tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222101907210941253.post7264796454551045543..comments2023-09-06T09:41:32.189-04:00Comments on Meeting Jesus / Finding Peace: "If the Church Were Christian" by Philip GulleyBillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17063175711541546350noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222101907210941253.post-50168015476080708802010-08-17T02:25:56.297-04:002010-08-17T02:25:56.297-04:00Whereas I agree with the writer of this article...Whereas I agree with the writer of this article's criticism of Gulley's book I have some conclusions of my own. As someone who grew up in a traditional church and later on became a senior pastor of a traditional church, I have seen my share of how the church has become to look more like the empire (the world) than the Jesus they say they love and adore. I have watched since I was a boy how the church took custom and practice and somehow tried to make it sacred and holy. I have seen churches get more offended over transgressing a man made idea, than over a transgression of the ten commandments. I have watched many churches become nothing but another type country club where only the elite, prosperous and well off were welcome. So I welcome Gulley's book because it can serve as a wake up call for some institutional churches that have condemned brokenness, postured itself in judgement and focused more on the after-life than the life we are living now. Someone has to challenge the church of the 21st century to ask the question are we doing what Jesus would have us to do? Or we doing what we want to do because we want to feel better about us? Thank you Phillip Gulley for challenging my thinking, my church will not be the same!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222101907210941253.post-65670989754035009162010-07-27T17:32:20.884-04:002010-07-27T17:32:20.884-04:00Friends,
Phil and Bill both have clear about the ...Friends,<br /><br />Phil and Bill both have clear about the Church and clearly they differ. Both are excellent pastors of the Meetings they serve.<br /><br />Most of what we "know" about Jesus was recorded around the time that those disciples were dying off or had been martyred. Even Paul was gone. His writings are instructive and seem to pretty much reflect the thought of Jesus as recorded in Mark. Less so in Matthew and Luke, and, while John is beautifully presented, scholars other than Phil are sure that much of the Jesus that Phil advocates is<br />altered toward violence. <br /><br />The later letters attributed to Paul also seem, according to many scholars, to veer toward the usual Roman rules of life.<br /><br />Many of the stories of Jesus' behavior show that Jesus spent alot of effort healing people, feeding people, telling parables, and making the Roman occupied Jewish state leaders very uncomfortable.<br /><br />Phil view of the church could as well be applied in large part to the people that Jesus made so uncomfortable. And, as the Council of Nicea left things, the Church has been egregiously unchristian, acquiring Rome and eventually all of its successors, right up to the United States. <br /><br />There is nowhere that either Jesus of Paul recommended war, acquisition of great wealth and using that power to control the people that Jesus spent so much of his time feeding and healing.<br /><br />So, without suggesting tht Bill Clendenen errs, the Church is hardly the Christian model it perports to be. At least one reason that Friends call their congregatins Meetings is to separate Friends from "the Church" and its traditional lust for power.Marshall Gibsonhttp://storiesandsanta@rocketmail.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222101907210941253.post-54837928216665886322010-04-24T10:49:21.277-04:002010-04-24T10:49:21.277-04:00Re-inventing Jesus in one's own image has been...Re-inventing Jesus in one's own image has been a favorite activity of Christian and near-Christian writers for hundreds of years.<br /><br />Sometimes new light is shed on the revelation, but more often what one reads is a description of what the author would have <i>preferred</i> Jesus to have been like, instead of what he <i>was</i>.<br /><br />Generally the Jesus that emerges looks a lot like the author himself, with similar interests, beliefs, blind spots, and weaknesses.kevin robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07336902422644197456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222101907210941253.post-18347467319587591712010-04-23T10:24:49.987-04:002010-04-23T10:24:49.987-04:00Thanks from me, too, for this review, and your com...Thanks from me, too, for this review, and your comment, Bill.<br /><br />As I read the chapter headings, I kept saying to myself, "Yes, but . . . . " To the extent that Gully is engaging in a dialectical process to correct extreme and unbalanced contemporary views, I agree with him 100%. But to take his propositions out of that kind of corrective context just gives you the weak semi-Christian (to be charitable) theology Bill identifies. <br /><br />What I don't like in his propositions are the comparatives, the "rather than", "more important", "valued over", etc.-- the "either or" quality you identify. It seems to me that we have to maintain a living, paradoxical balance between each side of the equations. As you point out, Bill, Jesus made plenty of judgments even as he was reconciling all creation to himself, so why say that one is "more important" than the other (unless it is to correct an imbalance)? <br /><br />He also jinxes the argument with loaded words. Why "communal uniformity" rather than "corporate discernment" or "accountability to others"? And is the counterpart to "affirming our potential" really "condemns" our brokenness"? Why can't we say that we must affirm our potential while we <i>recognize</i> our brokenness?<br /><br />All that said, I still want to read his book. I found his previous ones helpful, even as they left holes.<br /><br />Finally, I like your two questions at the end, particularly the first one. Perhaps the next book should be, "If Jesus is Christ".Paul Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03483071863453025925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222101907210941253.post-13180670589899572382010-04-21T08:21:14.959-04:002010-04-21T08:21:14.959-04:00An interesting and thoughtful review, Bill. Fine ...An interesting and thoughtful review, Bill. Fine job.Brent Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01351957537347562545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222101907210941253.post-54271994137630292022010-04-21T08:02:46.997-04:002010-04-21T08:02:46.997-04:00I resonate with what you say. Gulley shows the we...I resonate with what you say. Gulley shows the weaknesses of straight Christian (or semi-Christian (since it is difficult to understand why one should be called Christian if one doesn't think Jesus is the Christ) liberalism. His simplistic dualistic approach is very weak.<br /><br />The curious thing is that he is a Friends pastor. Friends have one of the greatest traditions of a different paradigm than either the fundamentalist or liberal one. Why is he unwilling to take a Quaker approach? Is he ignorant of it? There is also the contemporary "emerging church" view which presents a different paradigm, with some real similarities with classical Quakerism and some differences.<br /><br />It is sad to see such a shallow thinker get so much attention. But he exemplifies liberal Quakerism of today which is strong on what it isn't but very weak on providing a positive vision that is coherent. There are viable Christian alternatives both within and outside of Quakerism.Bill Samuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00752443575410023776noreply@blogger.com