Reform or Freedom?
Is it possible for people to gather in complete freedom? I continue to put this question because it is vital to the freedom of the individual and to the community. I am passionate about exploring this issue. I also think it is crucial that the question remains open because as soon as someone thinks he has the answer the results will be catalogued, published, then legislated.
People get upset over such cartoons as I published earlier to day. Some are upset because they are convinced that the church as it is does need reform… that it must either change or die. Others are upset because they detect an undertone of disdain for the church. I have come to the conclusion that church reform is useless. I appreciate the Protestant principle, the Reformed tradition, its theologians and ideas. But the proposal that the church is reformed and always reforming reflects the endless cycle we are trapped within. It betrays the fallen condition we are not necessarily consigned to as free men and women or as communties. This will not nourish or protect our personal or corporate freedom.
Is there a way we can become entirely free as individuals? Perhaps it isn’t even a “way”, but a reality that is ours which we must instantly realize and enjoy. Then, can free people gather in such a way as to respect one another’s freedom and not impair it, but to give it the opportunity for fullest expression in the context of community? Of course, this implies love, which necessarily implies mutual surrender, sacrifice and service. But can it be done? Can we gather free of designs, visions, plans, goals, purposes, expectations and conformations? Can we gather in love with love itself as the means and the end?
I have not yet seen it on a consistent basis. I have seen glimpses of it. They are beautiful moments beyond words. But these are just momentary states, not a permanent stage as yet.
change, church, expectations, freedom, goals, liberty, nakedpastor, pastor, purposes, reform, religion, spirituality Share This
I think the freedom you seek is not attainable in a church (or anywhere else for that matter) upon this earth.
Our Lord said, “In this world you will have trouble, but be of good cheer for I have overcome the world.”
Because we are simultaneously free(in Christ) and bound(to sin), we will never experience complete freedom in this world.
But the good news is that it (total freedom) has been won for you and someday you will have it.
Whenever we get those glimpes of it, we ought to enjoy it for all it’s worth and be reminded of how it will be…someday.
Don’t questions about freedom demand that we define it? Freedom could mean simply “release”, but more often it means that I/we/they can be or do whatever we want. When freedom becomes “my freedom” it borders on anarchy.
You ask, “Can we gather free of designs, visions, plans, goals, purposes, expectations and conformations? Can we gather in love with love itself as the means and the end?” By asking that question you have created a vision, plan, goal, purpose, expectation and conformation. You have answered your own question with a resounding “no”. I would argue that I don’t believe God ever intended his body to operate that way either. Do I think we need all the man-made constraints that plague most churches? God forbid!
The church, however, should be free to build itself around a quest for God’s vision for their world, plans/goals of working towards it, expectation of change lives and conformation to the will of God. All of this constrained wholly by love.
I see continuous reformation as an embrace of our freedom as individuals and Christian bodies to grow more and more towards God’s ideal, not as a reflection of a lack of freedom.
“Then, can free people gather in such a way as to respect one another’s freedom and not impair it, but to give it the opportunity for fullest expression in the context of community?” (NP)
I am with you 100% in this endeavor - search if you will. I think we are all individuals and that should not impair our personal meeting together as a community - and we should be free to be ‘who we are’.
“Can we gather in love with love itself as the means and the end?” (NP)
That’s a good vision - I am in support of it thoroughly. Faith should be the spark to love and that should be the focus we gain from it. I mean, our whole Christian faith is based on the idea of a person that died for the sake of others - because he loved them. That, in and of itself, speaks volumnes to the kind of focus our character needs to take.
I would also say Jesus was not partial to ‘fitting into the mold’ of the scene of his day - and was truly a reformer in some senses. It wasn’t like this guy was found only in the religious institutions of his day (but he did enjoy going). That should also speak to us about what the scope of community really should be - not some church service or prayer group (although those are fine) - but in the homes of one another as friends and confidants.
I would say that includes a love for the person and what they ‘create’. Some people are gifted artists and that’s grand - but we need to allow even the non-gifted in these areas their moment of importance. I guess I would also like to see a community that appreciates everyone for their input and their ‘being’.
I mean, can’t we adopt a strategy that focuses on the ‘love for one another’ that fulfills/focuses on the mandate of ‘love our neighbor’ - which is impled and stated by both Jesus and Paul as of most importance. As it is, most churches plays some institutional game that is about rules and worship - and does not imply the importance of community and the focus of love in their community (as long as they do the Christian things that’s good).
I am not sure freedom of the individual and community mixes very well. Community presupposes commitment and that means a limiting of my freedom.
If freedom is unboundedness, freedom is nothing but utter loneliness.
I am also not sure that this kind of freedom is the freedom Christ has set us free into. He has liberated us from that which binds us: The powers, sin, our sinfulness, the world, death. But the means by which we attain this freedom is by binding ourselves to Him. We don’t go from boundedness to unboundedness, but from boundedness under that which harm and kill, to boundedness to Him who heals and gives life.
Our former boundedness makes community hard, our new boundedness makes it possible - we are liberated into community.
Our boundedness by Christ gives us the framework, center, vision and mission: We are the body of Christ, gathering around Jesus, dreaming His dream of the Kingdom of God and sharing His mission of living it (in unselfish service to our neighbour), preaching it and modeling it before a watching world.
Daniel: Thanks for your comment. You say: “Community presupposes commitment and that means a limiting of my freedom.” No it doesn’t. Commitment freely given is not a limitation of freedom but the exercising of it. If my freedom is limited involuntarily, then it isn’t really commitment, but slavery. And this is what plagues individuals and communities.
Jon: Welcome to nakedpastor. I appreciate your comment too. If you read back in my blog you see this argument come up again and again, that my insistence that we be free of “vision” is in fact a vision. Like Lincoln said, “My policy is to have no policy.” I’ll concede that point if we understand that adopting the word “vision” is in fact an anti-vision and not vision at all. I’m not trying to imagine or picture or envision what people can be. I endeavor to see what people in fact ARE: free indeed, but enslaved unnecessarily.
I don’t want to pretend to know all about this or fully understand this whole thing. That’s why I think we need to keep putting the question. I think coming up with the answer will kill freedom.
I don’t have anything close to an answer either, but I do think that freedom in relationship and community is somehow related to distinguishing between invitation and demand. I once spent hours with a wise man who was attempting to get me to see and understand the difference between these two things. He was very patient, but, honestly, I still haven’t learned it satisfactorily because it’s really hard to invite something that matters without the invitation crossing that fine line into a demand. At this point in my life I want to be with individuals and communities who are at least trying to learn the art of invitation and attempting to shed the disease of demand.
For example, I’m part of a group which meets once a week. When a particular friend (whom I’m a bit closer to than the rest) isn’t there, I’ve been calling her to see if everything is all right. Even though I am calling from a place of friendly concern (Are you okay, and if not, can I help?), because of how she’s wired and things she’s experienced, she sometimes feels these calls as a demand (How come you weren’t present, as expected, at the appointed time?) So, I guess the appropriate thing is for me to continue caring, but in a way that doesn’t feel intrusive to her.
Invitation and demand.
Intimacy and solitude.
Obligation and freedom.
These are all part of an internal push and pull that can’t be wished away.
All we can do is acknowledge them and act from where we are–
hopefully from a place of love.
sounds like you’re getting it to me ttm
David, my friend,
You wrote: “Is it possible for people to gather in complete freedom?”
—–Some questions that may lead to more dialogue. You asked the questions, Daniel gave an answer, you told him he was wrong {No it doesn’t}, so you must want to discuss this.
Question.
#1. In this gathering {I am assuming you are talking about a Christ following community} in complete freedom, is some one in authority?
#2. In this gathering of community are there any standards of conduct?
#3. In this gathering of community in complete freedom, does anyone have the freedom to be offended by what anyone may say, suggest, do, or don’t do?
#4. In the gathering of the community of freedom, if you put a cartoon on the wall do I have the freedom to be offended by it? Do I have the freedom to paint over it? Now what?
#5. In your freedom of community, do I have the right to tell someone they are wrong in what they are teaching?
#6. In this community of freedom, will I be allowed to have the freedom to have “designs, visions, plans, goals, purposes, expectations?”
#7. In this community of freedom, is there such a concept as sin?
#8. In this community of freedom, are there such a thing as morals, ethics, and standards–and if yes, what are they based upon?
#9. In this community of freedom, do I have the right, and I might say obligation to point out sin in the community?
#10. And in this community of freedom, do I have the freedom to say and do anything I want to do? And if not, who is it that limits that freedom?
These are simple questions, and I ask them because Jon is correct when he said: “Don’t questions about freedom demand that we define it?”
I/we need to understand your concept [hopefully biblical], so we can make a intellectual and conscience decision to join the community of freedom you propose.
Of course you have the freedom to throw out your questions, but not reply to our questions about about them. Is that the freedom of community you are proposing?
Oops, I noticed however, you do use your freedom to tell Daniel he was wrong? That does help with understanding a little about your idea of community freedom. It is ok to tell someone they are wrong–but I wonder if that means I can tell someone of my community that the painting they put upon the community wall, sucks. Must be ok, cause the principle of telling someone they are wrong seems to be about the same as telling them their art sucks.
fishon
I believe it is possible.
Reality is a good thing. Not because it’s nice, or fun, or happy, but because it keeps our feet on the ground. It keeps us where we ought be instead of allowing us to rise above the limits of our own creaturliness.
” In this life there is no rest, no peace, no victory.”
- Martin Luther
Now that’s reality. Deal with it.
Christ will help you deal with it and help you to realize that thi reality is not the ultimate reality. Much better is coming…but not here.
Steve: Luther did indeed say, ” In this life there is no rest, no peace, no victory.” In a way, I agree with this. However, does this mean that we consign ourselves to this? Or do we try to press into the question and understand the truth that we are a people of rest, that we have been given peace, and that we are more than conquerors in this life also? I’m not willing to give up on this.
Fishon: Freedom of course includes dialog and exploring together. I am free to say I think you are wrong and you are free to tell me I am wrong. This is not abusive. And to challenge a proposition as true or not is vastly different than our personal opinions about art.
David,
If you’re asking “Can we gather free? Can we gather in love?” with any expectation of it being on some sort of permanent basis, I’m afraid I believe the answer is “No”. You answer your own question when you speak of our attempts for church reform betraying our” fallen condition”. While I do believe Christ to have delivered from that latter term by reconnecting us to the Father via the Holy Spirit, I’ve also found that such restoration changes us only in as much as we are willing to surrender unto that inner “Reality” who now indwells us. In other words, any alteration to who we are as a people, whether individually or corporately, is not experienced by us “on a consistent basis”, but merely in those times when we remember it is not achieved through some attempt to “reform” the Church or, for that matter, ourselves, and sit down beside the oasis for awhile with Him. Life remains life. People remain people. God remains God. The interrogative is only whether we want “religion” or a drink from the Well….
Just my opinon, of course, and you are very right about “catalogued, published, and legislated”. We argue over words, instead of opening our ears to sit at His feet…
David,
I was hoping and am disappointed that you didn’t answer my questions. To answer them would have helped me, considerably, in understanding your concept of “freedom.” I don’t know if you are speaking of freedom as the World defines it, which of course comes in many flavors, or if you speak of ‘biblical freedom,’ which too comes in many flavors–or is your definition of “freedom” is a combination of both?
Since you have not answered my questions, I will break it down to three questions. Hopefully you will answer them.
#1. In this gathering {I am assuming you are talking about a Christ following community} in complete freedom, is some one in authority?
#2. If so, who?
#3. You write: Can we gather free of designs, visions, plans, goals, purposes, expectations and conformations?
—-Is freedom in the community lost if someone of the community suddenly has designs, vision, plans, goals, purposes, expetations and expresses them and moves on them?
fishon
“#1. In this gathering {I am assuming you are talking about a Christ following community} in complete freedom, is some one in authority?” (Fishon)
If he said God, would that count? And does that mean, because God is in charge, that none of us should be incharge of another?
“#3. You write: Can we gather free of designs, visions, plans, goals, purposes, expectations and conformations?” (Fishon)
If the goal is freedom from the rigidity of those concepts - then isn’t freedom in and of itself a goal/purpose/vision/misson wrapped into one concept? Question #3 is quite the no-brainer because this will of course exist no matter what the institution or gathering - but the schematics need not be greater than the living of the ideal (ie: freedom - to be who we were created to be).
Your idea about painting over the drawing is actually counter-intuitive - it’s restricting you not the drawer. You are stating to yourself ‘I cannot stand this so I must erase it’ - imposing limits to your’s (and anothers) freedom in the process. So if you think painting over the cartoon is freedom - explain it to me so I can relate to what’s so ‘freeing’ about it?
freedom has with it obligations. freedom is a paradox. my freedom comes at a cost. i my surrender all of me to christ. so i am only free if i make myself a slave to Him.
i am free in christ.
all things are permissible but not all things are good for me. my freedom allows me to over eat, not exercise, drink beer, smoke my pipe, play cards, shoot pool, and watch “r” rated movies. there are individuals in the church community i belong to that pray for me on a daily basis because they see my freedom as bondage to “worldly” things. i see them as not being “free”.
But, through the love and sacrafice of christ i am free and so are they. i am able to love them as they are (fellow children of the Father). i believe that true freedom only comes from servitude to christ.
SocietyVs,
YOU: If he said God, would that count? And does that mean, because God is in charge, that none of us should be incharge of another?
—–I was hoping that would be his answer.
—–Nope, somebody has to be in authority.
YOU: If the goal is freedom from the rigidity of those concepts - then isn’t freedom in and of itself a goal/purpose/vision/misson wrapped into one concept?
—–Oh, yes. But apparently David doesn’t see it that way. See his responce to Jon.
YOU: Question #3 is quite the no-brainer because this will of course exist no matter what the institution or gathering….”
—–Exactly. But again, David seems to be arguing against it.
YOU: Your idea about painting over the drawing is actually counter-intuitive
—–I don’t have the faintest idea what you mean, “counter-intuitive.”
YOU: it’s restricting you not the drawer
—–How? What way? —-Now you are an authority on what ‘restricts’ me???
YOU: You are stating to yourself ‘I cannot stand this so I must erase it’ - imposing limits to your’s (and anothers) freedom in the process.
—–There you go, putting words into what I wrote. I didn’t say I “cannot stand” the cartoon. I said “offended.”
—–Imposing limits on your’s [myself]. What a crock. That’s like saying I don’t like to eat snails, so I am imposing limits on myself. By the way, I do impose many limits on myself, and it saves me from much grief.
—–And SocietyVs, by the form of your question, I am guessing that you assumed that the person who drew the cartoon on the wall had permission? But you see, in forming the question #4 to David, the artist didn’t have permission, but drew on the wall at his/her whim. I enjoyed the bare wall. Did not the artist take away my freedom of enjoyment by imposing his/her expression upon me? Did not the artist not consider my taste, or does my tastes not count in this community of freedom?
YOU: So if you think painting over the cartoon is freedom - explain it to me so I can relate to what’s so ‘freeing’ about it?
—–Again, you assume the artist had permission.
—–In this community of freedom, who owns the wall? And if the artist uses his/her freedom to draw on the community wall just because he/she wants to, why not me painting the wall?
—–Oh yes, so confussing. David throws out these concepts, but does not give much information about them, and we are left to guess and debate what he means. EXAMPLE: You asked me, “…explain it to me so I can relate to what’s so ‘freeing’ about it?”
—–I don’t know what your concept of freedom [freeing] is. You see, I don’t think you and I have the same concept of freedom; therefore, what ever I answer you may well be unsatisfactory to you. You already made it clear that I am imposing limits on my freedom by erasing [painting over the drawing. And I say, “hogwash.” Two different opinions right there, my friend.
fishon
the biggest mistake the Reformed Tradition ever made was putting an “ed” at the end of Reform. If we understood it as a constant evolving and adapting entity instead of thinking that our doctrines and systems are perfectly suited, then maybe we wouldn’t be having this conversation. we’d expect change (like any ration and sane person would).
“I have not yet seen it on a consistent basis. I have seen glimpses of it. They are beautiful moments beyond words. But these are just momentary states, not a permanent stage as yet”
maybe that’s all we get are glimpses. some of us will just see the system and rely on it and fight to the death to defend it. others will see through the system to the purpose, and be free from it. (it all goes back to the Matrix i guess, some fight to end other to defend, red pill vs. blue pill people).
I think we end up in semantics. In your reply to my comment you say that commitment freely given is not limiting my freedom, but the exercising of it. Then I don’t understand your concept of freedom. In my world commitment is limiting of freedom in that it is a choice; I choose these people for better and worse, and in doing that I am no longer free to choose that which is opposed to the choice I have made.
You seem to suggest that if I choose freely then I am still free. To me that is just Orwellian new speak - if I freely sell my self into slavery; am I then still free?
In making individual freedom the highest good of our culture, I don’t think we have produced free people, but autonomous individuals. In some parts of Sweden 85% of the households are made up of one person. They haven’t chosen to commit, therefore they are - technically - free. It is also called lonely.
” In some parts of Sweden 85% of the households are made up of one person.” Daniel
interesting statistic.. where’s it from?
Daniel: In making individual freedom the highest good of our culture, I don’t think we have produced free people, but autonomous individuals… It is also called lonely.
I agree. Thanks, Shelley
“Nope, somebody has to be in authority” (Fishon)
Okay, someone can be in authority. The question then becomes – how does this authority look and act? Is it a mentoring/relational type of figure or someone ‘who says abc and everyone jumps to do it’? I don’t think dictators in authority truly work – but maybe the other end is also a little too loose?
“How? What way? —-Now you are an authority on what ‘restricts’ me???” (Fishon)
You are the authority on what restricts you fishon – that was the whole point! Someone paints something on the wall – then you come by and erase it because it’s not your forte. Well, you erased (action) the painting because of your personal opinion about the painting – you made a conscious choice there to ‘restrict yourself’ about being open about/to this painting and where it was located. That much is a fact about human behaviour – we choose to like or dislike something – and this in turn develops our tastes and restrictions (same could be said for food).
“I do impose many limits on myself, and it saves me from much grief.” (Fishon)
I actually have no problem with limits – I also impose them upon myself. These limits we are discussing could be about any old thing – one’s art, music, tattoo’s, skateboarding, food, drink, etc. We’d all be lying if none of us said we didn’t develop some reasonable limits in regards to all areas…but what is at the crux of the argument here is being open to another’s freedoms on any said subject.
For example, I remember when I saw the art exhibit ‘piss Christ’ for the first time – I was absolutely appalled at the use of the crucifix in a glass of pee (as art). As time went by that image always stuck with me and the point being made – and I realized I was over-reacting concerning the art exhibit (many years later). The point was not the image being seen – but the message being sent. But I only got there by opening my mind and considering dialogue on the issue.
“Did not the artist not consider my taste, or does my tastes not count in this community of freedom?” (Fishon)
If the artist wrote without permission then that needs to be taken up in community – whether it stays or goes. But if the afixed standard was already ‘do not write on this wall’ – then the culprit broke the rules and the painting should go. I figured the person had the right to the wall (as with anyone else) – my bad.
“why not me painting the wall?” (Fishon)
I have an experiment for you – to test this very thing out. Why don’t you designate a wall in the church somewhere (or outside the church) for all people in the congregation to paint or draw what they want to on there (including yourself). Give them an absolute freedom of expression to draw and paint whatever – for an affixed period of time (say 60 days). When the mural is finished go back to it and have the whole congregation decide on what stays (and why) and what goes (and why)? Then develop a church discussion around the whole thing so everyone’s side is heard. Point being – let’s find out how free these people really are one with another.
SocietyVs,
YOU: Well, you erased (action) the painting because of your personal opinion about the painting – you made a conscious choice there to ‘restrict yourself’ about being open about/to this painting and where it was located.
—–Restrict myself! That is so much garbage. Being open has nothing to do with my like or dislikes. And if that would happen to be true, then EVERYONE restricts themselve, so it is no big deal or problem. It would be natural and normal–so if I am restricting myself, Horaay, I am normal.
YOU: I saw the art exhibit ‘piss Christ’… But I only got there by opening my mind and considering dialogue on the issue.
—–Oh yea, and ‘open mind’ is a lovely thing to behold. Practicing homosexuality is now not a sin to the open minded Christian. Porn is now not a sin to the open minded Christian. Abortion is now not a sin to the open minded Christian. Adultry in now not a sin to the open minded Christian. Jesus is now NOT the only way to the Father to the open minded Christian. You enjoy the ‘piss Christ,’ me, I’ll just paint over it in my ‘restricted’ mind.
YOU: I figured the person had the right to the wall (as with anyone else)
—–Why would you assume that?
The experment: The problem with your suggestion is that you are suggesting that when the time comes to decide what stays and what goes, that will expose the lack of, what I believe you would characterize, as true freedom, because some things are going to go.
However, in reference to the original discussion of freedom of community {Christian} the author and finisher of our faith put limits on our freedom. The head of the Church did NOT call us to a freedom from limitations or a freedom from does and don’t, but to a freedom from the penalty of sin.
As far as the experiment, I was a part of an Eldership that was approached by the Youth group seeking permission to paint their youth room. The little buggers asked us if they could paint it any color and way they wanted. We said they could, but we took some of their freedom away by declaring that they could paint it any way they wanted, except they could not paint the whole thing black. No problem. So they painted it and invited us in. We should have let them paint it all black. It was the ugliest thing we had ever seen. There were colors on the wall I didn’t even know exisited. We said not a word, and as far as I know, it is still ugly.
And no, I will not do the experment. No need to cause hurt feelings. You see, we are not as ‘open minded’ as you are. And besides, we have come close to your experment already. We painted the sancturay and the women told us men, we DID NOT have a vote———now how is that for restricting freedom? Interestingly, not a one of us guys complained about not getting a say. And by the way, very unimaginative color scheme was chosen. But mum is the word.
fishon
When someone posits the possibility of freedom, why is it that one of the first questions raised is, “Well who’s going to control it?” My community is not as free as it really is yet. So I don’t raise us up as an example. I will raise us up as an example of people who are trying to see what freedom, individual and corporate, looks like.
True freedom, I would suggest, would not abuse another person or their property, or other people or the environment. Including art. I think it is pointless and arrogant to control taste.
nakedpastor: But isn’t that just the old humanist/modernist dream? That free people are good people - that people not bound by authority, norms or systems will make good choices and form good communities spontaneously? Two world wars breaking out at the centre of modernist civilization taught us better. People not bound by authority, norms or systems are still sinful and egoistic. For me the question is not whether we should have leadership, structures, norms and systems, but what leadership, structures, norms and structures are best fitted to control sin and egoism, so that community can flourish.
I vote for a low key servant leadership in a democratic system, structures that help us focus on the right stuff without dictating what should happen, and conserning norms, I prefer values before rules.
David,
YOU: “True freedom, I would suggest, would not abuse another person or their property, or other people or the environment.”
—–David, you make so many idealistic, wonderful statements, and wrap them around the word “freedom.” Then you leave the rest of us to battle/debate them, and all the while you give no solutions to legitamate questions that your statements and questions posse. That drives me wild.
—–Here is a question that involves part of your statement I quoted above. Where I live, Power Companies have put up about 500 huge wind mill tower in the upper end of the Columbia River gorge. They were put up under the guise of helping the overall enviormental situation. Now a power company wants to put them up in a place that will take away from the view of hundreds of people from a pristine view of Mt. Hood. Those people say that the towers will ruin the enviorment, which includes a view of Hood. Much like the fact, we wouldn’t put up wind towers on Mt. Rushmore, or place them around Old Faithful because of the visual, enviormental impact.
So, David, in “True freedom” of “…not abuse[ing] another person or their property, or other people or the environment,” what might your solution be? Some one has to make a decision, and in your senario of “true freedom,” someones freedom is going to be taken away. That is, unless you do have the answer to the battle that rages over the towers. The battle is real, it is not a hypothetical.
fishon
fishon:
i’m sorry to upset you. but i’m convinced that if we set people free first, or rather allow them the freedom that is theirs, or rather acknowledge their freedom, that is enough for now. THEN maybe we can deal with the consequences. about the defacing of nature… it is obvious when someone uses their freedom to abuse or enslave others, then there isn’t really freedom. they are bound by greed or whatever. and we are free to protest.
David,
Oh, you haven’t upset me. But you do drive me crazy, sometimes. Big difference. As for the rest of what you said, well you talk a good talk, but you don’t take responciblity for what you say when you duck my and others questions. What you said in the above statement is just going in circles.
You seem to have a big dream, but you don’t say how to get there. You keep saying “Freedom, freedom, freedom,” but you won’t define it, and you won’t answer, maybe can’t answer, a simple real problem.
You made the statement: “True freedom, I would suggest, would not abuse another person or their property, or other people or the environment.” Theory is one thing, taking care of and solving a problem is another. You constantly throw out theory, but don’t give solutions.
fishon
“Being open has nothing to do with my like or dislikes” (Fishon)
Let me ask you something, were you born a Christian or was this a conscious choice you made at some point in life? Now why pick this Christian faith - unless - you liked it (even when you may have disliked it at one point)? Your open-ness towards the faith actually was part of the process of ‘becoming a Christian’. Sometimes being ‘open’ is just as normal as being ‘right’.
“Oh yea, and ‘open mind’ is a lovely thing to behold” (Fishon)
It’s true their is problems with being ‘too open’ - but I would also say there is also a problem with being too ‘close minded’ on an issue. Some of the people in religious groups who are so sure they are right actually committ actions so anti-religious it makes one wonder how they got there…and it was actually quite easy - they figured it all out. From the klan’s popularity in the 1920’s to abortion doctor shootings - those people all committed atrocities in the name of God - and they were so ‘close minded’ to think they were doing ‘right’. I don’t fear an open mind - what is scary is one that gets too closed.
“The problem with your suggestion is that you are suggesting that when the time comes to decide what stays and what goes, that will expose the lack of, what I believe you would characterize, as true freedom, because some things are going to go.” (Fishon)
Possibly, but they all had 60 days to express themselves as best they saw - true freedom is restricted by the community (and sometimes for good reason). But when I mean freedom - I mean in it in the way ‘each of us relate to God’ - and I think we have to be open to the idea this is gonna be a lot different from person to person.
“The head of the Church did NOT call us to a freedom from limitations or a freedom from does and don’t, but to a freedom from the penalty of sin” (Fishon)
Does not sin result in death? If we are free from death - how come we still die? Free from sin - or maybe just the abilities?
I would debate the freedom we have been given is about following the intents of the Law and not just the logistics of it - and that’s freeing. Thous shalt not murder - says nothing about anger - but Jesus asks us to even deal with that attitude (which is different for each person)…and a good freedom comes from seeing the usefulness of these things. This is also something we should do when we look at teachings like ‘God is love’ - which says nothing about how we treat one another - but obviously points us in the direction of compassion.
I get David’s vision but only because when I attend church I know that my views and ideas are different than the majority - and I think that’s okay. I am free in the fact that I do not have to be like the majority to follow God - I can be me with God (as much as I am not the accepted norm and all in Christian circles).
But I know the church will restrict me for as long as I live and breath - I am not like the norm they expect of a ‘great Christian’ - and that also sucks. I know I have a gift for leadership of some sort - my personal opinion is this will never be realized again in the church environment - because of theological differences alone. So I take my gifts outside the church - where they are most likely needed anyways - and help out there in my local community. But I would love to speak my peace about what I have learned in my faith with the church - but maybe God has ‘cut the strings on that idea’?
So how can I truly be free when where I want to be free I am restricted? That’s the whole point of this dialogue and I think it worth looking into with some real depth - and not just for some ‘routine answers’ to the question - there aren’t any good ones.