<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: approaching exile</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.paradoxica.net/2006/05/12/searching-for-home/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.paradoxica.net/2006/05/12/searching-for-home/</link>
	<description>new media developer / urban nomad</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 02:53:55 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Paul Helms</title>
		<link>http://www.paradoxica.net/2006/05/12/searching-for-home/#comment-152</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Helms</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 May 2006 15:56:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paradoxica.net/2006/05/12/searching-for-home/#comment-152</guid>
		<description>Scott, I have to pick at you for a bit.  I'm trying to determine the underlying assumptions that go into your post, and I don't want to assume too much.  Perhaps consider these questions and let me know what you think:

1.) When you speak of the Christian 'myth' as a framework it reminds me of many modern Christian thinkers outside of evangelicalism, specifically Reinhold Niebuhr (I may be confusing him with his brother in this case, H. Richard Niebuhr).  Much of this 'post-liberal' theology is anthropocentric, focusing on how we understand God and emphasizing Christian narrative as a framework for understanding this -- though most if not all did not believe the narrative to be actually historically true; rather, Christianity became useful in their endeavours.  Niebuhr believed that Christ's death and resurrection were 'myths' in this sense to symbolically convey to us in a deep and meaningful way some kind of deeper truth about ourselves and how we should interact with the world.  What do you think of this?

2.) On the topic of the Church 'basking in the sun' after the conversion of Constantine, did you consider the many groups of Christians who faced persecution by the larger 'Church' (i.e. Roman Catholicism and even some Protestant groups)?  Some interesting ones are Tyndale, Luther, the French Huguenots, John Wycliffe, and the Waldensians.  I believe that looking at their histories will reveal a telling display of how the Church of God survives and even thrives in the darkness of this world.  Do you think that any of these events and peoples could be mapped onto our modern, or post-modern day world?

3.) And finally, what about the ministry of the Holy Spirit?  Jesus Christ said himself in Matt. 16, "I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."  How do you think the relationship between the living Christ and His Church works in with the idea of preaching the Gospel to a postmodern audience?  If people really were willing and able to come to Christ if only we would preach the Gospel in a way which they 'understood' (for here is my main concern with the idea... that understanding is a part that we must account for and is not a task of the Holy Spirit in regeneration), why would God let them sit around and wait?  How can Christ make the promise that all of the sheep which were given to him will come to him (John 10) be fulfilled if it is largely up to our own creative pursuits?  How are we to partake in God's redemption??

I hope these can stir you into deep thought as you write the next few posts.  Grace and Peace to you up in C-city :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scott, I have to pick at you for a bit.  I&#8217;m trying to determine the underlying assumptions that go into your post, and I don&#8217;t want to assume too much.  Perhaps consider these questions and let me know what you think:</p>
<p>1.) When you speak of the Christian &#8216;myth&#8217; as a framework it reminds me of many modern Christian thinkers outside of evangelicalism, specifically Reinhold Niebuhr (I may be confusing him with his brother in this case, H. Richard Niebuhr).  Much of this &#8216;post-liberal&#8217; theology is anthropocentric, focusing on how we understand God and emphasizing Christian narrative as a framework for understanding this &#8212; though most if not all did not believe the narrative to be actually historically true; rather, Christianity became useful in their endeavours.  Niebuhr believed that Christ&#8217;s death and resurrection were &#8216;myths&#8217; in this sense to symbolically convey to us in a deep and meaningful way some kind of deeper truth about ourselves and how we should interact with the world.  What do you think of this?</p>
<p>2.) On the topic of the Church &#8216;basking in the sun&#8217; after the conversion of Constantine, did you consider the many groups of Christians who faced persecution by the larger &#8216;Church&#8217; (i.e. Roman Catholicism and even some Protestant groups)?  Some interesting ones are Tyndale, Luther, the French Huguenots, John Wycliffe, and the Waldensians.  I believe that looking at their histories will reveal a telling display of how the Church of God survives and even thrives in the darkness of this world.  Do you think that any of these events and peoples could be mapped onto our modern, or post-modern day world?</p>
<p>3.) And finally, what about the ministry of the Holy Spirit?  Jesus Christ said himself in Matt. 16, &#8220;I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.&#8221;  How do you think the relationship between the living Christ and His Church works in with the idea of preaching the Gospel to a postmodern audience?  If people really were willing and able to come to Christ if only we would preach the Gospel in a way which they &#8216;understood&#8217; (for here is my main concern with the idea&#8230; that understanding is a part that we must account for and is not a task of the Holy Spirit in regeneration), why would God let them sit around and wait?  How can Christ make the promise that all of the sheep which were given to him will come to him (John 10) be fulfilled if it is largely up to our own creative pursuits?  How are we to partake in God&#8217;s redemption??</p>
<p>I hope these can stir you into deep thought as you write the next few posts.  Grace and Peace to you up in C-city <img src='http://www.paradoxica.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben Martin</title>
		<link>http://www.paradoxica.net/2006/05/12/searching-for-home/#comment-151</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben Martin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 May 2006 05:40:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paradoxica.net/2006/05/12/searching-for-home/#comment-151</guid>
		<description>Some rambling thoughts on the matter...

I think the decline in what one might call Christianization leads us to what is at least for me a very exciting time. Conveying the significance of the gospel has been often difficult because our culture and language is so steeped in its concepts. But they are for most people empty words. Much of evangelism and such was trying to get people to see what they already knew but thought of as, to appropriate your example, silly stories told with flannelgraphs. Now perhaps again people can begin to see the gospel, and all Biblical truth, as the shocking thing that it is.

Just as missionary work among the gentiles in the first century showed more results than among the Jews who had grown up thoroughly educated in the Law and the prophets, we may find that those who are not steeped in cultural Christianity may find in the actual gospel what they are seeking (and many of them are seeking, having no religious heritage of their own), and with a responsiveness that we can scarcely imagine. The caveat, of course, is that now we have to explain to them what we once took for granted, but I suspect that effect may be more than offset by the gains.

As to whether and how we should engage the problem... A large part of the reason for this declining Christianization, I would assumse, is because people who are not attached to the faith are not interested in learning its intricacies. That is, of course, hardly a surprising result. But if that is the case, then the culture is finally just demonstrating the way many people in it have felt for a long time. Let's get back to basics, persuading people of the gospel (which requires persuading them of its importance), and the rest will be taken care of in due course.

I seem to be having trouble putting together what I am trying to say here, so I hope that more or less makes sense. I hope also that that is more or less the kind of thing you are asking. I may have gotten carried away by my own thoughts there...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some rambling thoughts on the matter&#8230;</p>
<p>I think the decline in what one might call Christianization leads us to what is at least for me a very exciting time. Conveying the significance of the gospel has been often difficult because our culture and language is so steeped in its concepts. But they are for most people empty words. Much of evangelism and such was trying to get people to see what they already knew but thought of as, to appropriate your example, silly stories told with flannelgraphs. Now perhaps again people can begin to see the gospel, and all Biblical truth, as the shocking thing that it is.</p>
<p>Just as missionary work among the gentiles in the first century showed more results than among the Jews who had grown up thoroughly educated in the Law and the prophets, we may find that those who are not steeped in cultural Christianity may find in the actual gospel what they are seeking (and many of them are seeking, having no religious heritage of their own), and with a responsiveness that we can scarcely imagine. The caveat, of course, is that now we have to explain to them what we once took for granted, but I suspect that effect may be more than offset by the gains.</p>
<p>As to whether and how we should engage the problem&#8230; A large part of the reason for this declining Christianization, I would assumse, is because people who are not attached to the faith are not interested in learning its intricacies. That is, of course, hardly a surprising result. But if that is the case, then the culture is finally just demonstrating the way many people in it have felt for a long time. Let&#8217;s get back to basics, persuading people of the gospel (which requires persuading them of its importance), and the rest will be taken care of in due course.</p>
<p>I seem to be having trouble putting together what I am trying to say here, so I hope that more or less makes sense. I hope also that that is more or less the kind of thing you are asking. I may have gotten carried away by my own thoughts there&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
