On 12/04/2006, at 7:09 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
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.
That I know - I was raised C of E, and was heavily involved in
Christian fellowship through my teens. It's not what I was talking
about. The Christian precept of redemption through acceptance of
God's grace in the sacrifice of Jesus is one thing. That is the
correct definition of a Christian, and is where so many (including
many Sunday Christians like my mother) get it wrong.
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.
Sure. *snip for brevity*
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.
Also fine, and well understood by me.
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.
Sure is.
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.
Interesting how hard it is to get a straight answer, isn't it? So
what you're saying is that there is no right answer, and we take out
of it what we can?
It still seems that the only major difference between you and I in
terms of understanding our place in this world is that while we both
imagine how a moral person would be and try to live that way, while
we both try to be both accepting of our own shortcomings and of
others', you have a belief in something I no longer have. A large
part of my journey away from religious or supernatural belief was my
personal and growing understanding that the ethical and moral codes I
chose to follow worked just as well whether God existed or
not... ...and eventually, for me, he didn't.
I'm still interested in hearing the religious experience of
intelligent and thoughtful scientific believers, and chewing the fat
on these subjects. I may disagree (and often do, sometimes a bit
strongly) but I'm always interested.
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
