[OBW]

I know that this will rub some people the wrong way, but the more I see statements like Paul made about the "wonderful" this and the "glorious" that, then compare that to all the other writings, I have come to the conclusion that we don't understand what he is talking about. Everything Paul said was true. But I have a hard time believing that he said them so that we would pursue "wonderful" and "glorious" things apart from our daily living as believers in Christ.

Paul made many spiritual statements in his letters. But he didn't often (if at all) write them as the goal of our living, but as the underpinnings — the reasons — that we do what we do. While there may be some truth to the idea that the little passage in Galatians could mean "am continually being" crucified with Christ, Paul didn't supply it as a path through which you had to go to then behave in the manner that he was leading the Galatian believers toward. Instead, it was the reason that they should do it.

Now.

And he didn't seen to be suggesting that they should start turning his comments into uber-spiritual catchphrases as they reject the idea of "just do it."

Seems that being led in the paths of righteousness stands above being led in the paths of high worship meetings. When I look at the scripture in an overview, I see much more about our living. Even in the lengthy descriptions of all the sacrifices in Leviticus. For the most part, those were about repentance. And not just one kind of generic sacrifice for every kind of repentance. There were details. For this you do A, B and C. For that, you do A, D and G. And so on.

And where is the repentance in the LRC about much of anything? I heard a repentance for wasting the first half of a prayer meeting. (really deep repentance)

And I can't say that there is a lot of ongoing repentance in Evangelicalism. Instead we just claim God's grace and move on. (It is there, and Paul admitted we could do that. But he said it was not the right thing to do.)

I have no desire to go to a Catholic church so I can join in the Kyrie. But at least they provide the opportunity every time they meet.

I know that this seems far from the whole Trinity topic. But it is actually very relevant. The point is, as I mentioned in my last post (and others before it here and other threads), that the Trinity as a subject to study and haggle about is essentially useless because it has no value to my living. God the Father, Son, and Spirit have much value to my living. But the doctrinal construct of the Trinity, as accurate or off as it may be, is irrelevant. I agree that they are simultaneous and separate. And also they are somehow completely One, even stated as One God. How that is achieved is a mystery. It does me no good to try to figure it out.

I am not suggesting the dismissal of this thread. Rather I am suggesting a solution that does not need an answer to the question of how it is that God is both One and Three. He is and that should be sufficient. I'm not even sure that it is completely important that modalism be entirely rebuffed as some kind of damnable heresy. I don't buy it. But I am not sure that it creates some kind of "another Christ." Surely at the "average Joe" level of participation in the church of Christ (as opposed to the Church of Christ) we will always have variations in understanding about things. Some of them in ways that sound the same but are actually different, and others that sound different but are more nearly the same.

Having said that, I have a hard time with Lee on this subject because when you get past the doctrinal statements (that are mostly generic orthodoxy), he starts to dismiss the relevance of the Three. They just become God Stew. Not quite damnable. But not orthodox in the truest sense of the word.

And if that was all, I might let it slide. But it is just the tip of an iceberg.