Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Pretty much off-the-cuff reply...

I believe that they weren't in any sense reforming or revolutionizing
their society, as I usually think of a reformer or a revolutionary.  I
see them as sort of helping the Holy Spirit to give birth to new people.
Sort of re-generating the society, but as a by-product of the real work,
re-generating souls.

-Steve

.0> Were Jesus and his followers reformers or revolutionaries (or something
.0> else)?

heck yes, they _must_have_ been revolutionaries! 

were they not against the ruling (religious) establishment? 
did they not appeal to everyone, especially to those who had previously 
been left out by the establishment (ie. non-jews)? 
did they not proclaim equality for all?
did the revolutionary spark, once it was assumed by the establishment,
not go stale by turning into doctrine?

imo, anyone who's really following jesus christ has gota be a revolutionary! :-)


andreas.

.2 DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have"

>>did they not proclaim equality for all?

Actually, they didn't. They proclaimed equality for all that agreed with them.

Steve

    Jesus was very Revolutionary.
    
    He extended his ministry to the hated samaritans as well as the Judean.
    He dared to talk alone with women.
    He called for a radical commitment.  An abandoning of all preconceived
    loyalties to follow him.
    
    Paul also is revolutionary.  All things are indeed lawful to the person
    who is in Jesus Christ.
    
    Unfortunately by the time of "Timothy" and "Titus" we get the
    institutionalized hierarchical reactionary church organization.
    
    
                                 Patricia

    
    .0 something else altogether.
    
    Before Jesus, God had never walked incarnate into the world of men.  It
    is very low-minded to think of Jesus Christ as a reformer or a
    revolutionary.  He is God, the Alpha and Omega.  His entrance cannot be
    defined in such simplistic terms as we use to describe events or types.
    
    But if we insist, He did fulfill every aspect of the Mosaic Law
    perfectly.  He did point out the hypocrisy  of the religious leaders
    but this doesn't make Him revolutionary in my opinion.  He was always
    illustrating the truth of the Scriptures and their actual meaning to
    those who had perverted them terribly.  He was perceived as a teacher
    by many of the leaders and the common folks which invokes a more
    accurate picture of his style.  
    
    jeff

    I would say there were both reformist and revolutionary elements
    about the early Christian movement.  And if we're so graced, there
    still are.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    
    (last -2)
    
    To label Jesus in anyway (using our finite english) will not truly
    identify His Righteous Character. Jesus was everything Including
    a reformist and a revolutionist. But he was much much more. I think
    everyone agrees with that. To label Jesus tends to limit Him.
    Also we as Christians should try to avoid labeling ourselves as well.
    
    Bruce  

    
    labels are effective sometimes.  it is completely appropriate to call
    myself what God has called me - a sinner worthy of eternal damnation. 
    It is also appropriate to label myself a saint - saved by the grace of
    God in Jesus Christ to eternal life with God Himself!
    
    Jesus labeled Himself repeatedly and the Scriptures labeled Him.  He
    has many names which define His character - Prince of Peace, Counselor,
    Great Physician, etc.
    
    Labels are important for they tell us things about their subjects.  Too
    bad the word (and many others) have been co-opted by an unbelieving
    society dedicated to a lie instead of the truth.
    
    jeff

.4 POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am"

    Paul also is revolutionary.  All things are indeed lawful to the person
    who is in Jesus Christ.

Patricia,

What do you mean by this, that Christians cannot break the law, by definition?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.7 DNEAST::MALCOLM_BRUC
 Title:  Jesus was more

    Jesus was everything Including
    a reformist and a revolutionist. But he was much much more. I think
    everyone agrees with that.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oh, I don't think so... :^)

Steve

    
    -last 
    Steve, you don't think Jesus was more than just a reformer or
    revolutionist?
    
    Sorry to hear that.
    
    Bruce
    

    re -1
    
    That statement is a paraphrase of Paul in 1 Corinthian.  the context is
    in answering a question regarding whether it is lawful for Christians
    to eat meat sacrificed to idols.  When meat was sacrificed a portion of
    the animal went to the temple and the rest was available for sale in
    the Marketplace.  Most meat available for sale was sacrificed.
    
    What I think Paul means is that if we are in Christ, we look to Christ
    for guidance in everything we do, and therefore we do not need laws. 
    We instinctively know what is right and wrong.
    
    He further goes on to say, that if we think it wrong, then it is wrong. 
    If I think it is wrong to eat meat sacrificed to animal's then it is
    wrong.  Further, if our eating meat sacrificed to animal's will
    encourage others who think it wrong to eat it, then we should not eat
    it.  We should not do anything that would tempt another to sin.
    
    Now the meat sacrificed to animal's is a cultural example.
    
    A better example for today may be sexual practices.  For instance, a
    Christian who is gay, in a healthy relationship with another person,
    knows in their heart and soul, that their loving relationship is
    honorable.  If they let Christ guide them in their decision making,
    they do not have to worry about someone else's definition or some laws
    definition of what is or is not legal.
    
    Another person, who is gay, may feel that gay sex is wrong.  That
    person should not act against their conscience.  An external criteria
    for these judgements, is whether or not they build up the community or
    tear it down.
    
    Key point is that if we have the mind of Christ, then no one can tell
    us what is right or wrong.
    
    1 Corinthian's is really a wonderful letter, particularly as I am able
    to keep the junk about women in that letter in perspective.
    
    Patricia

    .01
    
    your assertion that the Christian need not follow any laws except what
    he feels, is absurd to the extent to which you take it.  Actions, even
    feelings, which violate God's moral laws must be taken captive by
    Christ, not embraced as a lifestyle.
    
    Paul would never have suggested that if one feels okay about it, one
    may violate God's moral laws.  It is not appropriate to extrapolate
    from Paul's statement concerning liberty, the license of feeling.  This
    is a frequent historical error which is condemned in other parts of the
    Scriptures.
    
    jeff

re Note 1028.11 by POWDML::FLANAGAN:

>     He further goes on to say, that if we think it wrong, then it is wrong. 
>     If I think it is wrong to eat meat sacrificed to animal's then it is
>     wrong.  Further, if our eating meat sacrificed to animal's will
>     encourage others who think it wrong to eat it, then we should not eat
>     it.  We should not do anything that would tempt another to sin.
  
        Note how this changes the practical consequences of saying
        "all things are lawful"!  While this may be true in theory,
        Christians are essentially told to set their standards (in
        every area?) to the most restrictive standard of the
        community in which they find themselves.  A Christian in a
        conservative rural area should not do what would be OK for
        that same Christian if living in a big city.

        Of course, this still leaves the problem of how a Christian
        should act when there are conflicting standards in the same
        community.  What if one group thinks an abomination what
        another group thinks is a sacred obligation?  (Concrete
        examples:  military service, sexual relationship between
        committed gay partners).

        Or does it only matter what other *Christians* think is
        sinful, and not the community at large?

        Bob

re: .11

>    What I think Paul means is that if we are in Christ, we look to Christ
>    for guidance in everything we do, and therefore we do not need laws. 

Paul goes to great lengths in a number of epistles to show that Christians
are justified by faith, not by observing the law.  This in no way removes
the law.  And Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it.

>    We instinctively know what is right and wrong.

Wow... watch out for that slippery slope.  The Bible says no such thing,
and does say the opposite... noone is righteous, all have gone astray.

-Steve

    Paul most definately does say that in Christ, we are New Creation.  As
    new creation, we have a higher guidance system than the law.
    
    Doing what is best for the community is not the same thing as going
    along with the community.  Sometimes it is daring to support the
    minority position.  The issue on homosexuality is a perfect example.  I
    know that all loving, committed relationships are sanctioned by
    Goddess/God.  Taking a stand against the oppression faced by Gay,
    Lesbian, and Bisexuals is mandatory for me in building up a community
    conscious of oppression and committed to ending it.  I find inspiration
    for my stand in Paul's letters, in Paul theology of the New Creation
    and in 1 Corinthian's in particular.
    
                                   Patricia

    
    i'd lose the inane theology if I were you, Patricia.  It can lead only
    to self-deceit and ultimately despair.  it's the truth which sets us
    free, not some modern-day philosophy of men, er...uh, women.
    
    jeff

.15> Taking a stand against the oppression faced by 
.15> <pick_your_favourite_outcasts> is mandatory for me in 
.15> building up a community conscious of oppression and 
.15> committed to ending it.  

this is precisely the revolutionary spark which i see in christianity
and which i am drawn to. speaking for my neck of the woods though,
patricia, yours is regrettably a minority view among the christians
which i have come in contact with.

an example, 
	
	in my district in zurich, there is the local parish church of 
	which i didn't even know it existed. well, i don't go to church,
	i think of myself as an atheist. 

	the church board of that church decided to fire the pastor because 
	the pastor wanted to open the church to the many drug addicts 
	which pester our neighbourhood. local law has it that a pastor 
	can only be replaced by election.

	so members of the church board ran a campaign to have the pastor 
	replaced at the next election. the campaign reached all 
	registered members of the church (here, church membership is
	by default unless you explicitly leave the church) - the campaign
	(unintentionally) made the non church going majority aware of the 
	issue at hand - ie. opening the church to drug addicts.

	when the election came, the pastor was reelected against all
	odds - there had been no counter-campaigning by the pastor, not
	one ad, not a single letter. the pastor was reelected by the vast 
	majority of the (non church going) electorate and the church board 
	subsequently resigned.

from all the hateful mail sent by members of the church board to inoccent 
by-standers (who didn't even know that they belonged to a church), such as 
i and my neighbours, i felt confirmed in my prejudice against the church 
(ie. the church board) - at the same time i felt strangely drawn to the 
church (led by such a pastor)...

this, and reading your note confirms my view of christians as a brave 
minority - i think you're great!


andreas.

Note 1028.7

>    To label Jesus in anyway (using our finite english) will not truly
>    identify His Righteous Character. Jesus was everything Including
>    a reformist and a revolutionist. But he was much much more. I think
>    everyone agrees with that. To label Jesus tends to limit Him.
>    Also we as Christians should try to avoid labeling ourselves as well.
    
Bruce,

	I don't think anyone was attempting to reduce Jesus and his
early followers to *mere* reformers or revolutionaries.  Acknowledging
such characteristics in Christ and early Christianity is certainly not
intended to eclipse any others.

Shalom,
Richard

 When Jesus was taken before Pontius Pilate the Roman Guvernor,
 by the religious leaders, the accusation was "This man we found
 subverting our nation and forbidding the paying of taxes to Caesar
 and saying he himself is Christ a king." Luke 23:2 NWT. But a year
 earlier he had declined the peoples wishes for him to take up the 
 office of king (John 6:15). 

 What was really behind the charge of the religious leaders was that
 Jesus' teachings were highlighting their hypocrisy.

 Jesus was not stirring up rebellion against Rome, and he didn't 
 want his disciples to rebell either. We see this when looking
 at the account when Roman soldiers and Jews came together to
 arrest Jesus, and upon seeing this Peter cut off an ear of one
 of them. Jesus reproved Peter: "Return your sword to its place,
 for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword." Matthew 
 26:51,52 NWT.

 The charges by the religious leaders were also false because, though
 being the Messiah, the time had not come for him to be enthroned as
 king. Jesus also told Pilot "My kingdom is no part of this world.
 If my kingdom were part of this world , my attendants would have
 fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is,
 my kingdom is not from this source." John 18:36 NWT Jesus was to 
 be a *heavenly* king, not voted in by the people but, enthroned
 by God at the proper time. Jesus words here also explain his actions
 the evening before when reproving Peter.

 The Roman governer having considered the evidence, found Jesus
 innocent and "Pilate then called the chief priests and the rulers
 and the people together and said to them "You brought this man
 to me as one inciting a revolt, and, look! I examined him in front
 of YOU but found in this man no ground for the charges YOU are 
 bringing against him." Luke 23:13,14 NWT

 Rather than standing by his own judgment, Pilot gave into the
 demands of the mob and had Jesus impaled (John 19:12-16).

 The point I'm trying to make is, Jesus did highlight the hypocrisy
 of the religious leaders but he did not encourage dissent against
 the superior authorities. In fact he encouraged the paying of taxes
 and being model citizens, as long as it was in keeping with God's
 law. So painting Jesus as a revolutionary could be construed as 
 going along with the charge that the religious leaders had made 
 against him.

 The disciples also should follow Jesus' lead, as "being no part of
 the world". The interpretation of Jehovah's Witnesses is to stay
 neutral when it comes to politics. The following quote from the
 book "On the Road to Civilization - A World History (by Heckel
 and Sigman, P237,238)" "Christians refused to share certain duties
 of Roman citizens. The Christians...felt it a violation of their
 faith to enter military service. They would not hold political
 office. They would not worship the emperor." shows that the
 early Christians kept neutral in politics and military conflicts.
 One can see this by looking at the account just before Jerusalem
 was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. In 66 CE the province of Judea
 rebelled against Caesar, instead of joining the Jewish rebellion
 the Christians followed Jesus' counsel to stay neutral. When the
 Roman army temporarily withdrew the Christians took the opportunity 
 to escape and fled across the Jordan into the mountainous region 
 of Pella and thus were spared from the impending destruction that
 happened in 70 CE. (Please compare Luke 21:20-24).

 Hope this helps

 Phil.


 Reference material book "United in Worship of the Only
 True God" p162-165

    Jesus was a social radical and revolutionary not a political one.
    
    Jesus calls each of us to a revolutionary new way of existence.
    
    Political authority was not the issue that Jesus was rebelling against.

 Patricia,

 Please can you explain what you mean by "social radical and 
 revolutionary". I'm trying to understand what it is you think
 Jesus was trying to reform.

 Thanks

 Phil.

    Jesus was crucified, a punishment reserved by Rome for certain crimes.
    
    Consider the crime:  "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews"
    

revolutionary? 

what must the clergy have thought, at the time, when confronted with jesus?

jesus of nazareth not only opened the heavenly kingdom to all who wanted 
to live by his message (his message of love as he lived it) but he had the 
audacity to make god direclty available to everyone, he demonstrated that 
anyone could converse with god. up to that point, the priests (rabbi's) were 
the only intermediaries as they interpreted and defined god's word from the 
scriptures. now suddenly, in the eyes of the religious rulers, there comes 
this parvenu, this nobody in terms of the hierarchy of the priesthood, and 
tells them they've got it all wrong!!! did that man jesus respect the 
prevailing religous conventions? no way. he said that the religious leaders
had got it all wrong, that they had abused the house of god. he, jesus, 
redefined the belief in god!

i guess, even i as an atheistic lay person, have grasped that much. and 
what that man jesus did in his time sounds pretty revolutionary to me!

i sometimes think, that if one was to radically apply that simple message 
of love in one's life, with little regard for scriptures, with little regard 
for reward, then this could quite possibly also be termed revolutionary, and 
worse still, may even be in the spirit of that man who set off the revolution!!



andreas.

    .23
    
    No, I don't think you have it wrong, Andreas.
    
    It's true Jesus did not pursue political power.  However, Jesus'
    message affected relationships and relationships have powerful,
    even revolutionary, political implications.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    .23
    
    You sure you ain't a Christian?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re .-1

if heaven and hell were on earth, i might well be!


andreas.

    Andreas,
    
    Some CHristians believe Heaven and Hell are on Earth!
    
    
                                        Patricia

hi patricia,

>    Some CHristians believe Heaven and Hell are on Earth!

which? is this a movement or is it primarily down to individual belief? 
are there christians who do not believe in god either?!

i am really interested to learn about that. 

already, through this file, i junked my prejudice on quakers, on reading
what richard christie and mike valenza have been writing. also i had never 
heard of unitarian universalists until i read in here (and subequently 
checked the UU confernece). if i lived over there in the US, i would sure 
check some of these groups up. 

there is very little information over here, it seems we are not as progressive 
on religious matters over here in switzerland.


andreas.

    Rudolph Bultman, A German Theologian was the leader in the school of
    Demytholigizing Christianity.  According to him the greater truths of
    Christianity are not the Supernatural Element but the theology behind
    it.  Process Theology, beginning with Alfred North Whitehead and
    Charles Hartsome (see note 12.0)  is a Christian theology.  Mathew Fox
    is a major proponent of Creation Spirituality-Another Liberal Christian
    Theology.
    
    Patricia

thanks for the interesting pointer, patricia. i am afraid i have yet to read 
myself into contemporary theology (this file provides a very good starting 
ground). my query (or lament more likely) referred to (the apparent lack of)
progressive religious movements around here.

the ongoing theological discourse does not make much head-line news. one 
german theologian who is often in the news is drewermann. he is also of
the school of demytholigizing christianity. i wasn't aware of bultmann, but
i have heard drewermann speak and he sounds immanently sensible (he has now 
been ex-communicated as far as i know). i have yet to read his theories though.

> According to him the greater truths of Christianity are not the Supernatural 
> Element but the theology behind it.  

have you read spinoza (1632-1677)? this philosopher has held the same view 
about the supernatural element in christianity (as a symbolism required, in a 
sense, for the masses). 
he also demanded that jesus must be freed of the dogma surrounding the christ
(since the dogma essentially only ever lead to dispute). spinoza sees jesus as 
mortal (not the son of god) and he believes that in following the teaching of 
jesus all people and nations can one day be united in the name of jesus. the 
further theories of spinoza about determinism and free will have been likened 
to buddhist thinking. incidentally, he was a jew, also ex-communicated and his 
writings were put on the black-list by the catholic church.


andreas.

    .30
    
    Someone once likened me to Spinoza.  I meant to read up
    about him to see what the parallel might be, but I never did.
    
    Thanks for the glimpse.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

reading up about spinoza is definitely worth while (if you read german i 
could send you a summary straight away) - amongst the philosophers which 
followed spinoza, nietzsche was strongly influenced by spinoza. nietzsche 
of course made his most vocal fight against church morality and double 
standards a life long battle, fought with much humour, double meanings 
and a good deal of cynicism.

of course the likes of spinoza and nietzsche are definitely anti-establishment,
which, hopefully, brings us back to the subject matter of the topic.

was jesus anti-establishment?


andreas.

Note 1028.32

>nietzsche 
>of course made his most vocal fight against church morality and double 
>standards a life long battle, fought with much humour, double meanings 
>and a good deal of cynicism.

Also see topic 741.

>of course the likes of spinoza and nietzsche are definitely anti-establishment,
>which, hopefully, brings us back to the subject matter of the topic.

>was jesus anti-establishment?

I think so.

Shalom,
Richard

re .33

 Richard,

 In what ways was Jesus anti-establishment ?.

 Phil.

    .34
    
    Phil.,
    
    Well, it partially depends on what you mean by anti-establishment.
    Surely a cursory reading of the gospels shows Jesus openly at odds
    with those in power and contradicting established social norms.
    
    I'm not saying Jesus advocated an overthrow other than an overthrow
    of the human heart.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard