On 4/11/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Then what is it? Many Christians or theists have this idea of the > Bible's teachings as a moral guide, but much of the moral precept > they take from it (or imagine that's in there) is simply what they > want to take from it. There are good people who are living good > "Christian Lives", but they're behaving differently to the code as > laid out in the NT. Again, how does one decide?
In Lutheranism and most of Protestantism, Christianity isn't about doing good in order to get into heaven, even though that's often how it comes across. Christ's message of forgiveness frees us from the vicious cycle of guilt and error, frees us to do good, to follow the very rules that free us. This is where cause and effect are often confused. Am I a follower of Christ because I'm good? Yes, but not through my own doing. In other words, I would not be free to follow were it not for the freedom from guilt that I enjoy, a freedom that is entirely unearned -- grace (we're big on grace in Lutheranism). Lest this all sound theological, intellectual and distant, let me make it clear that in my life, I certainly have seen that I become a kinder, more loving person when I start by accepting that I am accepted, rather than the false, but often followed, idea that first I have to be good. My favorite parable about this is the woman caught in adultery. The *first* thing Jesus does is send away her accusers and says that neither does he does condemn her, vividly demonstrating that he accepts her as she is. Only then does he say those words that are so often taken out of this context -- "Go and sin no more." Acceptance and forgiveness precede "be good." Critics of Christianity talk about aspects that are hard to believe, but they rarely point to this wild notion that God loves us in our sin, not despite it. I certainly find it hard to give up the idea that I have to be good before you'll accept me... but when I do believe that, it is powerful stuff. Right. So the Bible is not to be worshipped. It is a guide. But > again, which bits are relevant today, without massive editorial? > Which gospel do we take as, er, gospel? The 4 plus Acts? Any of the > others that have been rediscovered, like the recent Gospels of Judas, > or Thomas, or the other Apocrypha? Do we trust that the motives of > the NT editors were pure in selecting which Gospels and Epistles to > include, and which not? There are various ways that churches answer that question, but if there is one that says, "However you'd like to," it is most certainly on the fringe. I suppose that Unitarians fit that description. John Wesley's great contribution was to offer a method (or a Method) to go about this, his "quadilateral" of reason, tradition, experience and Scripture. Reason can be quite liberal, tradition tends to be conservative, experience can probably go either way (e.g., a conservative is a Christian who has been mugged, a liberal is somebody who has lived among the poor), Scripture can be used and abused... but it seems to me that respecting each is as good as any way to choose one's path. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
