Now that you've read the 95 Theses, let us know what you think. Please use this discussion room to comment on / post your own thoughts and ideas on the state of Christianity today.
I have chosen to sign on to this site for several reasons, but the main reason is so that I might respond to this work. I am a third year seminarian at Lancaster Theological Seminary, and a student In-care of the Oneida Association. I consider myself moderate to liberal in many arenas, particularly sociopolitical and in some areas of theology. I am mainly going to comment on my initial reactions to this set of theses initially and I wish to hear your responses.
Firstly, in several areas of the theses you state quite clearly that you believe that there are no easy answers to questions of faith. However, I am somewhat disheartened by the almost bitter descriptions and generalizations that you have made of the conservative Christian faithful. I myself do not adhere to many of their views, but I question the good that will come from such attacks as calling them the "Church of simple answers" and "heretics" (thesis 52). Equating them all with the oppressors of the time the scriptures were written is not beneficial to the conversation necessary, not only between liberals and moderates, but between all who call themselves Christian. I myself know conservatives who do take the bible seriously (notice I did not say literally, for there is a difference) and I feel that they still have a valid voice that needs to be heard if we are to achieve any kind of loving unity of the kind you speak. Remember, you yourself state in this article that we are to seek unconditional love of all (Thesis 94). What are we doing then if we speak with harsh tongues about others with whom we disagree? If we do not know the answers, then we can't profess that we are completely right while others are wrong. I also believe that there is more complexity in this discussion (and it is a discussion,or should be, not a battle as in thesis 67) than high and low Christologies, for there is a middle ground if we believe at all that Jesus was human AND divine, which ultimately reveals to us the kind of loving relationship that God wants with creation. Albeit there is an open question as to how that occurs and in what way, but do we dare throw out the possibility simply because it is not scientifically understood? I assume you would answer no, based on your theses. I would like to know what you think, as well as anyone else. God bless.
Hi, Peter, thanks for your insightful (inciteful?) comments. I truly enjoyed them and welcome the opportunity to comment. Sorry for the delay, I've been on vacation and my laptop crashed - in fact, I was at the UCC Craigsville Theological Colloquy delivering a paper on Reclaiming Eschatology: Focus on the Logos. Let me offer the following comments: 1.) I would agree that my references to the evangelical Christian right are "strong," "aggressive," and even "challenging," but not "bitter." 2.)I truly believe they would embrace the label "Church of Simple Answers" - maybe they'll even adopt it as a marketing tool - bercause that's what they are and they are proud of it. 3.) The "heresy" I refer to in Thesis 52 is the "herresy" of a claim to certainty when it comes to matters of God. 4.) Let me also be clear that I have the deepest respect for the "seriousness" with which the evangelical Christian right takes their scripture and their passion in speaking out about it. My complaint is with the rest of us who remain silent. 5.) The criticism you raise about my failing to live the Love Commandment by speaking out against my brothers and sisters in Christ is something I wrestled at great length over - former Senator John Danforth wrote an Op Ed letter to the NY Times in mid-June explaining why moderate Christians won't speak out and citing the Love Commandment as the reason. Caught between a rock and a hard place, I've decided that speaking out is the lesser of two evils. The alternative to speaking out is to turn the bully pulpit over to the evangelical Christian right. Like I said, there are no simple answers. 6.) Ironically, the "battle" refererred to in Thesis 67 is a metaphorical "battle" within the pews - I object to your unfair move of interpreting the word "battle" literally when it is being used metaphorically. Alas, a real life example of the "discussion" going on with the evangelical Christian right, huh? 7) Finally, let me close with a comment about your both/and resolution of the high Christology vs. low Christology debate. You raise the orthodox Christian argument that Jesus was "wholly human" and "wholly divine." The problem with that is they are mutually inconsistent terms unless you define them in an unusual way. "Wholly divine" suggests, among other things, being incapable of sin (which, for sake of convenience, can be defined as separation from God. To be "wholly divine" means you can't be separated from God - if you are, then you aren't "wholly divine" by definition. To be "wholly human," on the other hand, means you not only can be separated from God but are separated from God - less than divine. To be "wholly human" you have to be "less than divine," because if you weren't "less than divine," you would be "wholly dvine" and therefore not "wholly human." The only way out of this verbal conundrum is to re-define "wholly human" to mean "achieving the highest level of being human as is possible," which means approaching the finest level of being made "in the image of God," which means getting real close to being "wholly divine." But then what you are saying is Jesus was "wholly dvine" and "wholly divine," because you have re-defined "wholly human" to mean "wholly divine." Shalom, Pastor Tom
Thank you very much for your response, and I hope all was well on your working vacation. I appreciate your responses, as they have helped to clarify some points that, unfortunately, were more unclear in your theses statement. Since you conveniently numbered your responses (thank you) I will respond to each to make it clear.
1) perhaps the references are strong, challenging , and agressive, but I was simply stating that they appeared on paper to be more than that, perhaps not intentionally bitter on your part, but it seemed to be when placed in such a format as you placed them. That was my opinion upon first reading them, and others may have a different one, but I simply was responding to the words and phrases used and how they compiled together.
2)Maybe they will like the term "Church of Simple Answers", but in the context you were using it was not a compliment, am I wrong here, but it seemed to be suggesting that "simple" was akin to "childlike" (thesis 6). Don't get me wrong, there are many things that many conservative Christians say and do that I see as lacking in theological complexity, but I would not want to call them children, because I want to respect the place where they are right now so that I can walk with them, if they will allow me to walk with them (see following).
3)Remember, I am assuming in all of this that there is room to grow with these people, and if there are people who will not listen and at least respect my views, then I would say that for them, that is in a way the heresy of certainty of which you speak. That does require me to respect their views, even if I disagree with them. I am not implying that all views are included here, as some are harmful to the self and others, and I would make that clear. But I can only make that move after I have spoken with each person individually, rather than making the assumption that all are thinking the same way. I am not implying that you are making that judgment, I am simply writing what comes to me on this as to what I do in the situation.
4) Yes, I tire of the silence on the liberal and mainline side as well, why can't we all be willing to sit down and discuss these things. If you truly believe something, then you need to speak up. I am glad you are on this. That's why I am here.
5)I don't mean to say that you are "failing" the Love Commandment, and forgive me if it came out that way. All I was trying to say is that one needs to be careful in their words when making a statement. As it is, I believe that Luther made his ninety five theses as points for conversation, but they ended up splitting the church. If that is to happen, then sobeit, but I mourn that day. I would prefer if conservatives and liberals (and moderates) could stop the name-calling and start talking, to and not at, eachother, as humans, as Christians.
6)Consequently, metaphorical or not, the word "battle" gets us off on the wrong foot, as it gets people in an aggressive stance rather than in one that allows for dialogue. I have heard the saying "If one has clenched fists, then one can't recieve anything from others." The metaphor of table is more affective for me than battle, but that's my theology.
7) Ah, Christology, I love a good discussion on that one! But for space reasons on this response, I will simply state that I was focusing not on the Christological question in my statement, but rather on the idea that we can have more than two understandings of Jesus Christ, that there might be more than just "high" and "low." There are various understandings of the humanity and divinity, and I would hope that we can work on starting the discussion with others so that everyone can be enriched.
That is all I have for now. I truly appreciate this opportunity to discuss with you. Thank you for taking the steps to make a forum for such things. Hopefully more will join in, perhaps some various voices that can really share different views.
In Christ,
Peter
If I can jump in this conversation, I would like to suggest that different understandings of God, Jesus and the Bible may be appropriate for different people. I recently attended a charismatic service that did nothing for me, but it seemed to do a lot for the people who were regulars. And I doubt that they would have gotten much out of our intellectual theologizing. As many brands of Christianity as there are in this country, I believe that most people can find one appropriate for them.
We may become heated in our debates with our theological opponents, but remember that the opposite of love is not hate; it is indifference. While we liberals and moderates may focus our ire on our fundamentalist rivals, the people we should be concerned about are the growing numbers of completely secular individuals who know and care about any religion about as much as they do about yak husbandry.
Thank you Allen, and that is the point I was basically making in my comment. For some people in a particular time and place, the "simple answers" might be exactly what is necessary to keep their lives from spinning out of control. I know that when I first became a believer, I needed the simpler answers. Now I do not suggest that we stop there and live the rest of our lives that way, but we can't assume that no one needs that understanding. I do think that it is detrimental for fundamentalists to prohibit the expansion of faith beyond the simple answers, just as it is detrimental for the liberals to prohibit the simple answers from being given for those in need of it. The key is to understand that there is complexity to the message of the Gospels and to all of the mystery of God, and it is better to hold up all of that complexity (even the simplest of it) until that time when God reveals to us every truth, and I think we know that that has not happened yet (God is still speaking). As for Yak husbandry, you never know, some may be fascinated with that, but I don't really want to find out about it.
Alan, that's precisely what this whole website is about. See the Statement of Purpose section. Notwithstanding the evangelical mega-churches, I believe that the evangelical Christian right Church of Simple Answers drives more people away from organized religion than it does recruit new converts. I believe there are untold thousands (millions?) who are seeking the message that the moderate/liberal Christian churches provide, but simply don't realize it is available, because the moderate/liberal churches don't get into the arena of public discourse. Challenging them (us) to get into the arena of public discourse is not easy; witness all the chatter on this website so far. It's all about "being nice," not "making waves," etc. Sometimes, it is time for waves!
If our faith has an incarnational practice, then political life will be influenced. Indeed, if we incarnate our faith as one of avoiding politics and retreating from the public sphere, then we are creating another community of the saved separate from the community of the damned without any particular need to lift a finger to change that separation. That's the real effect of withdrawing from the common body. This further permits one voice instead of many to dominate. Obviously, some religious communities have found it necessary to withdraw from the common body, and those who have not have been part of the changing historic dynamics of whether to protect or exploit those communities. Personally, I wonder about the reasons for silence, the reasons for withdrawing.
Yes, we practice a separation of church and state, to a certain degree. If we look at the reasons for the development of that separation -- getting the state out of the religion business -- we'll also find that the reasons haven't gone away, and that the boundaries about the actual meaning change. Now, there are all kinds of rules about endorsement from the pulpit of particular parties and candidates, something that would have made little sense in the early Nineteenth Century, part of the developing notion of what this separation means, and the development of a civil religion. Additionally, the state comptroller of Texas has been harassing my own (Unitarian Universalist) denomination's churches' status *as religious organizations* based on an extraordinarily narrow definition of prayer. And there has not been a widespread hue and cry from Christian and Jewish congregations, even though establishing such limits theoretically could be expanded and again control more tightly whose faith is permitted to be practiced as religion.
What are the responsibilities of an incarnational and transcendent faith in the political realm? On what theological basis are these claims being made?
I think the more important argument is whether there are churches that solely promote these simple answers to amass a gathering that they can manipulate. Their motives aren't to come together and worship - perhaps their congregations believe this – but their motive it to enforce a lock-and-step movement of activism. If their motive was to come together in faith and worship, then why would they go on TV and pray for Supreme Court justice spots to open up, ask for money, and manipulate politics. This isn't Christian; it is organized politics under the guise of faith.
How do you suppose the right-wing churches would react to an organized Jewish, or Catholic or even left-wing UCC movement that went on TV and started asking for money and praying to their God for political strength?
It would be very nice to be given a roadmap to Christ laid out for me in very clear and simple ideas. And it would be nice to be lead down that road by a so-called man (or woman) of God, and to follow it with millions of others with the same beliefs. But Christ did not want us to take any beliefs at face value, and did not want us to walk his road in blind faith.
But honestly, it is none of my business, as long as my right to religion, freedom and choice are protected. However, when a religious movement starts to enter into politics and tries to influence our government into marching in step with them - then I have a simple answer for them - No.
I'm concerned about maintaining a dualistic point of view, an "us" and "them". How one reads Christian Scriptures (literal, mythical, historical, literary, social, etc.) seems to me to be less compelling than how one interprets them. Exegesis/Eisegesis/Might Be Jesus. But then we're back to your eleventh commandment, Pastor Tom, "thou shalt not cherry pick scripture."
How do we interpret these stories for our lives and the lives of our parishioners? What we say has to resonate in every way: intellectually, emotionally, cellularly. And that, it seems to me, increasingly is dependent upon dualistic understandings of the world. It's a cultural view flooding American airwaves, store shelves, schools, halls of governance, and worship houses.
For me, I keep coming back to what translates roughly as "they'll be known by their fruits". In the case of mature/immature trees, there are degrees of maturity -- and superannuated trees don't necessarily produce the best fruit, either. It depends on the kind of fruit tree or vine. But you know the fruit is good when it is eaten.
And, we do have to bear fruits, which does also suggest to me the merits of entering into the conversation.
Hi, Rev King, thanks for entering into the conversation. Your thoughts raise many questions. I think I shall make them the focus of my next blog, "The Hegelian Dialectic and Stone-Throwing," which I shall post in the next day or two. Thanks, again, for joining in. Peace, Pastor Tom
95 Theses
Hello, Tom.
I have chosen to sign on to this site for several reasons, but the main reason is so that I might respond to this work. I am a third year seminarian at Lancaster Theological Seminary, and a student In-care of the Oneida Association. I consider myself moderate to liberal in many arenas, particularly sociopolitical and in some areas of theology. I am mainly going to comment on my initial reactions to this set of theses initially and I wish to hear your responses.
Firstly, in several areas of the theses you state quite clearly that you believe that there are no easy answers to questions of faith. However, I am somewhat disheartened by the almost bitter descriptions and generalizations that you have made of the conservative Christian faithful. I myself do not adhere to many of their views, but I question the good that will come from such attacks as calling them the "Church of simple answers" and "heretics" (thesis 52). Equating them all with the oppressors of the time the scriptures were written is not beneficial to the conversation necessary, not only between liberals and moderates, but between all who call themselves Christian. I myself know conservatives who do take the bible seriously (notice I did not say literally, for there is a difference) and I feel that they still have a valid voice that needs to be heard if we are to achieve any kind of loving unity of the kind you speak. Remember, you yourself state in this article that we are to seek unconditional love of all (Thesis 94). What are we doing then if we speak with harsh tongues about others with whom we disagree? If we do not know the answers, then we can't profess that we are completely right while others are wrong. I also believe that there is more complexity in this discussion (and it is a discussion,or should be, not a battle as in thesis 67) than high and low Christologies, for there is a middle ground if we believe at all that Jesus was human AND divine, which ultimately reveals to us the kind of loving relationship that God wants with creation. Albeit there is an open question as to how that occurs and in what way, but do we dare throw out the possibility simply because it is not scientifically understood? I assume you would answer no, based on your theses. I would like to know what you think, as well as anyone else. God bless.
In Christ,
Peter
The Peter Principles
Hi, Peter, thanks for your insightful (inciteful?) comments. I truly enjoyed them and welcome the opportunity to comment. Sorry for the delay, I've been on vacation and my laptop crashed - in fact, I was at the UCC Craigsville Theological Colloquy delivering a paper on Reclaiming Eschatology: Focus on the Logos. Let me offer the following comments: 1.) I would agree that my references to the evangelical Christian right are "strong," "aggressive," and even "challenging," but not "bitter." 2.)I truly believe they would embrace the label "Church of Simple Answers" - maybe they'll even adopt it as a marketing tool - bercause that's what they are and they are proud of it. 3.) The "heresy" I refer to in Thesis 52 is the "herresy" of a claim to certainty when it comes to matters of God. 4.) Let me also be clear that I have the deepest respect for the "seriousness" with which the evangelical Christian right takes their scripture and their passion in speaking out about it. My complaint is with the rest of us who remain silent. 5.) The criticism you raise about my failing to live the Love Commandment by speaking out against my brothers and sisters in Christ is something I wrestled at great length over - former Senator John Danforth wrote an Op Ed letter to the NY Times in mid-June explaining why moderate Christians won't speak out and citing the Love Commandment as the reason. Caught between a rock and a hard place, I've decided that speaking out is the lesser of two evils. The alternative to speaking out is to turn the bully pulpit over to the evangelical Christian right. Like I said, there are no simple answers. 6.) Ironically, the "battle" refererred to in Thesis 67 is a metaphorical "battle" within the pews - I object to your unfair move of interpreting the word "battle" literally when it is being used metaphorically. Alas, a real life example of the "discussion" going on with the evangelical Christian right, huh? 7) Finally, let me close with a comment about your both/and resolution of the high Christology vs. low Christology debate. You raise the orthodox Christian argument that Jesus was "wholly human" and "wholly divine." The problem with that is they are mutually inconsistent terms unless you define them in an unusual way. "Wholly divine" suggests, among other things, being incapable of sin (which, for sake of convenience, can be defined as separation from God. To be "wholly divine" means you can't be separated from God - if you are, then you aren't "wholly divine" by definition. To be "wholly human," on the other hand, means you not only can be separated from God but are separated from God - less than divine. To be "wholly human" you have to be "less than divine," because if you weren't "less than divine," you would be "wholly dvine" and therefore not "wholly human." The only way out of this verbal conundrum is to re-define "wholly human" to mean "achieving the highest level of being human as is possible," which means approaching the finest level of being made "in the image of God," which means getting real close to being "wholly divine." But then what you are saying is Jesus was "wholly dvine" and "wholly divine," because you have re-defined "wholly human" to mean "wholly divine." Shalom, Pastor Tom
Re: Tom's Response
Thank you very much for your response, and I hope all was well on your working vacation. I appreciate your responses, as they have helped to clarify some points that, unfortunately, were more unclear in your theses statement. Since you conveniently numbered your responses (thank you) I will respond to each to make it clear.
1) perhaps the references are strong, challenging , and agressive, but I was simply stating that they appeared on paper to be more than that, perhaps not intentionally bitter on your part, but it seemed to be when placed in such a format as you placed them. That was my opinion upon first reading them, and others may have a different one, but I simply was responding to the words and phrases used and how they compiled together.
2)Maybe they will like the term "Church of Simple Answers", but in the context you were using it was not a compliment, am I wrong here, but it seemed to be suggesting that "simple" was akin to "childlike" (thesis 6). Don't get me wrong, there are many things that many conservative Christians say and do that I see as lacking in theological complexity, but I would not want to call them children, because I want to respect the place where they are right now so that I can walk with them, if they will allow me to walk with them (see following).
3)Remember, I am assuming in all of this that there is room to grow with these people, and if there are people who will not listen and at least respect my views, then I would say that for them, that is in a way the heresy of certainty of which you speak. That does require me to respect their views, even if I disagree with them. I am not implying that all views are included here, as some are harmful to the self and others, and I would make that clear. But I can only make that move after I have spoken with each person individually, rather than making the assumption that all are thinking the same way. I am not implying that you are making that judgment, I am simply writing what comes to me on this as to what I do in the situation.
4) Yes, I tire of the silence on the liberal and mainline side as well, why can't we all be willing to sit down and discuss these things. If you truly believe something, then you need to speak up. I am glad you are on this. That's why I am here.
5)I don't mean to say that you are "failing" the Love Commandment, and forgive me if it came out that way. All I was trying to say is that one needs to be careful in their words when making a statement. As it is, I believe that Luther made his ninety five theses as points for conversation, but they ended up splitting the church. If that is to happen, then sobeit, but I mourn that day. I would prefer if conservatives and liberals (and moderates) could stop the name-calling and start talking, to and not at, eachother, as humans, as Christians.
6)Consequently, metaphorical or not, the word "battle" gets us off on the wrong foot, as it gets people in an aggressive stance rather than in one that allows for dialogue. I have heard the saying "If one has clenched fists, then one can't recieve anything from others." The metaphor of table is more affective for me than battle, but that's my theology.
7) Ah, Christology, I love a good discussion on that one! But for space reasons on this response, I will simply state that I was focusing not on the Christological question in my statement, but rather on the idea that we can have more than two understandings of Jesus Christ, that there might be more than just "high" and "low." There are various understandings of the humanity and divinity, and I would hope that we can work on starting the discussion with others so that everyone can be enriched.
That is all I have for now. I truly appreciate this opportunity to discuss with you. Thank you for taking the steps to make a forum for such things. Hopefully more will join in, perhaps some various voices that can really share different views.
In Christ,
Peter
A Third View
If I can jump in this conversation, I would like to suggest that different understandings of God, Jesus and the Bible may be appropriate for different people. I recently attended a charismatic service that did nothing for me, but it seemed to do a lot for the people who were regulars. And I doubt that they would have gotten much out of our intellectual theologizing. As many brands of Christianity as there are in this country, I believe that most people can find one appropriate for them.
We may become heated in our debates with our theological opponents, but remember that the opposite of love is not hate; it is indifference. While we liberals and moderates may focus our ire on our fundamentalist rivals, the people we should be concerned about are the growing numbers of completely secular individuals who know and care about any religion about as much as they do about yak husbandry.
Re: A Third view
Thank you Allen, and that is the point I was basically making in my comment. For some people in a particular time and place, the "simple answers" might be exactly what is necessary to keep their lives from spinning out of control. I know that when I first became a believer, I needed the simpler answers. Now I do not suggest that we stop there and live the rest of our lives that way, but we can't assume that no one needs that understanding. I do think that it is detrimental for fundamentalists to prohibit the expansion of faith beyond the simple answers, just as it is detrimental for the liberals to prohibit the simple answers from being given for those in need of it. The key is to understand that there is complexity to the message of the Gospels and to all of the mystery of God, and it is better to hold up all of that complexity (even the simplest of it) until that time when God reveals to us every truth, and I think we know that that has not happened yet (God is still speaking). As for Yak husbandry, you never know, some may be fascinated with that, but I don't really want to find out about it.
Allelujah, Alan and Peter
Alan, that's precisely what this whole website is about. See the Statement of Purpose section. Notwithstanding the evangelical mega-churches, I believe that the evangelical Christian right Church of Simple Answers drives more people away from organized religion than it does recruit new converts. I believe there are untold thousands (millions?) who are seeking the message that the moderate/liberal Christian churches provide, but simply don't realize it is available, because the moderate/liberal churches don't get into the arena of public discourse. Challenging them (us) to get into the arena of public discourse is not easy; witness all the chatter on this website so far. It's all about "being nice," not "making waves," etc. Sometimes, it is time for waves!
Making Waves
If our faith has an incarnational practice, then political life will be influenced. Indeed, if we incarnate our faith as one of avoiding politics and retreating from the public sphere, then we are creating another community of the saved separate from the community of the damned without any particular need to lift a finger to change that separation. That's the real effect of withdrawing from the common body. This further permits one voice instead of many to dominate. Obviously, some religious communities have found it necessary to withdraw from the common body, and those who have not have been part of the changing historic dynamics of whether to protect or exploit those communities. Personally, I wonder about the reasons for silence, the reasons for withdrawing.
Yes, we practice a separation of church and state, to a certain degree. If we look at the reasons for the development of that separation -- getting the state out of the religion business -- we'll also find that the reasons haven't gone away, and that the boundaries about the actual meaning change. Now, there are all kinds of rules about endorsement from the pulpit of particular parties and candidates, something that would have made little sense in the early Nineteenth Century, part of the developing notion of what this separation means, and the development of a civil religion. Additionally, the state comptroller of Texas has been harassing my own (Unitarian Universalist) denomination's churches' status *as religious organizations* based on an extraordinarily narrow definition of prayer. And there has not been a widespread hue and cry from Christian and Jewish congregations, even though establishing such limits theoretically could be expanded and again control more tightly whose faith is permitted to be practiced as religion.
What are the responsibilities of an incarnational and transcendent faith in the political realm? On what theological basis are these claims being made?
My Simple Answer
I think the more important argument is whether there are churches that solely promote these simple answers to amass a gathering that they can manipulate. Their motives aren't to come together and worship - perhaps their congregations believe this – but their motive it to enforce a lock-and-step movement of activism. If their motive was to come together in faith and worship, then why would they go on TV and pray for Supreme Court justice spots to open up, ask for money, and manipulate politics. This isn't Christian; it is organized politics under the guise of faith.
How do you suppose the right-wing churches would react to an organized Jewish, or Catholic or even left-wing UCC movement that went on TV and started asking for money and praying to their God for political strength?
It would be very nice to be given a roadmap to Christ laid out for me in very clear and simple ideas. And it would be nice to be lead down that road by a so-called man (or woman) of God, and to follow it with millions of others with the same beliefs. But Christ did not want us to take any beliefs at face value, and did not want us to walk his road in blind faith.
But honestly, it is none of my business, as long as my right to religion, freedom and choice are protected. However, when a religious movement starts to enter into politics and tries to influence our government into marching in step with them - then I have a simple answer for them - No.
Speaking Out Without Throwing Stones
I'm concerned about maintaining a dualistic point of view, an "us" and "them". How one reads Christian Scriptures (literal, mythical, historical, literary, social, etc.) seems to me to be less compelling than how one interprets them. Exegesis/Eisegesis/Might Be Jesus. But then we're back to your eleventh commandment, Pastor Tom, "thou shalt not cherry pick scripture."
How do we interpret these stories for our lives and the lives of our parishioners? What we say has to resonate in every way: intellectually, emotionally, cellularly. And that, it seems to me, increasingly is dependent upon dualistic understandings of the world. It's a cultural view flooding American airwaves, store shelves, schools, halls of governance, and worship houses.
For me, I keep coming back to what translates roughly as "they'll be known by their fruits". In the case of mature/immature trees, there are degrees of maturity -- and superannuated trees don't necessarily produce the best fruit, either. It depends on the kind of fruit tree or vine. But you know the fruit is good when it is eaten.
And, we do have to bear fruits, which does also suggest to me the merits of entering into the conversation.
Entering into the conversation
Hi, Rev King, thanks for entering into the conversation. Your thoughts raise many questions. I think I shall make them the focus of my next blog, "The Hegelian Dialectic and Stone-Throwing," which I shall post in the next day or two. Thanks, again, for joining in. Peace, Pastor Tom