Books of the Apocrypha

[Resha Caner]

Here's another example. Many scholars consider Matthew's Passion narrative structured off of Wisdom 2's long description of the "righteous one" suffering a shameful death as a test at the hands of scoffers. (Matthew 27:38-43)

I would have to disagree with that one. Might some be seeking a human source for Jesus' teachings? To me it seems Wisdom 2 is simply following the poetic style of the Psalms. Over time such themes were appropriated for Zionism.

I have the same objection to Gilgamesh. I often wonder how many have actually read it as they drone on about how Noah's story must have been copied from it. I had to read Gilgamesh for my world history class, and I don't get it. It's like claiming the Sumerians invented baseball because Gilgamesh happens to mentions ball games.

 

[FireDragon76]

That seems like a quasi-Eutycheanism, where any significance of understanding Jesus' human cultural setting is dismissed as diminishing his divinity or the authority of the Scriptures.

 

[Resha Caner]

That seems like a quasi-Eutycheanism, where any significance of understanding Jesus' human cultural setting is dismissed as diminishing his divinity or the authority of the Scriptures.

Call it what you like. You've not noticed that secular scholars, in rejecting the possibility of divinity, seek an earthly explanation for everything? It's understandable from their perspective, but not something I agree with.

With respect to the veracity of Scripture, I'm perfectly willing to accept possibilities such as Moses using existing sources to collect the Pentateuch. That doesn't negate inspiration, as God could have inspired what he selected from the available sources. But, again, the source criticism I've seen that promotes the idea Gilgamesh was his source for the story of Noah is just ridiculous. It's so full of odd speculation as to be embarrassing. I'm only willing to talk source criticism with those who are willing to consider that human sources were not Moses' only possible source.

As such, you may want to note that I was willing to give you the comparison between Matthew 11 and Sirach. Maybe that is where Jesus learned that analogy. But I'll not give you Matthew 27 and Wisdom 2. It seems like a stretch to me. Further, though I would accept Jesus had to learn his theology, I would insist he confirmed it in his relationship with the Father, just as the canon was confirmed when the Holy Spirit inspired its authors. So, the canon is the only thing we can point to with confidence that it was inspired.

If Jesus first learned something from a human source, that doesn't make that human source a theological authority. In order for me to consider that, I would expect Jesus to make a direct quote, as he quotes from the OT in many other cases.

 

[FireDragon76]

Call it what you like. You've not noticed that secular scholars, in rejecting the possibility of divinity, seek an earthly explanation for everything? It's understandable from their perspective, but not something I agree with.

I don't see that as my viewpoint. I see it as an issue of divine immanence, which is far different from atheism or agnosticism. If God is working within cultures, then it doesn't undermine the authority of Scriptures at all. But it does change how we interpret them.

With respect to the veracity of Scripture, I'm perfectly willing to accept possibilities such as Moses using existing sources to collect the Pentateuch

I can see why there is so much of an impasse here between us. I do not accept Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. I tend to favor the Documentary Source hypothesis, even while acknowledging it is far from perfect- Mosaic authorship is just not credible (nor is it remotely a de fide doctrine), and most large Christian churches seem to agree on this point. You won't find Mosaic Authorship taught at Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox seminaries.

That doesn't negate inspiration, as God could have inspired what he selected from the available sources. But, again, the source criticism I've seen that promotes the idea Gilgamesh was his source for the story of Noah is just ridiculous.

This is a good point, but the Hebrew people were far less homogeneous than how Christian and Jewish tradition portrays them, being influenced by different cultures at different times (Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Mesopotamians, predominantly). It is just as possible that Noah and Gilgamesh have a common origin in some ancient story that is lost to us.

I would insist he confirmed it in his relationship with the Father, just as the canon was confirmed when the Holy Spirit inspired its authors. So, the canon is the only thing we can point to with confidence that it was inspired.

If the canon is not strictly defined we cannot think of inspiration/authority in such a positivist manner.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't see that as my viewpoint.

I didn't mean to imply it was, but it is the viewpoint of many of the scholarly sources you're likely to draw from. It's good to be aware of that before you accept their conclusions.

I see it as an issue of divine immanence, which is far different from atheism or agnosticism. If God is working within cultures, then it doesn't undermine the authority of Scriptures at all. But it does change how we interpret them.

I'm sure God is working in different cultures all over the world. I'm willing to accept that God may have worked in Mohamed's life, in Buddha's life. But at some point they went astray and their views can't be accepted as canonical. Knowing God works in all the world and identifying a specific document as canonical are 2 very different things.

I can see why there is so much of an impasse here between us. I do not accept Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. I tend to favor the Documentary Source hypothesis, even while acknowledging it is far from perfect- Mosaic authorship is just not credible (nor is it remotely a de fide doctrine), and most large Christian churches seem to agree on this point. You won't find Mosaic Authorship taught at Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox seminaries.

Well, I'm not RC or Orthodox. Too bad for them. I am, however, a historian. Source criticism has long been acknowledged for reaching too far. That doesn't mean historians generally accept Moses as historical, but we've moved on from all the 19th century German analysis. To lean on source criticism as proof Moses was not historical is very, very weak.

If one believes Moses was historical, as I do, there are some hints to support that position. If one doesn't believe Moses was historical, the evidence is thin enough to be dismissed. So, yes, this is probably an impasse for us.

This is a good point, but the Hebrew people were far less homogeneous than how Christian and Jewish tradition portrays them, being influenced by different cultures at different times (Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Mesopotamians, predominantly). It is just as possible that Noah and Gilgamesh have a common origin in some ancient story that is lost to us.

There are many possibilities, no one really better than the other. I accept the Biblical version as the inspired version.

If the canon is not strictly defined we cannot think of inspiration/authority in such a positivist manner.

I would be suspicious of strict definitions of canonicity. It is a fuzzy blending of many factors ... and that's not a bad thing, despite 19th century positivists thinking it was. Fuzzy logic is proving to be a powerful tool.

 

[FireDragon76]

I didn't mean to imply it was, but it is the viewpoint of many of the scholarly sources you're likely to draw from. It's good to be aware of that before you accept their conclusions.

I definitely am. Sometimes the presuppositions for dating are based on the presumption that nothing supernatural or paranormal can ever happen, so things like prophecy cannot be true. I still think the historical-critical method is useful, but it's not legitimate to overturn dogma that Christians have held for many centuries based on relatively recent, and ultimately tenuous scientific hypotheses of the origins of certain texts.

I guess you could call this a somewhat conservative but "Neo-Orthodox" position in regards to inspiration.

I'm sure God is working in different cultures all over the world. I'm willing to accept that God may have worked in Mohamed's life, in Buddha's life. But at some point they went astray and their views can't be accepted as canonical.

I can accept that we aren't obliged to consider the Quran or the Tripitaka as Christian Scriptures. But that's a far cry from saying that the Apocrypha doesn't legitimately have a place in the Bible. Until about two centuries ago more or less, this wasn't much of an issue for most Christians- the decline of the mainline American and historic European churches, and the explosion of Baptist, non-denominational, and Pentecostal groups has made it an issue.

That doesn't mean historians generally accept Moses as historical, but we've moved on from all the 19th century German analysis. To lean on source criticism as proof Moses was not historical is very, very weak.

Source criticism doesn't necessarily imply that Moses wasn't a real figure. It means that Moses didn't author the Torah as we have it today. FWIW, I believe the Exodus account is based off a real event and could have been passed down as oral history for hundreds of years (the Song of the Sea in Exodus 15 contains some of the oldest literary style in the entire Bible, suggesting an ancient source). But the actual "Invasion of Canaan", archeologically, looks a lot more complicated than the portrayal we have in the Bible. It looks like the Canaanites themselves had a revolution and overthrew a political-religious order, dominated by an aristocracy tied politically to the Egyptian Pharaoh.

 

[Resha Caner]

I still think the historical-critical method is useful, but it's not legitimate to overturn dogma that Christians have held for many centuries based on relatively recent, and ultimately tenuous scientific hypotheses of the origins of certain texts.

Maybe our positions aren't as far apart as I first assumed. I'm all for rigorous historical method. But I resist the idea it is "scientific". In my summer class, our professor made a very interesting argument that somewhat surprised me. He used an example of some late medieval monks documenting the history of their founding saint. He notes that they specified their approach, studied the sources they employed, and were open to alternative narratives. Yet they came to different conclusions than a modern secular historian. His concluding comment was that those monks used a historical method that was convincing to the people of their time, and the only reason historians now utilize historical-critical methods is because it is convincing to their peers.

Until about two centuries ago more or less, this wasn't much of an issue for most Christians- the decline of the mainline American and historic European churches, and the explosion of Baptist, non-denominational, and Pentecostal groups has made it an issue.

Be careful. Even Luther quoted from the Apocrypha, and considered the canon open. He wanted to eliminate James. But just because he read and quoted from the Apocrypha doesn't mean he considered it canonical. I would agree there came a time when it was put on the naughty list and people didn't read it. But restoring it to its proper place doesn't mean it must be made canonical. Some of the Apocrypha contains material that is contradictory to accepted canon, and that eliminates at least those books.

Source criticism doesn't necessarily imply that Moses wasn't a real figure. It means that Moses didn't author the Torah as we have it today.

Aside from clerical errors, I'm not aware of any physical evidence that it ever differed. So, this becomes an argument from absence, which is not a sound argument.

And, yes, there are apostate branches in the tree, but that doesn't negate the main trunk. It would be like pointing to Jefferson's Bible, Twain's Bible, Joseph Smith's Bible, the Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. and claiming those are evidence that the Bible has changed.

But the actual "Invasion of Canaan", archeologically, looks a lot more complicated than the portrayal we have in the Bible. It looks like the Canaanites themselves had a revolution and overthrew a political-religious order, dominated by an aristocracy tied politically to the Egyptian Pharaoh.

Have you ever read On the Reliability of the Old Testament by Kitchen? A great book. He argues that the Sunday School stories of the settling of Canaan are overly simplistic, and that the Biblical text itself presents a much more complicated story for Canaan that is supported by archaeological evidence. So, maybe its just the interpretation you're familiar with that isn't matching.

 

[FireDragon76]

Have you ever read On the Reliability of the Old Testament by Kitchen? A great book. He argues that the Sunday School stories of the settling of Canaan are overly simplistic, and that the Biblical text itself presents a much more complicated story for Canaan that is supported by archaeological evidence. So, maybe its just the interpretation you're familiar with that isn't matching.

I might look into that book. I grew up mostly with the "Sunday School version" and that is often the same version that is preached about from the pulpits of churches I have been to.

I still don't see how you could take Mosaic authorship of the Torah seriously. But you know I'm an open-minded person and I'd be willing to read about or hear explanations to the contrary. The explanation I have heard for years, that makes sense to me, is that the OT in its current form was largely collected from different sources during the Babylonian Exile and redacted by what remained of the Jewish priesthood, because at the request of the Persians the Jews had to formulate their religious narrative to explain it to their conquerors, and to make sense of it themselves when they were far away from their homeland..

I've heard about the Documentary Source Hypothesis ever since I was a teen and a Presbyterian chaplain at the base we were stationed explained it to me, she had an old bible that had different highlighted text for different sources, and I found the idea compelling at the time (J and E etc.). There are enough stylistic differences between the parts of the Old Testament that I find it hard to believe they weren't compiled from different sources. There may have been original documents our current text is based off but they are lost to us and we have no way of verifying what the "original autographs" actually were, if they even existed (the current theory of textual criticism in Germany is to admit there are no original autographs, just different textual traditions).

Some of the stuff is very obvious, such as the fact there are two accounts of the Flood in Genesis interwoven with different details. This Nova documentary talks about the Documentary Source hypothesis in more detail.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/bibles-buried-secrets.html

 

[Resha Caner]

The explanation I have heard for years, that makes sense to me, is that the OT in its current form was largely collected from different sources during the Babylonian Exile and redacted by what remained of the Jewish priesthood, because at the request of the Persians the Jews had to formulate their religious narrative to explain it to their conquerors, and to make sense of it themselves when they were far away from their homeland..

That is partially true. Tradition says Ezra collected the Hebrew scripture into the form we now know. The tone of Ezra 8 and Nehemiah 8 fit with that idea. In the process of doing so, there was likely some (inspired) redaction. It's the extent of the redaction that people claim which I oppose. Take, for example, Exodus 16:36. Here we have a chapter discussing this unit of measure (the omer), but nobody even today knows what an omer is. So, Ezra is preparing this text for his new band of Levites, and realizes none of them know what an omer is, so he adds a verse to explain it. An omer is a tenth of an ephah. I am OK with explanatory redaction, but not this idea that the entire narrative was changed to fit their current reality - Oh, God made all these prophecies that didn't come true so I'll change them from political to spiritual - oh, and I'll throw some stuff into Isaiah that prophesies about Babylonian leaders by name (because obviously Isaiah couldn't have known that since prophecy isn't real). That's the kind of stuff I object to.

Some of the stuff is very obvious, such as the fact there are two accounts of the Flood in Genesis interwoven with different details.

It's not as obvious as you've been led to believe. I'm familiar with the Documentary Hypothesis, and it's sad people still talk about it as if it's valid. Wikipedia can get you started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis#Weakening_of_support

What I'm promoting to you is a version of the fragmentary hypothesis. When we speak of "Mosaic authorship" it really means more of a Mosaic leadership than that he penned every single word, which is supported by Exodus 18 and Deuteronomy 34. There is a similar aspect to the Psalms, where David had a group of musicians writing psalms with him. It was a group effort led by David. As such, and given these scribes were drawing from existing documentation rather than smoking peyote and scribbling whatever popped into their head, variations in style are to be expected ... as well as explanatory updates by later redaction that introduced terms Moses himself would not have used.

 

[FireDragon76]

Ok, I think I better understand where you are coming from.

I guess I would tend towards something in between a maximalist and minimalist approach to the question of biblical archeology and historicity. The hard minimalist position looks a lot weaker than it did during the 19th century, for sure, as does the whole "historical Jesus" quest.

In some ways, the mainline is somewhat less skeptical than it was a century ago where there was a lot of scientific rationalism, I've seen some otherwise very liberal mainline Christians admit that Jesus' did things that we wouldn't be able to scientifically explain (such as healing), whereas at one time the liberal ethos was more like deism.

 

[Resha Caner]

In some ways, the mainline is somewhat less skeptical than it was a century ago where there was a lot of scientific rationalism, I've seen some otherwise very liberal mainline Christians admit that Jesus' did things that we wouldn't be able to scientifically explain (such as healing), whereas at one time the liberal ethos was more like deism.

Yes, and that is somewhat encouraging. Have you seen the lecture by Gary Habermas where he discusses what scholars have begun to concede? He overstates a bit what they're conceding, but it's still a great lecture.

 

[FireDragon76]

Gary Habermas was actually very influential in my decision to go back to church almost a decade ago (that, and some Orthodox Christians I encountered online in an Emergent Church forum). I grew up in Methodist churches where the resurrection was not something that was preached about much, and the last time I had really gone to a church was my grandparents church, living near there in college, where the pastor actually left off on a Bultmann-esque note on Easter that was very confusing at the time, and just struck me as betraying self-importance (if church was just about manipulating feelings in my heart, then I didn't want to have much to do with it).

I think most skeptical younger people are ultimately skeptical because we associated Christianity with a lot of moralism and legalism - it's not so much a problem with Jesus as with the message around Jesus. Sure, I had some positive feelings associated with it, but the sense of connection to God was mediated through moral living, not sacraments (I was taught communion was just grape juice and baptism was basically a rite of passage), and certainly not preaching (which was often just about "Christian living", which I found irrelevant to my life's situation). I'm just thankful my Methodist experience was not legalism, else those positive feelings would probably not be there, from what I have seen legalism is genuinely destructive.

I think the first pastor I actually paid any attention to in sermons was that Presbyterian chaplain I mentioned, but unfortunately when our family left England we went back to Methodism (I felt drawn to the Anglican churches there and we even went to a few Christmas services but otherwise, we went to religious services on the base chapel. I was really enchanted by the idea that the Christian faith was potentially something ancient, that was totally new to me at the time).

 

[Resha Caner]

Gary Habermas was actually very influential in my decision to go back to church almost a decade ago (that, and some Orthodox Christians I encountered online in an Emergent Church forum).

Cool.

I grew up in Methodist churches ...

So did I. Interesting. Our whole family left together and moved to the LCMS, but it's interesting (at least to me) how it happened. My older sister refused to respond during the membership service our church had when people turn 13. I didn't want to go to church anyway, so I announced I wasn't going to attend Bible classes anymore. It started a conversation between my sister and my father where she explained what the minister had been teaching and tipped my father (who was already getting disgruntled with the church) toward looking elsewhere. My mother have been raised Lutheran, and she persuaded my dad to try it. My dad had been raised in the Disciples of Christ, and hated the idea of a Lutheran church, but agreed to try. We started attending the local LCMS church, and never looked back. My younger sister is married to an LCMS pastor, and I considered being a pastor for a time.

I think most skeptical younger people are ultimately skeptical because we associated Christianity with a lot of moralism and legalism - it's not so much a problem with Jesus as with the message around Jesus. Sure, I had some positive feelings associated with it, but the sense of connection to God was mediated through moral living, not sacraments (I was taught communion was just grape juice and baptism was basically a rite of passage), and certainly not preaching (which was often just about "Christian living", which I found irrelevant to my life's situation). I'm just thankful my Methodist experience was not legalism, else those positive feelings would probably not be there, from what I have seen legalism is genuinely destructive.

Yep. That mirrors my experience exactly. Our Methodist church let anyone commune, so kids started as soon as they were on solid food. We had instances where the kids would cry because their "snack" was too small. Then there were the church picnics where people got drunk. It was quite the place.

Of course the LCMS has it struggles. Specifically, Confessional Lutherans struggle with vocation (Christian Life) because legalism is so strongly opposed. But I much prefer it to the church of my youth.

 

[FireDragon76]

So did I. Interesting. Our whole family left together and moved to the LCMS, but it's interesting (at least to me) how it happened.

I had a different family background. My dad's family was irreligious going way back, one of those not too rare examples of Oklahoma farmers who had a hyper-pragmatic view of life to the point that religious piety had no place. One time I remember my grandpa talking about his dad telling him "boys, be nice to these folks because they talk over their 'taters", in reference to saying grace. My dad actually was not baptized until he became an adult. He's only occasionally been very active in church (I think he spent most of his energy on his career only to be frustrated by hitting a glass wall as an officer because he wasn't a pilot). My mom's family was much more devout and historically Methodist, specifically United Brethren (German-American Wesleyans). So as you can see my family's religious background is a compromise, with people settling on a middle ground that didn't demand too much.

Yep. That mirrors my experience exactly. Our Methodist church let anyone commune, so kids started as soon as they were on solid food.

I'm actually OK with that practice. It's normal in the Orthodox church I used to attend, even little babies would get Communion out of the spoon. As they get older, they get age-appropriate instruction in what it means, but the grace isn't seen as dependent on people understanding it intellectually.

Remember I briefly talked about legalism? That's the reason I don't go to an Orthodox church anymore. The more I dealt with ascetic struggle and the seemingly conflicting demands of trying to be a good Christian, the more I had serious issues with the subtle legalism I encountered. This may not be true of all Orthodox, I doubt it is, but the place I was at had a priest that was formerly PCA Presbyterian that ran into trouble with his elders a few times, and he was very much into the Orthodox ascetical ideal and very perfectionistic. Questioning anything was a sign of not being committed. It was a very damaging experience.

I still have icons and candles at home and a lot of private Orthodox piety. So I guess I just see the ELCA parish I attend as a refuge from a bad church experience. The pastor I have is Greek-German-American married to a Catholic so in some ways, he embodied a lot of the paradoxes of my own faith journey. The main thing I appreciate about the church is there is nothing harsh about it (except maybe the coffee!), it's just a place to go and worship God in a liturgical setting.

Of course the LCMS has it struggles. Specifically, Confessional Lutherans struggle with vocation (Christian Life) because legalism is so strongly opposed. But I much prefer it to the church of my youth.

The ELCA is influenced more by Scandinavian pietism so there isn't as much a problem with that sort of thing, holiness is not a dirty word, even if it is not thought of in Methodist terms ("don't drink, don't smoke, be nice"). The important difference for me is the fact that they don't neglect to preach the Gospel. Some Wesleyans have the attitude that the Gospel is only something that new people need to hear, and my experience is that it is not, just the opposite: the more mature a Christian you become, the more you need to hear it. I also appreciate the fact that the Gospel is presented as being less about any particular view of atonement, though the Cross is still the center of it, at least at the parish I go to.

Something that helped me understand the place of vocation and works in the Christian life isn't even written by a Lutheran or an Orthodox Christian. It was reading Therese of Lisieux's Story of a Soul. I guess I struggle with perfectionistic tendencies myself so that is a message relevant to me. A spirituality that is about doing the little things in life that need to be done, but doing them with a lot of love, is something I need to hear sometimes. One quote of hers comes to mind "At last I have found my vocation. My vocation is love... I will be love, and then I will be all things.”

 

[Resha Caner]

I had a different family background ... So as you can see my family's religious background is a compromise, with people settling on a middle ground that didn't demand too much.

Your experience as a military brat is certainly different than mine. My family background is Iowa farmers, though, so I know what you mean by some of it. The United Methodists were a similar compromise between my Lutheran mother and Disciples of Christ father. My grandpa was just glad his daughter didn't marry a Catholic. What a tragedy that would have been! (BTW, there's some sarcasm in that statement).

I'm actually OK with that practice.

As you know, the LCMS supports infant baptism. So we recognize the young are capable of receiving sacraments. It's not so much an intellectual issue as a maturity issue, as described in 1 Corinthians 11.

I still have icons and candles at home and a lot of private Orthodox piety.

That's fine. Even Luther was OK with it so long as there weren't any "popish abuses" to use his words.

Something that helped me understand the place of vocation and works in the Christian life isn't even written by a Lutheran or an Orthodox Christian. It was reading Therese of Lisieux's Story of a Soul. I guess I struggle with perfectionistic tendencies myself so that is a message relevant to me. A spirituality that is about doing the little things in life that need to be done, but doing them with a lot of love, is something I need to hear sometimes. One quote of hers comes to mind "At last I have found my vocation. My vocation is love... I will be love, and then I will be all things.”

I'll check out the book. And I have some to recommend to you as well. The ELCA is an odd duck. It has the extremes of congregations that would fit perfectly with the LCMS and those that probably shouldn't post "Lutheran" on their sign. So, there are some scholars within the ELCA that have some good advice for the LCMS. The problem for my fellows in the LCMS is that these aren't published by CPS. The first is The Promise of Lutheran Ethics by Karen L. Bloomquist and John R. Stumme, which is mainly written by those apostate ELCA people (again, sarcasm), but is obviously an influence on A Case for Character: Towards a Lutheran Virtue Ethics by Joel D. Biermann, who teaches at the St. Louis seminary.

 

[FireDragon76]

That's fine. Even Luther was OK with it so long as there weren't any "popish abuses" to use his words.

The Lutheran teaching on intercession of saints might be a difficult one from the Orthodox perspective. I found praying the rosary helpful many years ago when I first returned to attending a church, it was a Continuing Anglican church that had a moderate Anglo-Catholicism and I didn't even realize it wasn't Episcopalian at the time until a month or two after I started attending. As a kid my relationship to God was a difficult one because I lived in a home with a somewhat distant, unemotional dad and that's how I tended to think of God, and the church environment I was mostly exposed to was moralistic- I had almost no prayer life. So, on finding an Anglican church I naturally gravitated to a sort of Marian piety focused on praying a Scriptural rosary every day... and indeed I found that a path "to Jesus through Mary". When I became an Orthodox catechumen, I was exposed to something different: the liturgy is full of Marian piety but it's different from Roman Catholicism. Asking for the prayers of the Mother of God or another saint is still something I sometimes do. To me it's not a matter of necessity so much as desire. My experience of God is often one that is mediated through someone or something, which is one reason that I would find it hard to go to a non-sacramental church. To me the idea of being a Christian all on my lonesome as an individual religious consumer in a megachurch or something like that would be foreign.

The first is The Promise of Lutheran Ethics by Karen L. Bloomquist and John R. Stumme,

I'll check it out. The pastor and I go out to get coffee every few weeks, I guess he has made me a project of sorts being as how I've had a rough time in the Orthodox church. We've talked about the basics of Lutheran ethics a little.

The ELCA does indeed seem to be a spectrum, and my experience may be the minority. A lot of the churches seem to be identical to other liberal mainline churches with a little bit of Lutheran emphasis and who knows, if I lived somewhere else I'd probably have to find some other church to go to. The one that happens to be closest to my house is a somewhat conservative Evangelical Catholic liturgical type experience, though some of the worship materials do seem a bit influenced by the current ELCA liberalness with more gender neutral language in some places that just seems odd to me (the Episcopal Church has more dignified language in its prayers), but I sort of think now days that worship isn't the most important part of being a Christian, it has to be balanced with good teaching, preaching, and a community of folks that try to live graciously. It's a bit challenging for me to deal with a Christian community that doesn't demand unearned trust, that has no apparent agenda- I am a bit cynical I guess, but I am trying to get used to it.

 

[Resha Caner]

... a somewhat distant, unemotional dad ...

Ouch. That's probably me with my kids. And I do see them struggling with why they should remain with the LCMS as they get older. I apologize for people like us.

My experience of God is often one that is mediated through someone or something, which is one reason that I would find it hard to go to a non-sacramental church. To me the idea of being a Christian all on my lonesome as an individual religious consumer in a megachurch or something like that would be foreign.

Hopefully you come to realize you don't need a mediator except for Christ. But I do understand how important emotional connections are. I always pray my kids will find in the church what they don't find in me.

It's a bit challenging for me to deal with a Christian community that doesn't demand unearned trust, that has no apparent agenda- I am a bit cynical I guess, but I am trying to get used to it.

Yeah. I recognize that hole exists, but I don't know how to fill it. All attempts seem to fall into social gospel errors.

 

[FireDragon76]

Ouch. That's probably me with my kids. And I do see them struggling with why they should remain with the LCMS as they get older. I apologize for people like us.

As long as people admit they are sinners and point to Christ instead of the Church, it won't be a problem. The problem is when we make the Church out to be the Gospel. That is one problem I had in the Orthodox Church, though in truth you are going to find "Evangelical Orthodox" out there (Bradley Nassif is a good example), it's just not necessarily the only place to hang ones hat.

Hopefully you come to realize you don't need a mediator except for Christ. But I do understand how important emotional connections are. I always pray my kids will find in the church what they don't find in me.

It's more like emotional connection mixed with a sense of loyalty and not merely being a consumer of spiritual experiences. Just acknowledging that our positive experiences become part of us and its not realistic to break them off artificially. I think this was part of Luther's understanding as well, though during his day the piety had become so tied to an abusive religious system it was hard to separate the two.

Yeah. I recognize that hole exists, but I don't know how to fill it. All attempts seem to fall into social gospel errors.

Maybe you could elaborate on that. It seems to me there is a difference between preaching from a socially aware consciousness and following the traditional social gospel (which seems unrealistic anyways as Christians do not have that kind of social capital). One thing I think that entails is vulnerability and risk. That might be problematic from a certain Lutheran standpoint, I don't know. Maybe it's a matter of trusting that wherever God asks us to go, he will be with us, sort of like Bonhoeffer's "before God and with God we live without God in a godless world". And in a godless world, that means living for others, without qualification. Bonhoeffer's Letters from Prison was inspiration for me in dealing with the limitations of religious orthodoxy in a world come of age. That's why I think it's still worth hearing about Jesus in this day and age, a Jesus that is beyond the small religious concerns and "felt needs" we have, the Jesus that holds all things together. Only Jesus can fix the worlds problems... actually it's not even a matter of can, he will. After all, he promised.

 

[Resha Caner]

It's more like emotional connection mixed with a sense of loyalty and not merely being a consumer of spiritual experiences. Just acknowledging that our positive experiences become part of us and its not realistic to break them off artificially. I think this was part of Luther's understanding as well, though during his day the piety had become so tied to an abusive religious system it was hard to separate the two.

I need to remember that phrase.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yeah, that idea actually I first heard from a Tibetan-American lama, Chogyam Trungpa. Before I started going back to church, I practiced Buddhist meditation and considered myself a Buddhist and I read a book by him on "spiritual materialism" and it really opened my eyes. He saw spirituality itself as a problem in the end, if it becomes an excuse to be self-satisfied, in fact he used the term "narcissism". I also read about Kobutsu Malone that had grown up Roman Catholic in Ireland but later became a Zen monk to escape childhood sexual abuse by a priest. He lived in New York and worked as a chaplain in Sing Sing prison, sometimes with death row inmates. One paper he wrote was a criticism of the new age movement and a culture that treated spirituality as something to exploit, he just saw it as another facet of western colonialism, an attitude of taking and appropriating from a community but not actually participating in it. In fact, his advice was to go find out about your own spiritual traditions before you go looking elsewhere. So I started questioning if my spirituality was simply a case of "spiritual materialism" and colonialism, and I just wanted to dig deeper into a more authentic experience. I started realizing there was a deeper dimension to spirituality that involved community, tradition, etc.