tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926207.post7129641411614842865..comments2024-03-04T00:50:02.182-08:00Comments on KeithGiles.com: My Fellow AtheniansKeith Gileshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00328300571647154699noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926207.post-51953018892117075062009-11-11T22:14:41.147-08:002009-11-11T22:14:41.147-08:00Consoror Cathead - Sorry it has taken me so long t...Consoror Cathead - Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your comment.<br /><br />I would disagree with you when you say, "We don’t know what GAWD intended" when it comes to Church.<br /><br />This is exactly why I have spent the last 2 years writing my next book about God's design for His Church. My position is that, if we really are open to what we find, it is possible for us to read the New Testament and discern what God's exact intention and design for His Church, His Body, His Bride actually was.<br /><br />At face value, I think we should agree that it seems absolutely preposterous that God should have no opinion or intention about how His Church should operate or function.<br /><br />Did God remain aloof when it came to the design of the Tabernacle? Was He indifferent to how the Temple was to be constructed? Of course not. In fact, God was meticulously specific about what He intended. Why should we assume that He suddenly has no intention or specific design for His New Testament Church?<br /><br />Furthermore, isn't it a little odd to have this entire New Testament document about the birth and formation of something called the Church and then claim that the same New Testament doesn't reveal anything to us about what that Church looks like, how it should operate, what form it should take?<br /><br />Of course, it's opinions like these that have ostracized me from my brothers and sisters in Christ, so I can understand if you disagree. I would only ask that everyone who claims to follow Christ take seriously the very specific statements that God has made about His Church and what Jesus says about His Body. To me, these are very, very important topics.<br /><br />Peace to you!<br />kgKeith Gileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00328300571647154699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926207.post-3271111762333923842009-11-04T12:07:05.669-08:002009-11-04T12:07:05.669-08:00Keith --
I like your site – it makes me think, an...Keith --<br /><br />I like your site – it makes me think, and that's a GOOD thing. On the other hand, it makes me want to Comment, and I always worry that that’s a bad thing. But I am going to comment.<br /><br />There’s a buzz-phrase, “living in tension,” which describes the manifestation of cognitive dissonance. I definitely live “in tension.” I do go to church on Sundays: in fact a very well-regarded one. I’m an acolyte there: I light the candles, handle the silver, etc. etc. etc. Every step along the way I ask myself: WHERE is this dress-up <br />coming from? It isn’t in the gospel stories, not a bit. It’s been very deliberately and lovingly manufactured from the suggestion that the Last Supper was a “sacrifice,” and priests consecrate sacrifices, therefore the Eucharist must necessarily be a sacrifice needing a priest. Hey presto, fiat CHURCH! And that’s just fine, but we shouldn’t say, “And GAWD intended that.” We don’t know what GAWD intended, except that his Son our Savior made much more of worshipping in spirit and in truth than, as you well point out, in heaps of architecture. WHERE did it go so horribly wrong?<br /><br />Somewhere in your bio you mention reading Frank Viola and you quote Brennan Manning in a recent post:<br /><br />" … have we so<br />accommodated the faith of our fathers to consumption that the question of<br />simplicity of life, sharing of resources, and radical dependence on God's<br />providence no longer seem relevant?”<br /><br />I say to you, to Frank V., and to Brennan M.: this IS the “faith of our fathers.” In the early years of the English colonial plantation north or south, Christians (Puritans or Anglicans) are building churches. Some of them very posh. Only in the late 18th century is the church officially disestablished in Virginia – that is, NOT supported by the local government. The faith of our fathers isn’t simple, not economically, socially, or politically. <br /><br />This is the nature of Christianity. It didn’t “go” horribly wrong – it has always been this way: complicated, full of words and Big Concepts and chatter. So the real question is: what is “church” doing for people – in what ways is it functional in its buildings and church schools and craft sales etc.? What are Christians finding there that they can’t find in the simple presence of their Savior? <br /><br />I see in it a parallel to the Fall. Here’s Paradise, it’s perfect, BUT someone isn’t happy with perfection. We want something more! <br /><br />So my comment is a question: WHAT would it take for Christ to be enough?<br /><br />I’m always asking myself that. <br /><br />Thanks for reading this far.<br /><br />PeaceConsoror Catheadnoreply@blogger.com