John 6:26-58

Post Reply New Topic

You mean there are Christians even more pharisaic?

ruveyn

Dictionary: pharisaic ( lowercase ) practicing or advocating strict observance of external forms and ceremonies of religion or conduct without regard to the spirit;

I don't remember either of us advocating strict observance of anything, we have been talking mostly about the conduct WITH regard to the spirit. Maybe you should crack a dictionary every now and then ruveyn instead of commenting on threads you know nothing about and probably haven't even read through.

It becomes you not to assume ignorance - or are you truly so provincial?. Think you the spirit of the scholar of Torah and Talmud is restricted to one ethnicity or focus? Go sample some other mother's cooking. Why, just in TG I could find you Jewish, Japanese, ItaloAmerican and Gemischte Pickles linguists who could teach your grandfather Moyshe a thing or two.

It is that very spirit of adhering to the letter of the written doctrine that characterizes the pharisaic mind set. Within Judaism itself, the Ba'al Shem Tov objected strongly to the over-adherence to the letter at the expense of the spirit of the Torah, and he founded the Hassidic Movement which emphasized empathy and emotion over logic and strict adherence to the letter.

ruveyn

The Hassidim are sans doute the most interesting and refreshing development in the readily accessible history of Judaism. It is unfortunate that given the predilections of the real world the Letter over Spirit people more often displace the Spirit over Letter types than vice versa.

This is interesting to me.

I don't find the Pharisees necessarily wrong on all counts. I think there is certainly a high value to be found in the Pharisaic approach, and I don't think something similar is inappropriate for Christians.

By that, I mean that 1) careful attention should be paid to the literal words of the text with the aim of understanding it, and I would add that context be considered in order to distinguish meaning in light of non-literal elements (idioms, metaphors, parables/proverbs, etc.); and 2) contemporary understanding of scripture should be informed by tradition.

And...well, that's about the extent of it as I see it. In #2, I would NOT say that that doctrinal issues are DEPENDENT on tradition. I just mean informed. While I'm not a Catholic, I do acknowledge that for several hundred years the Catholic church was THE Church and as such would have been reliable in preserving knowledge of the early church. The first Protestants didn't wish to throw off Catholicism entirely, but merely correct egregious errors that had nothing to do with Biblical doctrine. Traditions give insight as to what Christians at various times actually believed and how they understood scripture. If you want to understand what exactly it was Christ taught, you're going to depend on those closest to the source.

I also think that current Christianity focuses too much on the personal experience aspect of relating to the divine, loving God with all our heart and mind, but the intellect is too often neglected. It seems the earliest Christians appealed to exercises of the intellect and not always the heart and soul. I suspect where the Pharisees were mistaken had to do with over-reliance on loving God with the mind and the ritualistic emphases of tradition. I'd like to see more Christians actually debating, discussing, and more willing to respectfully challenge positional authority (in the proper spirit without causing division) in order to learn more about what we really believe. I don't get the impression that many Christians really know what to say to those who are curious about the religion as a whole. Part of "playing Pharisee" ought to encourage the Christian to be a "whole believer," rather than only strengthening a person in the "cool" areas of the religion.

As long as this is understood as only assisting in Christian growth and maturity and NOT an end unto itself, for its own sake, and as long as the Christian understands the core beliefs in Christianity (need for atonement, belief that Jesus has provided that atonement, acceptance of God's grace and free gift of forgiveness of sins) there is no harm in growing in wisdom.

I would love to see Christians practicing their religion privately and quietly and not in the public domain.

ruveyn

You are always going to have the knowing God / learning God / experiencing God / doing God disparities - built into human nature.

What is important is balance. Excessive letter-focus and you get duck counts as fish and the multiplicity of judgements and the weighting Proverbs and Pauline epistles higher than the dicta of Christ.

Excessive experience-focus and you get phenomena like the guy who fell in love with glossolalia and ran around the world hunting new glossolalic experiences and heavy-metal worship.

Excessive activity-focus and you get people counting coup witnessing and spending more time on outreach than prayer.

But we are compounded of body, mind, soul,and God is a God of balance.

The Pharisaic movement had a lot going for it, and the Christian analogues in various times and places have also done much that is positive. But for many the temptation to let system override sense spoils the broth.

Tradition again - fine and important up to a point. But when [as for certain threads] a traditional reading blinds one to the clear sense of the original text, we are back at the lecturer reading from the text while the barber doing the dissections shosws that the organs ire in quite different places.

I try to follow the Mama ain't that good a cook principle. Check out different versions early and modern, compare traditions, and do a lot of listening and checking patterned relations scripture to scripture.

We're pretty much in agreement. For the most part, I don't see churches really feeding the intellectual needs of their congregations. Keep in mind I'm heavily involved in worship leadership--I play piano and write instrumental arrangements. It seems I'm the only musician around here that understands not everyone who can be useful in worship by playing musical instruments can even read music. Since I have a background both in classical music and commercialized music (jazz, playing in rock bands, and so on), I'm actually able to communicate by writing music in ways that non-music-readers understand. It's a whatever-it-takes mentality, also something lacking in a lot of places... The point is music and worship are HUGE areas of my life as a believer, and even I can see that the area I work in tends to be more a subject of debate and division than digging into other areas of Christian life. I mean, even Bible Study/Sunday School/small groups/Life Groups/whatever seem to just be about someone reading a Bible passage, some commentary, maybe even watching a video, and people--if they have anything to say at all--just agreeing or merely reciting the same old answers they think they are supposed to say. I don't get the impression that people really EXPERIENCE these kinds of things in their lives, nor do these people really seem all that committed. The intellect is something I see that is neglected. The other thing I see being neglected is actually living by faith, but that's another rant entirely.

Right.


Absolutely. What I'm thinking is we're all out-of-balance. You can put so much of an emphasis on the intellect that, for example, the praise-and-worship experience is neglected. Then Christianity is nothing more than an exercise for the academically gifted.


HEY!! ! WHAT'S WRONG WITH HEAVY-METAL WORSHIP???

Just kidding. I've been to too many blue-haired churches, and I've noticed they have their own version of what they think of as traditional. Um, hello, NOBODY does traditional worship anymore, not even you, and will someone PLEASE explain to me how you are praising your Savior with all your heart by monotoning the same 5 hymns every week? Heavy-metal music is more relevant to me and the generation I grew up with. I'd like to see (and hear) more Christians think of music in greater terms than mere style preferences, rather how we can have a shared time of praise rather than argue over whose personal preferences are the "right" ones. There is a balance to be had, perhaps arranging new songs such that they still connect with the younger crowd without aesthetically annoying the older crowd. Younger worship leaders will likely be pretty stubborn about this, but it's no compromise to present new music such that it is accessible by everyone in a given congregation.


One thing churches tend to do is over-emphasize activities designed to keep people IN the church. You can't go wrong with more outreach. But outreach is ineffective if the people reaching out don't try to maintain ongoing relationships with seekers once they're in the door. As much as I despise Islam, I do have to give them credit for one thing: When someone converts to Islam, it's not unheard of that someone will stay close to the new convert to help teach them about their new religion and to support them with whatever needs they have. Christians will either forget about you after baptism (or whatever, depending on denomination of course), or they'll instantly plug you into Sunday School/Bible study/Choir/Drama. If you have too many things going on, church becomes exhausting. So, Christians DO need to be held accountable if they intend to grow in faith, but getting burned-out from having too much to do is also something we need to worry about.


Exactly.


I agree. But, again, our avoidance of Christian search for truth and wisdom has cost us mental as well as spiritual maturity.

Part of that has made me more dependent on prayer and prayerful living, which is a HUGE problem I have with most fellow Christians. The life my wife and I had together fell apart when we both lost jobs within 6 months of each other and were deep in debt from medical expenses. I have since seen very similar things happen to friends of ours. Rather than carefully evaluate their resources they had and find some way of making a life for themselves in this community, they moved away for no better reason than to maintain their current lifestyle. Um...your "current lifestyle" is the reason you're in the mess you're in!! ! We chose to stay behind and make the best of our circumstances, and I can say that I've started my own business, such as it is and as modest as it may be, and I've actually been able to live out my dreams in ways I never could back when I was under contract with someone. My wife helps people in financial difficulty, and they are astounded because they barely maintain their way of life on over $50k for a single wage-earner while we're doing quite well on less than $20k between the two of us--PLUS we have two children. Oh, and we're debt-free except for student loans. No credit cards, no mortgages, and we pay cash for everything we need. And we never declared bankruptcy.

The point being that people want to depend on their ability to acquire wealth in order to maintain a way of life rather than depending on God to provide their means of survival. While I DO understand that working to provide for one's person and family is important, and I'm not trying to invalidate people who work hard and are successful, the FIRST thing people think is immediately how to maintain their present life rather than their greater importance to the community and their impact on it. Instead of asking, "How will God use me?" they ask "How do I get out of this?" They don't face challenges and answer tough life questions, but rather run like cowards instead of trusting God to provide. The best jobs I've had and continue to have weren't jobs I "applied" for in the traditional sense, but rather were jobs that were handed to me. The last classroom "job-job" I had wasn't even the one I applied for but happened to be a better job than the one I did ask for. I ended up losing that job two years later, but I count the circumstances of getting that job as a sign, and I haven't had a single job after that that I actually applied or interviewed for.

It angers me that people don't really depend on faith or prayer in their daily lives. They don't mature in their faith, and they don't see the cause of God's kingdom advance in their lives. The Pharisaic discipline serves as one way of developing maturity. Prayerfully depending on God is another important way. The Pharisees already had this part worked out FOR them because of their position as Levitical priests. So I think fulfilling the role also of scholar-priests was easy for them since, not only it being their job, but as such they had the time to devote to it. Christians too often neglect both aspects of Christianity.


Well, traditions give us CLUES as to what we are and where we come from. There is no written source as to how, for example, Passover should be observed. Tradition provides a format as to how the first passover can be remembered properly fulfilling all its requirements. By no means is the modern-day Passover celebration format necessarily THE way the Israelites celebrated it, nor is it necessary (from written law) that there even IS formula for the passover meal. Yes, there ARE basic required elements. But leaving a cup for Elijah is like leaving cookies for Santa--it is a tradition, specifically looking forward to the return of the prophet and the coming Messiah, but not informed by written law. However, it does speak volumes for how Jews themselves anticipate the arrival of a new kingdom. And it is precisely the coming of that kingdom that Christianity is all about. So I'd never say the Talmud has no value for Christians, even if for no other reason than to understand the traditions in place during the earthly ministry of Jesus and why the religious leaders of the day objected the way they did. The Sadducees objected to the oral tradition just as Jesus did--maybe even more so--but Jesus seemed to have been even less friendly to the Sadducees than the Pharisees. But if you miss the traditions in place and the importance placed on oral law, then you lack a context for understanding both what the Jews themselves understood Torah to mean and subsequently the basis for Christianity itself.

Similarly, you have to remember what year it is--2011, and a plain reading of the Bible can mean, well, pretty much whatever you want. Without understanding Biblical and church tradition, you miss what the "fathers" understood the words of Christ and the origins of the faith to be. If you don't look back in time somewhat, then the Bible really isn't more than some cute stories and fairy tales, whereas the traditional understanding of it is much more than that.

Now, it could be that tradition itself is wrong, which by examining the text itself you can determine whether the message is really Biblical or not. A lot of Catholic "doctrine" or "dogma" in more recent times (referring to Inquisitions, relatively recent as opposed to the 300's) is not scripturally based. That's when you find tradition to actually be destructive rather than helpful. I'm not a tradition-for-it's-own-sake believer. But something like, say, the Nicene Creed sums up neatly what the primitive Christians believed and practiced--a sort of checklist for what makes a REAL Christian, the beliefs that unified believers and distinguished them from those who believed something else. If that was what they understood Christian faith to be back then, being close to the source those beliefs SHOULDN'T be any different now. Same with the Biblical cannon--and rather than picking and choosing books to fit an agenda, making it "law" which books were acceptable was merely reflective of what Christians understood and read back then. So the present-day Bible is also one of those informative traditions, especially since other "lost" books of the Bible are available to the general public. Why accept these and not those? We have a long-standing tradition, and it is that way for a very good reason--THESE books highlight the central beliefs of the first Christians, while others teach something else and weren't even around when Christianity first appeared.

Tradition is not a BAD thing in and of itself. It helps us understand how scripture was initially received and understood, provides us with the "why" of our beliefs, and even helps us identify ideas that are antithetical to Biblical teaching. The mistake is observing tradition for its own sake, as though it were an end unto itself. As a Baptist, one might ask me why we practice baptism the way we do. I could say, "duh, because we're Baptists, and that's the way we do it." Um, no, we do this out of obedience to scriptural commands concerning believer's baptism. We are called to repentance, represented by cleansing by water, and also serving as a symbol of Christ's own death and resurrection and our own hope for resurrection at the end of time. The institution of baptism is in the gospels--not as something we have to do for the promise of salvation, but because of what we want to as an outward sign of what we believe. I agree that it is easy to forget the WHY of tradition, but that is not a reason to abandon tradition. Rather we should seek to remind ourselves why some traditions are important and their role in our faith.


Same here...

Funny thing, but I'm more used to posting when I disagree strongly with something.

Well of course, the Christians who practice their religion privately and quietly - which category clearly includes me - are noy exactly visible. Sorry you can't see us.

As for Christians who regularly assemble in what is customarily called a church for corporate worship - kind of analogous to Islamic assemblies in the mosque or Jewish assemblies in what here gets referred to as a synagogue - that is less private, since you can see them going in and out the doors and parking lot, and occasionally some of them ring a bell. But at least you can watch them - you could even walk in and observe what goes on - few if any expel the unbaptized during the liturgy these days.

I personally have rarely observed Christians "practicing their religion" [I assume you do not count following the precepts of Christ as practicing Christianity, though of course trhat is the whole point and we are supposed to do that in public so swell as private] publicly and loudly. Occasionally someone came on campus and shouted out to the hecklers - very like much of what goes on here but orally.

But perhaps where you live the Christians assemble on the street outside your house - maybe with a Salvation Army band.

Church is not a public display. It's not on public property...

I am not the least bit sorry.

ruveyn