tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post116068188651494328..comments2023-03-30T06:09:00.211-07:00Comments on a whole nother blog: dysconnectedjollybeggarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03795539157694277977noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1162063236500194512006-10-28T12:20:00.000-07:002006-10-28T12:20:00.000-07:00never- hopefully we ARE the outside world.never- hopefully we ARE the outside world.jollybeggarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03795539157694277977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1161725792256354132006-10-24T14:36:00.000-07:002006-10-24T14:36:00.000-07:00and when do we got to 'blow up the outside world'?...and when do we got to 'blow up the outside world'?SocietyVshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10892870801259282254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1161664312385040282006-10-23T21:31:00.000-07:002006-10-23T21:31:00.000-07:00Thanks, I think refreshed sums up my position. I a...Thanks, I think refreshed sums up my position. I agree there is some great people doing great things in every church all over the place (by place I mean the entire world). Still some things which were expressed in the blog were quite valid points and to deny themis to add fuel to my blog (lol).SocietyVshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10892870801259282254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1161645070253054512006-10-23T16:11:00.000-07:002006-10-23T16:11:00.000-07:00"So I think most of use the generic term 'church' ..."So I think most of use the generic term 'church' in what we say as the institution needs to change, not really a shot at a single person in that entity but as a collective whole. The collective church needs to change seems to be the message, no matter the denomination, the creed, the dogma's, or the structure...it all needs to be refreshed."<BR/>***<BR/>so it's okay to just spray the entire church with the criticisms meant for individuals whom we only imagine through the high contrast lens of our ideals? hmmm.<BR/><BR/>i don't think i clearly articulated in comment 35 what i was trying to say. here goes my second attempt...<BR/><BR/>i have no problem with contention. change comes as a result of just enough dissonance. however, in my view, there are some troublesome 'us and them' defaults in place which need to be torn down in order for the greatest number of people to be impacted to the greatest degree. <BR/><BR/>otherwise, there are just these little ideosyncratic/ethnocentric factions all over the place who all believe that they have a monopoly on 'the way things should be' and are called to tell apparently everyone else that they are doing it wrong.<BR/><BR/>i have a problem with that.<BR/><BR/>so when i speak of restricting (at least to some degree) our thinking to our sphere of immediate influence- those we know- what i am saying is 'let's stop talking about the whole church as though everyone in every church is more interested in themselves than others.' in my experience, this is not an accurate assessment of the way things are.<BR/><BR/>furthermore, to rail against 'the machine' is to once again create this comfortable distance between ourselves and any form of leadership/accountability structure because for some anything bigger than a discussion group is automatically suspect in the area of intentions and integrity. once again, factions rise up where everybody knows how things are supposed to be in their ideals and because these ideals are extreme, fitting antitheses are appointed from the realm of the distantly observed, rather than the realm of the experienced.<BR/><BR/>my point above was simply to say 'let's not forget that there are some really great people and groups doing the work that Jesus started as well.'<BR/><BR/>having said all this, i must say that i LOVE the last word of your comment SVS.<BR/><BR/>refreshed is a really good word.jollybeggarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03795539157694277977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1161618560227166352006-10-23T08:49:00.000-07:002006-10-23T08:49:00.000-07:00"we have once again defaulted in our thinking to t..."we have once again defaulted in our thinking to this stock church caricature, rather than actual people we know...but can we go a little deeper...if we're going to speak so strongly about those whom Jesus entrusted with his message of light? Otherwise it's all just rather familiar name-calling and blame-gaming." (JB)<BR/><BR/>This sounds a little like something I refer to a lot 'us and them' mentality. It makes it seem like if someone speaks against the machine he is a 'them' even though I will contend those people also have been just as entrusted with the 'message of light' - whatever that vague idea even means. <BR/><BR/>As far as 'the blame game' goes and naming 'names' (of actual people we know), I find this a reprehensible church practice that needs to be wiped out. I remember the guys on Slice of Laodicea that used to 'rail on' Hybels and Osteen and literally called them 'of the devil' for their washed out gospel practices...they had some things right but the naming of names brought with it bias and contempt for those named by the Slice crew (to the point I think they might stone Osteen if they met him).<BR/><BR/>So I think most of use the generic term 'church' in what we say as the institution needs to change, not really a shot at a single person in that entity but as a collective whole. The collective church needs to change seems to be the message, no matter the denomination, the creed, the dogma's, or the structure...it all needs to be refreshed.SocietyVshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10892870801259282254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1161617014756489132006-10-23T08:23:00.000-07:002006-10-23T08:23:00.000-07:00so, like, as the big administrator guy of this lit...so, like, as the big administrator guy of this little forum we have going here, i can probably just wipe out comments 30, 32 and 34 if it's my calling to do so, right? lol <BR/><BR/>you know, if i wasn't so dang busy these days i'd punch out a new post on a new topic... anyway, thanks all you people engaging here.<BR/><BR/>honestly, though, i think that we have looped this one nicely. awhile back, H said:<BR/><BR/>"So does a church get to say "Our calling is to minister to the souls of the people that go to our church to the exclusion of eveything else." Are they right to stand with tear filled eyes and hands upraised for two hours sunday morning singing worship songs followed by a brief message on possitive thinking?"<BR/><BR/>and i think i have to point out here that, although the last reported words of Jesus are about going out and bearing witness to the truth outside the immediate walls of the temple and the city and the country, the original post spawning all of these comments addressed the problem of serving/ reaching out to/ attending to the spiritual and social needs of those who are either newcomers or non-attenders AT THE EXCLUSION OF the people already going there... hence the whole 'rotting fruit' analogy. <BR/><BR/>we have once again defaulted in our thinking to this stock church caricature, rather than actual people we know. <BR/><BR/>not wanting to seem cranky or anything, but can we go a little deeper than characters on saturday night live if we're going to speak so strongly about those whom Jesus entrusted with his message of light?<BR/><BR/>otherwise it's all just rather familiar name-calling and blame-gaming.jollybeggarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03795539157694277977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1161610973662701772006-10-23T06:42:00.000-07:002006-10-23T06:42:00.000-07:00hey Society, I'm gonna take #34 as well...hmmm, ho...hey Society, I'm gonna take #34 as well...hmmm, how high will you build the comment box tally???Cinderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15015361230897796116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1161578060804254212006-10-22T21:34:00.000-07:002006-10-22T21:34:00.000-07:00"I think you are confused... The cup half full thi..."I think you are confused... The cup half full thing is about perspective, not possessions. Have you ever met someone from another country who lived in terrible circumstances, but they had more joy in their poverty than you in your riches? I have." (shawn)<BR/><BR/>Shawn...confused...with this one, i don't see it that way. have i ever met someone in another country who had more joy in their poverty than i in my riches...YES, i have and it changed my perspective forever. would i give away all my riches to go live in that poverty and those circumstances vs. live my whole life in the western world...in a heartbeat!<BR/><BR/>i know the cup half full is about perspective. i wasn't meaning that comment to be about possessions only. what i was getting at is that sometimes, especially in the western world's thinking, our perspectives get clouded and inward-focused. you can have your cup overflowing with life experience, love and the support someone else needs, but hoard it, instead of sharing it around and simply being there for others. you can have your perspective, but choose to not allow it have any influence on you vs. allowing it to change how you live.<BR/><BR/>that's what i was attempting to get at.<BR/><BR/>Society...i too am enjoying the game!Cinderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15015361230897796116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1161576439723543852006-10-22T21:07:00.000-07:002006-10-22T21:07:00.000-07:0032 comments, wowsers! Let's see me, Shawn, Heinini...32 comments, wowsers! Let's see me, Shawn, Heinini, JollyBeggar, Cinder, and indiefaith...I love this game.SocietyVshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10892870801259282254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1161564120754354572006-10-22T17:42:00.000-07:002006-10-22T17:42:00.000-07:00I think you are confused... The cup half full thin...I think you are confused... The cup half full thing is about perspective, not possessions. Have you ever met someone from another country who lived in terrible circumstances, but they had more joy in their poverty than you in your riches? I have. <BR/>Hin says "I go I have no say in how the money is spent, who gets hired or fired, what programs are offered or which aren't nor even "how to shine the light." Who cares? Who would want to be sucked into the institution anyway? I have influence with friends, family and co-workers and that is enough for me. If I support something, I support it. I like Jolly Beggar, so I am here, and so are you.Shawnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00016337954725013686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1161535516140305702006-10-22T09:45:00.000-07:002006-10-22T09:45:00.000-07:0030th comment is always quite a feat!30th comment is always quite a feat!SocietyVshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10892870801259282254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1161467120411054762006-10-21T14:45:00.000-07:002006-10-21T14:45:00.000-07:00Exactly Cinder, you rock!Exactly Cinder, you rock!SocietyVshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10892870801259282254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1161363550118558052006-10-20T09:59:00.000-07:002006-10-20T09:59:00.000-07:00"You see this is where I quite heartedily disgaree..."You see this is where I quite heartedily disgaree, the cup is not half full if we can say 'I am good' to another's 'suffering'. That's not half full at all, that others having emptiness to our cup runneth over. Time we started pouring some drinks." (S) <BR/><BR/>exactly...if we are fortunate to have our cups even half full, if not running over, then it's time the contents of the cup quit being hoarded and instead shared around. things would be a lot better in this world if, instead of sitting on the sidelines trying to protect what we had, we just shared it around to help everyone's cup to be full...that's living a life of love and really in my mind, what the call of the 'church' is to be.Cinderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15015361230897796116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1161318209204053602006-10-19T21:23:00.000-07:002006-10-19T21:23:00.000-07:00"Do any of us have any right to question a/the chu..."Do any of us have any right to question a/the church's stated mandate if all they need to say is "this is what God has told us to do"?" (H)<BR/><BR/>Yes.<BR/><BR/>"These groups are usually smaller than a church congregation and sometimes choose simply to worship together rather than join a church" (H)<BR/><BR/>Yeah but they can't this be the revolution of the core culture of the church instead of a singled out group? Maybe this idea is more accurate to the original community than the current state of affairs. <BR/><BR/>"but when I go I have no say in how the money is spent, who gets hired or fired, what programs are offered or which aren't nor even "how to shine the light" (H)<BR/><BR/>This is mostly true but then I would say 'speak up'. Maybe your ideas might not be accepted but rage against the 'dying of the light' or at least the mis-placing of that light.<BR/><BR/>"I'll also agree that the cup is half full, at least for the majority of us in Canada who, for the most part, need not worry about the next meal, being arrested and tortured, watching our family suffer because there are no jobs, having loved ones murdered in military conquests" (H)<BR/><BR/>You see this is where I quite heartedily disgaree, the cup is not half full if we can say 'I am good' to another's 'suffering'. That's not half full at all, that others having emptiness to our cup runneth over. Time we started pouring some drinks.SocietyVshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10892870801259282254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1161277734393502972006-10-19T10:08:00.000-07:002006-10-19T10:08:00.000-07:00"somewhere between exluding all and all-inclusive ..."somewhere between exluding all and all-inclusive is one church's calling"<BR/><BR/>So does a church get to say "Our calling is to minister to the souls of the people that go to our church to the exclusion of eveything else." Are they right to stand with tear filled eyes and hands upraised for two hours sunday morning singing worship songs followed by a brief message on possitive thinking? Maybe if this doesn't appeal to me I just don't attend there? Do any of us have any right to question a/the church's stated mandate if all they need to say is "this is what God has told us to do"?<BR/><BR/>societyvs, what I meant by joining a catholic worker community or other "intentional community" is to join a small group of people living together, usually sharing many things in common, like a commune. These groups are usually smaller than a church congregation and sometimes choose simply to worship together rather than join a church. <BR/><BR/>"The church isn't an institution but a gathering of light," (shawn)<BR/><BR/>The church may be a gathering of light (a light that christians don't have a monopoly on however) but when I go I have no say in how the money is spent, who gets hired or fired, what programs are offered or which aren't nor even "how to shine the light" like our current discussion is about. In my mind, defining institutions very briefly, they are organizations of some kind with a hierarchy and a somewhat clear mandate/structure. I think I understand what your getting at shawn...the "where two or more are gathered" idea and I agree that sometimes people may gather and do together the same things done in a church. However, there is a very institutionalized Christian church. <BR/><BR/>I'll also agree that the cup is half full, at least for the majority of us in Canada who, for the most part, need not worry about the next meal, being arrested and tortured, watching our family suffer because there are no jobs, having loved ones murdered in military conquests etc. etc. etc.hineinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14086065540681098283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1161230963034536002006-10-18T21:09:00.000-07:002006-10-18T21:09:00.000-07:00Though my soul is in my eyes, darkening all I see,...Though my soul is in my eyes, darkening all I see, there is a light that shines out of the people who have Jesus lit inside. They love me and I love them for what we have in common. And we love the ones in darkness with the hope of the light that may one day be theirs. The church isn't an institution but a gathering of light, wherever two fireflies meet in the dark. aside: what church building has ever contained people who totally agree on anything? we are all individuals gathering together and doing the best we can with what we have. The cup is half full my friends.<BR/>Shawn.Shawnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00016337954725013686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1161228407227123222006-10-18T20:26:00.000-07:002006-10-18T20:26:00.000-07:00"I also wish there would be concern for the people..."I also wish there would be concern for the people around us in our communities"<BR/><BR/>i don't think this is a fair statement. there's lots of concern that is translating into action among numerous churches in this city, so let's not deal with these big, bad, uncaring churchlady stereotypes... they are simple polar opposites to the ideal ofwhich you speak and that's too easy. do you mean to say that you don't know of a single caring community-centred ministry in any of the churches in this town- or is it simply that, in your view, there needs to be MORE concern for the people around us?<BR/><BR/>i know the differences may be semantic, but i get kinda tired of people making these big hardass statements against the church. we all know that there are problems and that the church isn't as effective as it could be, but can we come up with something original?jollybeggarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03795539157694277977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1161224331057668352006-10-18T19:18:00.000-07:002006-10-18T19:18:00.000-07:00"This doesn't even address the issue of whether al..."This doesn't even address the issue of whether all churches should even be aiming for this "living in common" idea expressed in Acts or if its simply a matter of "different churches for different people who like different things" (H)<BR/><BR/>Those are 2 ideas that exist, one an ideal and the other the reality of the current times. I have never been a fan of 'pick n choose' Christianity, it's just too phony for me and I have seen the abuse of the idea. But if there is an ideal then it makes sense to reach for it then settle for a lower degrading easily reachable reality. <BR/><BR/>"If we feel the church is lacking in a pratical application of Jesus teaching and desire a more communal, hands on faith then maybe we should join a catholic worker community or one of the numerous other "intentional communities" many with a shared christian core of beliefs." (H)<BR/><BR/>Now that's the spirit and I agree. Why don't churches work together for the betterment of communities which they are within, I really don't care if I work with Catholics, Pentacostals, or Universalists..to me the actions outweigh the doctrine. I would rather there was unity than division (which exists now)...I also wish there would be concern for the people around us in our communities and if any denomination does something for the people in their neighborhood...you can be sure I will support that endeavor (no matter what the denomination). I guess I see the ideal and I see the way things are, I am not content with the way things are and if one is...well convince me why it can't change or why it should stay the same (I am an open ear).SocietyVshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10892870801259282254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1161112853354650152006-10-17T12:20:00.000-07:002006-10-17T12:20:00.000-07:00"intentional community"that's the phrase i was try..."intentional community"<BR/><BR/>that's the phrase i was trying to recall. i love that. i really think that the institutional church will be more in line with what Jesus was dying to start once it has sorted out what Jesus's intentions were in the first place, and then pattern its activities accordingly.<BR/><BR/>inclusive mission statements are all fine and good but unless they are backed up with inclusive mission it is all just right-sounding rhetoric. however, the polar opposite of doing and being nothing for others is trying to do everything and be everything for others. <BR/><BR/>somewhere between exluding all and all-inclusive is one church's calling. just as individuals have specific gifts and abilities and personalities which can be used in the hands of God to bring about his kingdom on earth, so are the natural gifts, abilities and personalities of an entire church body. discerning the difference between what God is intending to do through you and what is of specific interest and appeal is a huge deal for any leader.<BR/><BR/>over the last while i've been trying to sort these things out as an individual- only to find that the whole process begins again for me in my involvement with a local church. leadership is just involvement... it is role that is played which is (contrary to a lot of the hierarchical leadership advice and practice)only as important as every other role in the community. when you see things as circles, nobody is at the front of the line...<BR/><BR/>anyway, my point (if there is one here... just as H is all over the place with too little caffeine, i am with too much- and it's been a drinking day!) is that most of the time i'm trying to hear the voice of God as to what i/we do next.<BR/><BR/>being in the loop with Jesus' modelled intentions makes that discernment a bit clearer.jollybeggarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03795539157694277977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1161101583438251932006-10-17T09:13:00.000-07:002006-10-17T09:13:00.000-07:00indiefaith, welcome! Good to see you. I hope our ...indiefaith, welcome! Good to see you. I hope our conversation that is turning to a discussion about first century or early christian communities makes you feel welcome.<BR/><BR/>"and to deem a dream or an ideal infeasible simply because others have failed to realize it seems a bit hopeless."(jollybeggar)<BR/><BR/>Okay, I'll give you that one, your right. I don't think I was being quite as dismissive as it sounded. I was unclear I guess. I think my point was that many of us agree that the Acts community is an ideal and sounds like a nice model to pursure but in terms of our above conversation about the current church, it seems like some radical changes are going to have to happen. This doesn't even address the issue of whether all churches should even be aiming for this "living in common" idea expressed in Acts or if its simply a matter of "different churches for different people who like different things" . If this is the case then really what seems to be the reality of church now could fit. If we feel the church is lacking in a pratical application of Jesus teaching and desire a more communal, hands on faith then maybe we should join a catholic worker community or one of the numerous other "intentional communities" many with a shared christian core of beliefs.<BR/><BR/>I realize that was a little all over the place, its what I get for posting without having drank enough coffee.hineinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14086065540681098283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1161064542413091742006-10-16T22:55:00.000-07:002006-10-16T22:55:00.000-07:00"...it is also no longer feasible to envision, "Al..."...it is also no longer feasible to envision, "All the believers [being] together..." or "...enjoying the favor of all the people." So the possibilty still remains to adress the fragmentation and "dark side" of what this mythic early group of Christians has now become"<BR/><BR/>nope- i don't buy that.<BR/><BR/>in my view, the world isn't any more dangerous or weird or cold now than it has ever been... there are just more options because there are more people. i don't believe for a moment that it was any easier or more feasible to live together in love and service with the roman soldiers trying to recruit christians for the circus while the zealots were trying to assassinate them for desertion...<BR/><BR/>nope, i think that the only real possible challenge to the feasibility of the western church re-enacting acts 2.42 is the distraction of basic affluence- and to deem a dream or an ideal infeasible simply because others have failed to realize it seems a bit hopeless.<BR/><BR/>as for the activist comment, you'll just have to read gary's book!<BR/><BR/>;-)jollybeggarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03795539157694277977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1161059998292067552006-10-16T21:39:00.000-07:002006-10-16T21:39:00.000-07:00wow, you guys have alot of energy for this blog. ...wow, you guys have alot of energy for this blog. i just visited it being connected by hineini's recommendations.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17045950595392790139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1161049719672364212006-10-16T18:48:00.000-07:002006-10-16T18:48:00.000-07:00Cinder, I have to agree with what you said about o...Cinder, I have to agree with what you said about one need being more noble only if the criteria for judging are looked at in a certain way, such as our ability to meet them, and I think that is a great insight. My opinion is that this tendency to know better than the other what the other's need is has got to be one of my most dangerous and violent tendencies. I think jolleybeggar pointed out that one of the possible consequences of my challenging of the value and usefulness of the church as we see it now is that I threaten things of great importance to some who attend. I suppose this is where we start talking about trying to please everyone and whether this is a good, practical or even healthy goal. <BR/><BR/>"what do you do about the information revealed to you? I make no claims to a single bit of the truth...but I do offer solutions plain n simple (and nothing more)." (societyvs)<BR/><BR/>Without getting into a big discussion about revelation I have to say that I'm much more at home and much less prone to do violence if I focus on questions rather than answers. I'm not totally sure, societyvs, what you mean by "solutions plain n simple" but I lack faith in my ability to transcend my selfishness when it comes time for "solutions", especially when those "solutions" are sure to effect others . I think that is why I feel somewhat unable to make the same conclusions you seem to have come too about the church; that the major challenge it has (and by extension the people filling the seats) is an failure to impliment what you read when you read a "Jesus that cares about everyone and the community in general" (societyvs).<BR/><BR/>jollybeggar, I'm not really sure how to respond to the "activist" thing. I think I have some very general characteristics that might be included under this title but could you maybe clarify a bit what you mean? Chances are I won't accept the title ;) but I thought I'd give you a chance. Then maybe I could comment on a few of the things you mention.hineinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14086065540681098283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1161021721969532572006-10-16T11:02:00.000-07:002006-10-16T11:02:00.000-07:00"i mean, what makes people's basic sustenance need..."i mean, what makes people's basic sustenance needs so much more noble than their belonging needs?"<BR/><BR/>do you think it's really a question of whether one or the other is more noble? i think in some cases it might be perceived as which one is easier to help with...for some, which one requires less strings of committment. <BR/><BR/>from what i've observed in the past, people will jump to 'herd' newbies in the door and make them feel welcome, because they don't want to feel alone or like they don't have a place. but then there seems to be an unwritten rule that the 'newbie' stage only lasts a certain amount of time and then you are shoved off to sink or swim.<BR/><BR/>i think it is vital to make 'newbies' feel welcome and a part of the community, but the church also has a huge responsibility to offer ways to reach out to the people who are newer or who have been there a long time. a lot of times, the church fails miserably at this and the end result is a lot of hurt, pain and reservations.Cinderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15015361230897796116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11124017.post-1160970526774641312006-10-15T20:48:00.000-07:002006-10-15T20:48:00.000-07:00"both of you guys are activists... whether this is..."both of you guys are activists... whether this is anti-institutional or reform-oriented comes down to the guy." (JB)<BR/><BR/>But why I am I an activist and for what? I only picked up the bible and read it for what's there, denominational-ism's aside. I don't think I am anti-institution ot anti-church but I think challenging that structure is a 'must'. I read the bible and I see a Jesus that cares about everyone and the community in general (whether in the synagogue or not)...then is dis-liked by the religion/people he is called to help. Was he anti-institution in that process? Yes, in that he demanded a change and nothing less than that change was of any value to him. So, in a way, if the institution gets too 'into itself' then I demand a change (and I ain't saying our of dis-like for the church, but concern and love for others within and without). But I say the church needs to focus on others and their problems if they want even a sort of credibility in any community. I am looking at the dis-like for church and now offering a solution to it (which I stake as the Action Group). If churches can give and help in real ways, credibility is something no longer to think about.<BR/><BR/>"Secondly, I'd be left with a horrible reality of myself having some sort of monopoly on truth which I am utterly convinced is not the case (if it were, no hope would remain for humanity)" (H)<BR/><BR/>But even without the monopoly, we can all agree that is true, what do you do about the information revealed to you? I make no claims to a single bit of the truth, since I am a human, but I do offer solutions plain n simple (and nothing more). If I am gonna ask questions about what the church can do different (which I did) then I should be prepared for the answers to that problem (otherwise I find the seeking useless). I see problems in the church and I see a body of people that can do something amazing if led there (like a Moses experience), but the facts remain 'how can someone learn something he has never heard?'. To me it is no good to keep the info to myself when I see something the church can do pro-actively (which is the foundation of the Action Group). <BR/><BR/>The Action Group being an effort I started to develop mass charity within the church (no matter what denomination) and to live a life closer to the Acts community and the life of Christ (based on His life and teachings). The reason I did it because it was the biggest deficiency missing from the body of Christ, and I seen the church as a change agent within society not controlled by some political mandate. But I am well aware of the obstacles in pushing for a 'giving community', it's called tithes and buildings. But even if the church will discover the use they can have in their communities by giving they will change their views (of this I am sure). If you ever helped a single mother who had no food, you will know the utter joy of doing that good deed and what Christ meant by 'loving your neighbor' - ie: answering the need and the person that asked of us. It's odd but we have a belief we can ask of God anything and He will provide (which I believe), but what if God has supplied and we just aren't noticing it? (the sharing of mass resources with our communities). My end goal is that each and every church establishes this mandate, then works together with their resources, and in the end changes the cities communities answering the prayers of the people asking. It's not that God hasn't provided (actually far from it) but that we don;t know He meant we have what they (poor/defeated) need.SocietyVshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10892870801259282254noreply@blogger.com