Conversation or declaration?

15 Responses to "Conversation or declaration?"

• Comment by: Stephan

  1 07/17/07 6:00 AM | Comment Link |

  I know I have been guilty of declaring on occasion, so I’ll be slow to throw stones. Besides, it would be hard to hit the target with this big plank in my eye.

• Comment by: Rachel

  2 07/17/07 8:23 AM | Comment Link |

  Helen, I remember that last summer we bloggers got into a conversation about how some of us were trained to be “Jerks for Jesus.” :-)

  Brian McLaren’s excellent book More Ready Than You Realize helped me to learn a different way of talking about faith. I highly recommend it.

• Comment by: David H

  3 07/17/07 8:39 AM | Comment Link |

  Everyone makes declarations. Saying, “This is what I think” is a declaration. I don’t usually bother to write I think, because if it isn’t me thinking it then I will attribute that thought to someone else.

  What I think is remarkable about so many Christians is that they refuse to think but that doesn’t stop them from making declarations.

  What is embarrassing about those Christians — I say embarrassing because I am forced to call them brothers and sisters in Christ — is that they refuse to follow the very book they tout so highly. Humbleness and humility are required of Christians, but when you read the posts from “Freeing Jesus,” all you see are bold declarations. Apparently only those who don’t call themselves Christians need by humble. Walking with Jesus frees me from the burden of humility, manners and even common decency.

  So, fellow Christians, if those who think differently are your enemies? How did Jesus tell you to treat your enemies? Did he say call them prideful and narrow-minded? No, he reserved those words for the keepers of the Law — the Christians of his day. What did Paul have to say on the subject: “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.”

  I am never ashamed of Jesus, but I am frequently ashamed of those who claim to follow him. And, yes, that means I am often ashamed of myself. So Christians, I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. Love just as well those who merely want to talk and think, because you are Jesus to them. You are supposed to help them find the way, not block it by being an ass.

• Comment by: joe

  4 07/17/07 9:31 AM | Comment Link |

  I don’t know Helen, seems to me that the first line of the original post was periliously close to being a declaration.

  The problem for me is not declaring things, but in explaining them. It is one thing to hold something as self evident, and quite another to explain why you hold it to be self evident.

  Carry on declaring, I say.. just be prepared to answer uncomfortable questions about your declarations..

• Comment by: Helen

  5 07/17/07 11:08 AM | Comment Link |

  Thanks everyone. Joe, that’s a fair point. Maybe I need to be more specific. My first line was meant to be background information about me and what I believe.

  If other people want to share information about themselves that they think is relevant to the conversation, I’m ok with that.

  If you look at the quotes I started this post with, three of them were declarations others made relating to me. By people who probably know nothing about me except they read one post I wrote.

  Those are the kinds of declarations I see as a hindrance rather than a help to meaningful conversation.

• Comment by: Doreen A Mannion

  6 07/17/07 12:31 PM | Comment Link |

  Helen,

  Thanks for sharing your views on this. Some of the posts made me uncomfortable as they seemed like sermons or too preachy toward you as an individual. I admire that you speak up for yourself, and in such a calm manner.

• Comment by: Steve S.

  7 07/17/07 4:01 PM | Comment Link |

  One of my favorite authors talks about how he has seen the Christian use of the phrase ‘I believe in Jesus’ to be simply a shortcut to the deep work of becoming a good person.

  …as if simply spouting the party line is what being a follower of Jesus is all about.

  I am so happy to see your respect for Jesus, in so far as you understand Him, and so embarrassed to see the way some have responded to you in His name…

  I would love to read more of your insights into who Jesus is. I love Him, and I believe He was courageous and wise (among many other things), but I also know that I miss so much of who He is because of the ‘colored glasses’ that I wear…

  …keep telling me what He looks likes with ‘Helen-colored glasses’ on and I will enjoy every minute of it!

• Comment by: Helen

  8 07/17/07 6:51 PM | Comment Link |

  Thanks Doreen. The nice thing about online communications is, you can’t see the new dent in my wall where I banged my head against it ;-)

  Steve, thanks for your comments. I do comment on Jesus often - if you keep reading you’ll probably come across more of my thoughts about him. Yes, I think he was very brave.

• Comment by: Ronald

  9 07/18/07 3:30 AM | Comment Link |

  Hi Helen

  A blog isn’t a real conversation, IMHO.

  There is a certain amount of the communication in a blog that is subjectively inserted there by the predisposition’s (intelligence, wit, insight, intuition, stupidity, foolishness, etc) of the reader.

  It’s not a real-time conversation. I don’t get to see you raise your eyebrows. You don’t see me fidget my legs or cross my arms. I don’t get to hear your voice inflections. You don’t get to look me in my eyes. I don’t get to ask questions to find out more information in real-time to clarify what you may mean or didn’t mean by what you said before I begin commenting. There is much more than a nuance missing that makes a blog woefully inadequate compared to a real conversation.

  It is, therefore, easy to make a caricature of those you don’t agree with. It’s easy to take some words written on a screen and make them say what you want them to say, to sit in judgement of someone you don’t know.

  Thanks David H, and Joe, for stating what should be obvious: we all make declarations.

  Why is it assumed that what I said wasn’t said out of humility, with a humble and sincere heart?

  If someone who is blind is standing at the intersection asking me what color the street lamp is, am I then arrogant, full of pride, and not being humble to kindly answer her declaratively “the light is green” or “the light is red”?

  You don’t know my background, yet you presume I haven’t walked a walk worthy enough to provide anyone here an answer?

  Again, if we had a real conversation, you might have found out I was once an agnostic, almost atheist. Surprised? Go ahead, and do that double-take and shake your head.

  I went back and read the posting with your history in it, so I know a little bit more about you now. You still know very little about me.

  Do you really expect bloggers to go and find and read all about you before they post their first response to a blog you have here? Blogs would cease to exist if this were the case!

  If we were having a real conversation, I may never have prayed that prayer over you face to face. We probably would never had become intimate enough for that to have happened. Face to face with you, I probably have only prayed under my breath during our conversation–if at all, unless and until the moment was right and if it seemed right to do so. (Again, blogs are not real conversations with real people!)

  Did you really just honestly want the answer to 3 questions in Freeing-Jesus? No, not really, right? (pause for effect–this isn’t a real conversation, so…) You have an agenda–a web site–a cause to maintain–with speaking engagements based on a certain expected philosophical/theological position being promoted. Your questions themselves were making their own statements/declarations. (Now, if that’s wrong, you could kindly correct me. If it’s right, and you hate the truth of it, you could still vehemently protest and posit another explanation, or if I’m right and your aren’t offended I guessed correctly, you could say “yeah, you’re right”, or you could coyly ignore that question and say “I’m going to quote you in a conference I’m going to ” and be thinking “I’ll make you sound like a fool, an “ass”, a egotistical conservative christian, a pharisee, a _____ (?) in front of everyone there to take my revenge on you publicly (mu-hahahah)”.

  Or wait, you might say to yourself, “I need to drum up more quotes to use at my conference, so why not defame this guy now in another blog and hold him up for ridicule for all my groupies to post how great I am and how bad he was for posting what he said”. Hmmm.

  Again, a real conversation with you might let me realize what a nice person you really are, and that you aren’t possibly capable of that kind of behavior. :-)

  I’m not here to crash your party per se. I try to crash the devil’s party when I’m not running away from his devouring teeth myself.

  WARNING: About to say something that may offend some blog readers here–but remember, this isn’t a real conversation, and for all you know, I’m a real nice guy in person, who you wouldn’t dream of calling an “ass” behind his back on another blog–

  At the top I said “IMHO”, but apply to my declarations whatever politically correct tag is required on this blog to not offend the thin skin sensitivities of those which are perpetually in a state of “there is no knowable truth”, so let’s attack anyone who says they know the “truth” because that’s just too arrogant of them to say so.

  I prayed for you today Helen because I cared about you. Is that real enough for you?

  If you aren’t too offended by what I’ve written, I think I may be able to contribute to the ‘conversation’ around here a bit.
  I’m sorry if you thought I was too presumptuous to direct my conversation at you personally, instead of your 3 questions.

  OTOH, isn’t this whole blog thing just a wee bit about you, your thoughts, your philosophy of Jesus, your adventures at conferences, your fame, your diary with ‘conversational’ jesus droppings etched into the ether of your own personal blog-sphere?

  I mean, in this context, YOU are the text to reply to, not whatever sub-text questions you toy over your readers like bait for fresh fish. So, I can’t be blamed too harshly, can I?

  TO ALL US BLOGGERS: It’s just too easy not to be a real person online. Too easy to be phony. To easy to put on a mask and be somebody you’re not. To say things without thinking about the consequences, or without a mind about who you are hurting, or a care if someone’s feelings got hurt? It’s just too much power for one to resist, don’t you agree?

  It’s certainly a test of character, as one jots down word upon word, sentence upon sentence. Soon, it begins to flow like the pen of a ready writer. Soon, one can be castigating one, soothing another, demeaning one person, and praising another. Oh, and it’s all so satisfying, isn’t it? Endless chatter and talking, without ever coming to a conclusion. Never finding a succinct truth to hold on to, and slashing with words like fiery daggers to all those that would offer their truth to the conversation that we don’t like.

  It would be a terrible tragedy to be stuck in such a blog-sphere having to fulfill an expected role, settled in a faithless existence.

  Is is possible, Helen, that you were born-again and received the Spirit of Christ so long ago and then strayed so long you don’t know you are His still. Is it possible that though you deny Him, He hasn’t yet denied you, because He remains faithful?
  Is it possible, that if you were to but venture there again, you’d find the knowledge of that same Holy Spirit upon/within you again? That presence you cannot explain, but know to be real.

  In my experience, I know there is a difference between a time when I made an “emotional” commitment to Christ, and the time I made an “intellectual” commitment to Christ, and the time when I first sensed the presence of God while reading the book “The Cost of Discipleship” by Detrich Bonhoeffer.

  If you were touched by Christ, even if it was many years ago, don’t you know deep down inside you could pick up where you left off if you only would? Don’t you realize that that feeling was not like any other emotional experience you’ve ever had? Wasn’t there something different about sensing His presence, even if it did effect your emotions? It wasn’t just the emotions, was it? Didn’t you know in your knower, in your gut, that you were in His tangible presence beyond mere emotion?

  I love how you were then led to Phil. 3:13-14 about forgetting your past. Didn’t that resonate with you that God was speaking to you personally in reality?

  After you had experienced that revelation, how could you then adopt point #2 of your Five key Choices? Further, how could you give up on prayer?

  Regarding Arminians and Calvinists, have you read anything by Gregory Boyd, like “Is God to Blame” and “God of the Possible” or explored “Open Theism” view? It could help provide an alternative to a Baptist or Orthodox foundation which might be useful to you.

  When you concluded (re: Arminians and Calvinists) “hey, maybe they both are right and the Bible contradicts itself”, I myself have thought the first part, but it was really odd to me that you would conclude the last part, and this be the basis for your departure from scripture. I would not conclude “and the Bible contradicts itself” from resolving the tension between A’s & C’s. Doesn’t the resolution just mean that God is bigger than we can conceive in A & C terms? Doesn’t the resolution mean that God is still a God that provides an inner peace that goes beyond mental understanding? Jesus said a source of err is the lack of the knowledge of the scriptures AND the power of God.

  On a conversational note, the above statement (less the Bible contradiction part) is what Forest Gump says at the end of the film at Jenny’s graveside. He tells Jenny that perhaps Lt. Dan and Momma were both right. Perhaps, like Momma said, life is like a box of chocolates (full of choices) AND like Lt. Dan said, everyone has a destiny to fulfill, all somehow at the same time. Life is not just all random events floating like a feather in the air. Some choice. Some destiny.

  I have had dealings with Calvinists and it’s note a pretty picture. If you grew up seeing A’s and C’s fight and debate doctrine, it is no wonder anyone could survive with their faith intact after that.

  In this vain, may I recommend another book? “Calvinism in a Las Vegas Airport” (I’m not promoting Calvinism, but the book is an useful read starting with an excerpt from the film “Hardcore” where a Dutch Reformed Pastor, played by George C. Scott, has a conversation with a “thoroughly pagan young woman named Niki”. It’s a riot (the scene and the book). The book author is writing to try to right the wrongs of trying to share one’s faith by talking about TULIP and Calvinism. (arrgh!)

  Well, I have to go now Helen. But perhaps I’ll have time to return and write again.

  Perhaps this is the wrong forum for a truth teller to be accepted in. John Eldredge talks about the mystics and sages (The Way of the Wild Heart) who may be sitting at your table and never say a word. They aren’t always recognized and their counsel isn’t necessarily sought out, or even wanted.

  The prophets of old would show up and the elders of the city would come out to greet them and ask them if they had come peaceably. They asked this because too often the prophets would come with Word from God that He wasn’t too pleased about something and was about to hand out some judgement.

  To everyone, I may have not provided enough grace or salt seasoning in my writing tonight, or at least from you perspective. I suppose that will be cause for lambasting.
  Good night.

• Comment by: Helen

  10 07/18/07 4:03 AM | Comment Link |

  Ron, I’m going to repost your comments as a new blog entry, with my responses. Anyone else who wants to respond to Ron specifically, let’s do it on the new entry, which is here:

  A blog isn’t a real conversation

• Comment by: benjamin ady

  11 07/20/07 6:17 AM | Comment Link |

  Helen,

  Surely the author of the response you posted at the top here was being facetious/sarcastic/self mocking when they said “Here, let me help get that speck out of your eye”?

  I remember reading somewhere once Benjamin Frankling talking about the whole declaration thing. He was saying he had learned along the way that things went more smoothly if one prefaces declarations with gentle little phrases like “Perhaps” or “It may be that” and so forth.

• Comment by: Helen

  12 07/21/07 7:52 AM | Comment Link |

  benjamin if you want more information you can see the quote in context in the “Free Jesus” comments - it’s in comment #21. I can guess at how he meant it but I don’t really know.

  I agree with Benjamin Franklin about prefacing things but on the whole I would probably prefer “I think” because that can be nuanced to say “I have a strong opinion about this” whereas “perhaps” might mean “I have no opinion/I don’t know”. Those are somewhat different. On the other hand if I have no opinion or don’t know “perhaps” would be very appropriate.

  I guess adding BICBW at the end covers both bases.

  And if you say “kewl” then I know you have a similar opinion to me :)

• Comment by: Rachel

  13 07/23/07 6:34 AM | Comment Link |

  Speaking of Benjamin Franklin, he founded a famous discussion group called the Junto. Here is his own description of the group:

  I should have mentioned before, that, in the autumn of the preceding year, [1727] I had form’d most of my ingenious acquaintance into a club of mutual improvement, which we called the Junto; we met on Friday evenings. The rules that I drew up required that every member, in his turn, should produce one or more queries on any point of Morals, Politics, or Natural Philosophy, to be discuss’d by the company; and once in three months produce and read an essay of his own writing, on any subject he pleased.

  Our debates were to be under the direction of a president, and to be conducted in the sincere spirit of inquiry after truth, without fondness for dispute or desire of victory; and to prevent warmth, all expressions of positiveness in opinions, or direct contradiction, were after some time made contraband, and prohibited under small pecuniary penalties.

  And here are the questions each prospective member was required to answer before joining the Junto:

  Any person to be qualified as a member was to stand up, lay his hand upon his breast, and be asked the following questions, viz.

  1. Have you any particular disrespect to any present members? Answer. I have not.

  2. Do you sincerely declare that you love mankind in general, of what profession or religion soever? Answer. I do.

  3. Do you think any person ought to be harmed in his body, name, or goods, for mere speculative opinions, or his external way of worship? Answer. No.

  4. Do you love truth for truth’s sake, and will you endeavor impartially to find and receive it yourself, and communicate it to others? Answer. Yes.

• Comment by: David H

  14 07/23/07 9:23 AM | Comment Link |

  An interesting fellow, Ben Franklin. I doubt I could have hung in such distinguished company as he kept, but once again I like the way he thinks, especially regarding: loving “truth for truth’s sake … [and wanting to] find and receive it [myself], and communicate it to others.”

  Perhaps I should re-evaluate my own penchant for “expressions of positiveness in opinions, or direct contradiction.”

• Comment by: David H

  15 07/23/07 9:45 AM | Comment Link |

  Speaking of truth, just ran across this nice editorial from the San Jose Mercury. It addresses, after a fashion, many of the discussions that arise here, plus it quotes from one of my favorite modern big thinkers: Stephen Colbert. A highlight comes from a document, “Novum Organum“, which is considered the founding document of the scientific method, written by Francis Bacon in 1620. It says:

  “The human understanding resembles not a dry light, but admits a tincture of the will and passions, which generate their own system accordingly: for man always believes more readily that which he prefers. . . . In short, his feelings imbue and corrupt his understanding in innumerable and sometimes imperceptible ways.”

  It seems to intimate that people prefer things that don’t challenge them over the truth. I have a gut feeling Bacon is right.