Commentary

by Seven 51 Replies latest jw friends

  • Seven
    Seven

    Who's demanding? Faith in ourselves has superseded faith in God
    *
    Early in the 19th century, disputing the religious dogmatism of the Puritans, Ralph Waldo Emerson preached that "it is by yourself without ambassador that God speaks to you. ...It is God in you that responds to God without." With notable exceptions, this is the faith of most Americans at the millennium. It is a private faith-incommunicable, and sentimental, unanchored by Scripture, creed or doctrine, and buttressed only by the latest personal revelation. God is not dead, as naysayers claimed in the 1960's. Rather he has been absorbed and domesticated by individual believers. How did this come to pass? With the notable exception of the Evangelical and Catholic churches, traditional Christianity has become accustomes since the Enlightenment to accommodating the prevailing secular culture. Also known as the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment
    began in the 18th century to interpret human existance in terms contrary to religion. In the words of Harvard historian Crane Brinton, the basic idea of the Enlightenment was the "belief that all human beings can attain here on earth a state of perfection hitherto in the West thought to be possible only for Christians in a state of grace, and for them only after death." The Rationalists aimed at more than simply releasing mankind from superstition. They meant to free him from belief in, and responsibility to a demanding God. University of Wisconsin historian Thomas C. Reeves identifies the Enlightenment as a secular religion in which pride(for Christians the worst of the seven deadly sins)has been transformed into the principal virtue. Centuries earlier, the reformer Marin Luther reviled reason as the devil's harlot. For Christians the self has always been the problem. It must be denied and mastered by repentance, humility, and reliance on God. Happily, our nation profited from founding fathers who balanced both Christian and Enlightenment thinking. In retrospect, they may have been too optimistic about human nature, but optimism suited the New World and motivated our forebears. At the same time, the founders believed in an ordered universe, and they inherited from the Pilgrims a sense of divine destiny for this land. That was all to the good. Unfortunately, the Enlightenment planted a seed that would grow into secular humanism, requiring the churches to choose whether to accommodate pride as a virtue or to resist it as a vice. Apparently, pride has conquered humility. In the mainline churches at the millennium there is more talk of self-esteem than of human frailty, and practically no mention of sin. Not long ago, when Harold Kushner, a rabbi, wrote a best-selling book
    whose tile asked the question "How Good Do We Have to Be," he answered that guilt feelings and inadequacy, not pride, are our downfall. Faith in ourselves has become the alternative to faith in God.-David Yount,Scripps Howard News Service

    Edited by - sevenofnine on 14 October 2000 22:4:25

    Edited by - sevenofnine on 15 October 2000 11:34:7

  • Frenchy
    Frenchy

    Very interesting commentary.

    Marin Luther reviled reason as the devil's harlot


    ----

    Ralph Waldo Emerson preached that "it is by yourself without ambassador that God speaks to you.


    The two ends of the spectrum. The first statement is reminiscent of WTS teaching to guard against 'independent thinking' while the latter seems to indicate a 'free for all' approach. Can God exist divided? What about Eph 4:4,5? Yet on the other hand who really does have the truth? Who can speak for God to us?

    -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

  • Seven
    Seven

    Frenchy, Can God exist divided? Or can we
    as a new fellowship of persons-the church, the body of Christ(God's eternal purpose)exist divided? In Ephesians, modern denominations were unknown. The new fellowship constituting a new man, the true Israel of God consisting of all the people of Christ, not a nation, a race of people or a certain doctine, imo does not exist today. Is
    it any wonder, as the commentary stated that faith
    in ourselves has become an alternative to faith in God? Who can speak for God to us? "The kingdom of God is within you." Those whose lives are guided by Jesus' example, who follow him and believe in him as our saviour already have a share
    in his kingdom. An interpreter is not necessary.
    Seven

  • Frenchy
    Frenchy

    I have always been perplexed about the short life span of first century Christianity. It appears that it was doomed from the start. Paul talked about the great apostasy that would shortly take place. I can't help but reason that what has happened to Christianity was what was intended to happen.
    There is definitely a movement away from established, traditional religion (Catholocism, etc.) to a more 'tolerant' system of belief. The parameters of what is acceptable belief are getting wider in a range of religions.
    Personally I believe that a religion should be a forum for learning about God and his purposes rather than a school for teaching the R&F doctrine. Until someone convinces me that God is communicating with them exclusively I will continue to make an effort to understand things on my own.
    Good to hear from you Seven. Hope you are doing well.

    -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

  • AhHah
    AhHah

    Seven,

    I really enjoyed the David Yount quote above.

    The kingdom of God is within you." Those whose lives are guided by Jesus' example, who follow him and believe in him as our saviour already have a share in his kingdom. An interpreter is not necessary.

    If that is true, where do non-Christians belong in respect to God's kingdom, if it is within us? Or is God's kingdom only within the Christian?

    Edited by - AhHAh on 15 October 2000 17:54:5

  • Seven
    Seven

    Frenchy, Yes, there seems to be a definite moving away from traditional religion and structured forms of worship. Small groups of believers are forming what others refer to as home churches. They meet weekly to discuss topics of a religious nature much as we do here. I'm in agreement with your thoughts on religion being a forum for learning and exploring about God and his purposes rather than being spoon-fed doctrine. I'm enjoying this time alone with God and the free communication. Btw, I'm doing well, thanks for asking.
    *
    AhHah, Where do non-Christians belong in respect to God's kingdom? We both can no doubt
    site many scriptures from both Hebrew and Greek scriptures describing attendance in God's house as a duty, delightful pleasure and spiritual privilege. Are we missing much of the enjoyment of spiritual life and growth by being singular Christians? Are we shirking our command to spread the gospel and forsaking the assembling of ourselves together in God's house? I say no, if all I see is hypocrisy. Returning to your question, I don't know where non-Christians stand in respect to God's kingdom. I know of non-believers with a very strong moral sense, who hold
    themselves responsible for obeying their own consciences. Your conscience will approve or condemn according as one has or has not done what he believes to be right. I see the only way out of any form of spiritual darkness is to have a firm faith. Mine happens to be in Jesus.

  • AhHah
    AhHah

    Seven,

    Well said. I agree and I respect your faith. If only all religious people were so respectful of differences in belief!

  • MDS
    MDS

    Hi Frenchy:

    Personally I believe that a religion should be a forum for learning about God and his purposes rather than a school for teaching the R&F doctrine. Until someone convinces me that God is communicating with them exclusively I will continue to make an effort to understand things on my own.

    What would convince you of this?

    Any particular type of evidence?

    MDS

    Edited by - MDS on 19 October 2000 17:5:18

  • Frenchy
    Frenchy

    MDS:

    What would convince you of this? Any particular type of evidence?

    Well there's always the fire from heaven thing. That's pretty impressive. Seriously, however, I do not believe any other single act would do it. I believe that to claim to be God's exclusive representative requires extraordinary proof. It is, after all, an extraordinary claim. I quote Matt 7: 21:

    22 Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?' And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness.

    You see just a sprinkling of powerful works is still not sufficient. I repeat: Extraordinary claims require extraordiary proofs. I would however be willing to look at what someone making that claim is offering as proof. I would first of all expect complete openess and honesty. Facts without subterfuge, frank answers not shrouded in double meanings, and absolute candor.
    That's all.

    -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

  • MDS
    MDS

    Frenchy:

    . I would first of all expect complete openess and honesty. Facts without subterfuge, frank answers not shrouded in double meanings, and absolute candor.

    What if he spoke in constant parables, illustrations, like Jesus? Spoke only of the "mysteries of the Kingdom of God" and that true understanding of such, "had to be granted from God," first, before one could and would begin to understand God's will for that person, and so on...What then?

    MDS

    Edited by - MDs on 20 October 2000 10:38:14

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit