Contemplative, you mentioned an “insight weekend” is this weekend called “Insight” and is being run by the church, or is it being run by an organisation called “insight” or does “Insight” seminairs.

The reason why I ask is that in 1994, I did an insight seminair, which is very spiritual, but is not Holy Spirit spiritual, during it we did false meditation, with guiding angels (demons) tried to read each others minds, and many other things happened.

The whole experience was very pleasurable, but not of God, please, please, tell me it’s not that mob running this weekend, and if it is, I can’t beg and plead with you enough to cut ties with them. From my own spiritual experience it is not Holy, and the spirituality side of it is not of God.

craig

Heya Craig - - Insight is a television program on SBS on Thursday evening - I think it is at 7:30pm

**Whooo!!!*** I got that one wrong. Sorry contemplativeBoy am I glad I am wrong.

very humble contrite kneeling confessing craig.

Nunc wrote;

Actually I think it speaks volumes that Baptists and Pentecostals and Presbyterians are happy and at home at Moore; there is obviously no distinctly Anglican teaching or even reference to Anglican history and liturgy.

Once again an unjustified assumption.  A large chunk of the 2nd year church history course is taken up with Anglican history and there is a full year subject called ‘Christian Worship 3’ which deals exclusively with Anglican liturgy (history and current liturgy).  Finally chapel services at Moore College all use forms of Anglican liturgy.

The idea that Baptists and Pentecostals would be ‘happy and at home’ at Moore College if it had the rigid Calvinism that some keep asserting is also pretty curious.

*sigh*

I just spent 2 hours composing a reply to you Scot and the Anglican Media server refused to talk to my server and it was lost… grrrrrr

I have never been through Moore College, I do not know it from the inside out. I do know some of its fruit. And that is all I have to go on.

Given the last few posts I am not sure I know how to reply. If I ever had any credibility I suppose I can wave it away.

Oh well.

Not everyones experiences can be the same. And nor should they be clones of each other.

Scot, you said:

All I am saying is that I am tired of the gross generalisations and demonisings that are sent in the direction of Moore. This seems to be a favourite passtime of these forums.

You are saying that my favourite passtime on these forums, my sole reason for being here is just to rubbish Moore, the diocese, the Jensens, Calvinism?

Later in your post you said:

You call for sensitivity to your spiritual needs, and yet some of your comments are most insensitive indeed.

Does that mean it’s ok to make assertions about my purpose for being here, and moreover to imply that I am just a trouble maker?

You also said:

You need to explain why I have to tip-toe around your sensitivities, when you seem so unconcerned about mine…

I honestly didn’t realise you (and others) felt as strongly as you did about Moore College and co. If I knew that it was something so close to your heart I would have been more careful. I am sorry to have caused offence. So we can be clear, what exactly do you see as your sensitivities, and where did my comments cross the line? They were not directed specifically at you (not all the time, anyway), and I am genuinely concerned about what you and others regard as my “insensitivities”.

You dismiss Calvinism as the source of all spiritual suffocation and evil, yet you make no specific theological (or even pastoral) argument as to why you conclude it is so erroneous.

Why are you just throwing these accusations at me? How can I give a nice tidy theological explication of my differences with Calvinism when I don’t have nice tidy explanations?

I don’t have a counter systematic theology to offer you Scot. I have not engaged in serious theological study in order to be able to create one - even it were possible to counter such a rigorous system as Calvinism. And on some levels I am not even interested in a systematic theology - it’s just not the way I think about things…

As a child and teenager I had Calvinism beaten into me and was battered by it. When people talk about it as a glorious “biblical” thing I want to take it and shove it where the sun don’t shine because for me it is a monolithic, heavy as lead tool of oppression. Indeed, I myself used it to abuse others.

You will argue that that’s not a real perception of what Calvinism is. Well it’s what I grew up with, and I honestly cannot see it in any other light.  This feeling of Calvinism being a leaden-heavy oppressive yoke is separate to the theological reasons I have for disliking it.

I think my quarrel with calvinism is in its approach. It has a very negative view of humankind, a very negative view of God’s interaction with humanity. For example, rather than saying “God made us in his image but we marred it, so he had to find a away to bring us back to that image” the calvinist would say “God made us originally to be second only to the angels, and we, foul wretched worms that we are with no good thing AT ALL in us ruined that so that God had to pay dearly to redeem us and the way he did that was by murdering his own son, his OWN SON, for our pathetic and unworthy sakes.” This latter statement might be true, but it’s not the whole truth; it’s not the whole truth according to what I can see in other people, it’s not the whole truth about who I am, it’s not the whole truth, it’s not even the whole truth if you read the bible in its entirety and don’t just quote random excerpts from Paul.

We have not totally lost the image of God in us: we still have the capacity to love and be loved, to give and to receive - and the fact that we still have these gifts means that the Spirit has something to work with to draw us to God. Because of the incarnation, because of the life, ministry, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus we have the potential to be remade and restored to God.

This does not deny that we can be horrible and dark and evil creatures and despise the image of God in us, it does not deny that we are in need of salvation. It’s simply a more positive way of viewing it. It is also a much more pastoral, gentle way of drawing people: not everyone needs the hellfire and brimstone, nor the steady persistent heavy grey weight of the calvinist approach…

Jesus came to give us life in all its fullness, not that we might be oppressed and burdened by wailing about how sinful unworthy and obsequious we are. He came down that we might be drawn up. We were never intended to stay down and wallow about how horrid we are. Grace is not itself when it can only be expressed by a comparison; grace is not expressed fully if we go around saying “oh how unworthy am I to be saved, if it weren’t for the grace of God” (you’ve got to hear this with all the right “humble” inflections). Grace is all the more shown for what it is if we are living our potential, if in gratitude we are making the best of what we have, if we are “looking” at God and loving him without the pretensions of faux-humility.

This is a snapshot of what I think, Scot - bit different to Calvinism, eh? I think the rest of my ruminations would rightly belong on another thread…

Thanks for sharing that with us Nunc.
Personally it’s great to finally understand where you’re coming from.

In some respects I agree with your sentiments. Calvinism, is a system of theology written by man and hence I reject any suggestion that it is authoratative. In fact sometimes I seeth when I hear “Calvin this, Calvin that.” I amazes me how much time non-theological students spend reading his works. If only they knew the Word of God like they knew Calvin. Nevertheless....

Seeing as this is a thread for Moore, I won’t digress and point out my disagreements with a few of your other sentiments.

I too have seen the burnout wreckages of uncontrollable zeal for the word of God. But that doesn’t mean the word of God is faulty nor is the zeal for being “biblical”, it’s just that we sometimes use the word of God to stand over others and then rationalise our actions as being the fruits of zeal…

Not sure where this fits in but, I thought of a really old song that may strike a bell with you Nunc (your high Anglican?) and it probably goes against the way you like to approach humanity’s fate:

ROCK OF AGES, CLEFT FOR ME

Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee;
Let the water and the blood,
From Thy wounded side which flowed,
Be of sin the double cure;
Save from wrath and make me pure.

Not the labor of my hands
Can fulfill Thy law’s demands;
Could my zeal no respite know,
Could my tears forever flow,
All for sin could not atone;
Thou must save, and Thou alone.

Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to the cross I cling;
Naked, come to Thee for dress;
Helpless look to Thee for grace;
Foul, I to the fountain fly;
Wash me, Savior, or I die.
[\quote]

While I draw this fleeting breath,
When mine eyes shall close in death,
When I soar to worlds unknown,
See Thee on Thy judgment throne,
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee.

Nunc I’m with you, for what it is worth. For some reason your comments reminded me of something I once read by a Franciscan scholar who said that

Christmas is the feast of an insatiable Divine love for humanity, of a captivated, fixated Lover wanting to be present, wanting to touch and share the very experiences of the beloved, ... Christmas is not the beginning of righting wrongs or canceling debts. It is the culmination of a love story which began with the dawn of creation

Eileen, that is really beautiful - and very Franciscan! I like it.

G’day Eileen,

[quote author="Eileen Giles"]

Christmas is not the beginning of righting wrongs or canceling debts. It is the culmination of a love story which began with the dawn of creation

I guess this just shows how differently Christians can approach and contemplate the same subject - to me, righting wrongs and cancelling debts is the greatest culmination of the love story of God! What greater love, what greater other-centredness, can be shown than to proactively engage another to repair broken relationships, not for the initiator’s own benefit but for the benefit of the other?

Timbo

But you see Tim, and I hope you agree, that just because it’s a different perspective doesn’t mean it’s de facto *wrong*. The impression I get from many people is that if one’s understanding is not another person’s particular understanding of scripture then it is automatically labelled “unbiblical"…

Nunc, I would agree with you and say this is one way of looking at it based on the following (and would observe this perspective is perfectly biblical based on the following)

Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends.

(John 15:13 - In the context of brotherly love and the ultimate example through Jesus’ death for his disciples)
Also,

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

(John 3:16 - A favourite bible study verse)

However it does not address humanity reaching out to God, but God’s interaction with humanity. This “love story” was one which God wrote (it began on the dawn of creation); we didn’t write this story.

The love of God is unfathomable. As Stephen Curtis Chapman sings:

So what kind of love could this be
That would trade heaven’s throne for a cross

(Speechless - Steven Curtis Chapman)

I don’t disagree with you Manny, but I do wonder what point exactly you were trying to make and in relation to what?

I should have been clearer. The point I was making that yes, Eileen’s quote of “Swimming in the Sun” is one way of looking at God and salvation, but it happens to conform what the bible says. So in a nutshell it is also biblical.

[quote author="Manny C"]I should have been clearer. The point I was making that yes, Eileen’s quote of “Swimming in the Sun” is one way of looking at God and salvation, but it happens to conform what the bible says. So in a nutshell it is also biblical.

Whew! wiping brow. Thank goodness for that !!  :) :) (tongue in cheek) I hope it’s Christian too??

G’day Nunc & Eileen,
[quote author="Nunc Dimittis"]But you see Tim, and I hope you agree, that just because it’s a different perspective doesn’t mean it’s de facto *wrong*.

Absolutely agree. Given that, however, I think its fair to say some perspectives may be more helpful or more accurate (in terms of representing reality) than others. Thus, it’s important to be able to always question one another on our differing perspectives - not because we want to play a game of spiritual snobbery, but because we seek to encourage one another (and be encouraged) into greater spiritual maturity. I ask the questions I do as I am aware that I may well have missed something important, let alone got something completely wrong.

[quote author="Nunc Dimittis"]The impression I get from many people is that if one’s understanding is not another person’s particular understanding of scripture then it is automatically labelled “unbiblical”.

[Silly mode on, wink, wink] Or “un-Anglican”, or “fascist-Calvinist”! [Silly mode off]

[quote author="Eileen Giles"]Whew! wiping brow. Thank goodness for that !! :) :) (tongue in cheek) I hope it’s Christian too??

LOL!! [Silly mode resumed, wink, wink] Now, now, don’t go claiming too much ... [Silly mode put aside again]

Thanks for your replies, ladies.

Timbo