tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041549.post109225127855144391..comments2023-10-06T06:38:16.077-05:00Comments on the little fights: Radically Inclusive - Part IIINathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09476174265551740950noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041549.post-1092768357347622272004-08-17T13:45:00.000-05:002004-08-17T13:45:00.000-05:00Oops! I guess that comment got posted anyhow by ac...Oops! I guess that comment got posted anyhow by accident. LOL. That N at the bottom was supposed to be a K.<br />-KAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041549.post-1092767784982244642004-08-17T13:36:00.000-05:002004-08-17T13:36:00.000-05:00Do I understand you to be saying that you would ag...Do I understand you to be saying that you would agree with the viewpoint that the Church of Christ should try to fit into the world around it as well as possible in each different generation, or to be attacking that view? It's not very clear, and I don't want to be reading the wrong thing.<br /><br />The former view, the one that you seemed at the same time to be attacking and accepting, needs a little work. The Church of Christ is just that -- the Church of Christ. Sure, Christians need to live in a way that is winsome and effective, but we certainly must never compromise with the Gospel and the fundamental doctrines of the Scriptures to be "effective." The deal with the Church changing its language and communication with the world constantly is that the Church is made up of real people within that world. But we must remember that we are in the world but not of it. Christ was rejected, as was the Early Church, and truly, the whole Church throughout history has been rejected and mocked by the world. Are we called to try to stop this and get accepted? No -- Christ said that the world would reject us just as much as it did him. Our calling is to be different, and different we must be, because the world is at enmity with Christ and his kingdom, and "to be friends with the world is to be at enmity with God."<br />As to the question of going along with the world's belief-system -- basically we must live within the bounds of Scripture ALWAYS. The world says that slavery's fine? Check the Law of God, and see what general doctrine is held there. The world says abortion is fine? Again, does God say the same? We must stick with what God says in his Word, and to compromise that to be "effective" in the world is really to cease being effective at all -- remember Christ's sermon on the mount, when he commanded that we be salt and light, and in the same breath commanded that we keep his whole Law in thought, word, and deed. "If the salt loses its flavor, wherewith is it again to be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be trampled underfoot." Is salt used for making a food taste more like itself? No, indeed -- it is used to better it, BECAUSE IT IS DIFFERENT.<br />The world is not to run how the Church thinks; on the contrary, the Church is the one that must be so different as to affect every aspect of the world's thinking. And so far, in America, the Church has pretty much forgotten that, for the sake of being "effective." See America's moral state -- it's not much to wonder at, sadly.<br /><br />Well, whatever you were saying, I hope it's basically this. God bless, and keep "fighting the little fights." Will visit occasionally.<br /><br />-NAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041549.post-1092408214631186532004-08-13T09:43:00.000-05:002004-08-13T09:43:00.000-05:00The implications you draw about the modern RI chur...The implications you draw about the modern RI church are "spot on." There really are only three main positions (though these will have some variations) to take vis a vis the historic Church:<br />a) to follow its life and teachings as fully as possible<br />b) to only follow those aspects of its life and teachings you agree with<br />c) to reject its life and teachings and remake the church anew today<br /><br />But b) and c) both assume that we now know more about what God wants with regard to the Church than did those who came before us. This, however, begs the question. On what grounds can we assume we know more? What proof do we have that we really *do* know more and can rightly pick and choose, or dump it all out altogether?<br /><br />I don't think you'll find anyone in the RI church (or their pomo em-church cousins) really addressing this question seriously.Benedict Seraphimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02129279614956377442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041549.post-1092404407266317642004-08-13T08:40:00.000-05:002004-08-13T08:40:00.000-05:00Don't get discouraged. At least one person is rea...Don't get discouraged. At least one person is reading your blog. Good thoughts.Alanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02169732072381476940noreply@blogger.com