I think I've run across the attitude too much in my past, along with some very nasty judgment and rejection attached to it, that I have trouble reading it in any other light. Anyway, it's funny -- I was feeling unsettled by the tone of the conversation and how it left me feeling inside. Now I need to evaluate that some more.
maybe the fact you're not picking up on it either means I'm oversensitive or that you're not aware when you create feelings in people with your delivery (or both).
I guess I am evaluating your position by its inherent ramifications on relational living as I have experienced it and studied in throughout my life. I see what has brought good results. I see what has invariably brought bad results.
I don't know how you live in real life, or what you are like -- in fact, I am betting actually you go out of your way to be there for people, live purely, deal with your responsibilities, and act very graciously -- but I think that lifestyle (which I consider very positive) is not based on the inherent theology that you describe here, which I think if you distilled it down and looked at it in terms of where it leads, actually ends up being destructive if applied directly.
So when you talk about how God never changes and thus the church should never change (or it compromises its values), well, that's not what I'm really talking about.
I see the church (especially the conservative elements) as having good intentions but having become blinded to its overall mission -- so in its quest to defend orthodoxy ends up losing and shoving away the very people it claims it wants to save. There is a disconnect there in terms of how attitudes and behaviors result in very different outcomes than intentions would dictate.
Does that make sense?
Again, your comments like these tell me you're not getting my point. That's not at all what I am trying to say.
Maybe this example will get my point across:
- Jesus hung out with hookers, thieves, tax collectors, and social undesirables.
- he didn't do this as a missions trip. He did it because he actually loved and liked them... and he really hated hanging out with religious people.
- Look at how he treated them (with fondness and fun and love) and the sort of people they were RELATIONALLY, as opposed to the sort of people the evangelicals of the time (the Pharisees, who actually had GREAT INTENTIONS and were trying to 'restore the culture' and 'purify the faith' -- they really were trying and thought they were right!) were and how Jesus really loathed talking to them.
- What happened to Jesus? He got blacklisted and eventually killed because he was a "bad influence."
Jesus did not apply the "can't relate to the world" thing the way it's coming across when you say it here.
And I use Jesus' example in real-life (not some abstract theology or crystal-clear ideology) to help me figure out how to interpret my life.
I have to go by Jesus.
I also think that the world would LIKE the Jesus who hung out with them, rather than walking around complaining about how the culture was going down the tubes, and how they no longer had a voice, and how no one loved God. That's not because they were sinners, Gail, it's because the Jesus they see there is actually someone who loved them, treated them with respect, and could acknowledge and value and delight in them as human beings.
That's what I feel the more conservative elements of the church are missing when they try to practice their faith. They are so concerned with "protecting the faith" and "keeping political power, for the good of all" and other such things that they are missing the bottom-line truth: People responded to Jesus because of how he treated them.
That's where the faith is lived out.
I don't mean to say you don't (and based on your articulateness and your vocational background, I'm assuming you are extremely intelligent, honestly).
However, the way your beliefs seem constructed, you'll never have to.
Life is ambiguous and complex, and I have found that having preset BROAD answers means I stop engaging people where they are at. Love happens in the Now, in the moment, when I step into a situation I don't quite understand, and engaging the people within it where they are at rather than just categorizing them upfront and spitting out the answer.
The first part of your comment: You might have been quoting the Bible, but you WERE choosing the context in which it was applied. So it wasn't an innocuous comment. You were stating something of a personal nature by quoting it at that time and place... you were describing your own particular opinion of what that verse meant and how it applied. The words might be "God's", but the context was chosen by you and conveys its own message.
The latter part: I think context conveys attitude. I don't disagree that the "Word of God" has redemptive power, but it's a two-edged sword, isn't it? If you use it in the wrong context, you kill the person who you feel are trying to surgically save.
I guess if I were in a situation where I was unsure, I would canvass the responses of the people to my comments and sharing of truth with them -- and if they were reacting negatively to me, it means one of at least two things: Either they're part of the "fallen world" and just won't accept/understand my comments (and I suppose could be labeled as "fools" in my mind, even though of course I would never say that out loud because that would be unloving?) ... OR.... the context in which I am placing those words is being more destructive, to the point where good-hearted people are legitimately responding negatively to God's truth because I'm twisting it somehow, even if i am not sure how
That's what I do when I'm in discussions like this. I'm listening to the innate feedback of content and tone that others are sending back to me and reevaluating myself and my attitudes and words based on it.
You don't need to appease me, especially if you don't want to.
I'm not investing in this discussion to win you over, although that might be personally fulfilling for me. I just feel I need to put an explanation of the truth I've come to see alongside yours, so people can compare the two and come to their own conclusions.
If I articulate myself well, then that's enough.
), but to arouse Oberon's curiosity. And since Oberon is a very clever mouse, there's a genuine probability that he may have read Wittgenstein or Husserl. Or even more. 
