Comments on: counsel to the church II

By: FireTag

FireTag — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 03:39:35 +0000

There are clearly a great many people who do feel the way you do, Gary.

164 is now canon, and many people in the church who did not follow the debate on the web or through official church channels since the previous World Conference in 2007 — for whatever reason — have discovered for the first time as reports filter back to local areas how profoundly Section 164 effects the church.

By: Gary McDonald

Gary McDonald — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:01:00 +0000

What gives me pause concerning the new Section 164 is that we are setting ourselves up to eventually change the mode of baptism. If we do that in the future we will lose something important. Immersion was practiced by John the Baptist and Jesus we can surmise. If it was good enough for them then it’s good enough for me. This church is extremely liberal and makes many people silently squirm in their seats. Many are disheartened by decades of continual change. The older we get the more tired we become in trying to adapt to the endless changes that just keep coming. I am wondering how the organization can grow in numbers when the body is continually upset. Then again maybe that’s just the way I feel and nobody else does. ??

By: FireTag

FireTag — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:55:25 +0000

Matt:

I see from the minutes that you are now charged with being on the Standing High Council. That was a good choice.

By: Margie Miller

Margie Miller — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:16:11 +0000

As a former skeptic, of the FP’s ability to pass legislation to set up regional conferences to handle the issue of sexual orientation as well as the membership issue, I have to agree with your analysis of the Conference action.

After sitting through the sessions and hearing the various testimonies of folks from Africa and Haiti, I have changed my opinion. I don’t believe the FP is being fearful of lost membership near as much as they are fearful for our third world members being in danger of their lives.

Instead, we are moving ahead with caution. I applaud the FP.

By: Hap Frizzell

Hap Frizzell — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:34:43 +0000

Hi Matt, thanks for the comments. Love Dad

By: Rich Brown

Rich Brown — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 14:25:16 +0000

Thanks Matt for this insightful post. I particularly appreciate how you brought Jewish circumcision into the discussion of Christian baptism. It recalls your previous comments on how the change to Community of Christ represents sort of a “New Testament” for the RLDS Church.

Maybe this new counsel will help us sort out the difference between cause and effect in the church. In the first-century church (especially in Corinth, which offers many parallels to the 21st-century church) believers were moved by the Holy Spirit to speak in tongues, prophesy, and exhibit other spiritual gifts. Before long, however, believers had turned things around to the point where people were more or less required to exhibit those kinds of spiritual gifts to show they belonged in the faith community. Thus, the effects (of the Spirit) had become the cause or at least a prerequisite of church membership.

Now, in our own day, have we considered that baptism “causes” church membership and/or a cleansing of our transgressions (sins), or is baptism (1) our outward response to the Spirit leading us to “participate in Christ’s death and resurrection” and (2) a sign or marker showing that we are now “in Christ” and part of the body of Christ? The second point in particular makes baptism (and perhaps other sacraments) a close equivalent for Christians to circumcision and Torah observance for Jews, signifying active membership in “God’s family.”

If nothing else, this now-approved counsel opens yet another new door to the future. It may eventually prove to be an incredible watershed moment for us and for others.

By: Rick Collins

Rick Collins — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:50:11 +0000

Very interesting way of looking at it.
My only concern with the legislation is that the effect in a lot of places may be further de-emphasis of baptism’s importance as a sacrament.
Personally, I would like to see congregations all over the church do more to emphasise both baptism and the sacrament of the Lord’s supper.
It’s not something the world church can really do itself (though some sort of World Church effort wouldn’t hurt) – probably something that we priesthood members need to do.

By: bewarethechicken

bewarethechicken — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:11:44 +0000

The problem, I’m sure you’ll agree, is not so much the use of the wrong scripture, but the basic understanding of scripture itself. Those who use scripture to demonstrate “non-inspiration” through inconsistencies will not be swayed by your analysis, in my opinion.

If you view scripture as the inerrent (or close to inerrant) word of God, then one must use painful tools to squeeze and push the words to be consistent with your understanding. If you view scripture as inspired stories of individual/group faith journeys – then it’s not surprising (and rather understandable) that it grows and changes and contradicts over time – just as we grow and change and contradict.

While I appreciate your alternate scriptural view – by trying to make an argument based on some type of “authority” of scripture, you are walking up the down escalator.

Thanks for blogging about Conference. Being unable to attend full-time, it’s good to hear what’s going on.

By: Jessie

Jessie — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:02:23 +0000

I’m so glad you’re blogging your thoughts about conference and the issues before us!! And thank you especially for this bit of insight … I hadn’t as yet made the connection between open baptism and circumcision in the early church … this helps to settle the few doubts I had regarding this issue.

By: Kathy McAdam

Kathy McAdam — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 04:26:29 +0000

Thank you for this thoughtful and incisive view, Matt. I appreciate the sharing of your depth of knowledge and faith. I also appreciate getting insight from the thoughts and discussion beyond the conference chamber.