Christian Ontology

[Benjamin Burch]

I'm posting this in the GT forum, despite my reservations, because this is very much "Traditional Theology". But, i've been thinking about something for a while, and it has a bit to do with my thesis, and this has actually been consuming more of my time than my Thesis. Hans being in town to visit me really helped me think through this a bit, and I realized something the other night about when this made sense to me. So... here we go.

A pastor/professor would always use this term, "A Christian Ontology". It always bothered me because I couldn't help but think that so much orthodox thought is predicated upon an assumed Greek philosophy which, itself, isn't necessarily that bad. Instead, I just felt it was impossible to call any "ontology" a "Christian" one because really we're just talking about theology in light of some assumed philosophy, whichever one we pick.

Then, I saw this movie, Of Gods and Men. In it, there is a scene where the monks partake of a "last supper", where one of the monks reads an article, in the form of a sermon, to the other monks. In it there is a line about the fact that embracing weakness and forsaking the idol of power gives witness to reality, the reality of Christ. When my internet stops being so terrible, I'll find it.

There is a "Christian Ontology". It is not any particular philosophy, but it is a belief in a fundamental reality, and a fundamental understanding of history which turns everything else upside down.

We talk about a lot of things as though they're "reality", and this tempers our statements about theology and other things because we desire to make sense of "reality". Just the other day I was told that hopefully my pacifist inclinations would temper when I came to terms with "reality" (aka grew older and had children).

However, a Christian Ontology is the understanding, from the point of faith, that history is contained in a 33-year time period, and began when "The Word became flesh". "Reality" is Jesus Christ, incarnated, crucified, and risen. This is reality, and everything else competes, in varying degrees, with this reality. To be a Christian is to be baptised into this reality, and to understand the world around us in light of this reality, calling others to participate in this reality with us. Thus, our eschatological hopes are not hopes for what God "will do", or "will accomplish", but are instead hopes that reality will be revealed.

This gives a different meaning to the term "martyr." To be a "martyr" is to be a witness to one's faith through death. What we are a "witness" to, when we die for our faith, is the fundamental reality of the world - that Christ has come, Christ has died, Christ is risen, and Christ is Lord - and that all attempts at control and power in the world are a farce.

This way of talking changes everything. It changes our language. It changes the way the world looks. Now, pacifism is automatically "martyrdom", because to die in faithful obedience to the way of Christ is to witness to reality - Christ has risen from the dead and is Lord - and is to resist attempts at control and power.

This also begins to make our "good news" make sense. The "good news" is that the world as we understand it - pain, suffering, sin, death - is not reality. This is why we meet each Sunday for the liturgy, to experience and be reminded of reality and to receive water to quench our thirst from the desert of the world, and to receive forgiveness for our participation in the false reality of the world, and for the times in which we were tempted to believe it was true.

[Jim Chabot]

Looks like you are off to a good start!

Absolutely agree that there are things which must be "real", they must have actually happened otherwise our faith is in vain.

Paul, of course, spoke this way of the resurrection in pointed terms. Either this actually happened, or we are to be pitied, he says.

You do realize that while you recognize this "reality" and proclaim that there is truly an ontology or reality. Most of this post does not speak to this, most is theology, most is all "Ben." Your take away while valuable is not "reality."

I am really glad to see this turning point though. I am still vividly reminded from time to time of our discussion over a year ago where you vehemently denied much of the "reality" surrounding the passion.

[Benjamin Burch]

Looks like you are off to a good start!

Absolutely agree that there are things which must be "real", they must have actually happened otherwise our faith is in vain.

Paul, of course, spoke this way of the resurrection in pointed terms. Either this actually happened, or we are to be pitied, he says.

You do realize that while you recognize this "reality" and proclaim that there is truly an ontology or reality. Most of this post does not speak to this, most is theology, most is all "Ben." Your take away while valuable is not "reality."

I am really glad to see this turning point though. I am still vividly reminded from time to time of our discussion over a year ago where you vehemently denied much of the "reality" surrounding the passion.

I'm not sure I ever denied reality surrounding the passion. I've said many times that there are other ways to speak about the resurrection... which I think can be made to work with what I've said here.

Also, I don't really mean "reality" in the sense that it "really happened". In fact, that's the entire thinking I'm trying to combat. Surely that's a part of it. However, that hardly encompasses "reality", which I would argue is much, much larger, and is what I'm talking about.

[Jim Chabot]

I'm not sure I ever denied reality surrounding the passion. I've said many times that there are other ways to speak about the resurrection... which I think can be made to work with what I've said here.

Also, I don't really mean "reality" in the sense that it "really happened". In fact, that's the entire thinking I'm trying to combat. Surely that's a part of it. However, that hardly encompasses "reality", which I would argue is much, much larger, and is what I'm talking about.

Sorry, I have misunderstood you. I guess that we must disagree then. I must state unequivocally that if it never "really happened" then Christianity is nothing more than a cruel hoax and should be summarily condemned by all who encounter it.

[Hans Deventer]

Sorry, I have misunderstood you. I guess that we must disagree then. I must state unequivocally that if it never "really happened" then Christianity is nothing more than a cruel hoax and should be summarily condemned by all who encounter it.

I think Ben isn't arguing for less than "really happened", but for more.

[Jim Chabot]

I think Ben isn't arguing for less than "really happened", but for more.

I must disagree, I can still recall our conversation a while back. He was most definitely arguing for something quite disconnected with reality. He was arguing for something far less. At the time I stated that while I was certainly glad that he had embraced Christ, I had no idea as to why he would do so. Given Ben's position at the time, I would reject Christianity and recommend the same to anyone that I know and love.

In the sense that he is indeed arguing for more. The more is his import, the more is theology it is most assuredly not ontology.

[Jon Bemis]

Also, I don't really mean "reality" in the sense that it "really happened". In fact, that's the entire thinking I'm trying to combat. Surely that's a part of it. However, that hardly encompasses "reality", which I would argue is much, much larger, and is what I'm talking about.

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.

[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.

[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.

[Benjamin Burch]

I also disagree 100% with you commentary. My takeaway isn't "Ben", it's part and parcel of the Gospel. Without pacifism there is no gospel at all, and no more Christianity, for without it, Christ has not risen from the dead, and Christ did not die at all. For if pacifism is not what we are called to, then death still has power, the grave still has victory, and the powers of the world, oppression, persecution, sin, and violence, still execute power over and against the victory claimed by the cross and empty tomb.

We simply are left powerless to say that Christ has won anything if we refuse pacifism. Without it, there is no gospel, and we make a proclamation that the violence of the world is the real "reality".

[Hans Deventer]

Without pacifism there is no gospel at all, and no more Christianity, for without it, Christ has not risen from the dead, and Christ did not die at all. For if pacifism is not what we are called to, then death still has power, the grave still has victory, and the powers of the world, oppression, persecution, sin, and violence, still execute power over and against the victory claimed by the cross and empty tomb.

We simply are left powerless to say that Christ has won anything if we refuse pacifism. Without it, there is no gospel, and we make a proclamation that the violence of the world is the real "reality".

I may have read a stronger case for pacifism somewhere, but I sure don't remember. Wow!

[Jim Chabot]

I also disagree 100% with you commentary. My takeaway isn't "Ben", it's part and parcel of the Gospel. Without pacifism there is no gospel at all, and no more Christianity, for without it, Christ has not risen from the dead, and Christ did not die at all. For if pacifism is not what we are called to, then death still has power, the grave still has victory, and the powers of the world, oppression, persecution, sin, and violence, still execute power over and against the victory claimed by the cross and empty tomb.

We simply are left powerless to say that Christ has won anything if we refuse pacifism. Without it, there is no gospel, and we make a proclamation that the violence of the world is the real "reality".

Sorry again, but the gospel says no such thing, not at all. This may be more than just "Ben", but it is certainly not the gospel. While I realize that we make room for those of a pacifist mindset in the CoTN, it is also true that we do not require nor espouse this, there is room here for both. I cannot find that pacifism is compatible with Christianity. I believe that the gospel embodies a love that is powerful enough to protect others by the use of lethal force if necessary.

Should you define the gospel as one requiring pacifism, then yes I would say that Christ has not won anything. It has been 2000 with no evidence whereby this gospel has produced anything. There has been ample time to come to the conclusion that this just plain isn't it. Those who say so, must misunderstand the gospel, or the gospel is a lie, it is one or the other.

[Ryan Scott]

Sorry again, but the gospel says no such thing, not at all. This may be more than just "Ben", but it is certainly not the gospel. While I realize that we make room for those of a pacifist mindset in the CoTN, it is also true that we do not require nor espouse this, there is room here for both. I cannot find that pacifism is compatible with Christianity. I believe that the gospel embodies a love that is powerful enough to protect others by the use of lethal force if necessary.

That's not a gospel reality. It's not included in the life and teachings of Jesus, nor in the scriptural accounts of the early Church. It may be a valid philosophical argument (as the Church made once it had been accepted into secular power structures), but it is not a valid scriptural understanding of the purpose of resurrection.

He's not attempting to define ethics here, but simply speaking about our understanding of resurrection. Indeed the resurrection has no value if death remains the reality by which we, as Christians, live. That is entirely orthodox.

[Jim Chabot]

That's not a gospel reality. It's not included in the life and teachings of Jesus, nor in the scriptural accounts of the early Church. It may be a valid philosophical argument (as the Church made once it had been accepted into secular power structures), but it is not a valid scriptural understanding of the purpose of resurrection.

He's not attempting to define ethics here, but simply speaking about our understanding of resurrection. Indeed the resurrection has no value if death remains the reality by which we, as Christians, live. That is entirely orthodox.

Of course death no longer remains the reality by which we live. I'm talking about others here. There is no real difference between feeding a starving person, clothing the naked, or protecting the powerless. It's about caring for the welfare of other people, nothing to do with worrying about our own death. It's a love thing and it is indeed the gospel reality.

But that isn't the point of the thread. Supposedly this is about ontology, or what is real. And upon what is real, I'll stand with Paul. Convince me that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus didn't really happen as it is recorded in scripture and I will hand in my card tomorrow and become an enemy of that which is nothing more than a cruel hoax.

I'm still thinking that this is not about ontology at all.

[Ryan Scott]

But that isn't the point of the thread. Supposedly this is about ontology, or what is real. And upon what is real, I'll stand with Paul. Convince me that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus didn't really happen as it is recorded in scripture and I will hand in my card tomorrow and become an enemy of that which is nothing more than a cruel hoax.

But the argument here is simply that it doesn't matter if you believe Christ was bodily raised from the dead or not - if you fail to live in the reality of resurrection. We only really believe that which we embody.

The ontology of the gospel is that there are many things for which I would be willing to die, but there is not one single thing for which I would be willing to kill another human being. There is no gospel apart from this; if there is some thing for which I would kill, then my reality doesn't need a resurrected savior (it might require a crucified one, but it doesn't need a resurrected one).

[Jim Chabot]

But the argument here is simply that it doesn't matter if you believe Christ was bodily raised from the dead or not - if you fail to live in the reality of resurrection. We only really believe that which we embody.

Come on! this is circular reasoning at it's worst. It does too matter, I have no need to embody a lie.

[Ryan Scott]

Come on! this is circular reasoning at it's worst. It does too matter, I have no need to embody a lie.

Of course you're right (although it seems to work well in practice for the Mormons), but I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. I'm saying that if you don't embody the resurrection, you treat it like a lie whether it really happened or not.

[Benjamin Burch]

Of course death no longer remains the reality by which we live. I'm talking about others here. There is no real difference between feeding a starving person, clothing the naked, or protecting the powerless. It's about caring for the welfare of other people, nothing to do with worrying about our own death. It's a love thing and it is indeed the gospel reality.

But that isn't the point of the thread. Supposedly this is about ontology, or what is real. And upon what is real, I'll stand with Paul. Convince me that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus didn't really happen as it is recorded in scripture and I will hand in my card tomorrow and become an enemy of that which is nothing more than a cruel hoax.

I'm still thinking that this is not about ontology at all.

Of course i believe that the Word "really" became flesh, that the Word "really" was crucified in the flesh and that - in some sense of the term - Christ "really" rose from the dead in a way that assures us resurrection from the dead.

But ontology is not positivist history.

Ontology is the way that the world is. What is really "real."

Ontology doesn't mean I can assure you something happened in the past. Ontology means the world really is a certain way now.

In the midst of the evil, the pain, the suffering, the reality of it all is that Christ has already won, through his incarnation, death, and resurrection. In the midst of nations clamoring for power and control, the reality is that Christ is Lord, and already conquered all.

This is why the proof of our faith is not in historicity, but in the Liturgy. Instead of talking about what "really happened" (which again, we believe, but it is such a small thing), the Liturgy shows us what "really is." In the Eucharist, as well as the spoken Word, we encounter the Word made flesh who truly is still very much alive. Every time we encounter the Word through the elements and through the sermon, we are reminded that death has no sting, powers of war and oppression have no victory, and that there are no battles left to be fought - there is simply a revelation to be made by God.

Again, when we think this way, and we realize what is "really real," we realize we are called to be faithful to this reality - not to succumb to the competing narratives being told around us. And when we realize that this is reality, we realize we have no need of protection, for we are already alive eternally, and the grave has no sting.

What is more, when the whole Church realized this was true, there would be no more need to think of protecting each other as some form of "love". Instead, it would be the opposite of love, because it would be denying the reality to which they have become a part, and begun to accept as true.

[Ryan Pugh]

Of course i believe that the Word "really" became flesh, that the Word "really" was crucified in the flesh and that - in some sense of the term - Christ "really" rose from the dead in a way that assures us resurrection from the dead.

But ontology is not positivist history.

Ontology is the way that the world is. What is really "real."

Ontology doesn't mean I can assure you something happened in the past. Ontology means the world really is a certain way now.

In the midst of the evil, the pain, the suffering, the reality of it all is that Christ has already won, through his incarnation, death, and resurrection. In the midst of nations clamoring for power and control, the reality is that Christ is Lord, and already conquered all.

This is why the proof of our faith is not in historicity, but in the Liturgy. Instead of talking about what "really happened" (which again, we believe, but it is such a small thing), the Liturgy shows us what "really is." In the Eucharist, as well as the spoken Word, we encounter the Word made flesh who truly is still very much alive. Every time we encounter the Word through the elements and through the sermon, we are reminded that death has no sting, powers of war and oppression have no victory, and that there are no battles left to be fought - there is simply a revelation to be made by God.

Again, when we think this way, and we realize what is "really real," we realize we are called to be faithful to this reality - not to succumb to the competing narratives being told around us. And when we realize that this is reality, we realize we have no need of protection, for we are already alive eternally, and the grave has no sting.

What is more, when the whole Church realized this was true, there would be no more need to think of protecting each other as some form of "love". Instead, it would be the opposite of love, because it would be denying the reality to which they have become a part, and begun to accept as true.

Ben, I'll just say that I'm really looking forward to hearing more from you about all of this. So keep studying hard...

[Hans Deventer]

Sorry again, but the gospel says no such thing, not at all.

Sorry, I actually think you are entirely mistaken. With the Early Church, I understand the gospel to be incompatible with violence, or not be a gospel at all. Which, ever since the Church changed its tune to join the ranks of the powerful, is exactly what we have seen throughout history. It's just the politics of this world, the sad reality of this world indeed.

I've been thinking for many years that pacifism is the logical outcome of the gospel. But Ben is right, there actually is no gospel outside of it. We either follow our Lord to the cross, or we don't. Not much room to do it on one's own terms. It is getting clearer.

[Jim Chabot]

Sorry, I actually think you are entirely mistaken. With the Early Church, I understand the gospel to be incompatible with violence, or not be a gospel at all. Which, ever since the Church changed its tune to join the ranks of the powerful, is exactly what we have seen throughout history. It's just the politics of this world, the sad reality of this world indeed.

I've been thinking for many years that pacifism is the logical outcome of the gospel. But Ben is right, there actually is no gospel outside of it. We either follow our Lord to the cross, or we don't. Not much room to do it on one's own terms. It is getting clearer.

Sorry but I can't follow you down this path. The Christ that I follow asks that I love others. He asks that I do not stand to the side and wring my hands when others suffer. The early church did not join the ranks of the powerful, rather they were successful in converting the powerful to the cause of Christ.

But once again I must protest that this is not ontology at all. More like bait and switch so I'm done. I have no need to engage in another endless pacifism thread.

[Ryan Pugh]

The Christ that I follow asks that I love others.

Exactly.

[Jim Chabot]

Exactly.

Talk is cheap, love requires that we protect, action is required or there is no love.

But thanks for the mild sarcasm.

[Ryan Pugh]

Talk is cheap, love requires that we protect, action is required or there is no love.

Completely agree. Love cannot be neutral.

But thanks for the mild sarcasm.

[Benjamin Burch]

Completely agree. Love cannot be neutral.

Yoder said it best when he said (inexact quote) that when Jesus told us to love our enemies he destroyed any idea that killing them was a valid way of loving your neighbor.

It's interesting to me that we envisage situations where I must choose one or the other - loving my enemy or loving my neighbor. The Cross and Resurrection assure us that in reality, there is a way that does both.

[Jim Chabot]

Yoder said it best when he said (inexact quote) that when Jesus told us to love our enemies he destroyed any idea that killing them was a valid way of loving your neighbor.

It's interesting to me that we envisage situations where I must choose one or the other - loving my enemy or loving my neighbor. The Cross and Resurrection assure us that in reality, there is a way that does both.

Yoder might not be the best one to be speaking as to loving your neighbor. Just sayin.

[Benjamin Burch]

Yoder might not be the best one to be speaking as to loving your neighbor. Just sayin.

Ah, but I would argue that whole issue is an example of why hist teachings in many ways are "the best one speaking". His student, driven by Yoder's teachings, counseled Yoder to repent and to submit to the authority of his Church, and due to Hauerwas' convictions due to Yoder's teaching, Yoder was reconciled to the body of faith.

I'd say that's a powerful validation of one's teaching.

[Jim Chabot]

Ah, but I would argue that whole issue is an example of why hist teachings in many ways are "the best one speaking". His student, driven by Yoder's teachings, counseled Yoder to repent and to submit to the authority of his Church, and due to Hauerwas' convictions due to Yoder's teaching, Yoder was reconciled to the body of faith.

I'd say that's a powerful validation of one's teaching.

Ok, I get it now. Sort of like Ayn Rand.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ok, I get it now. Sort of like Ayn Rand.

You'd have to explain.

[Jim Chabot]

You'd have to explain.

Just another do as I say not as I do reference. I could throw in Amy McPherson if you would like as well.

[Benjamin Burch]

Just another do as I say not as I do reference. I could throw in Amy McPherson if you would like as well.

Why would we ever want do as Ayn Rand says?

[Jim Chabot]

Why would we ever want do as Ayn Rand says?

Sorry Ben, I was mostly joking around. I couldn't help myself when you backed Ryan up with advice from a molester. And then you defend him with yet another villain. Just too much for me to take.

Like I said Yoder lacks any capacity to speak on the subject of love, talk is cheap, this guy abused women for many years before being caught and dragged into compliance kicking and screaming all the way. While Hauerwas hasn't fallen prey to this sort of thing, he isn't exactly someone I would want anywhere near my family. Haurwas views on marriage negate anything else he has to say on any subject, needless to say I wouldn't welcome either one of these guys into my home.

Sorry, but these guys really give me the creeps.

[Ryan Scott]

Sorry Ben, I was mostly joking around. I couldn't help myself when you backed Ryan up with advice from a molester. And then you defend him with yet another villain. Just too much for me to take.

Like I said Yoder lacks any capacity to speak on the subject of love, talk is cheap, this guy abused women for many years before being caught and dragged into compliance kicking and screaming all the way. While Hauerwas hasn't fallen prey to this sort of thing, he isn't exactly someone I would want anywhere near my family. Haurwas views on marriage negate anything else he has to say on any subject, needless to say I wouldn't welcome either one of these guys into my home.

Sorry, but these guys really give me the creeps.

If someone's ideas are wrong because they lack moral integrity in some area then none of us has any right to talk about anything.

[Benjamin Burch]

If someone's ideas are wrong because they lack moral integrity in some area then none of us has any right to talk about anything.

This.

[Hans Deventer]

Dave, I get the impression the thread has run its course already. Still, I have been thinking a lot about it. Been wondering if I could have said things differently, if that would have helped. But what I understand is that people most of all object to the opinion as Ben described it in the first post. And for the life of me, I don't know how to put it any nicer. Once you state that you believe the view on violence is an essential part of the Gospel, people seem to get offended.

Even while it has been made totally plain that different views exist, both within the CotN and NazNet, and these are allowed. As far as I can see, there is no disagreement at this point.

I do understand how this creates a tension, but it is one we must maintain in order to both allow for freedom of opinion and some sense of community.

[Jim Chabot]

Dave, I get the impression the thread has run its course already.

I'm thinking that there's a good chance that we aren't going to agree, so if that's what you mean by the thread running it's course then yes of course I think your right. However in regards to understanding and appreciating each others points of view, this thread hasn't gotten very far at all, this I would propose to be the more noble aspect of the thread. Also if we say that this thread has run it's course, close it down and walk away, then we must admit our failure as community.

Still, I have been thinking a lot about it. Been wondering if I could have said things differently, if that would have helped.

I've been thinking the same thing, although we must realize that we are unable to predict in advance what the effect will be as our words are heard by another. We have to trust in each others good intentions and we have to continually clarify. I walked away yesterday when I realized that you were upset, it seemed better to wait. While I don't believe that anything that I've said should have upset you, if it has I apologize it was not my intent. I'll try to be more clear.

But what I understand is that people most of all object to the opinion as Ben described it in the first post. And for the life of me, I don't know how to put it any nicer.

Yes, I'll admit to this, in a way that requires some explanation. As for the opinion expressed in Bens post I have no objection, he is certainly free to hold that opinion and I respect those who do. As to agreeing with his opinion, no I do not agree, and I maintain that I have no need to agree. I'm fine, I know that I'm fine and I fully expect others to respect my view as I respect Ben's view. As to my objection, yes I do have an objection, but not to his opinion. My objection is to his use of the terms "ontology", and it's synonym "reality", also to others use of the term "essential." To this I object. I do so because these terms indicate a profound misunderstanding of the views not held by Ben and others. I do so because these terms indicate exclusivity and superiority, these terms indicate that others are wrong. Well we are not wrong, nor are we saying that Ben and others are wrong.

I'm stating that while respecting Ben's view and his right to hold it, I don't share his view. Maybe it's asking too much, but I'm asking the same.

Once you state that you believe the view on violence is an essential part of the Gospel, people seem to get offended.

I'm going to answer only for myself, but I want to be very clear. First, and I'm not trying to nitpick here, there is no "the view", their are many views, no one gets to claim that one is pre eminent, superior or central. Secondly I have absolutely no issue with those who say that this particular view is "essential to them", however the qualifier must be there for I do take exception if one says that this particular view is "essential" in an unqualified sense.

As to being offended? No absolutely not, this isn't anything that I'm going to get worked up about. While I respect those who hold this particular view, I don't agree, I don't have to agree and I really don't care that they hold this view. Nothing to get exercised about. Hey, tons of folks hold views on eschatology that I don't agree with, no problem we have freedom, so what is there to get offended over? If I were offended, it would mean that I believe my view to be essential, and that those who don't agree with me should get as you put it "kicked out of the church." But I don't believe that way, I'm more than glad to share a pew with a pacifist, no problem at all.

Be aware though that if you use terms like "reality" and "essential" straight up without modifier or qualifier, then you disrespect the other persons view by reason of rigid exclusivity.

Even while it has been made totally plain that different views exist, both within the CotN and NazNet, and these are allowed. As far as I can see, there is no disagreement at this point.

Yes it has been made plain, both by you and by myself, I haven't noticed if others have signed on. However we need also to carry our conversation forward in a manner that constantly reflects re assurance to the other party. You have made mention on at least one occasion that you feel that some would "kick you out of the church", I have felt exactly the same way. We need to reassure one another. I'll gladly do so, while I don't agree with the view that Ben has espoused here, I have lost no respect for you, nor do I seek to change your view, nor do I seek to marginalize you, and most certainly I have no thoughts of trying to "kick you out of the church." your just fine, we don't have to agree.

I do understand how this creates a tension, but it is one we must maintain in order to both allow for freedom of opinion and some sense of community.

As we continually affirm this freedom of opinion we, in my estimation, work to reduce the tension. Our goal, I think, should be to reduce that necessary tension to the point where it resides completely inert and encapsulated in the views themselves. As we work toward that goal we create community. I hope that we can agree that community by agreement is no community at all.

[Hans Deventer]

Jim, I thought the thread had run its course because there is no discussion on the original post anymore. But if you want to pursue better understanding, then I'm certainly willing to put in the required effort.

As to I do so because these terms indicate exclusivity and superiority, these terms indicate that others are wrong. Well we are not wrong, nor are we saying that Ben and others are wrong.

To me, this seems to be the heart of the matter. Yes, I believe you are entirely mistaken. Yes, you also believe I am entirely mistaken and no, that has absolutely nothing to do with superiority. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it is said. Well, the same goes for this. If you state that 1+1=2, and I say that 1+1=3, then it is impossible for both of us to be right, no compromise is possible and in the end, one of us will have to admit he was simply wrong. Again, has nothing to do with superiority.

In our case, in the end, there are some options. Jesus will say we all got it wrong, you got it wrong or I got it wrong. But the statements are exclusive indeed and it is not possible for both to be true.
The same goes for being essential to the faith, either they are, or they are not.

So this is where we are and I'd really would appreciate if people stopped talking about superiority because if there is any, it goes both ways, but I do not believe there is. These are strong opinions, but all of us can still be mistaken. And surely all of us only live by grace.

[Hans Deventer]

If someone's ideas are wrong because they lack moral integrity in some area then none of us has any right to talk about anything.

Nobody but the Pharisees. "‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’"

[Jim Chabot]

Nobody but the Pharisees. "‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’"

Easy answer, but I think you know me better than that.