h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I agree that one individual can't have a corner on understanding the Bible. I once had a Pastor say, "If God is going to reveal His intent for this church to anybody around here, it's going to be me." That definitely got my fur up. Yet there has to be some point at which the reader can go beyond applying experience to their reading and come up with error. A color blind person may say red is green and be mistaken but genuinely seeks to know what the color is. A full-sighted person saying the same thing is choosing error.

Also, how can experience apply when you're talking about heaven, for example, or eternal life? Nothing in me can conceive of not ending. The idea of going on forever, without time, I have nothing in my realm of experience that helps me to understand or apply that concept. Death is an equally obscure concept when applied to myself. I've never done it and can't exactly imagine the process. My experiences are too limited to give me understanding but they give me shadows of understanding. Is that what you're referring to? God fully understands all of the concepts that are in the Bible. (I'm operating on the assumption that God is the author.) Yet my experience limits and colors my comprehension of them far more than God's intent?

"However, I think that we cannot be prescriptive of other people's reading of God through the 'text' because a single reading is going to limit the infinity that is God. And that would be real Hubris!" Yet there still is a need to recognize error in other people's reading of God through the text -- without being prescriptive. You must agree with this or there would be no such thing as heresy, right?

I think we tend to hear about errors more with regard to the Bible because we imbue it with greater importance. Arianism, I would definitely see as a heresy, but as you pointed out there is a very large group of people that deny the deity of Christ. Going back to the deconstructionalist method, I'm guessing the "I Am" verse that I referenced earlier would be meaningless because a deconstructionalist would say, "So what if Christ chose the same words as God used to Moses. He didn't say, 'I am God,' therefore we don't have to agree that he is."

Does deconstructionalism mean that you can't assume meta-themes are introduced by the author?

It is no wonder your fur stood on end when the Pastor (or indeed anybody else) implied that there could be a single, divine intent for that church, perceived by one person and not by the body as a whole. Not least, the claim is gnosis and gnosticism is a heresy in its own right.

This is about the 6th draft of my reply (hence the delay in my posting my reply) - and that gnosis idea maybe the key to unlocking the problem. Simply said, only the entire church through engagement and prayer can decide what God wants. This is because the Holy Spirit is assumed to work through the body of Christ for the body of Christ. If people are inspired by the Spirit that's fine, but the inspiration needs to be discerned (another of the Spirit's gifts) to work out if the idea came from God or little green men. If the idea did come from God, it may still need further work to find out what it means (as opposed to what was experienced).

So how do people experience the inexperiencable. I have no idea. I don't doubt that people experience things that others find difficult to their own experience to. I have probably experienced things that others would find difficult to believe could be experienced (I can't think of any examples of hand but I suppose that they exist). Life outside of time is weird in the extreme. Perhaps this is where the gift of discernment is useful.

The trouble is that absolutism is a perpetual feature of humanity in family life, politics and theology (being a cat you may not have suffered from this problem, so take my word for it). Churches will try and doctrinise (hereticise) things that should definitely be just let be: instead someone's gnosis is forced on others without any sort of agreement thingy.

I can tell you one experience you've had that I haven't -- footy. It must be played in the fall there?

I agree with your opinion on the "understanding" of what God wants. Not that an entire church will always be right about stuff but that a church seeking the leading of the Spirit will be less likely to mess up than an individual who believes they've received a special revelation from God. (Think golden plates of the Angel Moroni... Hear the theme from the Twilight Zone?) I don't mean to discount the gifts but I do think that they are often abused (or pretended).

I am curious about your view on the gifts. I've been in a couple of studies that were intended to help people (and cats) research our gifts. The problem is that different people interpret the Bible differently so one study had the 7 gifts that I tend to think of, but there are others with as many as 27 gifts. In my church tongues (or anything that appears uncontrolled) is really downplayed, to the point that some claim that tongues is no longer a gift. Yet I've heard of instances that I would guess were a genuine gifting of tongues.

Absolutism... You use these big words that I think I know what they mean but then wonder if I'm really following you. You know cats like things simple and spelled out. By absolutism do you mean "my way or the highway" mentality?

Footy is a winter game. It takes 22 weeks for the minor round (round robin) series and then 4 or 5 weeks of knock-out finals. The South Australian Grand Final is on the first weekend in October - i.e. early pickup (if that is the opposite of "fall").

I agree about uncontrolled gifts being discouraged. They have two problems that I can see right now. Firstly, they interfere with the proper ordering of the church (which is good and bad). Secondly, they prevent everybody else really joining in. To to allow everyone to engage, you need strict order, which is unfortunate. I am a fan of using chaotic gifts in small cooperative groups and making big meetings as tame as possible. I am never in charge so this is an untried opinion.

By absolutism I mean that a single idea is true and all other related ideas must be false. It applies to cooking (where sometimes it is true: apparently soufflés must be treated carefully) as easily as to religion. A more pluralistic approach says that one idea is a fair representation of what is true but other ideas can capture other aspects of the true - though maybe to a lesser extent.

To say the speaking in toungues is the only sign of the spirit appears to be absolutist - especially as I know some holy old ladies who probably have never spoken in tounges but have discernment down to a scary degree. On the other hand, to list it as an important sign is more accomidating. One can go entirely pluralist and say one can do whatever feels good and it comes from God. I prefer the middle ground: you may have noticed this previously!

Hi PT. My only exposure to uncontrolled gifts left me very sceptical. It appeared forced and intentional. I just don't think the Spirit is waiting on call for people to decide that now is the moment they want to be filled. When I have seen things that I would call gifts they have been through humble servants whose sole purpose was to serve God most effectively. In some cases I think people were gifted with tongues but the ones that I know of were actual languages not "angelic". I have also seen individuals that I would say were gifted with discernment, some with service and a special few with mercy. (Not me. Mercy is a very weak area for me.)

Absolutism is a common disease. Cats suffer from it too. That's why we rarely get along with strange cats and often why we cause so many problems for our pets. I have found that there are a few absolutes and a lot of preferences. The wisdom is figuring out which is which.

Speaking of cooking... There are only a few absolutes in cooking as well. Not dropping a soufle is definitely a good idea. (Not cooking a soufle is a better one -- they are not in my top 10.) I actually attended cooking school for two years. Cats can do that if they are extremely talented. I then chef'd for a few years. I loved the work but hated the hours. Cats are not big into long days and early mornings. We particularly like to lie about in patches of sunlight, something that rarely appears in busy kitchens.

I will graciously admit that I too have suspicions about those who speak in tongues. The little question that drifts accross my radar is whether speaking in tongues is a substitute for thinking and taking responisibility for one's own prayers. Since I do not doubt the integrity of those of my friends who speak in tongues, I sleep easily at night.

Actually, the first person to raise that question was an active Pentecostal pastor who looked at a church service I was drafting (all of my prayers were stolen from orthodox sources of course). He looked at it lovingly for a bit and then made his comment...

Returning (briefly) to the subject of Arianism, since Arian's don't run with the idea of the Trinity, they can't buy into the idea of the Holy Spirit. I have no idea how they accomodate the gifts. Maybe they use lightly edited versions of the bible (the JWs do I think)?

I don't know how JWs accomodate gifts but I did talk to a Unitarian about it once. (They don't believe in the Trinity either, I guess, at least this guy didn't.) He said that God the Father does everything including give gifts and save. It's a one for all deal. Jesus was just God come to earth. The Spirit is God living in us. All are one God with no separate persons or responsibilities.

At the time I was pretty uncertain of my own thinking so I didn't know what questions I wanted to ask. Now I could think of a few.

What was the Pastor's comment?

That toungues was used as avoidence rather than for egangement with the Spirit. An arguement that I have heard rephrased as shared, pre-written prayers are used as avoidence rather than taking responsibility and making up your own.

Horses for courses I suspect. Just part of the normal pentecostal/non-penty sniping. The reason I found it most interesting was that it was a penty who made the critical comment about the language of Angels.

Hi PT. When I look at prayers (pre-written or otherwise) and tongues (angelic or earthly) my impression is that it isn't about what is said as much as it is about what is meant. I have definitely been guilty of whinging out a prayer that sounded find but my mind was adding an entire subcommentary to the words I said. I've read some prayers, some in scriptures, that I've prayed along with. Others not.

When you said the penta pastor questioned whether liturgical-style prayers and tongues might be used to avoid engaging the Spirit I would say that made up ones can too. Regardless of how you come to what comes out of your mouth what matters is what's in your head and heart.

You've had an opportunity to develop a service? That is cool. I hope you made the most of it. I have had the opportunity to order the "worship service" time, music, prayer, scripture and occasionally drama, but never actually lead it. In my religion gender is a big deal. I've been given more leadership opportunities than most females but would never be given the opportunity to preach or teach adult men. I imagine that it is easier to follow cats than human women but even female cats are verboten in ze pulpit. (Heil!)

Regarding JWs and the gifts. I will have to look into that. I'm curious too. In answer to your question though, yes, they do have their own translation but I'm not sure it is given full credibility even in their own church. Their translation has a great Arianistic twist:

John 1:1 Normal translations - In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.

John 1:1 JW Bible - In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was a god.

Amazing what a little "a" can do.

I cannot really understand why a modern church would prevent men from learning from women. Dogs from cats obviously: since it clear that dogs could teach nothing to cats. Well, I mean, what could dogs teach to anyone... dogs even?

I, like, as I suspect from our conversations, you have been to many study sessions run by men who are perhaps more canine than your feline (or my trading). Which is fine if bones, barking and dinner is what one is thinking about, but if one has moved beyond the basics one can go to sleep very easily just to ignore the barking.

I have never actually led a service, and have no immediate intention of doing so. But I occasionally work on liturgies and bring them up to scratch. I think that a mixture of prepared stuff, silence and off-the-cuff stuff is necessary: it must also be mixture of said stuff, felt stuff and done stuff. The more people you have, the more you need to prepare. Distributing material before hand is good too, since the best prepared stuff (some has been refined in use for millennia) needs to be fully taken on board by everyone. Good worship is a mixture of strength, mind and spirit: doing, thinking and loving: that is, being. The puritans (and protestants) have, since the second century, focused on thinking and the catholics (broad sense) have focused on doing. I like the third way of bringing them together.

My next question might seem offensive (and gets back to the earlier point) but since you seem to be a girl cat, you might know the answer. There seems to be a relationship between having breasts and the ability to do things. For example, I understand by carefully looking around me and listening to how men and women talk to each other (especially in some special places) that having breasts makes one a little slow, not quite there with regard to God and incapable of doing some sorts of things. Why not hair length, tallness or voice pitch? Well, none of these things seem to be consistent. So I am running with the only observable feature here that fits the data. It must be true since no other rational explaintion seems to describe this very this otherwise irrational behaviour (interestingly breasts are meant to make one more irrational than not having them!).

As a girl cat you would have six breasts. Do you feel that that make you three times slower and incapable than a person girl who only has two, and infinitely more incapable than a boy person who has none that I can see and totally irrational? Because if my observation all makes sense then you should be able to take it to this extreme and it will still work! I just wondered weather this was reasonable or if there is something else really going on that can't be rationally explained...

Actually you don't have to answer this. I have traded in this secret many times in people's dreams, principally in younger people's dreams. Some older people still harbour a dream that they will be judged not by the number of the bumps under their tops but by the quality of their characters, for their children and for themselves, in Georgia and elsewhere.



PS: I wish you the best of luck running the service that you want to run if ever you want to run it.

PPS: I hope you don't find my little exercise in absurdism too tasteless.

Gee...And I thought it was what females were missing that caused them to be incompetent. (By the way, males of all [or most] species, humans and cats included, have vestigial breast organs.) And who said anything about my church being modern? I'm pretty sure we'll be celebrating the second coming before a woman preaches to a mixed crowd from our pulpit.

By the way I don't seem to be female, I am. Wouldn't want any ambiguity on that issue. But that got me thinking - you are male aren't you? I can't imagine a footy officiating trader person that writes in your style being female but I guess it's possible.

The idea of mixing stillness with intellectual, emotional and kinetic reponse into a service is very intriguing to me (and very foreign). We sit like bumps on pews, rarely standing, never kneeling, almost never speaking and singing only when prompted by words on a screen. I have it a little better because I serve on the worship team so that means that I get to stand up front and caterwaul into a microphone occasionally - but never speak an original thought.

It's okay. The selection of a church is a tough thing and this one does pretty well overall. I have many opportunities to serve and I have no compelling reason to teach men. I have had the opportunity to teach women and, unfortunately, am inclined to believe your bump theory to be partly true. I hope it was just my experience. My most rewarding teaching experience was to young teenagers (before the girls decided acting dumb was a way to get guys).

By the way, perhaps you've traded in my dream to not be judged by bumps. It is a longstanding one that never totally goes away despite the ever-accumulating years of reality. I was curious what Georgia has to do with anything? I've been there and the bump theory is especially valid in the southern US, not because women aren't bright there but because culturally femininity is defined as tractable and attractive.

Referring to an earlier post. I looked up the JW party line on the Holy Spirit. I guess they teach that the Spirit is an active force rather than a person. As an active force I suppose it could still cause gifts to manifest but gifts were not discussed in the book that I was reading. As a non-person the Holy Spirit is therefore not God or a part of God. There were a few different passages that they interpreted uniquely. If you're interested I can share more of what I learned.

I am definitely male although there are women umpiring very senior grades of (male) footy in Australia. I do have vestigial bumps and apparently I can lactate under stress (never happened to me yet but text books never lie) and they only ever cause short periods of vagueness and irrationality.

At my church the bods in the pews generally stay in one place kneeling, standing and sitting as appropriate (except they approach the holy table for communion unless both of their legs are broken). The exceptions are on Christmas Eve there is a big procession around the church for all of the children (dressed as angels/fairies, shepherds/towel-heads, kings plus a nominated Mary and Joseph). Candle Mass/Presentation of Christ in the Temple (2 Feb) has a tour with candles lighting all of the nooks and crannies. Ash Wednesday everybody comes up for ashes on the head. Palm Sunday (next week) we start half an hour early in the local park, read the gospel, grab hold of some palm trees and walk to church singing hymns - sort of a false start for Easter. Maundy Thursday starts normally but at the end of the service, instead of the bread and wine from communion being finished, they are taken to the small, candle lit chapel sourounded by flowers and the church is stripped of everything that can be moved (and the things which cannot be moved are covered up). Everybody helps in silence and those who want to, go into the chapel fot a vigil for the night until Good Friday.

Good Friday has three services (normally only two at any given church because they are quite long). One is the veneration of the cross which (as we do it, which is a local thing) is a pilgrimage done with Christ: each person, on their own, walks through the church to a place where a cross has been set up (the church is still stipped bare). There they lay down their burdens (kneeling or standing on the tiled floor) before going back to their seat. It takes time (and you get queues) but a lot of people do it. Other churches create a special place for each of the 14 (?) events between the judgement and burial of Christ and visit each in turn with readings, payers, reflexions and hymns. The third service is a three hour reflexion between noon and three pm. Traditionally the theme is the last seven words but it can be anything really - three hours is a long time to sit but it there is a lot of scope for focussing on just being.

Easter has the dawn procession of the new fire (everyone gets a candle lit from the new fire) from outside the front door to inside the darkened church (at 6am). The lights come on for the singing of the Gloria and people renew their baptismal vows in the light of the risen Christ. Afterwards there is breakfast, easter eggs and champagne (which sort of forms the end of the service). A surprising number of people turn up on time for this one: including those who are _always_ late for every other service during the year.

Apart from these, the main services are pretty tame (unless you are up the front and then it is never a dull moment). But there are other exercises such as the giving up something bad up for lent and taking up something good and giving something away to the needy (for me, I drink only water (good for my health, but I eat anything), I am going to finish the Historical Books in the OT (I have two big weeks ahead!), and give an unsolicited cash donation to a specific church cause). Montana Redhead was going to do (not necessarily for lent) the Spiritual Exercises which I reckon is really cool, but you need someone you trust to lead you. I church should include training for Christian doing, just like running training isn't the game (it is harder) but it surely sets you up for unexpected sprints late in the fourth quarter.

The main services in my church most certainly aren't modern! (although women lead them about half the time). There are alternative services and they can get really cool but the music can be really bad.

The Georgia reference was an oblique Marty L. King homage. I find it interesting that bump theory is often taught most vociferously by those who have them. Perhaps it parallels the observation that racial minorities are often include those people who are most racist. Obviously there are non-bumped bump-theorists just has their racially-majoratists who are racist but you expect that, you don't always expect it to be the other way round. If one is a cat who discusses arianism (or are pepared to discuss arianism with a cat), then one is probably has a really cool sense of what life can be.

Sorry, not a lot about arianism in this posting.

Bump theory... I guess I should explain myself a bit further. I definitely do not believe that being female, or acting feminine, in some way makes one less intelligent, rational or capable than our male counterparts. It does make us different. Communication styles, even priorities differ greatly between the genders. Have you ever read "You Just Don't Understand" by Deborah Tannen? She does a great job discussing gender-related communication differences.

Working with teens, I've observed perfectly intelligent girls, when reaching an age where they want boys to notice them, intentionally act flighty, air headed and generally unconcerned with anything other than the boys wishes. They percieve that intelligent, plain speaking girls generally don't get the guy (and they are correct). Younger guys tend to pick girls not because of some life-long attraction to her brain but because of the image of the girl (looks plus fun to be around, etc) with him. By the time guys grow up to where they want a partner to stand beside them rather than an arm ornament girls have so refined their "be what a guy wants" image that they don't even remember how to be emotionally or intellectually honest.

In all-woman groups some still use the be funny and play dumb act to avoid accountability, particularly spiritually. I know only a few Christian women who strive to grow spiritually and in knowledge. Most leave it up to the men-folk to set the standard. It's easier. So yeah, I'm a bit sexist I guess when it comes to women using their God-given abilities - or at least jaded. I see a lot of them settle for a whole lot less than what they can be. Not that guys have it completely together either. I've seen many a man intentionally choose an arm ornament over a partner.

I not speaking of career versus non-career either. I actually know more stay-at-home moms that challenge themselves intellectually than working women. When I meet a woman who stands on her own intellectually (without acting masculine), I am always pleasantly impressed. The line between intellectual freedom and gender aggression is fine. Intellectual freedom doesn't mean giving up femininity but many seem to think it does. I know a few man-eater types that are scary to everyone.

Also, I think spouses play a large role in developing each others' intellect. A husband that encourages a woman to think, read and participate in discussions is more likely to have a wife that is bright, articulate and rational. When its done right marriage is an incredibly beneficial and gratifying partnership.

You description of your church, particularly during this season, sounds beautiful. We have very few traditions in our church. We certainly don't go through all of the reminders that you do to focus believers on Christ. For the first time this year we are going to celebrate communion on Good Friday. Easter Sunday is special in that we have a breakfast first. (An annoyance for me because I have to sing so I don't want to eat a big meal.) Other than that Lent, Ash Wednesday, Maundy Thursday and Palm Sunday are only given cursory acknowledgement. I've tried to teach a rudimentary knowledge to my Sunday School kids over the years because they hear about it from classmates but as a general rule our religion doesn't celebrate any day other than Easter (called Resurrection Sunday).

Sacrificial giving and living is a concept that is taught throughout the year. We are expected to sacrifice continually, not just for Lent. The result is that I don't particularly sacrifice much ever. We choose to practice tithing but at an average American's income level that's hardly sacrificial. I don't know what the Spiritual Exercises are but from the little that I found on Loyola I'm pretty sure that's out of my realm.

Regarding training and doing, our church requires active service for membership. No sitting in a pew like a bump for years at a time. If you aren't serving somewhere you aren't fulfilling Christ's commands for every believer. Service doesn't get you saved but it has everhything to do with living out your salvation.

I understand what you mean by bump theory. I taught at Uni for bit and got very sick and tired of batting eyelashes being used to get me to solve problems. The trouble is that it works and it was that, in some ways, that made me even more annoyed that girls did it. Given the choice between giving time to some 60yo Chinese gentleman who doesn't speak English, has crooked teeth and smells of off-fish sauce and helping a young girl in a tight top who is doing everything to be agreeable, one goes with the bumps. Sad but true.

The same thing happens to boys to. Girls who look for, and will sexually engage with, empty machismo find it. Boys generate it to fill an image and to look cool. I suspect it is just as debilitating but not quite as well understood (at least by me). The number of men I meet who fill a stereotype without any understanding of why they do it is way to high.

I like your idea of marriage. I have a friend whose husband recently died and after a short period was back on her feet (though still a little sad at times). There was a theory floating around that some spice (plural of spouse) spend their time building each other up so that they can live with really a cool person. Obviously there are also marital relationships where one spouse just wants to look cooler than the other (in which case you've got to achieve a lot or keep the pressure on the other person).

If you become like the people who hang with, make sure the person with whom you hang the most is a total frood.

One could possibly apply the same attitudes to church (Christ's bride in some metaphor systems). The froodier Christ is, the more fun church will be. Similarly in Christian relationships, the more you think of the people at church, the better church will be. Excluding women from the preacher's stand becomes way too problematic if one follows this argument. I shall stop using it.

I am surprised that you do not celebrate Pentecost as well as Resurrection Sunday. It, only with Easter, are the two original church celebrations (from day one till about 350CE from memory). It falls exactly 50 days after Easter and those fifty days are the only days in which fasting is not meant to be allowed (for what it is worth).

Talking about tithing in our church is not done. It is considered to be in poor taste. As a result our church is perpetually broke. No way of guessing whose fault that is then. Sacrificial living is actually de-emphasised. The focus has switched entirely to positive models of Christial living. I understand why and I prefer it, but I think that it has gone way to far. Focusing only on sin necessarily passes over the fact that: we have been fogiven; Christ is risen; and we are the body of Chirst (to string three phrases together!). However, I think this can lead to a Determinist position that we are all saved (and we need to do nothing now). I am firmly of the opinion that we can unsave ourselves just as easily as we can stay saved. Hence my Lenten programme (as part of my Christian training). However, most of the cool people I know also do something to suit them and fail to mention it to the leadership.

Do you have to do home groups? Have the congregation where I go are home group refugees. There are some worship leaders and other people who still believe in God, but they also like a quiet life.

I think I ran into a few culture differences in your last post. Sorry to ask for what are probably obvious answers (to you). Frood? Is that really cool? I think Douglas Adams used that in his book and I just assumed that was what it meant but seeing as how I need to decide whether Gordy is the froodiest, I'd better know for certain.

Also, what is a home group? We have in-home Bible studies generally focused on fellowship rather than an effort at understanding scripture but I don't think that was what you were talking about.

Machismo is so very entertaining -- particularly when his arm is adorned with batting eyelashes. Although, in your example I think even I would be inclined to assist the eye batting tight topped missie rather than someone who smelled of fish sauce. Blech. I am not overly fond of fish smells. Imagine if that were to get in my fur? I'd be cleaning for days.

I am a fan of marriage. When a couple strives to live as Christ intended in close relationship with Him and committed to each other there is just nothing better. A few of the Pauline Epistles describe marriage as an earthly mirror of Christ and the church. It isn't completely attainable but it is still better than anything else I've seen or heard about. There are two keys to making it work. First, choose wisely. It is better not to be married than to choose against God's will. Second, be committed - forever. It isn't about how they meet your needs it's about how you can meet theirs. When both of you seek the best for your partner (before yourself) its awesome. Of course it helps to have compatible interests etc., but that's part of choosing wisely.

About the whole women in the pulpit thing, Our church would say that they believe women to be equal to men but different with different responsibilities. Therefore women are not less because they can't preach they are merely different. While I don't agree that the interpretation is culturally current today, I can live with it. They point to the passage where Paul said that he forbids women to teach men, and I can't (don't want to) argue. As far as enjoying the people of my church they are pretty cool as humans go. I'd rather be with them than any other group of humans.

Pentecost is sometimes celebrated in Sunday School with the children. I have never seen an adult celebration on Pentecost in a baptistic church - although we may sing more Spirit-oriented songs that day if the person selecting music thinks of it. In the Methodist church (that I was raised in) they changed the banners for Pentecost. That was it that I can remember. Our church is not big into gifts mainfesting themselves in an uncivilised manner so Pentecost is a bit uncomfortable for some of the more conservative members.

Tithing and sacrificial living are not talked about as much as they are lived out. We did actually have three Sundays dedicated to giving this past January. It was the first time in the four years we've been going there. Pastor de-emphasized tithing and instead stressed God's ownership of everything and our stewardship of what God owns.

Sacrificial living isn't about seeking forgiveness for sins. Its about living a love for Christ. It is definitely not about penance or punishment. Sin ends in repentance (or death) and neither confession or penance are ever discussed between anyone other than the sinner and God. Therefore penance is never heard of and not typically the reason for living sacrificially.

Can a person loose their salvation? The Bible is unclear enough that both positions can be supported and argued. My opinion, that you didn't ask for, is that it is probably possible, but it couldn't happen without you knowing and intending to deny Christ. You wouldn't lose your salvation by failing to observe rules for lent, for example, but you might if you thought that God wasn't worth paying attention to. It is cool that you choose to use the lenten season to push yourself a bit in your faith. We all can use that.

I think we share definitions about froodiness and home groups. I think a frood is someone who is as cool as Ford Prefect thinks he is. Home groups are regularly scheduled intra-church home located social meetings with a scriptural and prayer emphasis (a definition that would take the fun out of almost anything).

To be honest, I am not a big fan of trying to reform churches (despite any impressions I might have been giving). I am way to much into taking a tradition by the scruff of its neck, shaking it and see what interesting things fall out. Tradition is also a really good way of communicating really subtle but important things. There is an ultra-feminist lady who goes to our church on weekday mornings and she changes the responses to match her principles. It just ends up by confusing. I actually agree with most of her points but there is a time and place for imposing a point of view (7:30am isn't it). Most people don't participate in church as avenue for discussing sexual politics. She might argue (who knows, she isn't here) that she can only worship while an integrated person and that by referring to God as "He" or beginning the Lord's Prayer "Our Father", she would severely compromise her personal integrity.

Live and let live is my motto in these situations, and, I am reading, yours. I can't tell someone else how to pray (at a level that is this specific anyway). I am certain God will cope with whatever happens (you don't get to be God if things this small get on your nerves).

We pretend that Pentecost is a big thing but given ignoring the Spirit is the modus operandi for every other day of the year, it seems all a bit silly to me. However, I reckon is better to pay lip service once a year than to let the Spirit be unacknowledged altogether. My church has become so Christ centric that a bit more trinitarianism might not go astray.

I have no doubt that a person can loose their salvation and I have no doubt that a person can gain it (by some mechanism or other). Ezekiel makes the point time and time again. In our case, God is there and the resurection happened. God's grace is with us, but are we with God's grace? I reckon we can reject grace at any time. Which agrees with your point, but rejecting Christ is as easy as rejecting the small children or the lonely or the hungry - which one can do at the same moment one is dressed nicely and preaching to the faithful.

I am curious about what you mean when you say "Sacrificial living isn't about seeking forgiveness for sins". What is religious sacrifice about? I am interested since I have friends who reject the notion of sacrifice because they see it as giving up one thing for to gain another (ultimately, Christ's life for our lives). You seem to give it a more positive meaning.

So Gordy _is_ the froodiest. Cool.

I think our home groups are more fun than yours sound. We generally get together in compatible groups, friends with common interests, and do some Bible study but also joke around chat and usually eat. The one that Gordy (and by default I) facilitates is on marriage building. Ironically the people in the group are all in pretty well-established stable marriages. We'll be finishing that next week. Then its onto teamwork. I'm pretty curious what passages they will use to demonstrate teamwork in marriages. We'll see.

As a product of the reform movement I can see advantages as well as disadvantages to trying to reform churches. Too often we (protestants) throw away the baby with the bathwater. We eliminate all traditions rather than question the value of a tradition. A tradition that I wish we would have kept would be the pagentry of Easter that you described in an earlier post. An example of a tradition that should maybe be questioned is the incorporation of Easter eggs into any allegedly Christian service. Even the name Easter is based in a pagan fertility festival. Hence my church calling it Resurrection Sunday.

The issues between believing in Christ for Salvation vs baptism for salvation is another issue that some reform churches (I think) may take too far. We say baptism is completely unnecessary for salvation - yet Christ commanded it as an act of obedience. On the flip side more traditional churches (Lutheran is a big one in this area) teach that if your parents got your head wetted by a priest when you were an infant you're in like flynn. Obviously that isn't true either.

I think every individual has a responsibility to seek out his relationship with Christ and then find a fellowship and teaching atmosphere that causes that relationship to strengthen and grow. It could be any church.

The Spirit is a big deal in our church as is the Father. We teach children early on that Jesus taught us to pray to the Father. We also teach the role of the Spirit in giving understanding of the Scriptures, intercession during prayer as well as the gifts. The Trinity is pretty strongly emphasized as equal persons but different.

Losing salvation is a subject that we can happily natter on about for years. I slogged through three hours of discussion and opinions on it not long ago. To me it comes down to what a person needs to believe. Some need the assurance that they can not inadvertently mess up and so lose their salvation unintentionally. I think there are plenty of passages that indicate that once saved most are always saved.

The caveat is that some people may think they are saved when they are not. They may have gone through the motions of being a Christian but never really trusted Christ. It's the parable of the sower. Never saved and the world will take away the semblance of salvation.

Others need to believe and remember that they voluntarily accepted Christ (which you defined more specifically as grace) and be reminded that it is a constant, moment by moment activity of living in grace rather than self. To them the idea that they can lose their salvation is tied to the act of living out their faith. A rejection of grace for a moment is sin. (I can't believe that it would result in instantaneous loss of salvation.) A continuing rejection of grace and the desire to live it out would, in their minds, result in a loss of salvation.

You have said that you believe that a person can definitely lose their salvation. A person who believes once saved - always saved, would think that you need to believe that salvation can be lost in part because it helps justify the things you do. He would say that the rules were church inflicted and works-based and call that wrong. (Even though scripture instructs us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Phil 2:12)

You have said in the Determinism post that the once saved-always saved attitude lets a person off the hook (Hermi paraphrase). He makes the big Decision and then goes merrily on his way with no accountability for his future actions. The response to that is that the Bible clearly says that our works will display our faith. So if we don't have works we should question our faith. (Back to the parable of the sower again.)

This all relates to sacrificial living - really. First I'd like to define it. Sacrificial living is giving up things that maybe are okay for a Christian but interfere in my relationship with God.

I think sacrificial living takes on a completely different color when you don't look at it as though there is a possibility that you can lose your salvation. I don't believe it is possible for me to lose my salvation. God forbid, I may reject it. But I don't think I can lose it by failing to act in a certain way. For me sacrificial living is a mindset of God is so cool - my life is so immensely better than it would be without Him - that I want to try to do something to please Him today. A sacrifice might be attempting to give more money or time. On a few days it is merely holding my tongue when I dearly want to growl and hiss. God knows what is a sacrifice better than I do. If something is too easy, I'm probably not living sacrificially. That doesn't mean that everything I do should be difficult. Rather it means that if I'm trying to do something to please God it should take effort.

For example, I've told you that I sing. If I were to never try something difficult, never push myself or never learn new skills I would not be living sacrificially in that area of my life. We have a woman in our church who is very talented but refuses to sing solos. It scares her too much. I think I've been given this talent for a reason. Solos are not comfortable for me either but I need to do them because they are a ministry ability that God has given me. If I'm scared then I had better make sure that I'm so prepared that the music is a familiar friend and it is only the environment that is scary. Is it a sacrifice? The practices aren't. They're fun. But the actual event very much feels like a sacrifice. It is something I would not choose to do if I wasn't concerned about obeying God.

I don't know if that will help you with your friends. If they don't think God is awesomely cool and that He has already given them so much I'm not sure how sacrificial living would be anything other than a drag.

PT, much of what you do seems to be because of your devotion, sometimes to your church, but more often it seems to be because of your love for Christ. When you love someone that way you just naturally want to do things for them. You go to church at least once mid-week. There are plenty of people around you that don't. Why do you if not because you want to express devotion for Christ? I realize that we all tend to put our own spin on what we read. Maybe I'm all wrong about your attitudes but this is what I would guess from your writings.

Whew! This was a long one. Time for a nap in a sun puddle.

Cool post (it is taking me some time to reply to it).

I have never really gone in for home groups. However, I regularly invite people from church around to my house for dinner and occasionally they invite me round to their houses. It is an informal process and probably a bit hit and miss. The other trick is that I and a friend normally go up the street on Sunday's to a cheap pasta place. We often invite visitors to come with us. It isn't the same thing at all but it does constitute Christian fellowship.

I am a big fan of doing things in church. Christ's command at the last supper was to "do this in remembrance of me". Religious meals with the breaking of the bread, special prayers of thanksgiving and a shared cup of wine were commonplace amongst pious jews. So the church I go to is big on "doing this", whatever this is on a particular day. However, the formal religious meal you describe that you describe as part of your home group happens infrequently for me and that probably is a pity.

Your reference to the weeds and the sower is interesting. From God's perspective, a person is either saved or not from before they are born. If one is free of time, as God is, there are no choices and there is no change. Consquently God's saving grace is available to all regardless of their desire to recieve it. God is infinately loving and giving. It is the human condition to choose and to respond. However, it is possible to argue that salvation is not a journey but a single end-point with deceptive behaviours (i.e. we take a God like view): that is one can only be saved, falsely saved or not saved. For us mortals, hindsight tells us which. Or we can argue for a journey view (the humanist view) and say that that all sorts of stuff happens as we travel.

So in one way, people cannot be unsaved from God's perspective because nothing ever changes for God (a big call I know). In a theological debate it is a reasonable view to take and the view held by the world's first Scholar, Augustine (who also authored the theological basis of the later Protestants). But from a standard human perspective which prohibits anticipating hindsight, things change all the time and quite radically.

However, sinning is not the same thing as unsalvating, which is a fair point. The early church (during the period of persecution until Constantine) took apostasy to be rejection of the creed (the effective test was acknowledging the Emporer as a god). Once the persecutions ended, the church gained in control freakery and argued big sins were enough and eventually any heresy could lead to apostasy and excomunication. I think I like the early church definition a lot more.

Firstly, it encourages open membership of the church. Any cat who says the Apostle's Creed can join in. Sin and repentance become ways to humans in their failings to engage in God's grace and forgiveness rather than exclusionary methods of the church.

Secondly, it removes the notion of judgement from the congregation about who they want in and who they want to exclude on the basis of their being a single mother, a thief or a Monty-Python fan. This is a good thing because churhes love engaging in this fundamentalist behaviour given half a chance.

Mind you the creed test was aplied fairly ruthlessly during the early years of the church. If you passed it you were executed before sun set. If you failed it and worshiped the emperor, you were excommunicated for apostasy. It wasn't a win-win for anyone.

Sacrificial living is interesting. Divesting oneself of the empty displays and false values of the world helps one engage with God (semi-quote from a reformation prayerbook). Is it sacrificial? I think that those of my friends who have problems with the notion of sacrifice would say no. To sacrifice would mean that one offers up something of real worth to God who is appeased by the offertory and so does something nice in return. Very OT I know.

I am going to post this now and continue thinking.

I can't reply to your entire post all at once. I want to think about it. But I did want to ask about your friends; If giving something up or acting in obedience rather than self-will isn't sacrifice pleasing to God what is? Even OT sacrifice was about giving things up and acting in obedience. Is it a dodge to keep from sacrificing at all or are they into self-flagellation or other _big_ sacrifices? As far as God offering something nice in return, doesn't grace and mercy constitute "nice" or are they thinking blessing?

Home groups sound so much more formal when you write about them as compared to what they really are. We just hang out, eat and talk about stuff in a generally Christian mien. They aren't formal meals as much as they are snacks. This Easter we will get together with some church families for a formal meal. Even that is simply fellowshipping - not a profound fulfillment of God's intent for His body. Or is it. Now you've got me thinking. (Dang it!)

So... Are you saing God is a determinist? (snicker, snicker)

I can't recite the Apostle's Creed. Not because I don't believe in it but because I just don't have it in any of my stuff. I read it once and thought it would be a cool thing to memorize. I will have to look it up and learn it.