Denominations — Really Bad?

[OBW]

Going with the discussion on the "measure of the stature . . ." I note that last night we were reading a little from 1 Kings 8 and when we got to verse 61 it says the following:

And may your hearts be fully committed to the Lord our God, to live by his decrees and obey his commands, as at this time.

I think that being fully committed to the Lord is a lot like arriving at the measure of the stature . . . . We use the term but seldom really understand it as something tangible and real. Instead we treat it as an undefined "spiritual" thing that we "do" without having anything to actually do. In other words, we claim it as a fact but have no idea what it really is.

In the case of 1 Kings, the verse tells us what it is. It is to live (by His decrees) and obey (His commands). It is not to go to better meetings. It is not to speak with the tongues of the best theologians (or Pentecostal practitioners). It is not to have better doctrines or say it with better words.

It is to live by the decrees and obey the commands.

I would say "not really that hard" except that Lee would have us think that it was impossible. But while it is no cake walk, it is not impossible, but is instead imperative.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Going with the discussion on the "measure of the stature . . ." I note that last night we were reading a little from 1 Kings 8 and when we got to verse 61 it says the following:
I think that being fully committed to the Lord is a lot like arriving at the measure of the stature . . . . We use the term but seldom really understand it as something tangible and real. Instead we treat it as an undefined "spiritual" thing that we "do" without having anything to actually do. In other words, we claim it as a fact but have no idea what it really is.

In the case of 1 Kings, the verse tells us what it is. It is to live (by His decrees) and obey (His commands). It is not to go to better meetings. It is not to speak with the tongues of the best theologians (or Pentecostal practitioners). It is not to have better doctrines or say it with better words.

It is to live by the decrees and obey the commands.

I would say "not really that hard" except that Lee would have us think that it was impossible. But while it is no cake walk, it is not impossible, but is instead imperative.

Click the "Like" button.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

We use the term but seldom really understand it as something tangible and real. . . we claim it as a fact but have no idea what it really is.

And this goes right back to the issue of names, or lack thereof. What importance names may actually have on the ground is long gone in the fixation on simply "getting the name issue right." As if that would somehow magically issue in reality, and "God's blessing" and outpoured Spirit.

And this also goes to another point, on another thread running concurrently, about the idea of deification, which is why I dragged it over here in the first place. Deification in Lee's hands became the equivalent of Little Jack Horner, sitting in a corner and pulling out a Christmas plum. "Oh, what a good boy am I!" he exclaimed. Or in this case, "What fine 'high peak' theology I've developed!" But all of it completely divorced from any actuality on the ground. So the argument was irrelevant.

Which brings us to a peril of the Greek Fathers, including Athanasius, but also in my eyes ones like Origen and Clement of Alexandria. Nigel Tomes never goes into this; unfortunately probably neither he nor any of us here are capable of treating the subject adequately. But a few words nonetheless - they were thinkers and good ones, and were well versed in the Hebrew texts, the Greek Septuagint, all the classical philosophies of the day, and were determined to bring them together in a magisterium which would roll over the thinking world.

Some of it's quite impressive, and much is arguably even good, i.e. providing explanatory power for what happened on the ground there, with Jesus the Galilean. But none of it replaces the need to obey God, to take care of our living, and succor those who are unable to meet God's demand. Because that's what Jesus did for us, and what He charged the disciples to do. Yes there is teaching, thinking and exposition, but that is at best the handmaiden to good works. In the case of Lee it entirely supplanted them.

So we have powerful and carefully argued broadsides on nomenclature, and theology, and eschatology, etc etc, and little if any reality. Apart from reality (works, continually done - 'abide in the vine', don't just occasionally visit), the superposition of Greek philosophical thought on Hebrew religious tradition is a false trail. And it's also a cautionary tale for us here, who type forth ideas and critiques of ideas (and behaviors).

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

It may be that letting the trained theologians who rely on a long tradition of teaching and understanding be the ones who spend more time (than we want to wait) just considering a question that might move some aspect of practice from its mooring to a different place rather than someone excitedly declaring something different and a bunch of people being caught-up in the new and starting a new group.

I know that it was all new in the 1st century AD. Now the only thing that is truly new is not what is true, but the realization that it is true. What is new is that someone moves from disbelief to belief. Other than that, it really is sound and old.

The trained theologians are learning, right in front of us. They are studying, making points, opening their ideas to critique. They are learning from each other; it’s so gratifying for me, to see one scholar admit to learning from another. Look at any good paper, and it has dozens of citations. The better books have hundreds. There’s a large quantity of wisdom collected there, which usually is associated with institutions, but which spills over the institutional walls. Catholics learn from Orthodox scholars, Anglican from Baptist. It is true community, and it is exciting to read and take part in, as a layperson, from a distance. "The unfolding of your word brings light/it brings understanding to the simple." To be in a place where the word is unfolding among the collective is precious, indeed.

Originally Posted by OBW

It Of course working within your Christian community only works if those communities are prepared to be a sounding board and to actually engage in questions rather than just dispense answers. Otherwise they just become enclosed within their own dogma. Much like the LCM, even if less dogmatically so.

I have many questions. I do see things. (Obviously I had to if I was ever going to move beyond what Lee and the LCM gave me.) Some that would be problematic if my assembly of choice is too set in its ways to at least engage in the question and some dialog. And my questions would get me booted out of the LCM. But I am satisfied with my assembly even if the answers to my questions don't go where I think they could/should. And I am willing to be shown the error in where I think it might go (or at least think I am).

Again, the Christian community isn't limited to your local assembly. What I find is that I can access the resources of the larger Christian community, and bring them to my local congregation. If the point is well made, elsewhere, I should be able to make it locally, in a manner that my neighbor can apprehend. And if the point is made sufficiently, to me, then I should be able to make it sufficiently, to my neighbor.

And that which I find that I can't make sufficiently to the satisfaction of my neighbor I keep to myself, at least for now, until I figure out how to present it in a mutually beneficial way. "That which you have seen today; don't share it with anyone until the Son of Man is risen from the dead." Sometimes the Lord wants to share something with you, for your living, not for you to make a proclamation to tickle the ears of others. See Matt 17:9