It's difficult to discern where people stand in the eyes of God. Well, it's probably none of my business. But how close are the people who refer to themselves as the Church to the...well, how close are they to really being the Church?
Take this interesting, o.k., alarming article about a church in Canada.
(Thanks to Richard @ Family: The Final Frontier)
The Reverend Gretta Vosper, of the West Hill United Church has some thoughts on the Bible that might differ from yours:
She says there's been virtually a consensus among scholars for the past 30 years that the Bible is not some divine emanation – or in Ms. Vosper acronym, TAWOGFAT, The Authoritative Word of God For All Time – but a human project filled with contradictions and the conflicting worldviews and political perspectives of its authors.
Now, lets just pretend just for a moment that this was Ms. Vosper's web site. There would be no mocking of the aforesaid opinion. There would be supportive thoughts and collective ideas to sway the reader towards the sanity of her position. The bold redefining of "Church" would ring with finality. The Rev. Vosper would lay out her desire to save and heal through humanistic principles.
But I ask you, as it is my blog, if you move a boat to dry land and adapt it for dry land purposes is it still a boat? Haven't you changed its purposes and limited its function in such a way that a name change would be in order? I have little desire to condemn West Hill United Church's direction. They are just victim to the disillusionment that much of Christiandom faces. I would question why they want to continue to lay claim to the name "Church."
The "Church" is the body of Christ, belonging to Jesus and fulfilling the purposes of the same. Should you consider this Jesus (or his present characterization) a fictional character, you still must recognize that the story line puts the Church with Jesus and Jesus with the Church. If you want to challenge the "historical documents" and the "traditions" why do you want to borrow so heavily from its language and terms and yet reject its story line?
Well, my own little answer to this question is that the name "Church" still rings with hope and people want that hope without the whole complicated package. Ms. Vosper would be up a creek without a church had she just hung out a shingle for "Fellowship for Humanists" at her Canadian home.
I am sorry for my own part in making that package of today's Church complicated. The Church wasn't meant to have all sorts of institutional qualities about it.
I, however, still believe the story line.
Take this interesting, o.k., alarming article about a church in Canada.
(Thanks to Richard @ Family: The Final Frontier)
The Reverend Gretta Vosper, of the West Hill United Church has some thoughts on the Bible that might differ from yours:
She says there's been virtually a consensus among scholars for the past 30 years that the Bible is not some divine emanation – or in Ms. Vosper acronym, TAWOGFAT, The Authoritative Word of God For All Time – but a human project filled with contradictions and the conflicting worldviews and political perspectives of its authors.
Now, lets just pretend just for a moment that this was Ms. Vosper's web site. There would be no mocking of the aforesaid opinion. There would be supportive thoughts and collective ideas to sway the reader towards the sanity of her position. The bold redefining of "Church" would ring with finality. The Rev. Vosper would lay out her desire to save and heal through humanistic principles.
But I ask you, as it is my blog, if you move a boat to dry land and adapt it for dry land purposes is it still a boat? Haven't you changed its purposes and limited its function in such a way that a name change would be in order? I have little desire to condemn West Hill United Church's direction. They are just victim to the disillusionment that much of Christiandom faces. I would question why they want to continue to lay claim to the name "Church."
The "Church" is the body of Christ, belonging to Jesus and fulfilling the purposes of the same. Should you consider this Jesus (or his present characterization) a fictional character, you still must recognize that the story line puts the Church with Jesus and Jesus with the Church. If you want to challenge the "historical documents" and the "traditions" why do you want to borrow so heavily from its language and terms and yet reject its story line?
Well, my own little answer to this question is that the name "Church" still rings with hope and people want that hope without the whole complicated package. Ms. Vosper would be up a creek without a church had she just hung out a shingle for "Fellowship for Humanists" at her Canadian home.
I am sorry for my own part in making that package of today's Church complicated. The Church wasn't meant to have all sorts of institutional qualities about it.
I, however, still believe the story line.
No comments:
Post a Comment