isaacdowning.com

"People innately see “evil” but deny evil in themselves thinking that they are basically good."


I've often wondered at what point desolation triggers man to commune with God. I watched a show a few months back where this woman admits to cheating on her husband, fantasizing about an old boy friend during her wedding, and kicking the dog. It was one of those shows where if she answers correctly (doesn't lie) then she wins money. She won a bunch of money essentially tearing her family down, and then they asked her if she thought she was a good person. Verbally she said yes, but the lie detector said otherwise, and she got the answer wrong. I think people WANT to deny evil in themselves, but when immersed in Thoreau's quiet desperation we all know exactly what we are...

"I agree with Eric"


music to my ears...


"...that an ontological response might be one of the best ways to respond to people who are struggling with issues in the church and to turn their questions into self confrontations."


I think it's only through this behaviour one begins to understand their own fallibility and it's impact on others. It's a cascading effect. I'm not perfect, those around me aren't perfect. Even though they may or may not extend grace to my imperfections, Christ teaches me I must extend grace to theirs. The hope is the cascading effect becomes a contagion.

It looks like you've got it working. If your picture isn't showing up, clear the cookies on your internet browser and refresh the page.

How do I get Gravatar to work?

I like this direction. We see the hand of God in His creation but yet the view has been marred both in the church and in creation. People look at both creation and the church and are convinced that a god wouldn't let evils exist in either. The ontological evidence applies to the church as well as the world: the human race and creation itself. What scares me the most is those times where I'm seeing clearly enough to see the evil in my own life. What I like about children is you can see the noetic affects of sin plain as day, shamelessly and blatantly displayed for all to see. It's done naturally and displays itself as soon as the child is able to express himself. A clear view of sin is a great place for a person to be for then they will see their need for a savior. People innately see "evil" but deny evil in themselves thinking that they are basically good. I agree with Eric, that an ontological response might be one of the best ways to respond to people who are struggling with issues in the church and to turn their questions into self confrontations.

"the other “problem” we have is an absence of all the facts."

I completely agree. I feel like we've covered all the bases, and from what I can see I think we're all on the same page. Personal responsibility, social responsibility... we could argue the specifics of how that should look, but since none of us were there it's all speculation from a distance.

"...as i’ve grown to know god, i’ve grown to know the actions of a church, the church, are not HIS actions. i’ve been able to disconnect the actions of the church from the love of god. i’ve found that disconnection was necessary to grow in my love for the lord, as my bitterness of the church was clouding the relationship."

Unfortunately, I've seen this being played out far too often. I'm currently reading the book "True Discipleship" by John Koessel, and he basically says that the Church knows that they are called to be Christ-like. Christ is the example, but they also know (or perceive) that He is ultimately an unattainable example. No one can really be sinless, can they? So, instead - we've settled for being 'sort of' like Christ. And in the end, a church that's 'sort of' like Christ isn't much of a church at all.

I loved the quote you left. It brought to mind Psalm 19:1, "The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork." To me it makes sense logically that we would have this inner desire to seek out God - not just in the pages of Scripture, but His revealed attributes in our lives and in creation. It's an awesome thought to realize that we were created for fellowship with Him, and even thousands of years after the fall of Adam, that purpose is still evident in our spiritual beings. We seek Him out.

micah,

god forgive us for creating a church a mile wide, and an inch deep.

eb

the other "problem" we have is an absence of all the facts. i actually clicked over here from a post where you commented about similarities between administering the pulpit and public servants. armchair quarterbacks about in the public sector, as they do in the church. you have to please a board of directors, each with their own interpretation of how to carry out their mandate just as a city council would.

that being said, i don't feel anything for the church in this scenario. nothing. as i did my run tonight, i thought about the man they asked to leave and your comment:

"My heart breaks for this man’s soul and for so many others like him that are very likely lost forever because we (the Church - capital “C”) weren’t faithful."

...my heart broke as well. BUT, as i've grown to know god, i've grown to know the actions of a church, the church, are not HIS actions. i've been able to disconnect the actions of the church from the love of god. i've found that disconnection was necessary to grow in my love for the lord, as my bitterness of the church was clouding the relationship.

i don't get an ability to witness much, but, each and every time i have the conversation has always started with something along the line of 'i don't believe in religion', to which i respond, 'oh, who in the church made you sad', and they tell me.

god weeps over the church, we cast our stones at it, society mocks it, and yet without it...i dunno.

i'm reading a book by this guy.

in it, he talks about how god, or God, needs a body.

without a body, there is no god.

it actually compliments something I read in the beliefs section of the new york times from a few saturdays ago; namely that enlightenment deists argue natural religion must occur as a prelude to revealed religion. peter steinfels writes thus:

"It [natural religion] was a prelude, a necessary but insufficient foundation for belief. without a further belief resting on revelation, reason was likely to end in skepticism and immorality."

this is a really cool statement to me. i think the combination of the two ideas; god in search of a body, and a mind in search of proof, almost beckon one another to form existence. Without one side or the other, no god exists for that individual. If this condition exists corporately, no god exists.

now, not to get into an ontological argument here, but as i've worked through god in me and me in god, the role of the church alternates clearly and murkily just as quickly as the ticking clock chimes by...i'm not sure i've ever been comfortable with god revealing himself through the church...

I wanted to comment on this when I read it a few days ago but only found the time today since it's a Friday:)

Growing inwardly is as important to a church as growing outwardly. We are to make disciples and Jesus spent 3 years with his disciples before leaving them on their own. Sure he sent them out for short times on their own but they also had to come back and give a report. Not to mention how children are, by default, disciples of their parents and I believe have priority over their parent's other disciples. Hopefully that inward discipleship produces outward growth.

Now on to the question of what to do with "serious" sinners in the church. So many churches haven't thought this through and often take inappropriate action when faced with challenging people. The man in Isaacs example shouldn't have been excommunicated. Excommunication is for unrepentant people who will not listen to their authorities. But when a sinner (even serious ones) repents make him a disciple. Paul exhorts the Corinthians to take back that same repentant person (who was a sexual offender by the way) who he previously condemned to excommunication. A "disciple" is to be "disciplined" to conform to the image of Christ by dealing with the ways in which he is not like Christ. For a sexual offender, dealing with lust is a good place to start by using the "tools" we are given. Tools like accountability, ownership, responsibilities, put off/put on (Eph3), amputation (Matt 5:27-30), etc. The problem isn't so much that a "sexual offender" should or shouldn't be in the church, it's that there aren't very many Christian disciplers out there who are willing to make the "serious" sinner a disciple of Christ.

Hi, Erik. Thanks for the comment!

I can see your point of view. First, to clarify: my main beef in this situation was obviously with the church for their apparent urgency to rid themselves of a sinner rather than working through problems. Sex crimes are a serious offense, and can't be taken lightly - but I still don't think that simple knowledge of an offense is reason to kick the guy out of the church.

I do agree with you in that the individual has a responsibility to forthcoming about their past. But that was what he was trying to do: He spoke honestly with the people in the church! Would you kick him out just because he didn't tell people in the right order? As an aside, most people don't (by way of introduction) tell immediately everyone they meet about their crimes (unless the grievance is so severe that they're legally required to do so). How would attending church be any different? I think he did the right thing in telling people - he didn't have to do this at all, but took the chance to be honest with them.

I could have said more on the subject of wisdom/discernment, but I didn't because that was the undertone of the entire post: the church didn't use enough discernment when they asked him to leave. Instead of working through a difficult situation, they took the easy way out.

If they had allowed him to stay they certainly would have needed to set some boundaries and put him under accountability. And yes it would take time for him to build trust with them. But he shouldn't be excommunicated just because he sinned in the past.

While I wouldn't give a thief my wallet, I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion of treating people like a time-bomb.

um, does the individual in question have no responsibility in your scenario?

"This came out through casual conversations about their lives that members of the church had with him and others in their group."

...and this is where HE was wrong. A church should have policies in place which guide the relationship between the congregant and the church. Boundaries MUST be established due to the nature of the crime. Simply stating he's looking for repentance doesn't change the chemistry which precipitated the behaviour in the first place. The leadership must protect the flock.

To that end, it was HIS responsibility to communicate with the church, officially, not casually, and inform them of his past.

Since HE did not do that, the trust issue is already out the window. Forgiveness is one thing, but it does not require us to let down our guard. For instance, if you steal money from me, I will forgive you. But, I'll never give you access to my wallet again. Forgiveness without wisdom, what is that???

Dude I totally agree. That as a father I too want to protect my family. However as a "christian" I have the need to be forgiving. I wouldn't them in the nursery or anything but we have to remember the very thing that Jesus asked Peter to do. "Love my sheep." Simply love people. Granted we don't justify the sin however we need to love people.

I agree with you that there are churches that are not inward focused, but the point I was making was that without intentional leadership and a clear vision of why the church exists, the congregation will naturally start focusing on themselves.

I know we're generally in agreement and you already know this, but to clarify what I'm saying a little further: human beings are self-centered due to their fallen & sinful nature. And since churches are made up of these same fallen human beings, I think it's only to be expected that a lot of the same issues will need to be dealt with in the church.

I wasn't saying (or didn't intend to say) that every church or every person is self-centered, just that it's very easy to become that way.

Love the post, but I have to quibble with one thing, "I’m convinced that the natural tendency is for a church to grow inward." I don't think that's always true. I think it's true in many cases, particularly in established churches, and churches from particular donominations. I think the other end can also be true, that the church could trend so far outward that the people there aren't growing, aren't being discipled, etc.

As a father I understand the thing. I was appalled to find out that there are new regulations on sex offenders (which may include a guy who fornicated with his 17 year old girlfriend while 19) for Halloween. They have to put a big marker in the window and keep the lights off. So now if you're not home on Halloween all your neighbors will think *you're* a sex offender.

Jesus hung out with drunks and prostitutes and institutional thieves (tax collectors). And we need to get our hands dirty if we're going to bring the Gospel to our nation, and more importantly, our neighborhood. Good post.