given that there is little that binds us
together. Is it any wonder there is little energy in our denomination given that we have not articulated vision.
:As it stands it is of little value religiously or theologically in our Church's life. It would appear to this writer that in
order to arrive at a creedal position that is both theologically and religiously prophetic for this age there must
come about a whole clarification of the statuys of religion in the modern world, its place, its purpose, and its
truths, together with a crytstallization of the thought-forms which may best express the faith of such a clarified -
and we hope, glorified - religion."
A creed is different from expressions of doctrine. Now certainly I don't think we should fall into propositionalism,
but I do think we need to clarify what we generally believe. Now some will argue that "A New Creed" serves this
purpose but given that it is so vague and perhaps even mythological in nature that one can project whatever
theology they have onto it. I not arguing for theological ridgity but certainly we need some sort of theological
commonality since when I talk with some others in the United Church it seems clear to me they are part of a
different religion than me. For example, I would have great difficulty seeing the Project2000 Articles of Faith as
being Christian.
Posted by Peter VanderKam on January 22, 19100 at 09:04:42:
In Reply to: Re: 20 ARTICLES !!! Changing?? Not Officially posted by Jim Love on January 21, 19100 at
14:50:45:
Jim, in response to your statement:
: Why? If we are called to try to be honest then maybe we should change the Basis of Union. ...
Any suggestions on how to start the process?
...Certainly we have a flexible church since we are non-doctrinal, but when some clergy in the United Church
deny the incarnation/Trinity/Divinity of Jesus etc then perhaps we should have a frank discussion about what kind
of Church we are. I
a) You come across as not being in sync/harmony with the clergy who question the incarnation/Trinity/Divinity of
Jesus", and that is OK. I do want to draw your attention to the fact however that I know several non-clergy
persons who want to have those attributes expanded upon. Am I one of them? Yep! So, watch the
discrimination, eh. <;-}
b) Again please, bundle your resources and lead the way/conversation/debate.
...It seems to me that we are not really a denomination at all given that there is little that binds us together.
What makes a "denomination"? Apart from that, I can't help but disagree with you, especially after I have had a
change to read in "Fire & Grace". The impression I took away from that is that we are dealing with a very good
example of a "denomination". The United Church people have shown (IMO) a remarkable resilience in dealing
with any number of controversial topics without expelling anybody and few departures.
... Is it any wonder there is little energy in our denomination given that we have not articulated vision.
Once again Jim, then let's get at it and verbalize that "Vision". "Who is it that shall dream dreams, and who shall
see visions? Let us step forward and start energizing.
Speaking of which though, I want to draw your attention to something peculiar. The debate on Project 2000
issues was warming up nicely in the Osiem forum. Several lay people started to participate. Till I posted the 20
new and old articles of faith. Since that day (and I just checked) not one additional note has been posted there.
OTOH, the participation in the United Online Forum expanded exponentially. Any significance about that?
: A creed is different from expressions of doctrine. ...
How?
...Now certainly I don't think we should fall into propositionalism, but I do think we need to clarify what we
generally believe. Now some will argue that "A New Creed" serves this purpose but given that it is so vague and
perhaps even mythological in nature that one can project whatever theology they have onto it. I not arguing for
theological rigidity but certainly we need some sort of theological commonality since when I talk with some
others in the United Church it seems clear to me they are part of a different religion than me. For example, I
would have great difficulty seeing the Project2000 Articles of Faith as being Christian.
You end by saying that you would have great difficulty seeing the Project2000 articles of faith as being
"Christian". That of course is your point of view, and that is just fine. Couple of observations though:
a) In my view you have just closed the door to a fenced in area. Christian "in",.... the rest "out".
b) Cantwell-Smith wrote a book in which he stated: To ask "Are you a Muslim" is the wrong question. The
proper question is" How Muslim are you"? To paraphrase: The question is not: "Are you a Christian, the question
is: How Christian are you"?
c) Professor Paul Trudinger is working on a book: "Christian or followers of Jesus"?
So, why not harness your resources and engage your congregation(s) in conversation on this and other topics.
Remember, what I posted is a dim reflection of what I am all about. I need the company of many "saints" to help
me struggle with these concepts.
Thanks for your ear.
Shalom Peter.
Posted by Jayne Little on January 26, 19100 at 00:04:28:
In Reply to: Re: 20 ARTICLES !!! Changing?? Not Officially posted by Peter VanderKam on January 22, 19100
at 09:04:42:
Peter, thank you for your words.
The current language of the Articles shuts me out. It also shuts out some of my my friends. It definitely shuts out
many of my female friends.
Are we not Christian, as we are female? or are we just less Christian?
If we wish to get back to the teachings of Christ, and those times..what were the essential elements? what
aspects were cultural..and what transcended the times. Why were the topics which were included,
included...what were the key points..
Knowing that they were written in the language of the time, surrounded by politics and the culture of the
time..what should be updated?
The cost of remits..and shall I say, battles over a word's incusion, have resulted in statements which students of
theology can't even agree on.
What are our "core competencies"..what are the most basic elements of our faith, that can't change. how do we
express those in language of the people..to share the vision of God's majesty and mystery and allow for people
to join the joy?
I guess I just don't get it the disagreement over this process.
In my congregation, I can agree to disagree over the words we use to describe God, but we don't disagree on
God.
I can agree to disagree on the words I use to describe the Spirit..and the relationship/process of the Trinity...but
we recognize different elements.
Am I missing something. This group doesn't seem to be getting into the dialogue of what is important in our faith,
as much as why it is so important to stay as we are?
I feel like I am listening to a pitcher dialoguing on the proper method to throw a baseball, when all I want to do is
play the darn game!
Posted by Mark Fearnall on January 26, 19100 at 06:53:56:
In Reply to: Re: 20 ARTICLES !!! Changing?? Not Officially posted by Jayne Little on January 26, 19100 at
00:04:28:
: If we wish to get back to the teachings of Christ, and those times..what were the essential elements? what
aspects were cultural..and what transcended the times. Why were the topics which were included,
included...what were the key points..
Who says we can know these things? And how? If their "truths" were subject to culture, are not our's? Which
means we won't know the essential elements but only those that fit our culture?
: Knowing that they were written in the language of the time, surrounded by politics and the culture of the
time..what should be updated?
As we are subjected to the same, what makes our knowledge any better than theirs?
: I guess I just don't get it the disagreement over this process.
: In my congregation, I can agree to disagree over the words we use to describe God, but we don't disagree on
God.
: I can agree to disagree on the words I use to describe the Spirit..and the relationship/process of the
Trinity...but we recognize different elements.
: Am I missing something. This group doesn't seem to be getting into the dialogue of what is important in our
faith, as much as why it is so important to stay as we are?
: I feel like I am listening to a pitcher dialoguing on the proper method to throw a baseball, when all I want to do
is play the darn game!
Jayne,
I like your analogy here! But if you would permit me, I would like to expand on it a bit from my perspective.
It is important to "play the game", you are right. And yes, sometimes it seems like we are discussing the best
way to throw a baseball, when that isn't really the most important thing. However, sometimes I am concerned
that we are not even playing the same game!
Baseball has rules, and all must abide by the rules or there is chaos - you can change the rules a bit and still
remain baseball, but all must play by the same rules. If you use a "football" instead of a "baseball" you are no
longer playing the same game. Take, for instance, where you state above that you don't disagree about God.
But what if in fact we don't agree about God? And I suspect that we often do not agree about God.
I believe that knowledge about God is secondary. Relationship with God is key, but there still needs to be
_some accurate_ knowledge, or there can be little or no relationship. I know God, because I know and see
Jesus Christ (as he comes clothed in the scriptures, with the aid of the Spirit, and the church - my thinking is
expanding on this one if you have followed some other threads). Not everyone may agree that we know God in
Jesus but then I wonder if we are not playing different games!?
Mark
Posted by Jayne Little on January 26, 19100 at 07:13:32:
In Reply to: Re: 20 ARTICLES !!! Changing?? Not Officially posted by Mark Fearnall on January 26, 19100 at
06:53:56:
I cannot write something for the future..I expect my writings would have to be amended next week. I hope that
through community we could create something that would last another 50 years..or until a next major
enlightenment occurred..
I thought about a lot last night..
and maybe it isn't the articles of faith..that needs changing? Maybe they should be treated as a historical
document. coming out of the wisdom of the time.
The question for me then is, is a statement of faith necessary..and it seems that be would like general guidance,
to know if you're in, or you're not. Rules are nice...but I think that the most exciting part of the Ucofc is the ability
to live in the mystery, the unknowing, the "not knowing the final answer".
Maybe that is one thing that needs to be included in our "rule book". Tough huh.
On the other hand, I also feel it would be good to show the ways we are comfortable agreeing ...AT THIS
TIME..with THESE PEOPLE and WITH OUR KNOWLEDGE. (caps aren't yelling..just emphasis)
The baseball analogy is fun..but I like the football one even better...think of rugby & Aussie rules and football and
soccer (football).
Words are important, but if everyone wants to play, then adjust the game plan.
Football, baseball, and soccer have not had the same rules for 2000 years...not even 50. Things
change...women can play baseball...wow..blacks can..wow..now..this analogy has been stretched way past it's
normal limites, but it can be used as tool to explore the impacts of rules and change on a community..and how
making the rules so tight, it takes the fun out of the game. Give a kid a baseball and they play ball..of some sort.
Start putting too many rules on..and they find something else to do. The trick is walking the line.
I guess one of my other struggles, is how does anyone here know God well enough to decree "this is God". I
feel I can say how I understand God to-day, and based on the stories of our ancestors, regarding the teachings
of Jesus Christ...and the teachings from the Old Testament. My perspective is also affected by my
understandings of the teachings as midrash.(?correct grammar?)..
anyhow, gotta rush to work..thanks for your willingness to share/dialogue Mark.
Posted by Mark Fearnall on January 27, 19100 at 08:50:16:
In Reply to: Re: 20 ARTICLES !!! Changing?? Not Officially posted by Jayne Little on January 26, 19100 at
07:13:32:
Jayne,
I really like this game analogy, though perhaps it is pushing it to limits.
I think part of the differences we have come from what can change, and what can't change. I tend to focus on
the latter, whereas I think you are focusing on the former.
I read a great piece by G.K. Chesterton on change [in the work "Heretics"]. "And even in the act of saying that
things change, we say that there is something unchangeable." If something does not remain constant, then there
cannot be real change. I am familiar with the game of chess. It has had some amazing changes (one of the most
amazing is the power of the queen - least to most powerful piece). But there are still things that remained the
same. If they didn't, it would be a new game.
And, perhaps incorrectly, that is what I hear in some advances for change in the Statement of Faith. It is what I
hear in your statements. Not just a change, but a total rejection of the same under the guise of "change".
Let me explain it another way. I have never understood the modern attempt to get people to act in a certain way
[in this case to allow nearly everything] while trying to maintain that this opinion is only a "perspective" and open
to error. Why should I follow this way that one offers, when it is not even offered as "truth"? You, yourself, grant
that your ideas are temporary and thereby not "truth"... or at best truth for you now until next week (whatever
that means). You offer it as only one perspective that will probably change. IMO, there is no truth here. So why
would I follow error, or at least the strong possibility of error? When you can say, here it was I know, then
maybe we can talk.
If I am wrong, I welcome your correction. But if there is no right or wrong, why should I bother? As Chesterton
wrote, and I agree,
"... no man [or woman] ought to write at all, or even speak at all, unless he thinks that he is in truth and the other
man in error." [Chesterton, "Heretics"]
If you believe I am in error, great! Show me why. If you don't know if I am in error - the post-modernist view -
then what could you possibly being trying to convince me of?
When you ask "...how does anyone here know God well enough to decree 'this is God'?" I answer: I know by
God's Spirit, God's revelation, and the Body of Jesus Christ!
But I suppose the best reply might be, how do you know I don't know?
Mark
: I cannot write something for the future..I expect my writings would have to be amended next week. I hope that
through community we could create something that would last another 50 years..or until a next major
enlightenment occurred..
: I thought about a lot last night..
: and maybe it isn't the articles of faith..that needs changing? Maybe they should be treated as a historical
document. coming out of the wisdom of the time.
: The question for me then is, is a statement of faith necessary..and it seems that be would like general
guidance, to know if you're in, or you're not. Rules are nice...but I think that the most exciting part of the Ucofc is
the ability to live in the mystery, the unknowing, the "not knowing the final answer".
: Maybe that is one thing that needs to be included in our "rule book". Tough huh.
: On the other hand, I also feel it would be good to show the ways we are comfortable agreeing ...AT THIS
TIME..with THESE PEOPLE and WITH OUR KNOWLEDGE. (caps aren't yelling..just emphasis)
:
: The baseball analogy is fun..but I like the football one even better...think of rugby & Aussie rules and football
and soccer (football).
: Words are important, but if everyone wants to play, then adjust the game plan.
: Football, baseball, and soccer have not had the same rules for 2000 years...not even 50. Things
change...women can play baseball...wow..blacks can..wow..now..this analogy has been stretched way past it's
normal limites, but it can be used as tool to explore the impacts of rules and change on a community..and how
making the rules so tight, it takes the fun out of the game. Give a kid a baseball and they play ball..of some sort.
Start putting too many rules on..and they find something else to do. The trick is walking the line.
: I guess one of my other struggles, is how does anyone here know God well enough to decree "this is God". I
feel I can say how I understand God to-day, and based on the stories of our ancestors, regarding the teachings
of Jesus Christ...and the teachings from the Old Testament. My perspective is also affected by my
understandings of the teachings as midrash.(?correct grammar?)..
: anyhow, gotta rush to work..thanks for your willingness to share/dialogue Mark.
Posted by Peter VanderKam on January 29, 19100 at 10:46:05:
In Reply to: Re: 20 ARTICLES !!! Changing?? Not Officially posted by Mark Fearnall on January 27, 19100 at
08:50:16:
Mark,
In your conversation with Jayne, you said:
: I think part of the differences we have come from what can change, and what can't change. I tend to focus on
the latter, whereas I think you are focusing on the former.
That is well possible. Problem is that you (with all due respect) would be hard pressed to define the
unchangeable. (Read on)
: I read a great piece by G.K. Chesterton on change [in the work "Heretics"]. "And even in the act of saying that
things change, we say that there is something unchangeable." …
Same observation, Mark, Define the unchangeable please.
: … And, perhaps incorrectly, that is what I hear in some advances for change in the Statement of Faith. It is
what I hear in your statements. Not just a change, but a total rejection of the same under the guise of "change".
If that is what you hear, I invite you to listen again. What Jayne, and others, are admitting to is ignorance as to
what the real Mystery is, and requesting that everybody participate in the exercise of trying to unwrap it, … for
everybody's benefit.
: Let me explain it another way. I have never understood the modern attempt to get people to act in a certain
way [in this case to allow nearly everything] while trying to maintain that this opinion is only a "perspective" and
open to error. Why should I follow this way that one offers, when it is not even offered as "truth"? …
You should follow it because of the process involved. You decide to work with Jayne in an effort to gain
enlightenment, or you don't, in which case you ought to demonstrate that you don't have to participate as "you
are in possession of The Truth" already". Same invitation, put that Truth out in the open for inspection,
observation and contemplation.
:…You, yourself, grant that your ideas are temporary and thereby not "truth"... or at best truth for you now until
next week (whatever that means). You offer it as only one perspective that will probably change. IMO, there is
no truth here. So why would I follow error, or at least the strong possibility of error? When you can say, here it
was I know, then maybe we can talk.
Two comments Mark:
a) nobody here offers anything as The Truth. Jayne invites to discuss in order to work towards greater
understanding.
b) I draw your attention to a number of your messages in the last month in which you admit to having changed
your mind on certain topics. It follows that you above all ought to know that nobody can say: I KNOW the truth.
: If I am wrong, I welcome your correction. But if there is no right or wrong, why should I bother?
As above, keep studying and you may find an answer to this rhetorical question of yours.
: …As Chesterton wrote, and I agree,
: "... no man [or woman] ought to write at all, or even speak at all, unless he thinks that he is in truth and the
other man in error." [Chesterton, "Heretics"]
Boy, the silence would be deafening, and ……refreshing, don't you agree?
: If you believe I am in error, great! Show me why. If you don't know if I am in error - the post-modernist view -
then what could you possibly being trying to convince me of?
AFAIAC, I hope you do change your mind and join the honest attempts which are under way to learn to
understand the difference between our human knowledge of what is changeable and what is not.
God is unchangeable. The problem is that neither you nor I "know" what that exactly means and what that
requires of us.
: When you ask "...how does anyone here know God well enough to decree 'this is God'?" I answer: I know by
God's Spirit, God's revelation, and the Body of Jesus Christ!
Final offer: spell it out for all to see what God is and what that entails.
Shalom,
Peter
Posted by Mark Fearnall on January 29, 19100 at 18:40:39:
In Reply to: Re: 20 ARTICLES !!! Changing?? Not Officially posted by Peter VanderKam on January 29, 19100
at 10:46:05:
Peter,
If you are looking for a philosophical debate which is what I percieve, you have come to the right place :-) If not,
you can probably ignore what is below. I think you have misunderstood my attempts to engage in understanding
together, as I see the striving for the truth as the only acceptable process. If we do not agree here, we might as
well be silent as Jesus was before Pilate - "What is truth?"
: That is well possible. Problem is that you (with all due respect) would be hard pressed to define the
unchangeable. (Read on)
: Same observation, Mark, Define the unchangeable please.
In what area? There are many things that are unchangeable... The truth of this conversation for one. It is real,
regardless of what others believe, or whether others know of it in the future. The reality of this event is
unchangeable (even if on the NET).
: If that is what you hear, I invite you to listen again. What Jayne, and others, are admitting to is ignorance as to
what the real Mystery is, and requesting that everybody participate in the exercise of trying to unwrap it, … for
everybody's benefit.
I was wrong... you are right!
[Really think about that! I mean really think about that! Should I say it again ;-) Hint: Truth and things that are
unchangeable.]
: You should follow it because of the process involved. You decide to work with Jayne in an effort to gain
enlightenment
What enlightenment? What is enlightement? Please specify without reference to truth which you claim no one
can know. Yet, if it is not truth, then how can it be classed as enlightenment?
: Two comments Mark:
: a) nobody here offers anything as The Truth. Jayne invites to discuss in order to work towards greater
understanding.
Understanding of what? To understand something means seeing the truth, does it not?
: b) I draw your attention to a number of your messages in the last month in which you admit to having changed
your mind on certain topics. It follows that you above all ought to know that nobody can say: I KNOW the truth.
Is that the truth you just wrote?? Wake up and smell the coffee - You are making a truth claim!!
: : …As Chesterton wrote, and I agree,
: : "... no man [or woman] ought to write at all, or even speak at all, unless he thinks that he is in truth and the
other man in error." [Chesterton, "Heretics"]
: Boy, the silence would be deafening, and ……refreshing, don't you agree?
Nope. Because you must think you are right in correcting me or pointing these things out, no? Otherwise why
would you think I am wrong? If no one can know the truth - we can't even know that!
: : If you believe I am in error, great! Show me why. If you don't know if I am in error - the post-modernist view -
then what could you possibly being trying to convince me of?
: AFAIAC, I hope you do change your mind and join the honest attempts which are under way to learn to
understand the difference between our human knowledge of what is changeable and what is not.
: God is unchangeable. The problem is that neither you nor I "know" what that exactly means and what that
requires of us.
Is that the truth (and unchangeable) that "God is unchangeable"? If it is you have just proven my point... if it
isn't... well I will let you figure that out.
: : When you ask "...how does anyone here know God well enough to decree 'this is God'?" I answer: I know by
God's Spirit, God's revelation, and the Body of Jesus Christ!
: Final offer: spell it out for all to see what God is and what that entails.
You have done a little of that for me, if your statements throughout have been the truth!
Mark
PS. God is love! That entails the sacrifice of God's self (Jesus) for you and I who God loves. Unchangeable
truth!
Posted by Brad Morrison on January 30, 19100 at 22:29:06:
In Reply to: Re: 20 ARTICLES !!! Changing?? Not Officially posted by Mark Fearnall on January 29, 19100 at
18:40:39:
Mark:
Rather than say, "I KNOW (any) Truth," I would say, "I BELIEVE as Truth/Real what God has revealed in Jesus
Christ."
Would you agree with this distinction?
It seems to me that it would still be human arrogance for me to say, "I know the Truth revealed by God in Jesus
Christ."
Perhaps an insignificant distinction?...perhaps the main significance between philosophical discourse and
theological discourse?
Brad Morrison
Posted by Mark Fearnall on January 31, 19100 at 07:25:43:
In Reply to: Re: 20 ARTICLES !!! Changing?? Not Officially posted by Brad Morrison on January 30, 19100 at
22:29:06:
: Rather than say, "I KNOW (any) Truth," I would say, "I BELIEVE as Truth/Real what God has revealed in
Jesus Christ."
: Would you agree with this distinction?
No.
For I know that I am typing on a keyboard at this moment. I know this truth.
I think some might be asking whether I can "know that I know". No, I can't have apodictic knowledge of my
knowledge. I can only "think I know", for it could be the case that life is a mirage and I am fooled every
moment... Descartes is a pain if you ask me, but has some interesting notions.
I am not a strict rationalist like Descartes. I recognize that much of our knowledge does not come from direct
observation or pure reason. But I would affirm that it is "knowledge" nonetheless. It is knowledge based on trust
and relationship as well as observation and experience and rationality. As I see it these all are part of the
process. For example, relational knowledge is still based on the knowledge that there is really a person/being I
am having a relationship with.
I would use Websters 2nd definition of "know" as fitting what I am trying to say "to be aware of the truth or
factuality of: be convinced or certain of". I don't think that always requires direct observation or pure reason. I
use the pure reason/obervation examples to indicate that there is "some" knowledge to which we can say "I
know this truth".
I give a few examples of biblical texts (see below - there are many, many more) which indicate to me that this is
the Christian worldview of knowledge.
I do not accept that we can't know "anything". I am sorry, but as much as I respect the work of Newbingin, to
me it is silly to say we can't know anything (Greg refers to this in another post). For he at least "knows" that he
can't know anything, so he knows something! And if he doesn't know that he can't know anything, then he can't
make that claim, right?
Rather convaluted :-)
Matthew 13:11
"To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given."
Luke 1:76-77
"And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways,
to give knowledge of salvation to his people by the forgiveness of their sins."
John 4:42
"They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for
ourselves, and we know that this is truly the Savior of the world.”"
Eph. 1:8-10
"With all wisdom and insight he has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure
that he set forth in Christ, as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and
things on earth."
: It seems to me that it would still be human arrogance for me to say, "I know the Truth revealed by God in
Jesus Christ."
Well, I would actually agree, believe it or not. All I am claiming is I know some things, not everything. "I know in
part" Paul says somewhere. He does know, but not all, and none of us know everything. [But see I can know
that too :-)]
Mark
Posted by Brad Morrison on January 31, 19100 at 21:20:35:
In Reply to: Now Knowledge/Truth posted by Mark Fearnall on January 31, 19100 at 07:25:43:
Mark:
I appreciate the finer points of your argument, and that you are using the word "know" in terms of awareness vs.
direct observation/pure reason.
In general, though, I prefer to use "to know" in the first sense, that is, to grasp by pure reason.
Given this definition of "to know" I take a rather Barthian route from there.
For me to say I "know God" makes the incarnation superfluous [granted, though, you do back your position up
with scripture].
In accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, I submit that I cannot "know" God; rather, I believe what is
revealed of God, in general to Israel, and in particular in Jesus Christ.
But the question arises, Can I "know" creation...things...stuff about our present reality...stuff about my self?
Well, if I take seriously the revelation of God in Jesus Christ--the necessity of that revelation/incarnation--then I
must come to believe that any assertions of knowledge I may have had perviously must have been illusions or
partial truths: for in the revelation of Jesus Christ I come to "know" the world with new eyes. As a Christian, I
resist saying, "I know such-and-such truth of the world" and instead say "In Jesus Christ I have come to believe
such-and-such about the world."
Let me stop here so I can here your comments on these thoughts.
Brad Morrison
Posted by Mark Fearnall on January 31, 19100 at 22:31:29:
In Reply to: Re: Now Knowledge/Truth posted by Brad Morrison on January 31, 19100 at 21:20:35:
Brad,
I like the way you put things here. With the distinctions you have made I don't think (I won't say I know :-) we are
very far apart in our understanding.
If I were, for sake of discussion, to accept that "know" only refers to direct observation/pure reason, I would
agree with your direction. Of course then there are many things I can't know.
However, I have rejected and would continue to reject that limited idea of "know". Not only for scriptural reasons,
but also because I don't think many of us live that limited in life. For example (got thinking of this as I did a
funeral for a friend today and could see the great love of his family), I can say I love my wife, but there is nothing
through pure reason or direct observation that can prove the truth of love... yet I would maintain the reality of
that love, not just as a possibility but as the truth.
I think that by allowing ourselves to be limited to "rational knowledge" we give in to both the modernist and
post-modernist world-view. I do not see Reason and Faith as two separate compartments, but as matters that
go hand-in-hand.
I really like your last paragraph, but I would still word it slightly differently. I would say "I believe in Jesus Christ
and the reality he reveals (he is) and based on that I can know such-and-such".
However, that is not to take away from your statement. Correct me if I am wrong, but I hear you saying "I
believe in order to understand" [Augustine if I remember]... and I have always liked that thinking.
I suppose I would emphasize the knowledge that comes from that believing which is why I would still say I can
"know" God... although that isn't quite accurate, because I believe God has made Himself known to me. I arrive
at this knowledge through God's self-revelation, not through my reason/works/striving etc.
Mark
: Mark:
: I appreciate the finer points of your argument, and that you are using the word "know" in terms of awareness
vs. direct observation/pure reason.
: In general, though, I prefer to use "to know" in the first sense, that is, to grasp by pure reason.
: Given this definition of "to know" I take a rather Barthian route from there.
: For me to say I "know God" makes the incarnation superfluous [granted, though, you do back your position up
with scripture].
: In accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, I submit that I cannot "know" God; rather, I believe what is
revealed of God, in general to Israel, and in particular in Jesus Christ.
: But the question arises, Can I "know" creation...things...stuff about our present reality...stuff about my self?
: Well, if I take seriously the revelation of God in Jesus Christ--the necessity of that revelation/incarnation--then I
must come to believe that any assertions of knowledge I may have had perviously must have been illusions or
partial truths: for in the revelation of Jesus Christ I come to "know" the world with new eyes. As a Christian, I
resist saying, "I know such-and-such truth of the world" and instead say "In Jesus Christ I have come to believe
such-and-such about the world."
: Let me stop here so I can here your comments on these thoughts.
: Brad Morrison
Posted by Jayne Little on February 01, 19100 at 22:06:07:
In Reply to: Re: Now Knowledge/Truth posted by Mark Fearnall on January 31, 19100 at 22:31:29:
Thank you for this dialogue.
After I posted the question about "know" to Mark, I continued to reflect...and the essential element that I came
down to ...is for me the best verb would be "I believe"...and that may be the mathematician/logic element.
Mark & Brad...are you ministers? or theological students...as in active or past study?
Mark, I "hear" you using "know"...as in through my faith, I know, in the depths of my core..
Brad, you are using "belief"...as in there may be more truths that I have not been revealed, or do not yet
understood...so I believe.
Is that a fair comparison.
Posted by Mark Fearnall on February 03, 19100 at 07:07:35:
In Reply to: Re: Now Knowledge/Truth posted by Jayne Little on February 01, 19100 at 22:06:07:
: After I posted the question about "know" to Mark, I continued to reflect...and the essential element that I came
down to ...is for me the best verb would be "I believe"...and that may be the mathematician/logic element.
: Mark & Brad...are you ministers? or theological students...as in active or past study?
I am a minister at Shawville United Church in Shawville Quebec.
: Mark, I "hear" you using "know"...as in through my faith, I know, in the depths of my core..
I guess I would like to say, through all of me... faith, reason, etc. I find that knowledge is revealed (found)
through many different means. I do agree with Brad about striving to submit any knowledge to the revelation of
God in Jesus Christ.
I sort of think of it like the "hermeneutical circle". Are you familiar with it? It sees interpretation as a circle that
goes round and round. We continue to test various ideas around this circle.
I see knowledge (in life) as this type of circle. It is continually tested against all the ways that knowledge comes
to us (not limited to just observation and pure reason). The point which breaks into the circle is Jesus Christ.
I haven't fully explored this idea, so if it is more confusing than helpful just ignore.
Mark
Posted by Brad Morrison on February 02, 19100 at 22:31:27:
In Reply to: Re: Now Knowledge/Truth posted by Jayne Little on February 01, 19100 at 22:06:07:
Mark & Jayne:
I guess Mark and I would agree with one another withthis statement: our knowledge of the world, human
being-ness, and the divine is a knowledge/knowing/gnosis that is always and everywhere (or strives to be)
secondary to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
Mark, you suggested that my restricted use of "to know" enslaves me to modernist/rationalist epistemologies.
On the contrary, I hold to a "narratological" epistemology (a post-structuralist epistemology that is not equated
to, but is comfortable with relativist/constructivist epistemology). I can hold to this position because I do
subjugate "knowing" to that which I can only choose to believe in Jesus Christ.
Your thoughts?
Brad
soon-to-be Pastoral Care Minister at Grace United Church, Sarnia
osted by Mark Fearnall on February 03, 19100 at 06:57:41:
In Reply to: Re: Now Knowledge/Truth posted by Brad Morrison on February 02, 19100 at 22:31:27:
Brad,
You wrote:
: I guess Mark and I would agree with one another withthis statement: our knowledge of the world, human
being-ness, and the divine is a knowledge/knowing/gnosis that is always and everywhere (or strives to be)
secondary to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
I would agree with that!
: Mark, you suggested that my restricted use of "to know" enslaves me to modernist/rationalist epistemologies.
On the contrary, I hold to a "narratological" epistemology (a post-structuralist epistemology that is not equated
to, but is comfortable with relativist/constructivist epistemology).
Could you please explain more of this "post-structuralist epistemology"... I am not familiar with it at all.
In my Bible reading I came across this famous passage: "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples;
and you will _know the truth_, and the truth will make you free."
Would that fit in with this post-structuralist epistemology?
Thanks,
Mark
Posted by Greg Smith-Young on January 31, 19100 at 06:14:10:
In Reply to: Re: 20 ARTICLES !!! Changing?? Not Officially posted by Brad Morrison on January 30, 19100 at
22:29:06:
: Mark:
: Rather than say, "I KNOW (any) Truth," I would say, "I BELIEVE as Truth/Real what God has revealed in
Jesus Christ."
: Would you agree with this distinction?
: It seems to me that it would still be human arrogance for me to say, "I know the Truth revealed by God in
Jesus Christ."
: Perhaps an insignificant distinction?...perhaps the main significance between philosophical discourse and
theological discourse?
: Brad Morrison
Might I suggest a read of "Proper Confidence" by Lesslie Newbiggin. He looks at the postmodern critique of
knowing (he agrees that we cannot know *anything*, including scientific knowledge, with certainty. He then
argues that we can have *confidence* that what we believe is true. (ie he makes the distinction between
confidence and certainty).
Greg
Posted by Jayne Little on January 31, 19100 at 01:26:03:
In Reply to: Re: 20 ARTICLES !!! Changing?? Not Officially posted by Brad Morrison on January 30, 19100 at
22:29:06:
Thanks Peter, Brad & Mark, for continuing this thread.
It is the dialogue on what is mystery that is what I seek in this.
Mystery will be different for you & I.
In some threads, I have shared what I feel of God, Spirit, Jesus Christ, our call, discipleship, ministry..and so
on.
I cannot say I understand these subjects. I hope to learn more as I grow.
I do know, I don't understand the Articles.
I am a lay person, not a studied theologian.
I read when I can, and I worship, and I continue to dwell and seek a better understanding.
I wish that those who "understand" the articles, would help those of us, who don't, by even just taking the tiny
step, to put them into to-days language.
I don't understand why this is such a hard task for people to grasp, or why it seems to rattle people.
Is it scary to discuss our faith? It takes personal sharing.
I guess, I just don't get all the ruccous..that is going on over the discussion, as compared to the dialogues on the
statements.
still struggling,
jayne
|