Re: Offer up your own inspirational stories

I have been thinking about this post on and off since you put it up, Jeff,
knowing that I wanted to respond but also knowing I didn't want to answer
too quickly. I want to use what you have written as a starting place show
you, me and anyone who reads what I write where your faith differs from
mine.

I know I am not going to persuade you and you are not going to persuade me,
and my purpose is not to even try. We disagree and will after you have read
this as we did when you wrote your post. But it is valuable to me to know
how we do. Perhaps it will be valuable to you, too.


On 11/24/08 1:29 PM, in article 41FWk.31911$9I7.23339@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, "1st
Century Apostolic Traditionalist" <broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com>
wrote:


"Timothy Travis" <qspirit@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:C546C474.61CD%qspirit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jesus was himself baptised in water as part of "for we must carry out all
that God requires" as were all 1st Century Christians as exampled in the
many passages relating to it in the NT. Christ is our mentor and both he and
Peter commanded baptism after belief. The faithful "Few chosen" will humbly
obey without any descent.

Your Christian orientation is far more common than mine, which is more
common in other spiritual traditions. Your Christianity is an
orthodoxy--centered on belief. Correct belief is the means of being
reconciled with God and with fellow human beings. Your faith is
propositional and the Bible, as I wrote in another post recently, is the
source, the data base, from which you draw the data you use in reasoning
your way to your beliefs--the beliefs that will save you.

(Yes, of course, your beliefs may lead you to do certain things, and
experiential faith is based, in a sense on beliefs. But these are
"empirical"--based on experience rather than acceptance of propositions).

The text, sola scriptura (only the Bible is the authority), defines the
boundaries of authority, and the Holy Spirit has the role, the office, of
enabling people to read the Bible in such a way to get to the right beliefs
(I don't know, Jeff, that you do but that is a pretty standard belief in
Protestant Christianity. I've seen in it in Presbyterian Book of Order and
am informed that they are not alone in this).

My Christian orientation, which I find seems to be similar to that of the
first generation of Friends, is not built on an orthodoxy. It is built,
rather, on an orthopraxy; my faith is centered on practice. Correct belief,
to me, is defined by outcomes and those outcomes are not always (although
they often are) the outcomes of which "the world" (as that phrase is used
Biblically, a counterpoint to "the kingdom," heaven as a here and now
"place," or "space" in in which people can live. Moderns sometimes call it
"the realm" of God because we are not down with kings

Again, in Christian orthodoxy faith/belief means accepting certain
propositions as true, in Christian orthopraxy faith/belief means accepting
things are true on the basis of one's own experience.

And that's an important thing to understand in reading the Bible. I do not
devalue the Bible, Jeff. You know that. I read it every day and I use it,
and while I am not as handy with the text as some, I know my way around the
pages. The text is very important to me, Jeff.

But every text was created in a context and is read and interpreted in
different contexts. Jesus today might not use the metaphors of King,
master, slave, father and so on in order to teach us. In fact, as you
probably have picked up reading what I write, I believe the Christ/Spirit is
present here, now, today, to teach each of us who can overcome the world's
conditioning and our own fears of losing control. And that present Christ
doesn't speak the language that Jesus did, although the teachings are the
same.

(that's the Quaker doctrines of "Christ has come to teach Its people,
Itself" and "continuing revelation)

Jesus was not guided by belief or law except insofar as it was consistent
with his experience. It is written that he broke the law frequently when
righteousness as he taught it would not be the outcome of applying the law
as interpreted by the orthodox in a given situation. He knew scripture
well. It would be interesting to know what that scripture he knew consisted
of but, notwithstanding scholarly speculation, we can't really know. The
Law and the Prophets as we have them (although not necessarily as we "know"
them) is probably part of what he refers to as scripture but, as you know,
the Bible was not assembled until much later and in that assembly process
much was left out, even much that existed at the time of Jesus.

Jesus knew scripture and he approved of it but he didn't use it as a law
book. Jesus defied, in fact, the orthodoxy of his time and orthodoxy killed
him. It's a fascination metaphor, to me, how the orthodoxy of his time led
the orthodox to kill him--although it was not, acting through the orthodox,
of course, able to kill the Christ/Spirit in him. I think that still goes
on every day. Orthodoxy (in any spiritual tradition)--allied with the
world--is constantly trying to kill the Christ/Light (in whatever spiritual
tradition) and I believe, as it is written by John, it never can.

What was Jesus authority, then, if not the scriptures?

Jesus was led not by scripture but by direct revelation. Jesus was in right
relationship with God and therefore with people in an unshakable way and he
is forthright about saying things like he was in God and God was in him.
Very mystical and I think that he had that connection as the result, at
least in part, from the long periods of prayer and "alone time" he demanded
and apparently needed.

By the way, just to really let it all hang out, Jeff, I don't believe Jesus
was born in this relationship; Jesus was not born "God." What would be the
point of the "good news" of his perfection, his maturity, his completeness,
his suitability for the particular purpose he served if his transformation
was not "after factory" accessor-ization?

What hope do I have of transformation if it came as standard equipment in
the person who modeled it for the world? Elias Hicks, a Quaker of some
renown who was a counter-force to the movement toward Protestantism in the
early 19th Century Society, believed that Jesus was a person who, through
attending and heeding the Spirit's revelation and guidance, personally, was
transformed. That's not my own idea. I heard it from a contemporary Quaker
scholar working on a new biography of Hicks (you should see the letter from
Hicks to a young person asking advice about becoming a lawyer that this
writer showed me!).

Born as much a person as you and I, Jesus' transformation, his "putting on
of the Spirit," was completed at the river when the dove descended. He was
not come from heaven to live as a person although, of course, the Christ
that indwelled was, as John (it really is the Quaker gospel) wrote.

Jesus did not talk up a religion of belief, a creed or a set of propositions
about the nature, origins or purposes of God. He preached how one should
act.

He preached faith in a practice. He preached that people who lived life as
he described would be "saved" (whatever that means), in fact, he preached
that they are "saved." "Believing in Jesus" means, to me, believing that
living as he did, glorifying (magnifying, extending) his "kingdom"--the
"space" he revealed that people should live, a space defined how people
treated one another and, through how they treated one another, how they
treated God.

The Sermon on the Mount is, from my point of view, the epicenter of
Christianity. (and it's in the "Jewish" Gospel, Matthew, not the gospel
from the "right wing" of the gnostic movement, the Gospel of John.)

The Beatitudes use the word "blessed" to describe both the transformation
and the process of transformation that Jesus preached. As you know, that
word has several meanings (some of which I listed, above) in Hebrew and
Greek according to the Strong's annotations. It means to be matured, to be
made whole, to be transformed, to be suited for a particular purpose. A
talent may be a gift, but having the opportunity to put in the 10,000 hours
in to reach its mastery is a blessing (if you haven't read "Outliers" by
Malcom Gladwell I recommend it highly).

I like all of those but I am particularly interested in "suited for a
particular purpose" because I think that the characteristics listed are
suited for an evangelism that speaks to people where they live. It
certainly speaks to the evangelical style of Jesus and all the
characteristics the Beatitudes describe are those that describe Jesus.

It allows an evangelism that is as described in the reaction of the
listeners at the end of the Sermon on the Mount. But back to beginning...

Jesus was poor in spirit--he did not rely on his own spirit and any agenda
that might attach itself to that. He relied on God's spirit, God's
aspirations for him (for all of us).

Jesus mourned--he empathized with the pain and the fears of those he
encountered and his actions toward them were supportive and encouraging and
reconciling, breaking through those pains and fears to that inside them
reaching out to him, to someone, who could deliver them from those.

Jesus was meek--he did not force himself on others, even though he went
where they were and came to get them, to gather them.

Jesus did hunger and thirst for righteousness--he constantly moved and moved
others toward doing the right thing and not the wooden righteousness of
earthly "justice," according to law but to that which was consistent with
the Christ he manifested. Don't be crying "Lord, Lord" if you haven't been
doing the will.

Jesus was merciful--even when people had, according to the orthodox he met,
burned their last bridges to right relationship, Jesus reached out to bring
them home, to leave no one behind--even those who wanted to be left in the
cold loneliness of their hardened, broken hearts.

Jesus was pure in heart--there was never a motive shown that was selfish or
egotistical. He was all about discerning the needs of others and delivering
that which would fill the holes in their hearts even though many were not
able to understand or completely come around.

Jesus was a peacemaker--he reconciled people (and peoples) even though many
who could not abide the idea of turning loose of their unskilled ways of
meeting their needs were made angry and violent by what he tried to do for
them.

And he was persecuted for his righteousness, he was reviled and persecuted
and had all kinds of evil uttered against him falsely on account of the
Christ in him, in all of us, that manifested itself in his behavior.

This was the practice that Jesus talked up--it was not about the laws of
holiness; although the laws of holiness certainly tried to lead people to
the same place--and why he said that the law would not pass away until "all
is accomplished." It was about doing the three practices he described
(pray, alms giving and fasting) sincerely, not as a way of showing off or
gaining "merit" in the world. The fallen world needed the fallen law but
when that fallen world, or anyone in it, was transformed, when the law was
written in in a heart, then the law passed away in that world, in that
heart.

All of these things which bestow blessing, which made him and make us fit
for the particular purpose of living in right relationship with those around
us, and through that relationship, right with God.

The rest of the Sermon on the Mount is written in terms of how people should
live, Jeff, not in what they should believe.

Is there a lake of fire? I don't know. Jesus didn't say but he told us
that if we had evil in our heart it would manifest itself in our behavior
toward others and so we needed to stop looking lustfully--ready to take
advantage of one another for our own selfish (and therefore sinful)
purposes--needed to stop thinking of others as fools and creating the danger
that we will treat them like fools (even when they are). I don't care if
there is a lake of fire. I cannot be righteous for fear of a lake of fire.
I can be because it's been proved in my life that if I am righteous toward
others things turn out better for everyone. I know Jesus was right, not
because it's in the Book but because my experience validates it.

Rapture? I don't know. Jesus didn't say anything about a rapture
(notwithstanding the fact that it is written that he foretold the
destruction of Jerusalem) but he did say we should love our enemies--give to
them what they need as we give to those we love--and not let their behavior
toward us turn us toward the evils we perceive in them. I don't care if
there is going to be a rapture or not. Fear of being "left behind" never did
much to improve me. Living out what Jesus preached, trying to do what he
said, rather than to believe what you or anyone else believes, has done me a
world of good.

Baptism? I don't know. I know Jesus was baptized. But I know that he
stressed treating others as I would be treated, he stressed asking and
searching and knocking. It's why I don't put much stock in being baptized.
Instead, I put stock in the equality Jesus taught--equality in the eyes of
God and in one another's eyes.

Because I use Jesus' measure of righteousness. It's the fruit of the way
people live their lives--not whether they are baptized and certainly not if
they talk about it such that I am reminded of the street corner prayer about
which Jesus also talked.

What is the outcome of a prophet's teaching? Are people reconciled with one
another? Are those relationships among them strengthened? Does any
conflict they create result from resistance to righteousness, from clinging
to ways that divide people and cause them to hate one another?

Yes Jesus brought a sword but it cuts knots, and his conviction is not the
first step to condemnation. It is the first step to convincement and
turning away from the world, turning toward that space he was creating, a
space we create--or not--every day, in every way we act toward one, relate
to, one another.

It is a narrow gate and few will find it, he said. But it's there to be
found and all are led toward it. And not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" has
found it or knows the way there. "I never knew you" Jesus is written to
have said of some who loudly preach--even if they have done good in his
name--one has to know Jesus, act as he did to conform to the Christ to avoid
having done evil along with whatever good they did.

Hearing the words, he said, and then *acting on them* is how to build on the
rock. It's how to develop and strengthen the relationships among us that
create the communities upon which the measure of well being we enjoy is
based.

The Quaker faith and practice was, originally, an orthopraxis. No creeds.
Through time orthodoxy intruded--natural enough considering what of which we
humans are made; fear, pain, uncertainty, the need for instant
gratification, the need for security and for safety and comfort at all
times, in all things. We all want the wide gate to take us where we need
to go.

Also, I think, the need to control and manipulate other people figures in,
thinking that such control and manipulation to meet our needs is the way.
And it is, in the world. It is not, however, The Way.

Redemptive violence is that in which humanity has placed its faith and
orthodoxy brings redemptive violence into the close. We all want a religion
that "works;" even though we know that nothing will always "work" if by
"works" we mean salvation as sketched by empire and the "American Way of
Life."

There is no chance of that kind of salvation. All our lives we build our
spiritual dwellings, a relatively contemporary Quaker wrote, and that's what
we have to retreat to at the time of our death. On the Rock, on the
sand--how we go determines where we find ourselves in the end.

A lot of baptized people walk paths Jesus never trod and lots of non
baptized people (even people who never heard his name or held a Bible) seem
to be walking in his sandals.

Jeff, you seem to me (and I could be wrong so only entreat you to consider,
not necessarily heed, my words) to lay down loving entreaty--humility,
meekness--in favor of a proud force of will--that's not consistent with what
Jesus taught and modeled. It seems to me very much what he rejected when
the Adversary showed him the kingdoms of the earth. All Jesus had to do
"convert" the world, it is written he was promised, was use the control and
manipulation upon which the kingdom of the Great Satan is built, by which it
is maintained.

But fighting fire with fire creates more ashes. Water, living water, will
stop the flames.

I know you have well prepared arguments to meet what I say, all based on
verses (I think are) used as they were never intended to be used--taken out
of their context and strung together like links in a chain--a chain of
captivity, from my point of view, forged into a cruel parody of the key to
the liberty he promised, the keys, it is written, that Jesus passed on to
Peter.

You can believe as you will and you can prove it by your deductive reasoning
from the words of the Bible. That doesn't make it so. It just seems to me
to make it what you believe, what you "prove" to your own satisfaction from
broken and contradictory premises.

But I don't see the Bible as the word of God as you use that phrase,
Jeff--it's words about God. I cannot cannot reconcile Jesus and David
without dragging Jesus down to David's level. Imagine--a faith that holds
up David as being consistent with Jesus. Whew. To say that Jesus
"descends" from David, that he is somehow the embodiment of David. Wowsers.
What would Jesus have done about his raped daughter? Would Jesus have
destroyed his own family as David did to favor a son over a daughter?

Surely Jesus--through the Christ--ascended from the condition of David and
the Gospel, the good news, is that we can, too.

When one looks to someone to restore the kingdom of David--built on
redemptive violence--then one isn't looking for Jesus. One is looking for
Ronald Reagan, for George Bush, for Napolean, for Genghis Kahn. It's why so
many never saw Jesus, in his time, and don't actually see him, now, not
withstanding their "devotion" to the idol they have created, upon which they
have hung his name.

As I say, I am not trying to convince you that you are wrong, Jeff. I just
don't want people who come to this newsgroup to take away the impression
that your faith--a propositional Protestantism--is the faith and practice of
*Friends*--or at least that it is the faith and practice of all or even a
majority of Friends (because it certainly is the faith and practice of some
Friends).

You are free to evangelize your propositional Protestantism here and I am
pleased to contrast it with what Quakerism is--or at least was once for all
Friends and still is for some.

That Protestantism seems to me to be an obvious failure in that so many
people who embrace this propositional faith are led to so many different
readings of the Bible while being led away from the major "command" to love
one's neighbor as oneself. Imagine a Holy Spirit--commissioned by God to
make sure people get the Bible "right"--leading so many people to different
"takes" on the "word of God" that they start killing and imprisoning one
another over it.

The Spirit/Christ never leads people in different directions. Quaker faith
and practice, at least traditionally, holds that disunity is a sign that
people need to re-discern--and not just some people, not just those who
don't agree with me--but all of us.

History is clear that people who upheld the propositional Protestant faith
in the 17th Century were willing to imprison, whip, impoverish and even hang
people who didn't agree with that propositional faith. When this
propositional faith began to make headway in the Society of Friends it
divided and fractured the Society into the domains that comprise it today
where, in some of them, what one "believes" seems more important to unity
than how one lives one's life.

Quakers engaged in all manners of un-Quakerly behavior--including suing one
another over the ownership of meeting houses--because some thought they were
led by the Holy Spirit to read the Bible one way and some another (and some
didn't think the Bible held a verse that answered every situation).
Imagine how happy the Devil was about that, Jeff, watching the Society of
Friends rip itself apart over this same divisive doctrine of baptism (among
others) that orthodox Christianity (although, of course, not what "Orthodox
Quakerism") espouses as "essential."

Protestantism and the traditional faith and practice of Friends are two
different things and the differences are not as trivial as some make them
out to be. When they were clearly understood by all there was great
conflict between them. In trying to clarify them, I am not trying to
recreate that conflict. I am trying to explain that there is something
different possible in Christianity, something more mystical, less
"rational." Something upon which it is possible to base a laying down of
redemptive violence.

Timothy Travis
Bridge City Friends Meeting
Portland, Oregon


This is the sum or substance of our religion; to wit, to feel and discern
the two seeds: the seed of enmity, the seed of love; the seed of the flesh,
the seed of the Spirit; the seed of Hagar, the seed of Sarah; the seed of
the Egyptian womb, the holy seed of Israel; and to feel the judgments of God
administered to the one of these, till it be brought into bondage and death;
and the other raised up in the love and mercy of the Lord to live in us, and
our souls gathered into it, to live to God in it.

Isaac Penington
Sum or Substance of Our Religion
Works, Vol II, p 441



.

Relevant Pages
Loading