Survey: Americans switching faiths, dropping out

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

If anything, I am probably an anomaly in that I still cling however tenuously to Christianity when those around me who have been similarly disheartened by abusive authority do indeed exchange their Christianity for another faith.

If "church" were about worshipping G-d, I would not hesitate; I would be in the front row every time. Now church has become an institutional endorsement of politics and gambling and gossip and fashion shows and dating services and pot luck dinners...and that's just in the sanctuary! It's not a matter of forgiveness, if it were I would have left by now for another religion like others before me.

I keep trying to figure out whether or not I should call myself a Christian. Why? Because although I follow Christ, I regard Christ as my King and Lord and Savior, and I celebrate the tradition of Christianity... many other Christians do not accept me as such because of my differences. They are often condemning. I have not left the fold so much as I have routinely been shoved out of it.

I think quite a few people leave a Christian church not because they abandon Christ or His teachings, or God, or the Bible, or even the tradition. They leave because other Christians make them feel unwanted, because more often than not it seems that the church is, as Juan is saying, a social institution and not a sanctuary for worship. If the Church were primarily concerned with worship and encouraging its members to follow the teachings of Christ (which come down to loving God and loving each other), it would not feel so threatened by internal differences and it would not be so engaged in wordly pursuits (political endorsement, gossip, social class, etc.). But instead, I have attended many churches that pretty much are a conglomeration of fancy technology, handing over cash, and listening to long sermons about how to vote and what is wrong with everyone else in the world. This is simply not something I feel morally right in doing. If it were not identified with the label of "church," I would not even question whether or not to go to such a meeting.

Every time I have left a church (except when I had to move), it was because it either preached teachings that did not fit with the Gospels and Christ's own words therein, and/or because it used the church for worldly aims (politics, money, personal gain, etc.). I do not go to church to hear how to vote, how to make more money, or how much better I am than other people. I go to worship God, to contemplate the mystery of communion, to set aside time to meditate on my sins and to ask forgiveness. I have found that it is very difficult to find a church that focuses on this. I am not averse to being a Christian, but I am averse to grabbing at the label, the institution, at the expense of following Christ.

[Thomas]

Hi Path_of_one —

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I think something I am curious about is what your definition of the Church to be.

I would say that which follows the Apostolic Tradition.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Do you refer to the Body of Christ, to all Christians, or only to those who agree with your own denomination, your own place of worship and structure of authority?

The doctrine of the Body of Christ derive from the Passion Discourse in St John, and notably from St Paul:
"I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called: With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all."
Ephesians 4:1-6 (and in Romans, 1 Corinthians and Colossians)

The Church is the Body of Christ, but that's the problem, isn't it ... where there are two or more denominations, then logically there are two in body, and where there are disagreements on doctrine, two in spirit, so the unity that was in Christ is lost.

So I look to the continuation of Apostolic succession as the original Church.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Early Christianity was, to the best of my knowledge, not a large institution. The Church was a body of believers who formed a community.

First around Christ Himself, and then around the Apostles. The Apostles were always the 'authority'. And the Church very quickly became a large institution, its spread was epidemic.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

They managed to find salvation despite having little written text, and none of them had all the pieces of it.

So we assume, so we hope.

[quote=path_of_one;140981]Somehow, despite all this, their faith was so great that they were willing to be martyred for it. Christ prevailed in them because of their strong sense of the Spirit within them, and their sense of community among them. This is not to say these early Christians were perfect (we know they were not from Paul), but I do not doubt their salvation despite not having a large institution to oversee it.[/color]
The institution was there, however, and they looked to it for guidance and instruction.

Paul's letters survive because they were copied and passed amongst the Churches, and were read as part of the Liturgy.

In Acts, written before the close of the century, we have the election of a diaconate, so already the threefold structure of bishop, priest, deacon. The structure was far more formalised than people generally realise.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I think it is entirely reasonable to say that the body of believers (my definition of Church — where two or more are gathered in Christ's name) has a purpose in transmitting the Gospels, the Message of Christ (His life and His teachings).

Yes.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

However, to say that these are the transmission of grace is, I think, going too far.

Well we need be careful here. In the Early Church the written word was considered just that, but we live in more 'enlightened' times. I would say that grace is transmitted via Scripture if one is open to it, and there is no better way than to read Scripture with yourself in the picture, as it were, as if the words of Jesus are addressed to you in dialogue lectio divina ... the reading of Scripture then becomes a Sacramental Act ... indeed much like prayer ... and often praying consists in reading Scripture.

As an esoterist I would say that reciting Scripture — albeit in English and translation — engages certain rhythms and harmonics of thought beyond language and that is, in a very real sense, is an order of engagement with the divine beyond the ordinary.

When Jesus gave us The Lord's Prayer, he knew what He was doing. That prayer opens a channel direct, as it were, to the Divine. The fact that there are two versions in Scripture, and they differ, points (if you believe) to something beyond the spoken word.

Now if someone never heard that prayer, are all channels closed? No, for the 'cry of the heart' is always heard ... but that is not to say therefore, there is nothing special about the Lord's Prayer.

The study of theology, for example, is not a Sacramental Act in the same way. The fact that I spend x hours in reading/researching/writing, does not 'count' towards my prayer life. The former does not replace the latter. I pray before I commence my studies however, that by the Grace of God they might bear fruit for the Church.

My mind is popping all over the place ... I do wish we can discuss the transmission of grace at length perhaps, another time.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I have faith in God alone. God is sufficient to spread His own message, through the Church and through other means (both of which I believe are active), and God alone is sufficient for salvation.

But it's not about you or me ... it's about us. One God, one people, one Church, one Body ... one Unity ... and a physical unity, not simply a spiritual one.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

No matter how many people leave a church, we will never be without the Church — the body of believers in Christ, the followers of His message.

But there will be no physical reality in the world, in the flesh ... we are into Docetism and gnosticism here ... and we have no idea what that message is ... it could be anything, and without some anchor, it will become anything anyone wants it to be ... such a Church ends up without substance, physically and spiritually.

And the unity will be broken. Not one body, not one vine.

We believe that man is a unity, not a collection of disparate individuals. A star in the night sky is a star, but the Milky Way is breath-taking, and the starfields are a theophany.

A man is a man ... but a Church, signifying the Unity of humanity ... that is something else altogether ... and no man alone can signify unity, and no two or more, with no visible connection, signify it either.

It was Christ's will that He remain visible to the world, through and in His Church ... that is what it is. Now it may be that there are millions 'outside' it, but then that is a tergedy for the world ... that Christ should be invisible.

We are spirit and we are flesh, so the Church should be invisible and visible, and that is what the Church is ... Christ in spirit and in flesh ...

Else why bother founding one?

Originally Posted by path_of_one

As for Whom the Christ is, the myth/metaphor is as significant as the historical person.

Then why bother with the Incarnation ... and why bother with all that bloody mess of the Passion?

Pax tecum, Kim —

I must go. It's my birthday, and my daughter is waiting for me ...

Thomas
Thomas

[Ciel]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I'd say you are proof that he obviously draws people towards... you have been drawn here and even asked him questions.

Perhaps you think people are better drawn towards a happy void of emptiness. Don't ask, don't tell is rather popular in the world. Or perhaps you advise surrounding the building with strippers... a house of LOVE. Surely then you could attract people if that is what matters to you.

Cyberpi,

You have misread me in more ways than one.
And your words are way out of order.
- c -

[path_of_one]

Hi, Thomas and happy birthday!

Originally Posted by Thomas

The doctrine of the Body of Christ derive from the Passion Discourse in St John, and notably from St Paul:
"I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called: With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all."
Ephesians 4:1-6 (and in Romans, 1 Corinthians and Colossians)

The Church is the Body of Christ, but that's the problem, isn't it ... where there are two or more denominations, then logically there are two in body, and where there are disagreements on doctrine, two in spirit, so the unity that was in Christ is lost.

I agree with the Biblical passage, but I don't know that I think that two denominations necessarily yields two in body. I think different people have different ways of worship, so it can yield the appearance of diversity but in fact, if you look beyond, there is unity in direction. (I mean differences in worship in terms of size of congregation, structure of worship, outside in nature or inside a building, type of music, etc.)

I think there is more difficulty with disagreements on doctrine, but I think unless we chuck doctrine entirely, there's no way around it. There is just a whole lot of doctrine that is not directly found in the Bible, and sufficient topics that are either vaguely addressed or addressed not at all that inevitably some disagreement will arise. I think we need to get away from thinking about God so much and get into worship more. That is, do rather than think. I think the Body of Christ would be one in spirit if we all focused more on loving God and loving our neighbor as ourself, on doing what Christ called us to do (healing, providing shelter, food, etc.) and if we passed on to others His words and life (through the Bible) rather than attempting to also pass on all our thoughts about what it means. What I mean, is that I can offer to others a doctrine (which is to say, thoughts about the word of God) or I can offer to others God's word.

Much of the disagreement I see is on stuff that has little or no practical purpose for actually following Christ's teachings. What is heaven and hell like? Tithe 10% to the church, or 10% to charity in general, or whatever you can afford, or? And so forth. Churches seem to split for inconsequential (in the big picture) reasons, and at the heart of it is always that people are more attached to their "self," their identity all wrapped up in being right, in their ideas... than actually loving other people and serving Christ "in His distressing disguise" as Mother Theresa puts it.

I really think we (as the Body of Christ) would be much better off, much more unified, if we learned better how to individually and collectively leave behind our self-indulgent need to be "right" and validated. Imagine if instead of Christians meeting and asking the series of usual questions: "Where do you attend church? Well what do they think of homosexuality? How about abortion? Is it modern music or traditional? Who are you all voting for in the fall?" they said something like: "You follow Christ too? That is wonderful!" and then left it at that and started out together in feeding and sheltering the homeless, adopting kids, picking up trash, other useful activities... Focusing on being the Light of the World rather than discussing who is in and who is out, and what the Light means, and whether "world" is the right translation of what was originally meant.

Perhaps I'm just too simple in spiritual matters.

The institution was there, however, and they looked to it for guidance and instruction.

I think maybe, for me, there is an issue of institution vs. community. I define the two differently. An institution implies an authority that rules over some aspect of people's lives. Ordinary people interact with but do not run the institution. Decisions are made by those higher up in the heirarchy. Institutions are held together structurally with roles, offices, rules. A community is a group that has a unifying, common interest and that mutually supports one another. A community has tradition, a loose cultural and relational bond that is nevertheless normally much stronger than that of an institution. An institution is impersonal; a community is deeply personal. I tend to think of the Church as ideally a community, not an institution. I think we should be led by leaders among equals, not heirarchically, and that decisions should be made by consensus (and I don't mean democratically, or by voting, but rather to wait until the Spirit makes it clear to the group what is appropriate). I feel that the Church should be one body in direction, but local in its relational scope, so that it is able to function without institutional coldness and heirarchical structure.

In Acts, written before the close of the century, we have the election of a diaconate, so already the threefold structure of bishop, priest, deacon. The structure was far more formalised than people generally realise.

I think there is a difference between roles and formal structures. A shaman is a role, a part-time religious practioner. I'm more for our spiritual leaders between leaders among equals than formally invested with more authority than others. It is even fine to have a leader of leaders. But the problem is if we begin to see some as higher and others lower in their spiritual capacity (and alternatively, their capacity to be wrong).

I would say that grace is transmitted via Scripture if one is open to it, and there is no better way than to read Scripture with yourself in the picture, as it were, as if the words of Jesus are addressed to you in dialogue lectio divina ... the reading of Scripture then becomes a Sacramental Act ... indeed much like prayer ... and often praying consists in reading Scripture.

As an esoterist I would say that reciting Scripture — albeit in English and translation — engages certain rhythms and harmonics of thought beyond language and that is, in a very real sense, is an order of engagement with the divine beyond the ordinary.

When Jesus gave us The Lord's Prayer, he knew what He was doing. That prayer opens a channel direct, as it were, to the Divine. The fact that there are two versions in Scripture, and they differ, points (if you believe) to something beyond the spoken word.

Now if someone never heard that prayer, are all channels closed? No, for the 'cry of the heart' is always heard ... but that is not to say therefore, there is nothing special about the Lord's Prayer.

The study of theology, for example, is not a Sacramental Act in the same way. The fact that I spend x hours in reading/researching/writing, does not 'count' towards my prayer life. The former does not replace the latter. I pray before I commence my studies however, that by the Grace of God they might bear fruit for the Church.

I couldn't agree more. This is partially why I wish I could find a church that keeps it simple: collective reading of the Word (Bible), worship (signing hymns, etc.), communion, and collective prayer (and not prayer that is not aligned with scripture- optimally, I think collective prayer would be passages of scripture).

I think what makes it difficult for me is that most churches I go to spend at least 1/3 to 1/2 of the time I am there with a person giving all their own opinions and ideas about what the Word means and what I should be doing/thinking/voting rather than sticking to the Word itself. I really could do without sermons entirely (I think this sort of thing is better left to small group discussion and study) and if there is to be a sermon, it should stick to encouraging us to love God and our neighbor. Worship should be collective and unified, but study should be personal and dialectical. Interpretation of the Word, study of it-- these things should be a discussion among believers, which can certainly include a pastor or priest, but should not be conducted in the manner of "open up congregation's brains, dump in my knowledge." Study should engage each Christian in delving personally into the Word and growing as much as possible in one's capacity to read with both reason and inspiration from the Spirit-- interpretation should not be spoon-fed.

Just my opinion, of course.

But there will be no physical reality in the world, in the flesh ... we are into Docetism and gnosticism here ... and we have no idea what that message is ... it could be anything, and without some anchor, it will become anything anyone wants it to be ... such a Church ends up without substance, physically and spiritually.

I suppose I disagree because it is not so with me. I think the message is actually very simple and clear. Perhaps not the details, but certainly the parts that are essential to salvation. Christ says all who sincerely seek, find. I have faith in this. If there is a lack of substance, it is due to a lack of sincerity in seeking, not due to a lack of God being able to make clear the meaning of scripture. And we would be much more one Body if we functioned as a Body- the feet of Christ, the hands of Christ- if we focused on being as Christ for others rather than on thinking about it all.

Christ said "I am the vine, and you are the branches." (John 15:5). The unity is found in each of us being attached to Christ, the vine. We are each still our own branch, to bear our own fruit. The oneness we should show as the Body is the unity in what we bear- our fruit. It is the fruit that is evidence of the branches' union with the vine.

We believe that man is a unity, not a collection of disparate individuals. A star in the night sky is a star, but the Milky Way is breath-taking, and the starfields are a theophany.

I agree. But is doctrinal unity what would demonstrate the unity of the Body of Christ? As it stands, I can take any denomination and show that although everyone in it signs on to the same doctrine, their own actions (both in the church and outside it) are evidence that they are not unified. The unity of humanity, the Church, should show the love of Christ as He taught it. This love, as action in the world, would be so incredibly unique on earth, so moving, so utterly Divinely inspired, that it would undoubtedly show the unity of the Body of Christ. The visible connection is not in structure, in doctrine. The visible connection, the visible unity, is in loving action. It is acting as Christ acted. Christ is only invisible on earth if we fail to act as His Body- literally- His feet traveling to every person, His hands reaching out with healing and food and shelter, His voice reading His words.

The Church would be in one spirit (worshipping God and transcending the world) and in one flesh (acting as Christ in the world).

Then why bother with the Incarnation ... and why bother with all that bloody mess of the Passion?

I said the metaphor/message is as important, not more important. Indeed, I think the historicity, the humanity, of Jesus Christ is very important (and have said so elsewhere). But I think the teaching He brought is equally so.

Peace also with you,
Kim

[earl]

I've seen a number of variations on this theme in many threads here over time: the spirituality vs. religion vs. chuck the whole thing thing. This particular thread seems to have taken a turn into narrower debate about the face of Christianity. Thomas, I've always valued your deep learning about both Christianity and religion more broadly as well. One of the few things it seems in this thread, however, is an agreement that 1 of the things spirituality and/or religion sets out to do is to relativize the self-to set the ego aside enough to allow 1 to join the true community of man, (or woman). Thomas, you among many have raised the important point that religious traditions have developed time-tested means of achieivng that, (aside from the fact that often a particular religion's doctrines do not entirely jive completely with all of human experience), and as a result one should give them its due. However, I was chagrined to see you in this thread begin to assert that, not only is there 1 religion among the many more suited to do that than any, Christianity, but that within that orientation there can be but 1 reliable approach, Catholicism. (If I have mistook your position, I apologize). There is a reason that interfaith dialogue has appealed to many clergy and theologians- those who have found the sure release of self in any approach into liberation and joining fully the true community of all revel in each other's company; they seem to find themselves in each other in this "space of release." In this space their are no denominations. If we look to find the authenticity of a path in its fruits which is exactly this and which reveals itself in the "sainthood" found in many religious and spiritual paths, we have to admit that many trees can bear that fruit. Or is that 1 tree and many vines? Yes, I think to reach deeply into that vine 1 does need to really plumb its depths completely and that no doubt requires the complete (and often lifelong) commitment to 1 path. For that perhaps 1 must be so in love with their path as to develop that degree of devotion to it. But to say only 1 vine can produce that effect-on what objective or even subjective basis does 1 make that assertion? take care, Earl

[Thomas]

Hi Ciel —

Originally Posted by Ciel

An honest question........
From your posts here do you feel you are drawing people towards The Church or pushing them further away?
Does it matter?

The truth can sometimes be hard to accept.

But the Truth matters.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

My brother Thomas,

In the course of my travels I have met many who for various reasons became disenfranchised with Christianity, or more generally disenfranchised with certain people who sat in positions of authority within and claimed to speak for and represent Christianity or some faction therein.

This is a strawman argument ... it really doesn't stand.

More to the point ... Jesus doesn't stand for it either, not for one instant:

"Judge not, that you may not be judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
Matthew 7:1-5

The difference is, everyone looks for what's wrong. I know what's wrong. I work for what's right.

I want His light to be visible in the world, and His truth, and His way, and His life ...

Accentuate the positive, as the saying goes, and walking away is an admission of failure ...

Thomas

[Thomas]

Hi cyberpi —

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Yet I fully disagree with Thomas with the claim that any single institution or community is the sole voice or hands and feet of God. I have seen a glimpse of God doing things in this world, outside of people, in other people, in my life, and in my mind... so the lessons here are not solely from a teacher in a school or a person in a church.

I see what you are saying, but without arguing with you, can I make a point? If you took a poll of what everyone who calls himself a Christian believes, then no-one would know what to believe.

Example:
In the Catholic Church, we hold that man is by essence and by nature good, and his vocation is to work in co-operation with the Holy Spirit towards his salvation.

The Reformation churches hold that man's essential nature is so corrupt that there is nothing he can do towards his own salvation, his salvation is utterly dependent upon God, to the extent that some men are born to salvation, some born to perdition, and this is a circumstance over which they have no control.

They can't both be the same Church, they don't worship the same Christ ... perhaps figuratively, but to me, a love that reduces life to a lottery, in which some are pre-ordained to hell and some pre-ordained to heaven ...

... somewhere, someone got the message wrong. Truth has become distorted.

They can't both be right, can they? And yet people want to paper over the cracks, as if they don't matter. And paper over so many cracks that the message becomes so bland and so contradictory that the whole thing ends up stripped of any real meaning at all.

One might say to Jesus, "Oh, I don't listen to what you say, I don't do what you tell me to do, I just rely on the fact I know your name to get me through."

+++

On Christmas Day, many years ago now, my mother lost a family heirloom when the clasp on a gold bracelet broke, and it fell from her wrist. She had it when she went to Church on Christmas morning, it was gone by the time she got home.

Then she remembered the woman kneeling next to her, who moved her handbag so it was in front of my mother ... and she realised this woman had seen the bracelet, hidden it from my mother, and taken it.

Why go to Church if you're going to steal from your neighbour, on Christmas day of all days?

But should my mother stop going, because a thief went too? Should she walk away from the Mass, and the Eucharist, because of the sin of another? Should she give up her chanced of salvation, because she's got issues with the person next to her?

Then think about the robber on the cross. How many turn away from Paradise, if Paradise lets in people like him?

Thomas

[Thomas]

Hi Paladin —

Originally Posted by Paladin

My study of the great Christian mystical writings leads me to believe that beyond a wholesome discipline those that experienced God at any point in their lives did so because they were willing to give up the "me" and realize that "thou art". I see this in other traditions as well.

I think it was Meister Eckhart who considered 'detachment' as the prince of virtues.

Originally Posted by Paladin

You are probably right that many turn away to merely indulge their own egos but I think it unfair to label everyone not in the same household as your own in the same manner.

I don't. I do pick up on those who criticise the Church on grounds that really don't stand up to investigation. It's a cop out. I'd rather they say they left because it wasn't for them, not because they're better than ...

Originally Posted by Paladin

If indeed God did give mankind a paradigm which implies something outside of it, consistent with the dualistic mindset then the other traditions must indeed be wrong. And somehow I cannot embrace that idea.

I'm not sure I follow you.

Christianity — or at least the orthodox (pre-Reformation) Churches — believe that the duality — God is absolutely Absolute, as it were — God is not the world, is resolved in Trinity — that in the Resurrection, spirit and body will become truly one.

Originally Posted by Paladin

I also cannot embrace the idea that if I do not belong to a particular club I am less than real, less than disciplined less than dilligent in having a relationship with actuality, that which is all in all or perhaps what you call God. I have asked for a loaf, will I recieve a stone?

Nor do I suggest that.

What I am saying is that one cannot do your own thing and say its the same as the club. Either join this club, join another club ... but you can't say you're not in the club, but you are entitled to all the benefits that club offers.

No mention of the Sacraments, for example.

They are exclusive to 'our club' ... sorry if that sounds elitist, but that's the reality of it, and it's non-negotiable. You have to be a fully-active club member ... even those who are in the club but don't really engage don't benefit. You don't have to understand ... all you have to do is try.

If the Church doesn't matter, why did Jesus bother founding one?

Thomas

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Example:
In the Catholic Church, we hold that man is by essence and by nature good, and his vocation is to work in co-operation with the Holy Spirit towards his salvation.

Really? From what I read of St. Augustine, who railed against Pelagius' idea that humanity was, at its essence, good- what was accepted theology was that human nature was inherently wicked and could only be redeemed through the social and spiritual control of the church. I'm not debating here, just stating what I read and so I found this a shock. I had read this as essentially the Celtic Christian view (indeed, Pelagius stated nearly this exact idea), which was judged to be heresy by the Catholic church.

If the Catholic church does, indeed, now embrace this position... I am far more Catholic than I thought.

[Thomas]

Hi Path —

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Really? From what I read of St. Augustine, who railed against Pelagius' idea that humanity was, at its essence, good - what was accepted theology was that human nature was inherently wicked and could only be redeemed through the social and spiritual control of the church.

No. Augustine never disputed the essential goodness of man's nature — but he did dispute that the natural cannot of its own accord transcend itself — if it counld, then that to which it aspires would be natural to it (and not transcendant at all).

Pelagius argued from the position of natural religion. His theology was essentially Stoic philosophy — he regarded the moral strength of man's will (liberum arbitrium), steeled by practical asceticism, as sufficient in itself to attain the loftiest ideals of virtue, and by this we are saved. In effect nature can overcome itself, and transcend itself, without the aid of grace. Faith in the moral message of Scripture, strength of will and a consequent ascetical lifestyle would suffice.

Augustine argued otherwise. Principally that the grace of God is a necessity to sanctify the soul, as man is not God he cannot sanctify himself, any more than a nature can be other than what it is.

In this context the Church is the means of the transmission of Grace to the individual, in its Liturgy and its Sacraments — graces which are freely given, even though the individual in receipt of those graces is in that sense 'unworthy' in that they do not match up to that which they receive.

If Pelagius is right, then Christianity becomes the property of the moral, intellectual and ascetic elite — only by a superhuman effort could one transcend one's own nature. Pelagius' path is far, far tougher than doctrinal Christianity ... and those voices which argue with me would be screaming at him!

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I'm not debating here, just stating what I read and so I found this a shock. I had read this as essentially the Celtic Christian view (indeed, Pelagius stated nearly this exact idea), which was judged to be heresy by the Catholic church.

Hmmm ... no-one is sure where Pelagius came from. The common concensus is Britain, but Jerome notoriously accused him of being a Scot full of Scots porridge ... and someone else said 'but the Scots are now the Irish' ... but his theology was Stoic, and more Greek than Latin.

The thing that people throw up is Pelagius' view on original sin, etc., but they don't look at the philosophy and metaphysics behind it, so they miss the point entirely. And of course self-determination and self-sanctification is always more appealing ... but what they fail to notice is the Pelagian requirement is way, way beyond the capacity of the common run of humanity.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

If the Catholic church does, indeed, now embrace this position... I am far more Catholic than I thought.

Stranger things have happened!

But let me not mislead you ... man cannot save himself, although he can partake in that process, thus faith and works ... that's the Catholic bit, the post-Reform churches say no ... he's helpless ... faith alone, nothing you can do makes the slightest bit of difference.

The Fathers said "God became man, that man might become God" — but that last bit, theosis or deification, is a Doctrine that is utterly dependent on the Spiration of the Holy Spirit, the 'incarnation' of Christ in the soul — and that is a grace given through the Church.

Redemption is open to all.

Theosis goes beyond that.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Hi Kim —

Originally Posted by path_of_one

But is doctrinal unity what would demonstrate the unity of the Body of Christ?

When it presents one constant message, yes. I recall that old adage about a Stalinist Russian's first trip to Europe. He was reading the papers on the place and shook his head saying, "In Russia, we read one story in all the papers, and so we know the opposite is the truth. But here ... so many stories I have no idea what to believe!"

Originally Posted by path_of_one

As it stands, I can take any denomination and show that although everyone in it signs on to the same doctrine, their own actions (both in the church and outside it) are evidence that they are not unified.

No. I'm not perfect either ...

Originally Posted by path_of_one

The unity of humanity, the Church, should show the love of Christ as He taught it. This love, as action in the world, would be so incredibly unique on earth, so moving, so utterly Divinely inspired, that it would undoubtedly show the unity of the Body of Christ. The visible connection is not in structure, in doctrine. The visible connection, the visible unity, is in loving action. It is acting as Christ acted. Christ is only invisible on earth if we fail to act as His Body - literally - His feet traveling to every person, His hands reaching out with healing and food and shelter, His voice reading His words.

Absolutely. That's what he said, and that's what St Paul was banging on about, most of the time ... there is a physical (moral) embodiment, and there are other dimensions which would be even more visible were the physical actually embodied ...

Originally Posted by path_of_one

The Church would be in one spirit (worshipping God and transcending the world) and in one flesh (acting as Christ in the world).

And if that were so, why would those people not want to get together, so that in union with each other they can enter into union with Him in a way they could not hope nor aspire to otherwise?

I have sung alone, I have sung in choirs ... and there is something about singing in a choir ...

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I said the metaphor/message is as important, not more important. Indeed, I think the historicity, the humanity, of Jesus Christ is very important (and have said so elsewhere). But I think the teaching He brought is equally so.

Sorry I misunderstood you. I think the humanity is the reality of the message. I think one of the unique things about Christianity is the metaphors are physically manifest as actualities in the Incarnation.

pax tecum,

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Example:
In the Catholic Church, we hold that man is by essence and by nature good, and his vocation is to work in co-operation with the Holy Spirit towards his salvation.

The Reformation churches hold that man's essential nature is so corrupt that there is nothing he can do towards his own salvation, his salvation is utterly dependent upon God, to the extent that some men are born to salvation, some born to perdition, and this is a circumstance over which they have no control.

Are you telling me the Catholics have given up on original sin and going to the priest as an intermediary to address each and every sin? My old mates as a kid would be glad to hear that. They were preached by the nuns and their parents that man was by essence evil, and they needed the church for salvation. And if they didn't make it to mass once a week they'd be headed to hell.

If man is by nature and essence good, all that guilt trip requirement wouldn't be required.

[path_of_one]

Hi, Thomas!

Originally Posted by Thomas

No. Augustine never disputed the essential goodness of man's nature — but he did dispute that the natural cannot of its own accord transcend itself — if it counld, then that to which it aspires would be natural to it (and not transcendant at all).

Maybe I need to read some more. I think what got me is the issue of original sin, but I recently got a new perspective on what that could mean that would allow me to not wholly reject it, though my conceptualization of it would be quite different from the mainstream Christian one.

From what I had read of Celtic Christianity and its connections to Pelagius, I considered myself more Pelagian than Augustinian, but if it is all as you say it is, then I would perhaps more aptly be placed between the two. I believe humans are essentially good (that does not mean the same thing as predominantly good- essence can be unrevealed). I do not believe that any particular institution (the church) is necessary for transcendence. However, I do not think humans can get there simply through moral work or asceticism either. In fact, I think asceticism is often tied to the very problems that humans have to begin with (a focus on self rather than God) and so simply shifts the behavior of humans and not their actual consciousness. I believe that we are saved by God's grace, nothing less. But we must be willing to embrace the gift, and let go of our own desires and pride and identities enough to become a vessel for God in us. I believe the Christian tradition can get us there, but so can a number of other traditions, and some people respond to the loving call of God without ever having any tradition at all. I don't think all traditions/religions are the same, but I see the underlying current that I believe is a result of human seeking for transcendence, and responding to God's gift.

I think that the doing of one's life is only transcendent when it is in the foundation of being (or perhaps more aptly Being). That is, it is not doing certain things that is salvation. It is being- the transformation of consciousness by the awakening of God in us (Christ in us, the Spirit in us)- that is salvation. Doing things then can be done with the right intent (for love rather than for self), which I believe makes a ton of difference in terms of the energetic and spiritual realm overlaid on the physical one. Perhaps that better explains my post above, as well. It would not be a show of unity for all Christians to give food to the homeless- not really, not if you are sensitive to the realm of spirit/energy. What would be unity in the Body of Christ is for all Christians to be in the being of Christ within, and so give the food to the homeless. There appears to be little difference in the physical realm in doing the same action but with different intent, but my sense is that it makes a big difference in the realm of energy and spirit.

***
[quote]And of course self-determination and self-sanctification is always more appealing ... quote]

Really? I guess maybe for some people, but not for me. I really appreciate having some sense of tradition and in feeling that I am saved by grace. It relieves the burden of having to do it all on my own. At the same time, I think it is good for people to be intimately involved with their own tradition. What I mean is that I do not think that everyone can bloom under a tradition that is hierarchical or non-dialectic. I go to church and enjoy the sense of tradition, but I’ve grown a lot spiritually through my practice of Druidry because I must write my own ritual and perform my own liturgy. Doing this myself gave me a much deeper appreciation for the traditional Christian liturgy and rituals, because I b