Christian Ontology

[Jim Chabot]

Just my two cents.....but when one side of the argument does not see pacifism as an essential for the gospel and the other does, perhaps it is time to just agree to disagree, because it does not seem like it is possible for the conversation to continue without accusations as long as that is the case. These two different starting points always seem to lead to the same hangups.

Thanks Cam, and I think that you are exactly right. Agreeing to disagree must be our starting point. We must each realize the we have come to our conclusions by honest study and communion with the Spirit. Then and only then may we work toward understanding and appreciation. This talk of attack and accusation while it may be heartfelt, only leads to obfuscation.

[Ryan Scott]

You would be incorrect with that call. You need to retract this.

Yes I most assuredly do. If you lack the charity to read them again, then so be it.

Here it is again. Communication is only as good as the receiver. I received your words in a way you clearly didn't intend. I'm sorry I didn't hear what you meant to say, but that can't be my fault. I may be hyper sensitive to this because I am guilty so often. When someone mishears or misunderstands my words, it is always my fault for not communicating properly. I don't get to choose how they hear them, I can only attempt to do it in a different way.

I accept your explanation of what was intended - am I sorry I didn't hear what you intended the first time around.

And lets keep something straight here. This is absolutely not about ontology, this is absolutely and unequivocally not about what is real. If you insist on saying this, you declare everyone who disagrees with you to be wrong, and you don't get to do that. Rather this is about what we think is real, this is theology and nothing more.

That's fine for you, it's just not true for me. There is no theology without an ideal of peace as exemplified in Christ. It doesn't exist. I would not be a Christian without understanding the denouncement of violence as central to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christianity has no meaning without it.

I'm fine with you disagreeing. I think you're wrong and that you're missing something profoundly beautiful about God and creation, but I don't doubt your commitment or salvation.

I don't think we'd disagree that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the foundation for Christian belief. We clearly see it's meaning differently. Perhaps we can agree that whatever our interpretation is, that interpretation is essential for Christian ontology.

[Benjamin Burch]

No, it goes far beyond that. As I read these two, and I'll admit that I don't get very far before disgust overcomes me, I notice rather quickly where their shared hedonism and narcissism clearly affects their slant on pacifism. While I'll admit that I cannot know their hearts, I must say that both of their writings exhibit a strong sense of self interest.

Although I'm not familiar with Ayn Rand, or John Piper, I am familiar with the almost visceral reaction that the mention of their names produce on naznet. So lets not bandy around empty platitudes in defense of Yoder and Haeuwas, until you folks are ready to accept Rand and Piper. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you should accept Rand and Piper, I don't know enough about either one of them to make that argument. But Yoder and Haerwas? Give me a break!

The idea that these are even remotely equivalent is just so far off-base that "bizarro world" is the only term that comes to mind. Rand and her philosophy directly oppose Christianity, and Piper has a God who creates people for the sole purpose of killing them and sending them to hell, then expects people to worship and give him glory because of these actions. There is no way this can be considered a fair or honest comparison.

[Benjamin Burch]

Absolutely agree, I haven't missed that point whatsoever, this is reality. As it moves beyond this it becomes theology.

I am curious as to why you would lead with the word "wrong?" You do realize that the natural initial response is "what do you know!"

Are you trying to bait me into offering an equally incendiary response?

I really don't have the energy. So I'm just going to show very plainly that you have in fact missed the point, over and over again, and that you have said that myself and others have used "ontology" and "reality" to speak about our beliefs - specifically pacifism - when I have absolutely done no such thing.

So, "wrong" is the only proper response. You're wrong in what you've said and implied over and over again, and if you want to call that "incendiary", have at it; be my guest. I couldn't possibly care less.

But once again I must protest that this is not ontology at all.

My take is that this is theology, and not ontology, I've stated this from the beginning. I thought that's what we have been discussing.

As we talk about Ontology and its clear and unambiguous connection to what is real, we are stating an absolute. When we say that something is actually the reality of Christ's manifestation in our lives, we are also saying by necessity that those who do not share this reality are not mature Christians at the very least, or not Christians at all. When we say that something is the reality of Christianity, then we clearly state that all must share this or they share not Christ.

Don't get me wrong, if we talk about this as theology, then no problem, everybody has a right to an opinion and I haven't read any here that would disturb me or cause me to worry about the other persons salvation or anything like that. It's all good and while I might not agree, I'm not bothered at all to her where the other guy is coming from. But if this is actually Ontology, then no stop the presses!

Am I missing something here? Is my logic somehow flawed? Because while I don't believe that Ben would intentionally say that we are not Christian, I do believe that he is definitely saying this in his initial post. Lets get this straightened out guys, I'm thinking that I was far better off before I actually thought about and realized what the thoughts offered in the initial post actually meant.

And lets keep something straight here. This is absolutely not about ontology, this is absolutely and unequivocally not about what is real. If you insist on saying this, you declare everyone who disagrees with you to be wrong, and you don't get to do that. Rather this is about what we think is real, this is theology and nothing more.

You have implied that my "takeaway" is what we are discussing as "ontology" and about "reality", when I was very clear with my words throughout to say no such thing. The whole thread is very clear:

A Christian Ontology is where reality is understood to be that the Word became flesh, died, and was risen from the dead. Christ is Lord, and death and the grave have no more power.

I have not once used "reality" or "ontology" to speak about my beliefs. Yet, as evidenced above, you have continually suggested that I have. To this, I state unequivocally, "you're wrong."

[Benjamin Burch]

Just for clarification - are you saying that the physical resurrection of Christ wasn't neccessarily an historical event? I think I understand the part about the larger reality - just wanted to better understand your starting point.

I'm saying I think we get too wrapped up in that question. In the Liturgy, we confess the "mystery of our faith".

Christ has died.
Christ has risen.
Christ shall come again.

We get far too wrapped up in "physically" risen.

[Benjamin Burch]

As we talk about Ontology and its clear and unambiguous connection to what is real, we are stating an absolute. When we say that something is actually the reality of Christ's manifestation in our lives, we are also saying by necessity that those who do not share this reality are not mature Christians at the very least, or not Christians at all. When we say that something is the reality of Christianity, then we clearly state that all must share this or they share not Christ.

Don't get me wrong, if we talk about this as theology, then no problem, everybody has a right to an opinion and I haven't read any here that would disturb me or cause me to worry about the other persons salvation or anything like that. It's all good and while I might not agree, I'm not bothered at all to her where the other guy is coming from. But if this is actually Ontology, then no stop the presses!

Am I missing something here? Is my logic somehow flawed? Because while I don't believe that Ben would intentionally say that we are not Christian, I do believe that he is definitely saying this in his initial post. Lets get this straightened out guys, I'm thinking that I was far better off before I actually thought about and realized what the thoughts offered in the initial post actually meant.

I'll gladly address this:

I have only used the term "reality" and "ontology" to speak about reality:

the Word became flesh, died, and was risen from the dead. Christ is Lord, and death and the grave have no more power.

I have not used those terms to describe anything else. I will, however, say that I think the ramifications are obvious. I also have said more than once on NazNet that I am pretty sure I'm wrong about at least a few things in my life. I'm probably wrong about a good amount of things. I'm also open the the reality that I'm possibly wrong about a great many things.

There are, however, a very select few things of which I know I am not wrong. Pacifism, and the "takeaway" or "theology" or "ramifications" of the reality of the world found in Christ is one of these things about which I know that I am not wrong. I know I am right. This is not opinion in my mind. It is simply a fact. This is not something that I'm open to the idea of being wrong about. Not because I don't want to be, but because I know I'm not.

One day in class I made a comment which made it clear I was a pacifist. Another girl in the room asked with surprise,

Student:"you're a pacifist?"
Professor: "He's a Christian, isn't he?"
Student: "Well, yea, it's just that (turns to me) you've never said anything about it before."
Professor: "He's a Christian. Why should he have to? As a disciple of Christ, it's assumed.

This pretty much sums it up. This is the standard, default position of Christianity. This is the only position that makes sense. I've never shied away from this.

However, if you are asking if this means I think anyone who disagrees with me is not a Christian, no. It does not mean that. Again...

What is being implied (by myself) is that we all sin and lack the glory of God. God is not a God who will come back to save a Church who has done everything right, or a people who all thought right and acted right. God is coming back to save a people who have fallen dreadfully short, and whose only plea is "for the sake of your Son, and his blood."

I could probably answer you best this way, Cam:

My friend and I were talking about this the other day, and that this was why I do not vote. Because, by extension, I am supporting war, and blah blah down the line. He asked me how it is that I can draw a line at voting, how do I know I don't participate in other ways?

I told him that I am not so sure, and we can never be sure, and that I am as guilty as any other. That is why I come back to the Liturgy every Sunday. That is why I confess my sins every Sunday, and it is why I partake of the Eucharist every Sunday.

Christians often hold unChristian positions. Other Christians often act in ways that fail to live up to their Christian positions, and even in ways that go directly against their Christian positions. You won't find me casting any stones, much less being the first to do so.

However, I have no problem speaking frankly about the truth of the Gospel.

[Jim Chabot]

Here it is again. Communication is only as good as the receiver. I received your words in a way you clearly didn't intend.

I agree.

I'm sorry I didn't hear what you meant to say, but that can't be my fault.

And I agree again, on the first reading. However once tactile feedback enters the conversation the listener must then take ownership. Person "A" says something, and then person "B" responds in a manner that indicates that he has misunderstood. Person "A" must take responsibility for the miscommunication, although it must be said that person "A" is also the sole arbiter regarding the success or failure of the communication. From there person "A" has three options, maybe more, he may regard the miscommunication to be trivial and not worthy or needing correction, he may attempt to convey the original thought in better fashion hoping to steer back on course, or he may choose to declare that the original communication was received in error.

So yes I can agree with you that the original communicator is solely responsible for the success of the original communication, no fault may be attributed to the hearer. I must also state that the sole decider regarding the success of the communication lies with the originator of that particular thought. Should that person state unequivocally that the communication has been received in error, the hearer must then acknowledge this or call the originator a liar.

I may be hyper sensitive to this because I am guilty so often. When someone mishears or misunderstands my words, it is always my fault for not communicating properly. I don't get to choose how they hear them, I can only attempt to do it in a different way.

This makes perfect sense given that you are in ministry. Quite often there is not a two way conversation where errors may be quickly dealt with and corrected. I know for myself that most everything that I say from the platform is done with great care because as they say "that bell can't be un rung" While in a two way conversation I fully expect that the person I'm conversing with will grant me the grace to correct what I have said. I will admit that I do require that grace from others, this isn't negotiable.

I accept your explanation of what was intended - am I sorry I didn't hear what you intended the first time around.

Perfectly understandable on the first go around. I had left the subject at hand without giving adequate notice. I was unduly harsh in my response due to my kneejerk reaction as my words of blessing provoked insult. I'll take responsibility for that and I apologize. My words were meant to convey that you have an incredible blessing awaiting you in the near future, I don't believe that it will be possible to realize just how incredibly great and transforming this blessing will be until she arrives. Again this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.

That's fine for you, it's just not true for me. There is no theology without an ideal of peace as exemplified in Christ. It doesn't exist. I would not be a Christian without understanding the denouncement of violence as central to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christianity has no meaning without it.

Perfect! And I absolutely agree and say the same from my perspective. For it is just fine for you, and it is not true for me. While I agree that the ideal is peace, I find that the external has diminished meaning for me, the peace I find inseparable from the message of the resurrection is internal. Death has no meaning and I find myself less bothered by it that before. For me love is central and Christianity has no meaning without it. Violence it's use or it's disavowal is peripheral to me. Although I must add the disclaimer that for me the "reality" of the resurrection story is central. Should Jesus not have lived, died, been buried and risen from the dead in accordance to what scripture tells us, then I walk away, I will not be lied to.

I'm fine with you disagreeing. I think you're wrong and that you're missing something profoundly beautiful about God and creation, but I don't doubt your commitment or salvation.

Same here, in fact, exactly the same. I wouldn't change a word. I should say that I fully realize that this exact statement coming from me might find you completely baffled as to why or how I could say this. I am completely baffled that you would or could say this, but I accept the genuineness of your statement and I respect that you have come to this in good conscience.

I don't think we'd disagree that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the foundation for Christian belief. We clearly see it's meaning differently. Perhaps we can agree that whatever our interpretation is, that interpretation is essential for Christian ontology.

Correct, the crucifixion and resurrection are central. No reality there and I'm gone, absolutely and unequivocally gone.

I can agree that our interpretation may be essential for each of us. In fact I must allow for that or I do not respect your ontology, your reality. However the fact that your "reality" exists and is genuine negates my ability to call my "reality" "Christian" I cannot say that my reality whereby Love is central, Love requires protection and the use or non-use of violence is peripheral is in fact "Christian Ontology." If I make that claim, I must also say that you are not Christian. For you, or Ben, Hans or Ryan to make this claim, you must say that I am not Christian. This "Ontology" may be real, it may be genuine, it may be essential and it may be yours, however you can not call it "Christian Ontology" without excluding others. This is your reality and it is mine, yet they differ.

[Hans Deventer]

I can agree that our interpretation may be essential for each of us. In fact I must allow for that or I do not respect your ontology, your reality. However the fact that your "reality" exists and is genuine negates my ability to call my "reality" "Christian" I cannot say that my reality whereby Love is central, Love requires protection and the use or non-use of violence is peripheral is in fact "Christian Ontology." If I make that claim, I must also say that you are not Christian. For you, or Ben, Hans or Ryan to make this claim, you must say that I am not Christian. This "Ontology" may be real, it may be genuine, it may be essential and it may be yours, however you can not call it "Christian Ontology" without excluding others. This is your reality and it is mine, yet they differ.

I'd say we can call it, for the very simple reason that in the end, there is only One who gets to decide who's a Christian and who is not. Yet, when standing before a fire squad or the Lord Himself, we'd still have to say that this does indeed go down all the way to what is Christian and what as not, as we understand the gospel.

I still wonder what you are actually looking for, Jim. It seems to me (seems!) that you either want this view to be non essential, or to be so essential that we should call everyone who does not share it a heathen. I'd say that dichotomy is false, for the simple reason that the latter is not up to us. It would turn us into a fundy. As I have written many posts ago, th CotN allows for both views, and so does NazNet. I understand that is not enough for you. I'm trying to understand what would be enough, can't answer it yet. There has to be a reason for 100+ posts.

[Ryan Scott]

I must also state that the sole decider regarding the success of the communication lies with the originator of that particular thought. Should that person state unequivocally that the communication has been received in error, the hearer must then acknowledge this or call the originator a liar.

Sorry. I can't go here. If you don't hear what I think I said, I didn't really say it.

I can agree that our interpretation may be essential for each of us. In fact I must allow for that or I do not respect your ontology, your reality. However the fact that your "reality" exists and is genuine negates my ability to call my "reality" "Christian"

I'm not sure I can go here either. In any event the reality in which we live doesn't have to be universally accepted. Your comment above would be true if there was some way to be certain that this reality is indeed completely indicative of reality. I'm not convinced it is. Certainly I've not heard or seen any evidence that would give me pause to think differently - and I have chosen to live into this reality.

I can respect that the same is true for you - even if that decision boggles my mind. For me to negate your understanding as not-Christian, I would have to cast aspersions on your conscience and integrity; I have no reason to do so.

I do think your perception is wrong when it comes to violence and the cross - but the only way I could really call that non-Christian is if I suspected you agreed with me, but some other allegiance trumped that belief.

None of us "knows" reality in any completely accurate way, nor does God hold us responsible for such knowledge.

I think I come off so strenuously because I'm desperately searching for reasons to be wrong. I want someone to provide me proof enough to change my position - I agree with you that it seems foolish and untenable. You'll get no argument on that point. Still, it is the only reality to which I can hold (as much as I would love for that to change).

So I guess I could say my ontology negates my ability to call your perspective Christian, but it certainly doesn't negate your ability to do so - and as much as it frustrates me, I can't argue with your ability to do so.

[Jon Bemis]

I'm saying I think we get too wrapped up in that question. In the Liturgy, we confess the "mystery of our faith".

Christ has died.
Christ has risen.
Christ shall come again.

We get far too wrapped up in "physically" risen.

Thanks for your reply. I guess I've not actually come across someone who put too much emphasis on the physical resurrection of Christ. My experience has been the opposite - too many don't give it enough thought or understand why it is an essential part of our faith. I agree with N. T. Wright's observation on this point:

"This is one of the points at which it simply won't do to say (as according to various opinion polls, a lot of clergy and even some bishops are inclined to say) that believing in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is a take-it-or-leave-it option. Jesus's bodily resurrection marks a watershed. It may look like only a few steps this way or that to move from one side to the other, but if you accept the bodily resurrection of Jesus all the streams flow in one direction, and if you don't they all flow in the other direction. And, to put it kindly but bluntly, if you go in the other direction, away from the bodily resurrection, you may be left with something that looks a bit like Christianity, but it wont be what the New Testament writers were talking about." (Surprised By Hope, p. 191)

The physical resurrection of Christ helps answer the "so what?" question for me in regards our purposeful living in this world in which, by His resurrection Jesus has declared himself to be Lord. The implication of this (IMO) is that to believe that God has raised him from the dead and to declare him as Lord is to allow my entire life to be reshaped by him, having the confidence that this is possible because he has proven himself more powerful than all those things that bring us to death. This gives real meaning to all we presently do knowing that it is in someway building the Kingdom of God.

[Hans Deventer]

The physical resurrection of Christ helps answer the "so what?" question for me in regards our purposeful living in this world in which, by His resurrection Jesus has declared himself to be Lord. The implication of this (IMO) is that to believe that God has raised him from the dead and to declare him as Lord is to allow my entire life to be reshaped by him, having the confidence that this is possible because he has proven himself more powerful than all those things that bring us to death. This gives real meaning to all we presently do knowing that it is in someway building the Kingdom of God.

Yes. And it is still a mystery. Like the incarnation.

You know, I totally subscribe to the resurrection of the body. Yet, Jesus' new body went through walls, something we generally have problems with. So, as Paul explains, there is both continuity and discontinuity. Do I understand it? No, I do not. It is a mystery.

[Jim Chabot]

Sorry. I can't go here. If you don't hear what I think I said, I didn't really say it.

Yes, absolutely! If my response to you indicates that I didn't hear what you thought you had said, then yes you didn't really say it. Then when you inform me that I didn't hear you correctly, I must acknowledge this, because only you would know what you were thinking. If you say stop then I must reset and give you another chance, I cannot continue to insist that you said something else once you say that I heard you incorrectly.

I'm not sure I can go here either. In any event the reality in which we live doesn't have to be universally accepted. Your comment above would be true if there was some way to be certain that this reality is indeed completely indicative of reality. I'm not convinced it is. Certainly I've not heard or seen any evidence that would give me pause to think differently - and I have chosen to live into this reality.

I can respect that the same is true for you - even if that decision boggles my mind. For me to negate your understanding as not-Christian, I would have to cast aspersions on your conscience and integrity; I have no reason to do so.

I do think your perception is wrong when it comes to violence and the cross - but the only way I could really call that non-Christian is if I suspected you agreed with me, but some other allegiance trumped that belief.

None of us "knows" reality in any completely accurate way, nor does God hold us responsible for such knowledge.

I think I come off so strenuously because I'm desperately searching for reasons to be wrong. I want someone to provide me proof enough to change my position - I agree with you that it seems foolish and untenable. You'll get no argument on that point. Still, it is the only reality to which I can hold (as much as I would love for that to change).

So I guess I could say my ontology negates my ability to call your perspective Christian, but it certainly doesn't negate your ability to do so - and as much as it frustrates me, I can't argue with your ability to do so.

After reading what I wrote, I have to conclude that I have worded it rather badly. I'm pretty much in agreement with what you are saying here. I'm finding that this statement isn't making any sense to me.

However the fact that your "reality" exists and is genuine negates my ability to call my "reality" "Christian"

Let me se if I can reword it to reflect what I was trying to say;

However the fact that your "reality" exists and is genuine negates my ability to call my "reality" "Christian" in an exclusive sense. For to do so would declare your view to be wrong or not Christian.

And may I add something from your post? I say this because there is no way to be certain that this reality is indeed completely indicative of reality. Of that I am convinced.

[Jim Chabot]

I'd say we can call it, for the very simple reason that in the end, there is only One who gets to decide who's a Christian and who is not. Yet, when standing before a fire squad or the Lord Himself, we'd still have to say that this does indeed go down all the way to what is Christian and what as not, as we understand the gospel.

As this thread progresses, I'm finding increasing difficulty communicating properly, but I need to try. I hope that I can say this well enough to follow. I'm saying that we cannot call this "Christian Ontology" because to do so is to say that it is "The Christian Ontology" or "The Christian Reality" when we say this we indicate that if you are Christian then you will share this reality. The reason that we cannot make this claim is because of the "reality" that there is one and one alone who can make this determination, we cannot.

I still wonder what you are actually looking for, Jim. It seems to me (seems!) that you either want this view to be non essential, or to be so essential that we should call everyone who does not share it a heathen. I'd say that dichotomy is false, for the simple reason that the latter is not up to us. It would turn us into a fundy. As I have written many posts ago, th CotN allows for both views, and so does NazNet. I understand that is not enough for you. I'm trying to understand what would be enough, can't answer it yet. There has to be a reason for 100+ posts.

Again, I must admit that I'm somehow missing the mark in the clarity department, I apologize, I'm trying.

I'm saying that yes for the individual this is essential, I believe that you have indicated the same. For me I cannot fail to defend unless it comes because of my weakness. If I decide that I wish not to defend, then I am deciding that I wish that which is contrary to God's will, this is essential, this is my reality I can see no other. I believe that Ryan and yourself have indicated that the same would be true if you chose violence, this is essential for you, this is your reality, there is no other.

While at the same time for the body of Christ in toto, this is absolutely non-essential. I must respect your view and your commitment to it, even while it makes no sense to me and even though if I were to adopt your reality then I must deny mine. Same with you, you must respect my view, even while it makes no sense to you and even though if you were to adopt my reality you would deny your own. For the body of Christ, and for the CoTN in particular this is completely non-essential.

Yes the CoTN recognizes this as does naznet and yes this is just fine with me. I apologize if I have not been clear on this.

[Todd Erickson]

It's interesting that a lot of this thread is only possible because of Constantine's actions to consolidate the church and it's theology, despite examples from before Constantine. We wish to make arguments about not having water in the fish tank that are only possible because the water is there. Let's swim carefully...

[Ryan Scott]

Let me se if I can reword it to reflect what I was trying to say;

However the fact that your "reality" exists and is genuine negates my ability to call my "reality" "Christian" in an exclusive sense. For to do so would declare your view to be wrong or not Christian.

We're not quite on the same page, but certainly I understand your distinction even if I don't share it.

I do believe my reality to be Christian in an exclusive sense. Believe me, if I thought there was a viable alternative out there, I would take it without question; I just have yet to encounter one that exists. In fact the very idea that this reality seems foolish and scary is precisely more evidence that it is indeed real.

It's more along the lines that I recognize the sincerity and integrity in which you believe in your interpretation of the resurrection - which is ultimately more important to me than the fact that you're wrong. In fact, I envy your firm belief. Your interpretation is in fact more attractive than mine and I would certainly love to be able to affirm it - I just can't. I hope you can have respect for my intellectual integrity, as misguided as it seems to be.

The next question is, of course, how can I be a part of a denomination that allows for multiple interpretations of something I believe to be so fundamental. That's easy - no body is perfect and neither are denominations. As with many elements of Christianity, we Nazarenes have banded together, despite our differences, out of a call to holiness.

My personal belief is that with continued spirit filled obedience those in error on this particular matter will eventually be led to a more correct position - just as I hope to be led to a more correct position in the many areas of belief in which I am hopelessly lost in error.

[Ryan Scott]

It's interesting that a lot of this thread is only possible because of Constantine's actions to consolidate the church and it's theology, despite examples from before Constantine. We wish to make arguments about not having water in the fish tank that are only possible because the water is there. Let's swim carefully...

This is one of the most damning evidences, at least for me. Christians could not be soldiers until the soldiers became Christian (at least in name). This is also why I call my theology minimalist. I've studied too much history to buy the folk theology; I often doubt even those things I claim to be essential. If I piled too much on top, surely the whole would collapse.