What Is Christian Orthodoxy?

[Antlerman]

My apologies for the misunderstanding. I truly thought that was what you were saying. Thanks for clarifying. I think we're a lot closer in our thinking than it appeared to me.

That's what I initially thought.

 

 

There's still one item that I'm not clear on.

 

 

My point in that analogy is that it is comparable to a 10 year old proclaiming reality for everyone else, including you in your middle ages. That is invalid. And hence, why saying one view of a religions meaning is the 'right thinking' is invalid. There can be no actual, real orthodoxy for this one reason alone: we are all at different places in our growth, our stages of development.

 

To me, this is very confusing. In one sentence you talk about what a specific religion means--faith statements, I assume. In the next you talk about personal growth and development. In my mind, those are two separate and individual items. However, I see some of my sources on spiritual development have combined the study of psychological development with the study of theology. Thus, it occurs to me that perhaps by "meaning of religion" you are not referring to credal statements, but to something more emotional. I'm going to assume this is correct and address it below.

Something more psychological and spiritual, as well as its role in human social and cultural evolution.

 

I agree that individuals go through growth and development while they are immersed in religion because large portions of the human population spend their entire lifetimes immersed in religion. They go through all the stages of life and emotional/spiritual development inside religion and have rich life experiences, ranging all the way from infancy to old age.

 

The same can also be said about physical conditions, ranging all the way from perfect health and fitness to the gravely ill or deformed and crippled. People go through treatment, or not, for these ailments while immersed in religion. While there are Christian denominations that make health their central feature, faith healing is definitely not what defines Christianity.

 

Likewise, I do not see that personal growth and development is the central feature of Christian doctrine per se, past or present. It is for a minority of denominations, perhaps. But it is not in the creeds and it is not an official part of orthodoxy so far as I can see.

I agree. I basically see orthodoxy as mean-average standard for group cohesion. You're not going to see creeds on mystical aspirations for instance such as saying 'We believe in uniting with the Divine and no longer needing the Bishops of Rome to tell us their ideas of correct thoughts'. That said however, within Catholicism it did successfully learn to accommodate certain religious orders who were in pursuit of that sort of deep spiritual development. Protestant Christianity however is much more narrow in what they allow within the bounds of their dogma. Again, the practices were there, but not in their creeds as those are for the general consensus standards.

 

I do not see orthodoxy making claims about what Christianity, or religion, means.

It depends on how someone is using the symbol 'orthodox'. As you pointed out already now that it does mean 'truth' to a lot of minds. They use it as a badge of 'correct belief'. From a psychological point of view that symbol becomes a sort of self-assurance to ward off fears and doubts about being 'lost'. I could go deeper on this.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, it was not until the psychologists of the twentieth century (of whom Carl Rogers was one) that we got obsessed with meaning in everything. In the nineteenth century academics were still describing the universe in meticulous and mechanical detail. They still thought science was a finite field and that once it was correctly understood how all the parts of the universe fitted together human investigation would move on to other things. It was also thought that God was pretty much an idea whose time had passed.

 

But religion did not go away. Scholars asked why? I suppose the idea of meaning in religion is one answer they came up with. In other words, since humans find psychological meaning and experience personal development and maturation via the symbolism of their religious backgrounds, religion is a far more complex phenomena than scholars earlier thought. Hence its "staying power."

I don't think it was solely that question that led to that line of investigation. There were huge advances occurring in the various fields of the so-called soft sciences. Myth studies, linguistics, structuralism, post-structuralism, ethnology, sociology, etc. Turning those eyes onto the questions of religion offered greater depth of understanding of its function in human experience. In fact those understandings gleaned, and being gleaned from those areas of research do in fact explain a whole lot of the phenomena of religious experience. Then bring those into comparative religious studies. Understanding the role of religion and the various phenomena in them you see patterns of similarities.

 

I would guess Carl Jung's Man and His Symbols had something to do with this idea. Carl Rogers' very famous book "On Becoming a Person," as well as Abraham H. Maslow's "Psychology of Being" and the works of others, may have also contributed to this idea of meaning in religion. All of these are 20th century authors and not necessarily religious. I would need to see a documented example in order to accept that this (concept re meaning of religion) was traditionally part of orthodox Christian beliefs.

Jung definitely was part of that and I feel his influence in understanding huge. Joseph Campbell drew heavily from Jung in his myth studies. Of course Maslow too. Where you will hear a lot of my views being reflected is in the whole transpersonal psychology areas. We can touch on that later if you wish.

 

For more on spiritual development, there is a belief that adults are not all at the same stage. Read James W. Fowler's "Stages of Faith." (Here is a wikipedia article on it.) But that is an old book published in 1981. I used it for a course many years ago. My agnostic prof suggested not to use the concept of progressing stages, but different kinds of spirituality. There is literature out there for that idea, too.

I also draw off of Piaget and Gebser as far as relating childhood development and cultural evolution, with consciousness evolution and spiritual development. Yes, very much so I agree that not all adults are at the same stage! Most definitely not. Why did your prof suggest to not use stages of development, and instead use 'different kinds of spirituality'? My impression is that he was probably conflating views and didn't understand them.

 

For a quick example, I see mythic-literal views as an earlier stage of development. Do they have legitimate spiritual experience? Of course, yes! But it is how they translate it in their present developmental level's framework - in this case mythic-literal: they actually encountered a real god! It's technically all spiritual, but how it is understood and subsequently experienced that is of greater depth because it engages the more developed mind in its experience. Spiritual experience can be had by a 2 year old or a 2000 year old, so to speak. The 2000 year old will understand that and swim in it in a far deeper level than the 2 year old.

 

I'll leave it there for now. But to bring it back again, as you can see that perspective in fact changes how those symbols are taken. In this case I am referring to Jungian archetypes. Anyway, I'll stop here...

[LivingLife]

Back to the cult I grew up in.

 

We had no pastors or fathers or priests. They were/are called Workers and they follow the principle of poverty/servitude/celibacy. They give up everything they own, everything barring one dress or one suit when they enter into the ministry. They receive no salary and all their needs, clothing, transport is provided for by the members and usually anonymously. They own no house or cars and are accommodated in congregants homes. The congregants are called friends and there is no church building. Some homes are classified as open homes and they are free to simply make a call or pitch up and the home owner accommodates and feeds them. The workers go out in pairs. Should they need to go to foreign lands, someone foots the bill and when they get there, friends there will take care of them.

 

When they are not in your town, elders like my dad was, will conduct services which is more of moderator as each person is expected to share for the edification of the group. This would be akin to cell churches if you have ever been exposed to that. When the workers are in town, they conduct the service except now the various cells come together at someone who has a large house and the seating follows a pew arrangement instead of a typical circle format. No collection plate ever goes around. The need for funds handled by the senior workers usually very old guys in their late 70's got around by word of moth and you simply gave it to them in an unmarked envelope. There is no bank account for this and everything is done cash.

 

Should a Worker find themselves falling in love etc. they leave the Work (ministry) and can marry. Their pairing in the Work is two males or two females, never a mix as the pairs usually have to share a bedroom.

 

This cult IMO follows the early acts church to a tee almost and also follows the pauline principles of virginity in a very literal sense. So obviously as kids when we saw this happening in real life and read the bible (no kiddies bibles for us) you saw what was mentioned there happening in front of your eyes. What was there not to believe that this did not come from the time of Jesus. then someone went and actually traced the cult back to its origins in Ireland and published it to the Internet. Wow were we shocked.

 

In this cult, you were forced to attend church 3 times a week, twice on Sunday and on Wednesday night. Sunday mornings was for sharing anything pertinent with your walk with the lord and had no format per se, two hymns, open prayer session where all expected to participate (that were saved IOW had made a start and had been baptised) another hymn, sharing, communion, another hymn and closing prayer by elder or Worker if present. Sunday night and Wednesday night was akin to bible study, you were given a list once a year of what program to follow, one for Sunday evenings and one for Wednesday evenings.

 

At the age of 16, you are sat down by your parents if you had not yet made a start/commitment and given the choice to attend or not under your own free will. I chose not to. No abandonment, no admonition, it was now in the lord's hands.

 

The evangelical side, the Workers would go door-door and simply give a typed invite to what was known as a gospel meeting, there was no preaching as everyone else was not saved, ours was the only way. A hall would be hired for this and of course folk like me were also invited. These meetings happened on a Friday evening and followed for a period of 6 weeks. The last meeting, the invitation to make a start was given (alter call) and in absolute silence, with the congregants heads bowed, they simply had to stand to their feet.

 

My run in with the CoC in later years, if you did this you were immediately baptised.

 

Not so with us. You had to prove you were sincere and went on a type of probation to see how faithful you were in attending services. Once a year we all migrated to the capital city and had a four day session of meetings in a tent or a hired hall called a convention and that was three a day each lasting 2-1/2 hours. Stretchers and mattresses were provided and the men bunked together as did the women. Young/nursing mothers had separate quarters. Food was provided ina mess hall environment and 3 meals a day. On the Sunday which was the last day, there was a baptism service held very early in the morning. Not everyone needed to attend (did I mention this was in winter) and it was done outside, no preheated baptismal baths.

 

A smaller version of this happened six months later and was in a hall and limited to a district.

 

The reason I mention this, this is what I was indoctrinated with and even to this day remains the barometer whereby I gauge all other xian sects. Everyone I have shared this with says that sounds like the real deal but alas, it too is BS. If you think the "heavy" other sects place on you this was ten times worse.

 

No TV, no radio, no make up, no jewellery except wedding band and it had to be very plain, not even an engagement ring (diamonds taboo) women had to wear dresses, hair in buns, suits to church for the men, short back and sides (marine style) haircuts, not allowed to really mix with school friends, no movies, no alcohol, no smoking, kids given corporeal punishment for the slightest infraction (my dad had a custom made leather strap 2" x 15" and a laminated leather handle that one of the "friends" whose hobby it was to make these, he made a good living as all parents had one, well the one I knew), boys not allowed to sit next to girls unless own siblings, no dating till you were 18, no marriage ceremony or banquet (married at court and tea and cookies reception, no confetti, brides not allowed to wear worldly styled wedding dress, usually knee length dress and a hat, no veil) women at one time were forced to wear hats and that included little girls from about 9 onwards, boys 8 and over short pants and shirt with tie as you got older, shorts became longs, no jeans allowed EVER, no celebration of xmas or any religious holidays, easter Sunday was just another Sunday and probably a load of others I cannot remember. Although no hell fire and brimstone sermons were ever given, you were subtly made aware that was the default destination unless......

 

So when it come to false prophets, false teachers and false doctrines, I think I really have a solid understanding of what these are. I never once had a watered down Sunday school exposure so since I can remember, it has been the unabridged angry sky daddy most other xians only get to meet in their teens.

 

 

I did want to respond to this post for sure.

 

First, thank you so much for your openness to discussing your beliefs with me, and thank you for sharing your experience.

 

I don't know a whole lot about the Way cult, but I read about it in connection with someone named Michael Rood ...

Not the same group. The prohibition on technology still exists although they do not enforce it so much. As a group that only runs by Oral tradition, they may use email between members but the workers tend to avoid the internet cause someone like me may discover the "lies of satan" so sms/texting has become the norm and of course some phones can pick up the devil's radio.

 

They have adapted but I doubt they come on the radar screen. The other name they are known as are the two by twos. Because they have no registered name under the WCC it is hard to find even the expose I found, my sister sent it to me in an email link and that was many years ago in the late 90's

Anyway, you said it was anti-trinitarian, which would fit with what the Way International teaches.

They are not anti trinitarian per se, it was never taught, as far as it stands in the bible, there is only one verse that suggests this concept, this was a later add on and although it appears in the preferred KJV, when that chapter was nominated for bible study, those two verses were excluded. I assume the Workers were aware of this and must have had questions from the flock. These verses although there were never read out loud and unlike the practice of other xians, you are not allowed to deface your bible, you make notes in a notebook, not the bible and that included underlining passages.

 

My knowledge of the apostate churches was dialogue with my dad but I have no clue where he got his info from. As I mentioned they saw all others as wrong.

 

From reading about your experience, all I can say is that I'm so glad you're out of it. Forcing people to go to church as well as some of their other rules, etc. is not something that I would call a perfect New Testament church. Yes, some of the ideas sound nice, but it also sounds very legalistic to me. Wow...you must have been through a lot, growing up in that environment.

To continue (as if I defend the cult). Firstly any church that has a church building is wrong as god does not live in temples made by man, we are the temples of god. That already throws all/most of xian faith out as heretic/apostate. This was a very strong foundational thing as obviously all the kids would question their parents why don't we have a "church"

 

The concept of the Workers is based of two texts of when jesus sent them out in pairs, he said do not take a change of clothing, the son of man has nowhere to rest his head, the virginity teachings of paul.

 

So we look at the rest and see the priests and pastors etc. all have homes, they are mostly married and their own stuff. Our Workers however, this must be the real deal. Based on the accounts in the church of acts, our folk were doing it right. Peter appointed elders to deal with the petty issues and we had elders doing the same. The system worked as via the bush telegraph we knew who had needs and they were helped w/o having to ask for it. Hand me downs in the way of school uniforms and even clothing was par for the course. My family was relatively well off, my mother was a qualified seamstress and as a result my sister's clothes were always handed down to some other family and my mom made dresses for others, they had to only supply the material and yarn. Men and boys stuff was usually bought although much of my toddler clothing was home made.

 

For us kids at school one of the worst things was on application forms where they asked religion and we had to fill in non denominational and the teachers asked WTF is that? Try explaining this as a 10 year old. The schools had morning assemblies and the system was loosely based on the COE as far as content went (this was the then Rhodesia now Zimbabwe where I grew up) To be excluded you had to be atheist or Jewish, not many outspoken atheists back then and they had to have a note from parents to be excused from the religious part of the assembly, I was allowed to attend. Once a week we had an hour religious studies and the various denoms took their flock's kiddies each into their own class and as a non denom, I ended up with the few atheists/heathen that were there and were entertained watching a national geographic film (this was the late 60's)

 

So as a part of the orthodoxy discussion at school if you said you were COE, Methodist, RCC, everyone knew what that was. What we were, we had no name and the only way was to educate the teacher on acts and the gospels. Their jaws dropped that such young kids already had such sound biblical knowledge. That question was only asked once per school, thereafter they avoided the preach attack. Pretty embarrassing for an adult to be told what's in the bible by a 10 yo. BTW the schools gave us pocket Gideon bibles (NT and psalms) and it went with me every day to school, I was probably the only kid that read it and knew what was in it. For all that religious thought of the day was, I came over very strong in my beliefs and in a nutshell these teachers and kids were heathen despite their religious affiliation, this disadvantaged me as they all thought I was a jesus freak. Of course I could read KJV fluently and it actually messed up my English lessons and the odd ye and thou did enter my compositions. The folk in our faith also prayed in old king James English so as a 10 yo, I had been exposed to it for 6-7 years of self awareness. Enough of school.

 

The parts dealing with women can be derived from various texts of adornment of jewellery (not sure where) but only sluts, prostitutes, and worldly females did those things. Hair was not cut but worn in a bun, young girls pony tails till there was enough hair for a bun, for them that was the prime objective and a coming of age thing. Hats from the texts of covering heads. When we attended the conventions and bigger gatherings, the women and men sat separately but there was an area for newly weds with kids. Newly weds all had a baby within 9 months. How the concept of BC was passed down was probably handled my mother to daughter. My birds and bees sit me down with my folks came two years after puberty and by this time the schools had already covered it in biology so mom and dad were a bit slow. Teen pregnancies were not uncommon but then most married in their late teens.

 

Girls typically left school in Gr10 while the lads went on to Gr12 to matriculate. So as far as women went, they were conditioned to know their submissive place and prepared for a future of child bearing and servitude. Picture dresses with no plunging neckline, 3/4 or long sleeves, below the knee by at least 6" and simple pattern with emphasis on hiding the bust line. Stockings always worn and this in a tropical climate where all the other lasses were wearing shorts halter tops sleeveless dresses and mini skirts. Our girls looked very different and typically were stay at home with mum outside of school activities. I will say, they started relaxing as back then the heathen wore hats to churches so we did not come over different as being of the world but not part of it, so hats were tossed. Only the older ladies still wore them.

 

You could say I saw a mini reformation in my time from age 8 to 18.

 

Men's (really) short hair is also biblical also from paul's teachings and this in a time of Beatles-mania and the hairstyles of the late 60's and 70's. What we saw was pastors growing their hair longer, the heathen attending church with long locks so according to doctrine/traditions obviously we were right. Our lasses looked like prudes so the pubescent males diverted their attention to the worldly sluts, you had no hope of getting laid in your own church. There were different unwritten rules for the lads, just don't get them pregnant. It was the preferred approach as fathers of daughters protected them from the males, age of consent was 16 there legally and this would typically be one year after the left school. Mind you this was not just our church, many other girls also left school at this age. For a girl to date any one outside the flock, she would have to be 18+

 

Apostolic succession was there too. After my mom died going through her photos, there are hordes of pics of Workers in a group photo and every member got one and there were more pics of them than of our family. The Workers were revered and men and women of god. My mom was the extreme fundie as my dad took me to see a movie once or twice making sure he parked his car far away from the movie house so as not to get caught out and mom freaked out when she found out, we had just gone to fill up the car see. Dad had an affair with one of his wards but that was when I was very young and we suspected he was having one with his secretary too when I was in my early teens, mom went on a 4 month holiday to her mom in SA. That was not normal, however they remained together what I would term a strained relationship, dad remained an elder and with that some sort of status was there for my mom. 90% of my aunts and uncles were part of this cult.

 

The way a man or women became a Worker, they were paired off with an older experienced one. What transpired in their alone time when not interacting with the

friends, we really do not know. Obviously a lot of bible study, prayer and passing on of oral traditions. TMK there was never a scandal of gay sex or encounters with friends as they were in pairs to keep each other honest. The only time you saw them solo was when one was allowed a hiatus with their parents. These Workers also went and worked across racial boundaries although once saved they had to fellowship with their own kind, only at conventions did we fellowship together and even then they were allotted their own area to sit in, I suspect this had to do with the tropics as typically black people typically gave off a pungent odour. Sleeping and mess quarters remained separate, only in the hall or tent were we "together". Eventually they had their own conventions separate from the white folk and this was all very normal to us, kids were not allowed to mix across racial lines.

 

The Senior Workers were the big gurus and had almost a god like status. These if you will were our apostles equal to the disciples. There were only two in our country and in SA there were provincial ones and I guess in the States one pair per 4 states in the lower populated ones and a pair per state in place like Texas. Yes they are everywhere but the church is dying as there are no incumbent workers and most kids (80%) abandon like I did and some join other churches. If there was any new doctrine and/or revelation or interpretation, it came via the chain of command of the Workers

 

The way monies were/are handled was cash. There was never an offering in public as the right hand must not know what the left hand is doing. The anonymous donations, how that money was appropriated I have no clue. Everyone gave even if it was only a dollar which back then would buy me a carton of cigarettes and still have change for a breakfast at a hotel still with change. So according to the church of acts, they did not sell everything but it was all brought and distributed. The poor in our fellowship never were made to feel poor and they by virtue of the hand me downs looked just like the rest. Even in humility, there was still a certain standard to maintain and everyone from wealthy to poor, in the fellowship, no distinction was ever made. I only got my first set of jeans when I started working, my folks refused to buy me them even if I no longer attended.

 

So as you can see, the way I was brought up matches 100% the church of acts, we only gathered in homes, there was no building.

 

Funerals were conducted by Workers and you knew you had made it or not by the content of the service, the texts for the sermon. If it was something like the beatitudes, you made it, if it hinted at anything associated to righteous living being set apart for the lord, the sucker in the box was toast. No alter calls, no hell fire and I attended a shitload of funerals as a kid, no prettying up the gospel ever. There was no need for a turn or burn sermon, the kids knew their bibles, the unabridged KJV. The other key indicator was the size of the funeral. When the city hall was rented out, he was in heaven, if it took place at the funeral home chapel - toast. You did not want your funeral to be there ever. My mom had a morbid fascination with death and she never missed a funeral, I guess she liked to cry.

 

We spoke earlier of confession. We had only the confession in the sharing parts of our service where you would piously state what a shithead you were in the previous days, break down and shed a pious tear or two and the doctrine of repentance was served. There were a lot of tsk tsks followed by a low tone amen, never any glory hallelujah's unless the confession was the lass was pregnant expressed always as "expecting" there was no gossip tolerated ever so before she showed, she confessed she was with child to the congregation. Of course it would be embellished as the blessing from the lord she was pregnant. Out of wedlock pregnancies, you were automatically banished from fellowship as a slut. There were of course support structures applied but she was disfellowshipped till baby arrived and had found a husband or married the father. Such a person was always looked upon with disdain. I remember a lass that this happened to and she took a dive off a 20 storey building. Shotgun weddings were not part of the culture but I guess there must have been a few. This happened to my brother when he was 23 but a heathen girl. Even so my dad took it very bad as he was an elder and as such had failed as a father. One of my cousins got knocked up by a tourist so she was royally screwed as he had gone back to his homeland by the time he discovered she was pregnant. She was excommunicated for 7 years and was only allowed to attend the "gospel" meetings when they infrequently happened.

 

Somehow there must have been some national membership list and when we stayed in Livingstone which is by the Victoria Waterfalls, we often had to put these visitors up that we did not know and entertain them however they did not sponge off us and made a monetary contribution and because we were not allowed to mix with the world, it was nice to meet new people from another country and town. As a result I got to see the falls about every two weeks, we were about 10 miles from the falls and in those days folk came mostly by train and a few by plane.

 

My cousin was not even allowed to fellowship say in Cape Town and she was in Pretoria, this included this benevolence I just mentioned. Her penance was hard but she stuck it out and and is still part of the flock. Later after my brother's second divorce in the mid 80's, he dated this cousin of mine for awhile (effing redneck - mind you she was hot) but fortunately my dad never knew about that or else we would have lost him much earlier.

 

Penance was hard in these cases and in my cousin's case family became her only recourse for fellowship and they allowed her to attend meetings but she had to shut up and not participate, not even communion. She was baptised and all. Incidents like this kept the lasses legs tightly shut so the abstinence only program worked. Did I mention my cousin was not allowed to give up her child for adoption? You could adopt from without the confines if you were barren but never give up for adoption if you were part of the flock. There were a couple in my dad's congregation who adopted kids from parents that were killed in a car accident, that was allowed obviously.

 

This cult, having its roots in the UK, I imagine the central control emanates from there but in all likelihood has moved to the US simply by virtue of population. How the Workers are sent out to various locales I have no idea but it is not uncommon to be sent to say India and be forced to learn that language. This is not a mission with regular R&R, being gone for 5-10 years is not uncommon with maybe two or three visits back to your parents, this again is biblical in loving the lord more than your mother/father. I did admire their commitment and is something you will not find in any other church. They are not poverty stricken and all their basic needs are met in the way of clothing, accommodation, transport and food but as you can imagine in places like China, they live as the rurals live. I guess these are the uber dedicated ones and when we had conventions, these folk got the podium over the senior Workers as these are the "real evangelists", these, mostly men go solo but in their tenure will perhaps recruit a Worker locally which will provide succession after they leave but most of these make it a lifetime mission.

 

In the end none of this really matters. If you are not aware of the roots and accept blindly what you are taught/exposed to, you will believe. Were I to return now after 37 years, I would be welcomed back with open arms. To them I am just a prodigal son but I would have to do the whole recommit thing and probation. That fortunately is not on my radar.

[R. S. Martin]

LL, reading about the group you came from is very interesting. I suppose my people would concede that they're doing reasonably well for Africa. But they are not truly separated from the world if they use technology that allows them to text, or if they board airplanes and use motor vehicles. Also, women wearing hats is unacceptably fancy, even though Victorian era style fancy. Women should wear light fabric cloth caps for head-covering. As for a seven-year excommunication--that is harsh beyond all reason. One year is enough.

 

I think that's the kind of thing my mother would have said. So much for orthodoxy, huh?

 

Every church thinks it's the One True Church. If it didn't, it would hardly exist.

[R. S. Martin]

Why did your prof suggest to not use stages of development, and instead use 'different kinds of spirituality'?

 

My impression was that he felt it was less judgmental or arrogant and more democratic and accepting of differences among individual human beings.

[LivingLife]

Just to be clear on how I reference the heathen women, my rebellion made me a wee bit different but this was pretty much the consensus between pubescent males, the stuff we talked of in secret. I by no means view women that way however based on my premarital "conquests" those relationships were possibly in a way abusive from my side. The hunt was always more fun than the kill so to speak. I was not a really nice guy then but had the charm of a saint. Looking back, I suspect these views we were brought up with kind of stuck and coupled with that we were split as teens in school to male only and female only schools which really did not help in me getting to see females as mere conquests later in life when I started dating. I probably had it in the back of my mind I would return to the fold and marry me a virgin.

 

I did evolve and become a gentleman

[Antlerman]

Why did your prof suggest to not use stages of development, and instead use 'different kinds of spirituality'?

 

My impression was that he felt it was less judgmental or arrogant and more democratic and accepting of differences among individual human beings.

Sadly, in the process it washes any useful understanding out of it.

 

I'll get back to my response to your other post later on as time permits. I definitely want to discuss some of its points with you.

[LivingLife]

LL, reading about the group you came from is very interesting. I suppose my people would concede that they're doing reasonably well for Africa. But they are not truly separated from the world if they use technology that allows them to text, or if they board airplanes and use motor vehicles.

They have teamed down. Back then my dad had to remove a fitted car radio which left a horrible hole in the dash of a brand new Peugeot 404. They are not that picky any more. My dads last car came with a radio too and he used to go sit in it and listen to the radio/tapes. I bought him a portable once but my mom insisted he get rid of it, he returned it to me indirectly by putting it on a shelf in my garage.

 

They use technology now as snail mail is impractical these days. I even gave my folks an old cell phone and they used it till my mom died.

Also, women wearing hats is unacceptably fancy, even though Victorian era style fancy. Women should wear light fabric cloth caps for head-covering.

The hats were home made but still relatively "fashionable" Some aunties made them similar to what my mom did with dresses. Neither my mom or my sister bought dresses. My sister did wear pant suits when she started working but she had by then dissed the faith too, she never was baptised although she tried to make a start. We were 3 for 3 on the devils side

As for a seven-year excommunication--that is harsh beyond all reason. One year is enough.

 

I think that's the kind of thing my mother would have said. So much for orthodoxy, huh?

 

Every church thinks it's the One True Church. If it didn't, it would hardly exist.

The thing I hope you folk see this was walking the talk, there were no pretences but in reality, no one is able to really stay on the straight and narrow with so much legalism. As a youth and young teen, I mixed with other "heathen" kids and attended their youth groups so my 1st exit from xianity was buffered by a less legalistic exposure to other people of faith, the girls here were also well protected by their fathers even though they did not dress like old ladies.

 

Then I went wild and there was so much catching up I had to do to at least bear some semblance of fitting in with the general populace.

 

Those early years may well have been different had I grown up in a system where god was not the be all and end all of daily life. At one stage my dad held family services just for the family on a Sunday afternoon, that lasted about 6 weeks and that was still when I was about 5/6 years old. My brother and sister are 10 and 7 years older so that was his way of possibly dealing with their pubescent years.

 

The attached pic of dad and the 3 kids on a Sunday after church. Here I was about 7/8. (1967/8)

[R. S. Martin]

Why did your prof suggest to not use stages of development, and instead use 'different kinds of spirituality'?

 

My impression was that he felt it was less judgmental or arrogant and more democratic and accepting of differences among individual human beings.

Sadly, in the process it washes any useful understanding out of it.

 

I'll get back to my response to your other post later on as time permits. I definitely want to discuss some of its points with you.

 

If you want to study up on the concept of spirituality types or different kinds of spirituality...I don't have time to read up on all these links right now but here's a page of Google Results for "spirituality types." It includes Belief.net, overtly Christian test material, Amazon, and others.

 

I think it makes sense that there are various types of spirituality just as there are different types of personality as in Myers Briggs theory.

[Realist]

LivingLife,

 

I've thought about it some more, and I'm willing to continue discussing my personal beliefs with you if you at least acknowledge that my beliefs are a legitimate viewpoint (that I have a right to hold to my own viewpoint.)

 

I do believe that you have a right and a reason for holding to the viewpoint that you do.

 

 

... Tenthdoctor ... this from my point of view does not add up.

 

You admit YOU have a right to your point of view.

You admit "Living Life" (a self stated atheist) has a right to his point of view.

 

So why then ... your original posting heading in the Lion's Den:

A Serious Concern About Doctrine Being Taught In Some Churches

 

Why do other christians not have a right to THEIR point of view?

 

Is this not a little hypocritical seeing the bible is SO open to each individual's interpretation and at the opposite end you except an atheist has a right to his point of view?

 

 

... TenthDoctor ... I asked you a question in the above post which I see you have not addressed. Is there any chance of addressing it because I still feel from where I stand the position you are taking is rather hypocritical given your own statements? Thanks!

[Antlerman]

Why did your prof suggest to not use stages of development, and instead use 'different kinds of spirituality'?

 

My impression was that he felt it was less judgmental or arrogant and more democratic and accepting of differences among individual human beings.

Sadly, in the process it washes any useful understanding out of it.

 

I'll get back to my response to your other post later on as time permits. I definitely want to discuss some of its points with you.

 

If you want to study up on the concept of spirituality types or different kinds of spirituality...I don't have time to read up on all these links right now but here's a page of Google Results for "spirituality types." It includes Belief.net, overtly Christian test material, Amazon, and others.

 

I think it makes sense that there are various types of spirituality just as there are different types of personality as in Myers Briggs theory.

Sure, I will grant this as well. Perhaps I was being a bit harsh on him. I actually see a combination of the two, types of spirituality (which I might call spiritual personality types, perhaps), and that over stages of consciousness development. It isn't one or the other, but both.

 

As for some of those online tests, the Belief Net one has next to no questions to choose from which I could say relate to how I would answer. Long ago when I first took their what is your beliefs test it came up pretty accurately. Now over the years when I take it... I seem to break it. It just comes up with some nonsense. Their questions are too narrow. That said, I did find the questions on the Catholic site (http://www.vocationn...rticles/show/63) to be more about personality types, than about beliefs about God and what not. Here's what mine came out to be, which frankly does fit fairly well (aside from obvious Catholic references): (Please note Ruby how it says we best understand symbols. Fits me pretty well, wouldn't you say?)

 

 

 

Your Spirituality Type: PATH OF DEVOTION (Augustinian prayer)

The majority of saints are of this spiritual temperament as well as 12 percent of the population (but half of those who go on retreats or belong to small faith groups).

 

This method uses creative imagination to transpose; the world of scripture to our situation today--as if the scripture passage is a personal letter from God a addressed to each one; of us (like Saint Augustine picking up Romans 13 and reading; a message pointed directly at him). The essential element of this spirituality, going back to New Testament times (Jesus, Saint Paul, the early church fathers), is experiencing a personal relationship with God. Because they read between the lines and catchy what is inexpressible and spiritual, those who follow the path of devotion best understand symbols and their use in the liturgy.

 

This path concentrates on meditations that loosen the feelings and expand the ability to relate to and love others. The stress is on the love ot self others, and God. Those on this path can follow the four steps of the Lectio Divina: listen to what God says in scripture; reflect prayerfully and apply it to today; respond to God's word with personal feelings; remain quiet and stay open to new insights.

 

BTW, I find that utterly amazing how that Catholics, the original "orthodox" church has no problem with liberal interpretation of scripture!! Amazing how non-orthodox the Evangelicals are, isn't it?

[R. S. Martin]

LivingLife,

 

I've thought about it some more, and I'm willing to continue discussing my personal beliefs with you if you at least acknowledge that my beliefs are a legitimate viewpoint (that I have a right to hold to my own viewpoint.)

 

I do believe that you have a right and a reason for holding to the viewpoint that you do.

 

 

... Tenthdoctor ... this from my point of view does not add up.

 

You admit YOU have a right to your point of view.

You admit "Living Life" (a self stated atheist) has a right to his point of view.

 

So why then ... your original posting heading in the Lion's Den:

A Serious Concern About Doctrine Being Taught In Some Churches

 

Why do other christians not have a right to THEIR point of view?

 

Is this not a little hypocritical seeing the bible is SO open to each individual's interpretation and at the opposite end you except an atheist has a right to his point of view?

 

 

... TenthDoctor ... I asked you a question in the above post which I see you have not addressed. Is there any chance of addressing it because I still feel from where I stand the position you are taking is rather hypocritical given your own statements? Thanks!

 

I hope she answers that red question.

 

Orthodoxy is the concern of this thread. The consensus of this thread seems seems to be that Christian orthodoxy is hard to come by outside the ancient creeds. Most self-identified Christians hold to these creeds in some form or another.

 

While I applaud--and promote the humanitarianism of--the tolerance and respect for atheists, it is not within the sphere of orthodox Christianity to do so, is it?

 

Well, maybe it is if we look to Jesus' example of ministering to the Roman soldier and the Samaritan woman, and other non-Jewish people...I'm just thinking as I type here.

 

I would like to see TD answer that big red question if she's still watching these forums.

[Foxy Methoxy]

Growing up Pentecostal churches, I was taught Orthodox Christianity was defined according to the ancient creeds conforming to the notion of a Trinity consisting of the father, son, and holy spirit, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and that salvation was attained through faith in Christ alone. This teaching was used with the political motivation to label anyone in a Protestant church as saved, and exclude Jehovah's Witness, Mormons, and other restorationist, Non-Trinitarian churches as non-Christian. Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox were the gray area but generally viewed as apostatized sects. It was taught to me in way as to suggest an exclusive club, so to speak. However, in the church I attended, there was an attitude that you weren't really saved unless you were baptized in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. Although they wouldn't openly admit to such a deviation, it was clearly evident.

[Realist]

 

I hope she answers that red question.

 

Orthodoxy is the concern of this thread. The consensus of this thread seems seems to be that Christian orthodoxy is hard to come by outside the ancient creeds. Most self-identified Christians hold to these creeds in some form or another.

 

While I applaud--and promote the humanitarianism of--the tolerance and respect for atheists, it is not within the sphere of orthodox Christianity to do so, is it?

 

Well, maybe it is if we look to Jesus' example of ministering to the Roman soldier and the Samaritan woman, and other non-Jewish people...I'm just thinking as I type here.

 

I would like to see TD answer that big red question if she's still watching these forums.

 

 

.... yes, that is the question I was meaning.

 

Yes, I agree with you about orthodoxy and the ancient creed statement. Otherwise it is really just left purely to ones own interpretation, which translation of the bible you accept etc.

 

Also looking at othodoxy as being taken from a more modern christian perspective, does not it involve evolution anyway? e.g. When I was a child virtually no woman in any denomination worshipped with her head uncovered ... even in the more moderate types of christianity. Now it is very rare (in this part of the world at least.)

(I am having trouble putting that into words so I hope what I am trying to say comes across.)

[R. S. Martin]

We were growing up about the same time. I was born in 1956. So our personal historical time frame would be about the same.

 

If you look at my profile you will see that I come from a horse and buggy Mennonite community. Because cameras and posing for photographs was seen as disobeying the commandment about likenesses, I have no pictures of myself as a child or young adult.

 

Here I posted a collection of "a bit about me."

 

Since you probably don't have time to read all of it, the bit in my profile and the website about the Old Order Mennonites (that someone else posted some years ago) will give some background of where I'm coming from.

 

The thing I hope you folk see this was walking the talk, there were no pretences but in reality, no one is able to really stay on the straight and narrow with so much legalism.

 

In my opinion, the community you describe fits the NT church even more closely than my people. But they would never consent to such a statement because your people use cars, planes, and other modern technology that my people don't.

 

This is not to say that my people don't use modernism in ways your people don't. For example, my people use banks, electricity from the grid, and participate in the general retail and marketing system of the land. Primarily an agricultural people, they own land, businesses, farms, and shops (esp. buggy, harness, and furniture) in which goods are manufactured and sold around the globe. However, the impose limits on the types and size of equipment members are permitted to own and use for their farms, shops, and businesses.

 

I've been away for nearly a decade so I don't know what the rules are today, but for a long time (several decades) they had a rule that the largest tractor permissible was 100 horse power. That is one example of their rules. The dress code is almost rigid enough for the army. In fact, scholars (Mennonite historians) have suggested that the Anabaptists (ancestors of Mennonites and Amish) sculpted their beliefs and way of life according to monastery life, but they applied it to all members. In my time, young people who were not members were expected to live pretty much according to the rules, too. Parents were held responsible to hold their children to it.

 

The Anabaptists broke away from the RCC in about 1525 under such leadership as Conrad Grebel, George Blaurock, and Felix Manz. Later, Menno Simons of Holland joined the movement. He was a strong and charismatic leader, able to escape execution and live a long life. His followers were eventually called Mennonites. About 1693, I think it was, a group led by Jacob Ammon and the Mennonites had a severe disagreement so that people were excommunicating each other, etc. Ammon's followers and their descendents became the Amish.

 

On the horse and buggy level, I don't think the split has ever healed. On the more modern level, where people drive black cars and have Sunday School and English services, there are congregations officially known as Amish-Mennonite. The very modern folk have dropped the Amish name and just call themselves Mennonite, drive cars of any colour, have TV, computers and internet, and dress like the rest of the world. So you see, there is a significant Mennonite culture out there. And amidst all that confusion one group (the one I come from) calls itself Old Order.

 

Just to be clear, there are at least three groups of horse and buggy Mennonites in the community where I lived for the first forty-five years of my life. Each group has its own rules and officially registered name, and refuses to fellowship (go to church with) the other. Everyone is known by their church affiliation, which is almost more important than nationality.

 

As a youth and young teen, I mixed with other "heathen" kids and attended their youth groups so my 1st exit from xianity was buffered by a less legalistic exposure to other people of faith, the girls here were also well protected by their fathers even though they did not dress like old ladies.

 

This kind of mixing was totally forbidden for us. Well, it might have been slightly different for boys. But girls depended on fathers and brothers to get away in the evening, and this didn't happen, so there was little mischief they could get into when isolated on farms out in the country. Getting to know outsiders happened only through business and work. Work with people other than our own was strongly discouraged for young people.

 

When I was young in the 1970s, tapes and radios were forbidden though some of the boys had them on their buggies or out behind the barn until they got caught. Dancing was quite fine and happened every Sunday evening at our singings, accompanied by lively mouth organ music. Baseball and hockey were also allowed if not played competitively, i.e. formal teams were not allowed to play against each other. Obviously, teams had to be chosen each time people played. For the girls there were quilting bees and other socials. So you can see that fun was integrated into the lifestyle despite the seemingly harsh or rigid rules for dress, etc.

 

Then I went wild and there was so much catching up I had to do to at least bear some semblance of fitting in with the general populace.

 

Culture clash is something I continue to experience on a daily basis, even after all these years of living in the city.

 

The attached pic of dad and the 3 kids on a Sunday after church. Here I was about 7/8. (1967/8)

 

Except for not wearing suspenders, the boys would fit into an Old Order Mennonite church. Your dad's vest would seem worldly because it does not match his suit.

 

One of my questions since I was about 15 was "Where did the rules come from re what is plain and what is worldly? What is the base line?" Over the next four decades, my observation of human dress in general, and of Mennonite dress in particular, brings me to the conclusion that there is a system of style that forms the baseline for Swiss Mennonite plain dress. This includes the Amish, though they have a slight variation on the theme. The Russian or Mexican Mennonites (who originate from Holland) have a different style. But I am beginning to think that all of them have their roots in peasant society of Reformation European.

 

One of the first things I noticed was that traditional Chinese dress for women includes pants. I remember when pants on women was new and--at least in our rural area--scandalous. Another thing I noticed was that traditional winter clothing for Inuit included hoods. Our church had a rule that forbade head-gear attached to coats because it was worldly. Well, excuse me, but if we go by "old tradition," like the bishop always claims we do, then how exactly are hoods wrong?

 

It seemed to me that pants on women and hoods on winter coats were possibly older than the Mennonite Church itself.

 

Mom just sighed that exasperated sigh she always did when I asked unanswerable--and utterly stupid--questions. Only this time I sort of knew my questions weren't stupid. I could shut up if I had to but I was beginning to see the truth.

 

So what I'm saying about your father's vest being "worldly" is that it would be worldly only according to this one system that this specific group has chosen as orthodox.

 

So yeah, I suppose you could be excommunicated if you stubbornly refused when admonished time after time to lengthen your dress to be only nine inches from the floor, or (for men and boys) to wear a hat with a wide enough brim. I don't remember it ever happening. I think most people would find other ways to express themselves. Either they would decide to submit, or they would find more offensive/rebellious ways to express themselves so that they got themselves kicked out that way. Getting pregnant, buying a car, going to the movies--those were more normal ways to get excommunicated.

 

However, I don't think anyone actually would decide to get him/herself excommunicated. They might do things because they felt they were justified in doing them. And then excommunication is the outcome. I'm saying disobedience via dress is probably not the most normal thing people do. Or possibly a person is shunned from attending a certain social function if not dressed appropriately.

 

For example, I once heard of a fourteen-year-old girl whose older sister helped her access conventional garb so that she dressed in pants. She was not allowed to attend the church-owned school but had to do her lessons at home. Another example is the bride who was requested by the bishop to take off her glasses for the wedding ceremony because the style did not meet church standards. Most people, I think, just don't want to go through this kind of hassle for something like dress.

 

So anyway, I see a lot of similarities between your people and mine.

 

One more thing. The legalism of this group (and similar Mennonite and Amish groups throughout North and South America) does not seem to deter people from remaining inside the group for generations and centuries on end.

[Legion]

I am now in the Coloseum. I will be try to be reverent.

 

Ruby, the following is just my personal opinion, and I'll try not to be aggressive with it.

 

I think you have been controlled and manipulated. And there are consequences to this. First, you look for certainty, hi and lo. I did the same thing. Also, though you don't intend to and are unaware of it, you attempt to control others. You didn't set out to be manipulative, but you learned it by example.

 

It's not your fault Ruby. Please let it go. Try it. Just for a moment. Drop all of your expectations of the world. Don't expect it, or the people around you, to do anything. Just accept it as it is. Breath deeply of it. Don't try to force it into a mold. Don't judge it.

[R. S. Martin]

 

I hope she answers that red question.

 

Orthodoxy is the concern of this thread. The consensus of this thread seems seems to be that Christian orthodoxy is hard to come by outside the ancient creeds. Most self-identified Christians hold to these creeds in some form or another.

 

While I applaud--and promote the humanitarianism of--the tolerance and respect for atheists, it is not within the sphere of orthodox Christianity to do so, is it?

 

Well, maybe it is if we look to Jesus' example of ministering to the Roman soldier and the Samaritan woman, and other non-Jewish people...I'm just thinking as I type here.

 

I would like to see TD answer that big red question if she's still watching these forums.

 

 

.... yes, that is the question I was meaning.

 

Yes, I agree with you about orthodoxy and the ancient creed statement. Otherwise it is really just left purely to ones own interpretation, which translation of the bible you accept etc.

 

Also looking at othodoxy as being taken from a more modern christian perspective, does not it involve evolution anyway? e.g. When I was a child virtually no woman in any denomination worshipped with her head uncovered ... even in the more moderate types of christianity. Now it is very rare (in this part of the world at least.)

(I am having trouble putting that into words so I hope what I am trying to say comes across.)

 

Yes, I think I know what you're saying--I think you're asking about the tradition of women's prayer veils.

 

I don't know too much about the topic of women's prayer veils outside the Mennonite Church. My mother, who was born in 1932 (dates provide historical reference), used to say that women used to wear something on their head--"not just our people." She also told me things her mother (born 1890s) used to say about the "hat people." She used to say in my grandmother's time everyone dressed more like us except for the hats--that women from the city didn't dress so much differently from our women so they felt comfortable in our church.

 

These "hat people" were women from other churches (or no church?) who would sometimes attend our church but they wore hats instead of the white caps our women wore. Possibly their men attended, too, but men and women were--and still are--segregated. To respond to your question, I'm focusing on women's head-covering outside the Mennonite church so the men don't really matter at the moment.

 

Come to think of it, even Queen Elizabeth is seldom photographed without a hat. Recently I did see a picture of her without a hat and I could not figure out what was different, but that was it.

 

All of this, combined with what you say, would suggest to me that European tradition dictates that proper or respectable women (as opposed to sluts or whores) have their heads covered when seen in public. Since Europe was Christianized a thousand years ago (or whenever; it was very long ago), it would stand to reason in my mind that it is based on the Christian teaching that women need to have their heads covered to pray.

 

I see you're from New Zealand. I know very little about NZ, except that I think it was colonized by the Brits. So I'm thinking historical European traditions would probably apply, too.

 

The biblical basis I was taught for women's prayer veil, and for not cutting their hair, is in 1 Cor. 11:3-16.

[Realist]

We were growing up about the same time. I was born in 1956. So our personal historical time frame would be about the same.

 

 

 

.... another 1956 model! A great year that was! Me too!

[R. S. Martin]

We were growing up about the same time. I was born in 1956. So our personal historical time frame would be about the same.

 

 

 

.... another 1956 model! A great year that was! Me too!

 

Ha! I must have had you mixed up with someone else. I thought I'd checked your profile and seen that you were born in 1958. Now I looked again and it says birthday and age unknown. Fortunately for me, I wasn't too far out, huh? Well, the things you said gave me some idea that you were no spring chick, or is it cock for a male?

[Realist]

 

Ha! I must have had you mixed up with someone else. I thought I'd checked your profile and seen that you were born in 1958. Now I looked again and it says birthday and age unknown. Fortunately for me, I wasn't too far out, huh? Well, the things you said gave me some idea that you were no spring chick, or is it cock for a male?

 

 

... it's the "scorpios" from that year that are the best vintage! (Like a medal winning wine!!)

[R. S. Martin]

 

Ha! I must have had you mixed up with someone else. I thought I'd checked your profile and seen that you were born in 1958. Now I looked again and it says birthday and age unknown. Fortunately for me, I wasn't too far out, huh? Well, the things you said gave me some idea that you were no spring chick, or is it cock for a male?

 

 

... it's the "scorpios" from that year that are the best vintage! (Like a medal winning wine!!)

 

Hey you teaser. I see now that you copied my birth date from my post to LL. And here I thought I must have posted it to you. Oh well, I guess the joke's on me. I should have known what I said to whom, right? It's always interesting to know who is the same age as oneself so thanks for sharing.

[LivingLife]

I think folk in our age group can really say we have witnessed the changes in cultures and attitudes.

 

We were not allowed to mix across faith lines either, my involvement came after I had had my sit down offer and had chosen not to go anymore. My first run in with a girl at that age was one that stayed at the end of our street, they were also some home church sect but I went primarily as I was interested in the girl, I cannot remember the faith but they also had youth meetings on Fridays. In my pubescent years, the girls in my church were still u13 so at 16+ I was naturally looking to girls closer to my age. I found out later in life many of these young girls had a crush on me. There was one girl I visited but she was only 10/11 but was an early bloomer with big boobs for her age. That was limited to tea and cookies with her mom always present so there was no way I would get to take her out anywhere at that age.

 

Anyway, through that youth group I got involved at school also with many various other xians, went to their youth gatherings and eventually the CoC folk. My search for truth was already in my early years looking for a less legalistic group. However based on my bias, the only one that met my approval were one that closely resembled what I was exposed to. Although I did get to meet many other girls (my prime motive) there was still this stigma that you would only get to chat to them at youth groups and perhaps sneak away to steal a kiss and hold hands on a church picnic. So I ended up then forsaking these women of faith and headed for the discos.

 

My mind suggested to me all bets were off as anyone that danced had loose morals and so began my conquests and me being a dickhead.

 

As far as technology went, my grandparents were the ones inducted into this cult and my mom and dad met at one of these conventions. He was in the same situation as I was as far as available girls and as such, in SA attended conventions in different provinces (states). They came from towns about 300 miles apart so their courtship was long distance. I have pics of this time when my dad was visiting my mom and a 30's jalopy as his car. They married at 23 and by 25 he was in the then Northern Rhodesia.

 

There was no isolation to a geographic region and as such pretty much blended in with the populace and wore pretty much what everyone else did. So as far as cars were concerned, I do not think it was ever suggested that these were taboo, perhaps in the very early days of Model T Fords.

 

By the time my folks left Rhodesia in 1980 for South Africa, either the rules had become relaxed or folk just decided to hell with it. Dresses came up to the knee, my dad started wearing safari suits and would only suit up for Sunday morning services. Perhaps they saw the youth leaving in droves and had to relax on dress codes. It was only at the conventions where the folk still stuck to the old suit up dress codes but lads my age could attend in a safari suit or simply longs, shirt and tie, no jacket.

 

When my dad left Rhodesia, his radio was in his car, he had a CB radio, and the caravan he had also a radio which I installed for him. The rest of the faith practices remained in place even though dad and I did go see movies together frequently, mom just never went claiming the flickering of a TV or movies gave her a headache. After my dad died, I had built her an apartment and fitted a TV and a radio and in the last 5 years of her life, spent hours watching Dr Phil, Days of our Live soapies and listening to the radio. See when dad was still alive and staying in their own house, these taboo things were not allowed as the home was an open home, the Sunday morning service conducted there and friends could pitch at any time and catch them out. At my place, there was no more meetings so the taboo factor had gone. This was 2005-2010. By this time, the Workers were pretty thinly spread and the church mostly just older folk 50 and older. In my generation, cousins are less than 10% and I can probably count them on one hand who still are part of the cult. It will probably all but die out within the next 20 years. In this age of technology, you have to be like the Amish to avoid it but we have no such groups here in SA. The benevolence of friends has gone and is now restricted to Workers and now they tend to have their own cash for fuel even though the transport is a donated car.

 

Tracing back to my grandparents who lived through the depression, the parallels between SA and the US again are similar and stuff like radio was really only for the "rich" folk - times have changed.

 

Having gone through the changing of the guard here in SA from a white govt to a black one with different ideals, seen the church lose its grip on that power they once enjoyed, when I look at the US, I feel they lag behind us. Churches are now w/o a real influence in govt and they are left to rant in the news via the SA council of churches and they really are left to do their own thing on their own premises. Even the evangelicals are dying down despite the demographics that suggest 78% are xian. Even the Indian community are losing youth from the muslim and hindu faiths as they become more and more secular. The Dutch reformed church I attended once here had 3 full time pastors, now they have none and rely on someone coming from another town once or twice a month. The charismatic church I attended bought industrial property for a song and put this into a trust. They rent out premises and that is the only growth the church has experienced in the last 10 years and if they did not have that, that church would have shut down by now. The pastor's wife had to start teaching at a junior school so he is just hanging on by the skin of his teeth to his ministry. They have all changed their focus from white folk to black folk because of the affirmative action government policies, the blacks are now the ones that wield the financial power. As such we see tent crusades in the black areas and it is white churches doing this. As things change, the community side changes and white folk share little in common with the black folk as far as culture goes so my guess is a lot of the next generation senior pastors are going to be black. The stigma of our racist past still lives on and will only change as the old guard die out.

 

So back to creeds and the church, I have seen the socio/political climate change and the church has changed with it. The revival we saw as SA went from white to black government (end of the world imminent) all the fears instilled in folk that they would be persecuted by an antichrist government, never materialised. 17 years and the churches that have adapted still stand albeit with a decline in growth of membership.

[Antlerman]

What happened to the topic? Are we talking about that anymore? I was hoping to get back to my response and engage our Christian participant with the questions I intended now that I have some time, but has this thread fizzled? We were talking about what is orthodoxy, and just began exposing the meaning that most of the Ex-C'er and the Evangelicals take it to mean as 'correct belief', or truth. I was really interested in going there as it is more than pertinent to this topic. I really hate to start up another topic on the same subject.

[Guest end3]

What happened to the topic? Are we talking about that anymore? I was hoping to get back to my response and engage our Christian participant with the questions I intended now that I have some time, but has this thread fizzled? We were talking about what is orthodoxy, and just began exposing the meaning that most of the Ex-C'er and the Evangelicals take it to mean as 'correct belief', or truth. I was really interested in going there as it is more than pertinent to this topic. I really hate to start up another topic on the same subject.

 

Let me give you my analogy that came to me this morning.....the Spirit endwells our bodies until we are filled at a rate either limited by us or limited by the Spirit filling us. At that point, our cups overfloweth and runs to weave the Spirit thread/fabric in the next......the "river of life". Orthodoxy is defined individually as the Spirit fills our form and subsequently overflows.

 

I'm not charging for insights like this, but donations are welcome. : )

[Antlerman]

Orthodoxy is defined individually as the Spirit fills our form and subsequently overflows.

 

I'm not charging for insights like this, but donations are welcome. : )

This is good. I think I'll try to put it in other words. Obviously orthodoxy can be understood externally as in an accepted common standard for the sake of the benefit of group cohesion, but it obviously cannot be some external standard imposed upon individual, internal truth. Meaning and shape and form will change as the individual inhabits their own religious experience subjectively. The form it takes will be unique to the individual, and subsequently with others in a common setting there will be overlaps. The external points of intersection are hardly anything that can be taken as an absolute, as that would necessitate ridding the individual contribution into the whole. In other words "orthodoxy" is a sort of truth created in that space of overlap by individuals subjective truth.

 

So to your point that orthodoxy is defined individually that would be true, but it is an external creation of individuals. And this comes to my point that I really wanted to get at. That orthodoxy will be a product of individuals operating at a certain level of their own personal spiritual development. The fact that these standards of belief are products of individual in a certain common community indicates they are largely at the same level! They 'fellowship' with each other because they see the world in basically the same general ways. Those that are seeing it in largely symbolic ways typically have a hard to having how they operate be appreciated by those still functioning in a concrete-operational way. They simply don't have it in them to think in abstractions that way. They are literal truths, rather than symbolic truths. Enter here group politics. Those in leadership roles in that "average-mode" consciousness will codify those beliefs of there group participating in that average-mode consciousness level. They will push out those operating at 'higher levels'. Branding them as 'wrong', or 'unorthodox', or 'heretic', casting them out of participation in the group they wish to control.

 

To say their interpretations are binding to all everyone, and then to push that point in driving out all other 'heresies', shows one thing. They take that whole artificial group-truth and treat it as binding and authoritative over all individuals! Including those in their own group! Thus, religion is born and spirituality is suppressed.

 

I was just reading this this morning in looking at the various differing understandings of transcendence, and just read this that pertains to what you said (spoken of in Christian terms). It is under the category of Religiousless Transcendence. It is a quote from the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer,

 

"Jesus’s “being-for-others” [

Für-andere-dasein

] is the experience of transcendence! Only through this liberation from self, through this “being-for-others” unto death, do omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence come into being. Faith is participating in this being of Jesus. (Becoming human [

Menschwerdung

], cross, resurrection.) Our relationship to God is no “religious” relationship to some highest, most powerful, and best being imaginable—that is no genuine transcendence. Instead, our relationship to God is a new life in “being there for others” [

Dasein-für-andere

], through participation in the being of Jesus. The transcendent is not the infinite, unattainable tasks, but the neighbor within reach in any given situation. God in human form! Not as in oriental religions in animal forms as the monstrous, the chaotic, the remote, the terrifying, but also not in the conceptual forms of the absolute, the metaphysical, the infinite, and so on, either, nor again the Greek god—human form of the “God-human form of the human being in itself.” But rather “the human being for others”! therefore the Crucified One. The human being living out of the transcendent."

 

 

I think this is a quote you may relate to End. I'm looking forward to hearing from the other Christian participant to these thoughts. I'll hopefully make it clearer if its not at this point.

[agnosticator]

Those that are seeing it in largely symbolic ways typically have a hard to having how they operate be appreciated by those still functioning in a concrete-operational way. They simply don't have it in them to think in abstractions that way. They are literal truths, rather than symbolic truths......

....They take that whole artificial group-truth and treat it as binding and authoritative over all individuals! Including those in their own group! Thus, religion is born and spirituality is suppressed.

 

Yes, that is what I would call the problem with Orthodoxy. It's not just an agreement of what they share in beliefs, but it's the usage of beliefs that makes them rigid, confining, and authoritarian.