From the Author of "Christianity for the Rest of Us"

I think one of the things the "Church" needs to do is a severe self-examination and elimination of the roots of Calvinism where ever they are found. Most of what we fight against can be traced directly to that form of theology.

So many people are not aware of where their thinking comes from- the reason why they support usury and abuse of the poor, etc. can be clearly traced to that theological "school" (to use a term from anthropology). The churches need to do more of what I've been honored to be a part of here on CAP- deep, intensive discussions and research on what Teyose actually meant and the historical and theological foundations of our faith.

I rarely heard anything of the likes of Michael or Br. Damien in the parishes I left- most of the "thinkers" were supporters of the machine and didn't get into any of the really heavy and valuable stuff- mainly it was "read the Bible". Getting input from people of completely different forms of Christianity is very helpful in growth (except for the poison spewed by fundamentalists, who stunt or even KILL spiritual growth).

I wouldn't be so fast to throw Calvinism out the window. Like any theology, it can be taken to harmful extremes. But like any theology, it can also be compassionate and positive. I have a few Presbyterian friends who are committed Calvinists. While I personally dislike the concept of predestination, they find it very comforting to know that everyone who is meant to be saved is already saved. Liberated from constant struggle to "earn" their own salvation, as many Christians do, they feel free to simply rejoice in God's love and work for justice in the world.

Calvanism does seem a bit weird to me. Seems to contradict the idea of free will pretty bluntly.

And it's such as sad thought to boot. I mean the idea that someone's gonna burn in hell and there's nothin they can do about it and nothing they did to deserve it. Elevating yourelf above those around you is always hurtful, especially to this degree.

Hi Greg

Have you ever heard of Calvinist universalism? The idea is that Christ is the only way to salvation, that we must freely embrace Christ to be saved, that on our own we are dead spirituallyand cannot embrace Christ, but that God in his mercy and power is able to induce everyone to in the end freely embrace Christ and be saved. I would claim there is biblical support for this view, in fact it follows from the biblical passages that say that God wants everyone to be saved, in conjunction with the passages that say that in the end God will be victorious and reconcile the whole creation to himself through Christ. If anyone ended up forever damned, that would not be a victory for the one who wants all of us to be saved.

your friend
keith

I was struck by the idea of "Purple Churches." What a great concept! Any suggestions on making them do-able?

Well, John, the research I've just pretty much concluded (for this semester) has demonstrated that nearly EVERYTHING we are fighting against can be directly traced to early Calvinist thought (or a direct variant thereof). Some of the things I've been directly looking at (such as the treatment of the homeless) started out with Calvinist thought, which gave the early elites the self-justification to abuse and use the poor- and it took off from there. In this instance, homelessness has been repeatedly been proven to be caused by low wages and high housing costs- but people still as a rule blame the homeless person (s/he must use drugs, be an alcoholic, mental case, LAZY, poor work ethic, ....) and try to "fix" them. They've been trying to fix the homeless for over a hundred years now, and it for the most part never works. (These attitudes are also directly traced to early Calvinism.)

Every person in this country should say to themself as they see a homeless person "There, but for the Grace of God, go I." Some of us have larger buffers against disaster than others, but only the rich could be said to be rather immune to this threat. Next time you see someone you are sure is homeless- examine your thoughts for these ideas. They are pervasive in American culture! And they are PROVABLY WRONG!

Anyway...

That does not mean that there are Godly Calvinists- I would quickly agree about that- even as there are probably Godly fundamentalists (as strange as that might seem).

As a theological school of thought, however, it has been the cause of a lot of grief.

I remember reading an account of an early Scots Calvinist ranting against THE LORD'S PRAYER. He said something like it would take you straight to hell (I think he even said it CAME FROM hell).

Even though it is attributed to Teyose Himself and straight out of the Scriptures.

Cathie- maybe the pastor should be the place to start. Avoiding "them or us" preaching would go a long way to making the "two colors" mix more- along with preaching that two perfectly decent people can have radically different views on things, and neither of them are necessarily wrong.

I've got to admit, however, that I am very tired of red- and some shades of blue have worried me in the past.

Hey Bob! Remember when I wrote about being a happy, active member of my liberal, Episcopal parish and then suggested that you and Sue move up here to join the Diocese of Southwestern Virginia? Well, our parish priest is FANTASTIC at finding all kinds of via media within politics and religion. And she does so in a way that encourages every congregant to draw upon all available personal, familial or community resources for the betterment of the world.

After thinking about a "purple church" I've realized that I already belong to one, albeit one whose purple tends toward and is tinged more with blue than with red.

Over at the parish in which I'm a happy member, you'd be welcome to be your Native American self and "assimilation" would be an absolute non sequitor. I'm so very sorry that you had such a bad experience in Florida's Episcopal Church. Let's hope that over the next 9 years Bishop Katharine can institute her ideas regarding healing and reconcilliation that will surpass so much racism, sexism and fear of "the other."

I don't know about you, but I just about turned cartwheels when, upon her election as Presiding Biship, The good Rt. Rev. stated, "This is not your grandmother's church anymore."

I'm Catholic. This may not be easy to believe, but I've never found the Catholic Church to be anything other than a "purple church." I wouldn't be able to explain this even if I wrote a book here. I will say that what Catholicism APPEARS to be is somewhat different from what it is like TO BE Catholic.

I think that if we're really going to bring conservatives and progressives under one church-building roof, we need to abandon the terminology of progressive and conservative as well as the concept of a red/blue dichotomy. Thinking "purple" only supports a growing and dangerous trend toward increasing partisan politics in our country. Purple still allows me to think of myself as blue, and still allows others to think of themselves as red, when really, politics should have more nuance and religion should approach the issues without the bias of party politics.

Is fighting poverty a partisan issue? In politics, yes. In Christianity, it shouldn't be. Is feeding the hungry a partisan issue? In politics, yes. In Christianity, it shouldn't be.

Are gay marriage and abortion pressing religious issues? For some of us. But we have allowed politicians to press them to the forefront and use them to define us into red and blue camps. Rather than thinking in terms of colors, concepts forced on us by politicians and the media, lets break free of artificial divisions and try to come together and deal with religious issues on an issue by issue basis.

Can you have religious beliefs that are quite blue, but still have red opinions on abortion? Why yes, you can. Because red and blue is a false dichotomy. We'll never get anywhere as long as we continue to use it.

Not only is the distinction not useful in the church, its really not helpful for the country as a whole. And what more appropriate group to start bringing healing to a country bitterly divided and hurt by partisan politics that Christians?

John... very thoughtful... maybe along the lines of "check your party affiliation at the door" type thinking. Is that where you're leading?

It wouldn't be a bad way at all to approach it.
The only drawback I could see is that a lot of the repugs think their ideas are what Christianity is about.

Cathie- yes, I'd like to sometime see what it is like in a more liberal diocese and parish. I too rejoiced when Katherine was elected. Many people I used to be friends with probably are outraged- in fact, I know at least a couple were. However, she has a lot going for her that I like- used to be a scientist, for instance- that goes a LONG way with me. Her stance against creationism and for being inclusive were very good to hear.

I wrote two letters after she was elected (identical) about our treatment at the hands of the church. One was addressed to the old PB, the other to Katherine. We got only one reply (from the old PB's secretary)- GO BACK TO YOUR BISHOP!

I'd made it clear that we'd tried to "go to our bishop" without any luck whatsoever.

We'd written several letters to Howe and never got an answer- in fact the only reply we ever got was when I started looking into reading for orders (and planning to start a ministry to Native Americans)- and his reply was (nearly exact quote) that he did not, nor did he ever expect to consider a ministry to my people, and if I wasn't willing to "go the regular route", I could forget it.

Maybe I should send another letter to PB Katherine. She may have never received the one I sent. It would be healing to have something done about the sorts of things we've been forced through at the hands of the church.

gpope- an episcopal priest taught that the word Catholic means (best fit) "according to the whole of the thing". Many other denominations are also Catholic- but not necessarily Roman (such as the Episcopal church and several others- Br. Damien belongs to another branch). I do think I understand what you're saying- and that is the way it should be.

(I may be making a mistake in saying this)- anyone notice how nice it's gotten around here lately, with no troll poison being spewed in the last several days? I LIKE IT!

Keith-

I'm still not sure I really get the Calvanist thing:
1. Christ is only way to salvation.
2. We must embrace Christ freely.
3. On our own we cannot embrace Christ.
4. God induces everyone to embrace Christ.

Item 2 seems to contradict items 3 and 4. I just don't get it. Do we choose Christ freely or does God induce us to choose him? And if He induces us to choose him, (assuming it doesn't violate free will) then why not induce EVERYONE to choose Him?

I've never really understood how God could want a thing so badly but not be able to pull it off. Ya know? He supposedly set up this WHOLE thing. Free will. Fear/love. Heaven/hell. Beginning to end. Alpha/Omega. Everything Seen and Unseen. He even created the Devil himself. Whom he is now losing souls to at a rate of roughly 4 to 1. How can an all-powerful God be so soundly beaten at his own game? And the thing is, being all-knowing, God knew the outcome yet didn't change the game. Why not?

I'm not picking on you here, these are just the sort of questions I've always wondered.

The idea of God being "victorious" has always seemed a little weird to me. Ya know? Since He made up the entire game and ALL the players in it, it's like He's kind of just beating Himself.

Greg

Bob -- Yes it is nice that the trolls are gone, at least for now. I wonder what happened to them, though. Did they just give up or did they get an official booting?

Please do write another letter to Bishop Katharine.

Hi Greg

In response to my description of Calivinist Universalism (CU from here on):

1. Christ is only way to salvation.
2. We must embrace Christ freely.
3. On our own we cannot embrace Christ.
4. God induces everyone to embrace Christ.

You asked:

"I'm still not sure I really get the Calvanist thing. Item 2 seems to contradict items 3 and 4. I just don't get it. Do we choose Christ freely or does God induce us to choose him? And if He induces us to choose him, (assuming it doesn't violate free will) then why not induce EVERYONE to choose Him?"

I don't think there's a contradiction. It seems to me that a person can be said to have freely chosen something even if he needs help to choose it; the opposite of freely chosing something is for the something to be imposed against your will. (4) does not imply that God imposes anything against our will. Why not induce everyone to choose Him? But that's just what CU says will happen in (4). Why doesn't God make that happen NOW? IMO that could be because for God to induce us to freely embrace Christ requires him to work around our free will, and many of us are not ready yet to embrace him.

"I've never really understood how God could want a thing so badly but not be able to pull it off. Ya know? He supposedly set up this WHOLE thing. Free will. Fear/love. Heaven/hell. Beginning to end. Alpha/Omega. Everything Seen and Unseen. He even created the Devil himself. Whom he is now losing souls to at a rate of roughly 4 to 1. How can an all-powerful God be so soundly beaten at his own game? And the thing is, being all-knowing, God knew the outcome yet didn't change the game. Why not?"

That is exactly the point Calvinists of all stripes point out, which is why the traditional Calvinists claim that God doesn't WANT everyone to be saved. But Calvinist Universalists agree that God wants everyone to be saved (the Bible says this) AND that the Almighty will in the end get what he wants so badly (the Bible also says this).

your friend
Keith

HAPPY AND BLESSED THANKSGIVING TO ALL MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHRIST!!

Happy Thanksgiving, my friends and kinfolk in Christ!

[URL=http://sdbvtwmv.com]svsppxxk[/URL] drbgzdol http://jfnonerp.com zvffgjqy nvyayotr pvfupvox