In reading our discussions lately, it has struck me that sometimes we conflate words to get to places we didn’t really mean to go.
We have discussed much how the church relates to the congregant. Webster’s defines relate this way.
: to show or make a connection between (two or more things)
: to understand and like or have sympathy for someone or something
: to tell (something, such as a story)
For our purposes though, I think the definition from the medical dictionary is perhaps more useful:
: to have meaningful social relationships : interact realistically <an inability to relate emotionally to others—Willow Lawson>
In many ways, when we look for a church, that’s what we are looking for, isn’t it? A place that will try to understand “where we are coming from”. And not this: if we are coming from, it’s likely that we are not satisfied with where we are, so we’re unlikely to be looking simply for validation that we’ve been perfect, are we?
So we’re not merely looking for validation that we’re doing everything right, we’re most likely looking for something better. Perhaps an example, perhaps someone to follow.
People are unchurched for many reasons, some have never been told anything about Christianity, some have come away from a lukewarm experience that left them unsatisfied, there are as many reasons as there are the unchurched.
It is our mission to listen to them, to help them to understand the Good News and help them make the journey to Christ. Note that i am not saying (nor have I ever) that we should compromise our beliefs (or our churches’) but we should, nay we must, listen to them carefully to understand what is troubling them.
No doubt if we are active in this, we will hear all manner of folly, and things that we know are nonsense. That doesn’t matter. What matters is that they learn that we care about them and will listen to them. If we don’t have that relationship, and that trust, we will be ineffective, not least because we will never understand why they are looking for something,.
But once they have learned that we can be trusted, and trusted not to denigrate them for what they say, we can begin to lead them to the Cross. Without that, we will simply drive them away, at least in my experience, from both sides.
Earlier, I said I think we sometimes conflate words. The phrase I had in mind is moral relativism. The Basics of Philosophy tells us:
Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism) is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/oruniversal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. It does notdeny outright the truth-value or justification of moral statements (as some forms of Moral Anti-Realism do), but affirms relative forms of them. It may be described by the common aphorism: “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”.
Moral Relativists point out that humans are not omniscient, and history is replete with examples of individuals and societies acting in the name of an infallible truth later demonstrated to be more than fallible, so we should be very wary of basing important ethical decisions on a supposed absolute claim. Absolutes also tend to inhibit experimentation and foreclose possible fields of inquiry which might lead to progress in many fields, as well as stifling the human spirit and quest for meaning. In addition, the short term proves itself vastly superior in the ethical decision-making process than the relatively unknown long-term.
Relativistic positions may specifically see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries (Cultural Relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (Ethical Subjectivism). A related but slightly different concept is that ofMoral Pluralism (or Value Pluralism), the idea that there are several values which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with each other (e.g. the moral life of a nun is incompatible with that of a mother, yet there is no purely rationalmeasure of which is preferable).
An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning at all, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory. Some philosophers maintain that Moral Relativism dissolves into Emotivism (the non-cognitivist theory espoused by many Logical Positivists, which holds that ethical sentences serve merely to express emotions and personal attitudes) or Moral Nihilism (the theory that, although ethical sentences do represent objective values, they are in fact false).
Moral Relativism generally stands in contrast to Moral Absolutism, Moral Universalism and to all types of Moral Realism, which maintain the existence of invariant moral facts that can be known and judged, whether through some process of verification or through intuition.
There’s quite a lot more, as I’m sure you are aware, and it’s interesting, especially the history. But since we are Christians, we can’t really go there, in my opinion, without abrogating our faith. Christ taught us that there is objectively right, and wrong, in all times and all places.
Yes, things change. Christ was not pressing for the abolition of human slavery, but Christianity was the driving force in its abolition in the west. Nor did He agitate for the equality of women but we have come to see that as a Christian value.
In other words he taught us the basics, and we have taken the ball and advanced it, with due regard for tradition, we have come to see that the dignity of the individual human being is paramount, and that human rights (as we perceive them) are an objectively good (and ethical) thing.
But to come back to where we began, it is not our role to judge others, God will take care of that in His own good time. And in truth, as I get older, I have less and less desire to judge others. More and more I realize that everybody’s experience is different and I’m simply not qualified.
What our mission is once we have a person’s trust is to teach him what God says and does, and give him the tools to judge himself. This is the role of confession. And then God will participate with forgiveness and mercy.
A reminder for all of us though, although our churches don’t seem to stress it as much as they used to, Christ ended almost all of his lessons with this, in one form or another:
Go and sin no more
That’s key!
And since today is 23 April, I thought I would add a reminder that it is the Feast Day of St. George. He’s a busy guy, he’s the patron saint of Bulgaria, Ethiopia, Georgia, Greece, Portugal and Russia, but above all in our minds: England.
Sir Winston Churchill said:
There is a forgotten -nay almost forbidden word,
. . . . a word which means more to me than any other. . . .
That word is
“ENGLAND”
Seems to me he’s wasn’t far wrong. We hear much of Great Britain, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, and even of the former Empires: America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Singapore, and even India, but we hear little of the source of the glory: England. For without the driving force of English ideas, our world would simply not exist.
The Late Rt Hon Enoch Powell MBE, once said at a St. George’s Day speech.
There was a saying, not heard today so often as formerly . .
“What do they know of England who only England know?”
It is a saying which dates. It has a period aroma, like Kipling’s “Recessional” or the state rooms at Osborne. That phase is ended, so plainly ended, that even the generation born at its zenith, for whom the realisation is the hardest, no longer deceive themselves as to the fact. That power and that glory have vanished, as surely, if not as tracelessly, as the imperial fleet from the waters of Spithead.
And yet England is not as Nineveh and Tyre, nor as Rome, nor as Spain. Herodotus relates how the Athenians, returning to their city after it had been sacked and burnt by Xerxes and the Persian army, were astonished to find, alive and flourishing in the blackened ruins, the sacred olive tree, the native symbol of their country.
So we today, at the heart of a vanished empire, amid the fragments of demolished glory, seem to find, like one of her own oak trees, standing and growing, the sap still rising from her ancient roots to meet the spring, England herself.
Happy St. George’s Day to the cousins!
Servus Fidelis said:
An interesting topic NEO.
For many Shakespeare had it right when he said life “is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” It’s the old question of what universal truth is there that makes life itself significant and worthy of the suffering and the disappointments we all must face? As mere mortal men with rational minds we cannot relate to a life that has no meaning; no different than all living things that are born, live and then die. So there is a need within the human heart to live toward an end; our teleological end. For it is fine for the irrational animal or plant and they meet their ends most of the time: reproducing, continuing life and providing life for other animals and organisms. But of man? We need a cause and a goal; for we rationally see the futility of living for the moment and glorying in our reputations, wealth or pleasures.
As to relating to the Church, I think it much more important that the seeker who arrives at the doorstep should be more concerned as to where life is leading than where they have been; looking through the windshield rather than the rearview mirror. If they assessed that their present life is where they wish to remain, then why have you need for the Church; for your present life should surely be enough for you? Stop the car and live in the reality and the goal that you have made for yourself.
If you have tried to live and found no answers that satisfy your mind and your heart then you are more interested in the future than examining the past as a psychiatrist might do. The general dis-ease of the human conscience seems to be that we are not able to rest in anything that has no permanence and the continuance of their family, as was the thinking of the earliest Jews, is the closest thing that we have to everlasting life. I think that relating to this innermost desire is universal in man and brings him rest . . . and thereby one will believe because it rings true in his head and his heart. For many others they will simply say that it is unbelievable and therefore they will try to fill each moment with pleasure until the candle goes out. It is not as if the Holy Spirit has not filled each of us with this ultimate desire for eternal happiness, only that some think it is a fairy tale and others see it as the true reality for which they were made.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Of course, the Shakespeare is appropriate, in a couple of ways, it is both his birthday and the anniversary of his death today as well.
for the rest, a wise man once said, “If you don’t know where you’ve been how do you know where you’re going.” I don’t believe in over-analyzing it but, it’s important to understand what shaped you, if you are to attempt to change it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
I didn’t know that: interesting coincidence isn’t it? 🙂
Unless we are absolutely unconscious we all know where we’ve been. What we are in need of is a map so that we don’t travel the same bumpy roads over and over again. We have to stop being the men who won’t stop for directions and actually ask someone to tell us how we get from Nowheresville or Hell Hole to Paradise Valley. That, most likely, will require a change of direction in your life and yes, you will actually have to steer the vehicle without surrendering to the temptations of lovely looking detours.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
It is, indeed. 🙂
Sure, but when your wandering around lost, it’s helpful if the guy (or girl) you ask doesn’t laugh at you too much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
I don’t see churches doing that. As to why everyone thinks they are on the right path though they travel in circles is a question that we’ve been wrestling with at AATW for a long time now. Is it that the new Minister of Road Signs has been bribed to point all the traffic to the same chain of Honky Tonks . . . each promising to be better than the last? Maybe we haven’t been very diligent in tearing down those signs and putting up the real signs that will folks aright. At this point, it is almost like the blind leading the blind and nobody is laughing . . . though that might even be a help when you keep trying more of the same and it isn’t working.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: A Triptych of England and the English | nebraskaenergyobserver
David B. Monier-Williams said:
Thank you NEO for the tribute to St. George, that Turkish Dragon slayer. I have always considered my home country to be England and me an Englishman.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
No problem, David, it is (or should be) a proud thing to be. 🙂
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
You and your money hungry religions can relate to this;
Creflo Dollar says that his asking for his followers to help him purchase a $65 million dollar plane is part of the ‘Devil trying to discredit him.” In a sermon posted to the Dove channel on YouTube on Tuesday, Dollar says he never directly asked his congregation for money to buy the plane because he has more than enough supporters that would help him do it
Its not the dress that makes you look fat. its the fat that makes you look fat
LikeLike
Steve Brown said:
NEO, this is a related post of interest. http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/2015/04/23/saint-george/
LikeLiked by 1 person