Yes, you're making sense. And I don't wanna sell short any of the things that those in these monasteries are doing. I'm all for it. Many have proven to be very influential through their writing....the obvious example is Thomas Merton...but Merton didn't stop at retreating from society. And I'm challenged by their willingness to turn over all wealth....and challenged by their depth of prayer and meditation in the disciplines of silence. To the extent they're reaching out to serve, then they're not really what I'm being critical of. Here's a quote from Merton that rings true to me...so I may have just made a huge ASSumption based on what I've seen/heard/read from certain monasteries and convents. That the focus is not about redeeming the world...but instead getting away from it. I see that happening not only in certain monasteries and convents...but in many churches that build themselves as country clubs talking negatively about the rest of the world. Anyway...the quote from Merton: "Under the pretext that what is “within” is in fact real, spiritual, supernatural, etc., one cultivates neglect and contempt for the “external” as worldly, sensual, material, and opposed to grace. This is bad theology and bad asceticism. In fact it is bad in every respect, because instead of accepting reality as it is, we reject it in order to explore some perfect realm of abstract ideals which in fact has no reality at all. Very often, the inertia and repugnance which characterize the so-called “spiritual life” of many Christians could be cured by a simple respect for the concrete realities of every day life, for nature, for the body, for one’s work, one’s friends, one’s surroundings, etc. A false supernaturalism which imagines that the “supernatural” is a kind of Platonic realm of abstract essences totally apart from and opposed to the concrete world of nature, offers no real support to a genuine life of meditation and prayer. Meditation has no point and no reality unless it is firmly rooted in life."
Well, thanks and I liked the Merton quote and do agree. If anything they should reach out more just because they are proving their "worth" by the life they lead. In other words, it is easier to trust that a monastery is not out to scam you than a mega church. Perhaps part of the reason for their restraint also lies in fear of losing some of that standing. The more involved you are, the more donations you need and the more money you need to filter and the more power and potential for corruptness can occur. Actually, now that I think about it, that is exactly what happened with many monasteries. As I said, for a long time they were a real force of good - education, shelter for the poor, etc but by the 14th century or so they were at times a hindrance and overly corrupt. They could probably never have that hold again...we are still talking pre-Reformation and pro divine kings...nevertheless I ramble.
Which should be thought provoking The problem is that it is half an idea, and half a reaction against something that SHOULD be reacted against, but in the right way (ie. not an over-reaction). Paul clearly says 'imitate me as I imtate Christ' (1 Cor 11.1) but that is in context of living a life that brings glory to God. The same guy ALSO says that we ought to hold fast to 'good doctrine' (1 Tim 4:6) Jude talks about the message 'once for all delivered' (v3) - ie. an unchanging message The author of Hebrews tells us that previously God spoke in many ways, but now he speaks through his Son, who most perfectly reveals God to us (Heb 1:1-4). So yes, I think we should follow the example of Jesus, but I think it's also pretty clear that what Jesus taught was just as important as what he did! And he taught us about relationship with God, secured through his death for sin and rising to new life. That's good doctrine, and what Paul, Jude, the author of Hebrews, Peter etc are keen for people to hold fast to! Some 'church dogma' gets into weird stuff (most notably the Roman Catholics) - but where it declares things outside of the bible as 'necessary for salvation' it's a bridge too far. But just because some groups push their own wheelbarrows doesn't mean we throw away 'good doctrine'! And on dreams etc - sure God CAN use those, but he never promises to. Hebrews 1 clearly tells us that it's in Jesus that God made his definitive statement for all time - to think we need something beyond that is not to trust God fully.
I never understood why God snubbed Cain. I thought it was God's endorsement as a carnivore. Schwartz line of reasoning doesn't make me understand the story any better. I guess what Schwartz is saying is that Cain didn't sacrifice enough. Cain should've cut down his fruit tree and make something out of it or burn it for God. OT God is picky in Genesis. Both sides probably agree, but they would both ask, "and then what?"
Thank you I agree. Just to clarify my statement, the purpose of my ministry (service) is for others to know Christ.
Actually I no nothing of Schwartz, this was sent to me in an email and I was struck by the point of the story of Acts and the simplicity of the early Christian faith, in contrast to all that is called Christian today.
Abel's Acceptable Worship Sacrifice, by Faith By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks. (Hebrews 11:4) The Lord desires that people become true spiritual worshipers of Him. "The hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him" (John 4:23). This can only become a reality through faith in the Lord. One helpful example of this is Abel's acceptable worship sacrifice, by faith. Cain and Abel were two sons of Adam and Eve. The time came when they both offered sacrifices unto the Lord. "And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD. Abel also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat" (Genesis 4:3-4a). The sacrifice of Cain was rejected by God, whereas Abel's sacrifice was accepted. "And the LORD respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering" (Genesis 4:4b-5a). Our primary verse tells us why Abel's gift of worship was acceptable to the Lord. "By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain." Abel's sacrifice was given by faith. It came from a heart that believed in the Lord and trusted in His righteous ways. "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD...but He loves him who follows righteousness" (Proverbs 15:8-9). When the Lord accepted Abel's offering, He was declaring that Abel was righteous in His sight: "through which he obtained witness that he was righteous." Elsewhere, the word confirms that Cain was an unbeliever; whereas, Abel walked in righteousness. "Cain...was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother's righteous" (1 John 3:12). When we offer worship sacrifices to the Lord, He is looking on our hearts. Are we trusting in Him? Are we yielding to the righteous paths that His word has set forth? Whether we are offering praise, giving thanks, doing good deeds, or sharing our resources with others, we are to do it all by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. "Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name. But do not forget to do good and to share, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased...you...are being built up a spiritual house...to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (Hebrews 13:15-16 and 1 Peter 2:5). link
Thanks for the reply. I've spent some time thinking about it and search is back up. Sounds to me that it means belief is not enough. But wouldn't that discount a good majority of the practicing Christians across the world? One church wanted to baptize me just through acceptance that JC is the Lord and Savior. Accepting the other details were left out for the moment. I think meaningful worship would make the best practice, but current religious recruitment only hopes that will happen and are more content with numbers. Perhaps they can only hope because they can't prove a true spiritual commitment, but there is a broad spectrum between liberal and conservative interpretations on judging commitment and Christianness. It's that continuum of interpretations across different denominations that makes me wonder about that parable.
I am thinking about what you said-"a true spiritual commitment" Is belief enough? I think so. Could it be that we don't really know ourselves what we believe until it is put to a test? Thanks for thinking about these things, I sincerely like to hear your thoughts on this. I think we both know what sincere love and worship to God would be. BTW- I think Abel believed in God. I think believing in someone is like trust.
