In the past there were people in my life with whom I would have shared the following.But they are no longer in my life so I am sharing it with the blogosphere:
I think I knew the individual honoured. I am sure I personally know the struggle within that community. So I am sharing it with you.
The unchurched refers to individuals who have not attended a religious service within the past six months or more, while the de-churched refers to individuals who were previously active in religious services but have discontinued attending regularly. Some may argue that the unchurched population is merely uninformed and that they need to come to know about God. In contrast, they claim that those who have disconnected from the church are simply going through wounds caused by past church experiences, better known as “church hurt.” Although some of this may hold true, the important issue is how we can connect the difference between perception and reality in order to grasp the needs and questions of those who are unchurched and “de-churched.”
Reaching the Unchurched and the De-churched
Today is Trinity Sunday. The BCP sets John 3 as the Gospel while the Western Roman Rite has Matthew 28:18–20. Interesting?! I am not much of a theologian (hubris much?!) so the following needs to be read with some salt.
I have heard many sermons trying to explain the Trinity. Some end in modalism – oh, so modern – others in a different heresy. The worst are “children’s sermons” that use physical examples. I sometimes wonder if Trinity Sunday should not be renamed to “Heresy Sunday”?!
So, simply, a reworked quasi-quote from Kierkegaard:
[The Trinity] is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 14:6 (KJV)
I am not much of a theologian (says the fool all proud!) but these are some random thoughts on the verse above.
Thought 1: Jesus does not say, “I am going to give you the truth”. He says, “I am the truth”. It is not a truth about Jesus but Jesus Himself. Jesus does not provide a system of thought, a way of living, or a way of locating truth – He says, “I am the truth”. In Buber’s terms, truth is not an it (facts and inference) but a You (a relationship). There is no “truth” beyond Jesus.
Thought 2: Jesus does not say, “Wherever you think you find truth, there am I.” Yes, there is truth apart from Jesus. Yet finding truth and finding Jesus are not the same thing. Jesus is a person and so truth is personal. Jesus says, “I am the truth”. There is no “truth” beyond Jesus.
I am going to add to this via other posts, methinks.
Further to the pervious post …
I was told, by a professional theologian, that I was a Jesus-only Christian. The person went on to say that we (meaning the church in general) have gone “beyond Jesus” and are now Trinitarian Christians.
I was thinking about going “beyond Jesus”. Is there a “going beyond”?
So I have noticed that there are two ways that people refer to God’s name ….
Are these the same? I feel order matters and they are not. But would be very interested in more intellectual views!
8:2 Wherever the bishop appear, there let the multitude be; even as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful either to baptize, or to hold a love-feast without the consent of the bishop; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that also is well pleasing unto God, to the end that whatever is done may be safe and sure.
The Epistle of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans
I was thinking about the above quote, especially the presence of Jesus and the Church – I am assuming that “Catholic” means universal and not the institution.
Can the statement be turned: Where the church (self-described) is, there is Jesus? Or, where people gather to do something religious, there is Jesus?
The institution is not Christ because the presence of Jesus is the establishing fact. The parish register is not the Book of Life.
… to yesterday’s post, what if, here is a section from Kierkegaard:
But as in Christendom everything has been brought to confusion, so also this; and thereby the point has been reached where Christianity has become paganism. In Christendom they preach perpetually about what happened then after Christ’s death, how He triumphed, and how His disciples made a triumphal conquest of the whole world-in short, one hears only sermons which might properly end with Hurrah I rather than with Amen. No, Christ’s life here upon earth is the paradigm; it is in likeness to it that I along with every Christian must strive to construct my life; and this is the essential object of the sermon, this is the end it should serve, to keep me alert when I would become slack, and to strengthen me when I would become disheartened. In such a sense He is the paradigm in the situation of contemporaneousness; in that situation there was no stuff and nonsense about what happened afterwards. But Christendom has abolished Christianity – on the other hand, it would like to inherit Him and His great name, to gain advantage from the immense consequences of his life, coming pretty close to appropriating these consequences as its own meritorious achievement and making us believe that Christendom is Christ. Every generation has to begin all over again with Christ and thus to present His life as the paradigm; but instead of this, Christendom has taken the liberty of interpreting the whole relationship simply historically, beginning by letting Him be dead-and then it triumphs! Since that time Christendom has been increasing in numbers year by year-and what wonder; for people are only too eager to take part when there is nothing whatever to do but to triumph and to join the parade. And therefore to be a Christian in Christendom is as different from being a Christian in the situation of contemporaneousness as paganism is from Christianity.
Training in Christianity, 109
a fool and his prayer book 