Quote:
Originally Posted by countmeworthy
If you're happy in the church 'body' you attend, GOOD for you !
|
I actually am. But that is not what I said or what I was talking about. So don't change the subject. I was responding to the following statement:
Quote:
|
You know VERY WELL this forum is mainly read by former and current LRCers who UNDERSTAND the difference between being "religious" and being Spirit FILLED.
|
Yes, this forum is mainly read by current and former LRCers. But I beg to differ at their "UNDERSTANDing" of the difference between man's self-effort and acting according to the Spirit (which is a more commonly understood version of the term "Spirit filled"). It seems quite evident that there is a general disdain for anything that seems like tradition, ritual, liturgy, etc., as simply being "religious" and therefore cannot be Spirit filled." I am looking well beyond the group that I meet with. I am even looking into the deeply liturgical groups like Lutheran, Anglican, and (gasp) even the RCC.
I do not deny that there is much to say about certain aspects of the RCC. But the call to its members was not to move to another city, but to overcome.
So, how do you define "Spirit filled"? Does the appearance of a history of common practice deny the Spirit filling the participants and bringing their tradition, liturgy, and ritual to life? We are still so quick to throw out so much because it is not our preference. Yes, you can say that you take in teachings from several sources other than LRC. Yet, are the acceptable sources, and even parts that you accept, based on your preference and that is what colors what is "religious" and therefore not "Spirit filled"?
Do you presume that I like and prefer those liturgies and rituals? They are not my preference. But that does not make them simply "religious." I might find that in my disdain for some of those practices that I am resisting God who would rather that I be open and participate. To actually consider the words and the purpose in the ritual and liturgy. Make it mine, and not just some words that I repeat while making peculiar gestures. I have not had that experience. But I am struggling right now with the notion that I might be resisting in a couple of areas just because I still think it is "religious" and therefore not "in the Spirit."
You have mostly avoided what I actually said. And this is anything but an intellectual pursuit. It is orthopraxy — right practice — at its core. Are we still
practicing exclusionary thoughts when our knee-jerk reaction is to say "religion should be extinct because it is not Spirit filled"? That is not just intellect. It is the core of unity and acceptance.
Do you simply stand by your claim that current and former LRCers "
UNDERSTAND the difference between being "religious" and being Spirit FILLED"? And do you stand by the statement that you are "
all for the extinction of religion"?
If so, then my objection to the statements remains. You have not addressed what seems, to me, to be a very exclusionary kind of statement.
And this will probably be the reason that I ultimately leave you all to your own devices in these forums. We rant about the exclusivism of the LRC then return with a modified form of it as we reject the ability to be more than theoretically one with any other Christians. Why? Because they are "too worldly." They are too "religious." They are part of a denomination. They have a name. They have anything that seems even just a little like a hierarchy. For some, even that they have elders. Or a building. Or support missionaries.
Yes. I was probably a little strong in my response. But I was responding to a rather strongly-worded complaint against your brethren. A claim that they are simply religious and not Spirit filled. Do you honestly see the practices of so many of the Christians that surround you as so "religious" that it must be that they do not understand that they must not be spirit filled because they engage in such practices? Are the practices ever "Spirit filled"? Or is it simply about the participants who are actually Spirit filled even if they don't buy a word of the charismatic kind of teaching? When were they filled? At salvation. I guaranty that your wonderful Christ did not teach you to speak in such a manner about your brethren.