What If, Then What

[Petros]

May I expand what seems to be a topic spreading to other parts?

Here is a list of things I have tended to lay low about in various contexts - for expressing some of which I have received various comebacks:

I distrust Evolutionism [at the U] || I distrusdt Creationism [at the church]

I believe in the Real Presence [with Evangelicals] | I believe in the priesthood of all believers [with liturgicals]

I like Spam

I have enjoyed the Reader's Digest

I hate meetings

I am not comfortable shaking hands

I do not trust the Republicans / Democrats

The church should stay out of politics / the state should not regulate religion

Oh, I could go one. We all could.

Some of those could get me kicked out or ostracised. Some could make friends less friendly.

I choose carefully who hears what when.

And youse can feel privileged to read that much of the list.

[natman]

My church remains tolerant and deliberately silent on matters that cannot be directly proved from scripture.

Ramblinman, you may have mentioned it before, but what denomination are you a member of?

I have found that, generally, the larger the church body, the more tolerant they are of such things. The smaller the congregation, the more dogmatic they are on topics they have not thoroughly studied.

[jjsledge]

Petros

I'd like to see the rest of the list. I promise to remain friendly.

Jerry

[Petros]

The list can go on - much is kind of trivial, like I like the wrong kind of flowers [which perturbed my mother]. But some items are more dangerous.

At the U -

I wanted to give language grants to those who needed and might learn the language, NOT to students other departments waned to support so they woiuld back OUR candidates.

I refused to say "he or she" just because "she or he" figured I ouight to.

I did not stop meeting students who wabnted to meet when TAs were on strike.

I voted NOT to cave when the administration told us in so many words to forget principle so as not to rock the boat [only one to do so]

In church -

When the pastor got something dead wrong I took him aside to discuss it.

I criticized a pastor who was an incompetent jerk, which counted as hacking with my sword at the Lord's anointed.

I would not sign a document censuring those who have had abortions [I strongly oppose abortions, but I know too many to blame those who have seen no other way and sorely suffered for it -one almost dying]

I see no reason not to pray for a pastor going through a crisis.

That will do as an appendix for now. You will find more if you read through some of my give and take with Clarabelle [so much QUIETER it is here now.

============

There are actually not a few people whose opinions and actions have offended me. But I rarely slam them.

A few things I feel strongly if quietly good about - that however earn me no points:

I have never had dalliances with or made advances to a student.

I have never assigned a grade for fear or favor, contempt or disagreement, but only for documented performance.

I have never tried to get anyone kicked out of class, or church, or department.

I have been hard to convince, but never unteachable.

I am [albeit slowly] learning not to be too sure I am hot stuff or to pity those who know fewer or different things.

[jjsledge]

I have come across the "Lord's Anointed" thing before when I told the pastor the guy he just appointed to his finance committee was a crook. He owed me about $5k. I left the church. I never got paid.

[Petros]

I hear you - at least I lost nothing.

I almost forgot two biggies, though:

Church - I am sceptical about the "standard model" rapture

The U - I am sceptical about the "standard model" global warming

Many associates insist any deviation from the whole hook line and sinker story [of those or others] damns you.

I doubt that - which damns me.

[Bare_Truth]

Petros,

Beware!

Though it be true that "he who stands for nothing will fall for anything" it is also true that he who stands for a true thing against the "prevailing assertions", though they be false, risks being crucified! But then again, that could put one in good company!

Character! It can get you in trouble so easily.

I definitely can identify with your comments about the U. My 17 years with a PhD taught me that for some of my colleagues that meant "Purely Hypocritical Degenerate". I am still amazed how many of them could appear pleasant and still screw over the students and colleagues deliberately for their own ego or advancement. And at least one dean and one department chair hold a special place in the pantheon of Bastards I did have the satisfaction after I left that the dean and president of that university offered that chairman an alternative to resign backed up by a threat of exposing his fraud and theft. But in the scheme of things he went to another University to be a dean.

But keeping with the main focus of this strip I have met my share of "church office holders" who are not one whit better. They cannot stand anyone who might rock the boat by actually applying church and biblical principles. That one about the Bereans and looking to see if that is what the Scripture really says really gets under their skin and triggers retaliation. I guess it really lacks expediency when someone does that.

The human guardians of Truth Tolerance Honesty Morality and Integrity all too often have feet of miry clay.

[jochanaan]

Hmmm...I have played in many community or semi-professional musical groups. There are those who get uptight about "their position" or how things "are supposed to be done"--but they're seldom the best players. In my experience, the best players just show up and play, and are the friendliest (at least to me) and least uptight people I know (except for naturists!).

[Ramblinman]

My church remains tolerant and deliberately silent on matters that cannot be directly proved from scripture.

Ramblinman, you may have mentioned it before, but what denomination are you a member of?

I have found that, generally, the larger the church body, the more tolerant they are of such things. The smaller the congregation, the more dogmatic they are on topics they have not thoroughly studied.

Nathan,

I am a Christian and Protestant. I have attended churches outside my denomination that are biblical and grace-oriented and churches within my denomination that are neither. At the moment, I am happy to say that I have found one that on the right track and it happens to be in the denomination I grew up with.

I recommend " The Handbook of Denominations in the United States " as a guide to others in their search. I would say that its value extends to those in the UK and on the Continent to some extent. But there are differences from one congregation to the other, so I recommend putting boots on the ground to visit local sanctuaries in person. And there might be some non-denominational churches that would provide a positive place to worship the Lord.

When it comes to naturism, it is not hard to find hardshell negative fundamentalist churches that oppose just about everything no matter how much the Bible is in favor of it or at least silent. And it is not hard to find churches that are so trendy and liberal that they give their blessing on just about everything, no matter how much the Bible teaches against it.

But I think it possible to find a church where good students of the Bible do not have such a pinched negative attitude about things, but rather a deep abiding reverence for the authority of scripture and are not blind to the grace and redemption so evident in its pages, but so lacking in American fundamentalist culture. In the best of circumstances, you have a pastor who is genuinely supportive of naturism (albeit quietly). And failing that, at least a pastor and leadership that have a teachable spirit about such things, even if they are, through ignorance less than supportive, shall we say.

[Bare_Truth]

....... I recommend " The Handbook of Denominations in the United States " as a guide to others in their search .........

How detailed does that handbook get when it comes down to identifying the doctrines of the various denominations? I would think it would be either a very crude instrument or incredibly thick otherwise. Although I can still see it might be a starting place.

[Petros]

This is where I came in - started to write this last night and lost me web connection.

The descriptors may be as detailed as you like for denominational discriminators - but each individual church is its own case. The quirks of priest / pastor, spouse if any, board, and congregational house rules can total;ly change the picture.

[Ramblinman]

This is where I came in - started to write this last night and lost me web connection.

The descriptors may be as detailed as you like for denominational discriminators - but each individual church is its own case. The quirks of priest / pastor, spouse if any, board, and congregational house rules can total;ly change the picture.

My denomination seems to be more conservative in the American South and rural parts of the US, more liberal elsewhere. Big "First Church" a bit more liturgical, but not necessarily liberal. Rural churches less liturgical and more consistently conservative (doctrine-only, I have no intent to refer to politics).

This pattern tends to be true in some of the other denominations that I spent a lot of time with.

Wesleyan/Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Baptists for example sometimes have formal movements within the denomination based on doctrine; in some cases these groups have formed separate denominations but the order of worship still reflects their common roots, despite theological differences. So I think denomination is important to consider before you start examining the culture of the individual congregation.

I found The Handbook of Denominations in the United States to be very helpful in getting acquainted with the largest groups.

[Petros]

There will be more denominational consistency in more centralized groups - where you have a bishop or a synod with teeth watchdogging it. But where there is a more congreghational format, a loose confederacy rather than a hierarchic structure, then Pastor Joe "the Lord's Anointed" can, if so inclined - and some are - pretty much Big Brother it as he chooses.

[jochanaan]

There will be more denominational consistency in more centralized groups - where you have a bishop or a synod with teeth watchdogging it. But where there is a more congreghational format, a loose confederacy rather than a hierarchic structure, then Pastor Joe "the Lord's Anointed" can, if so inclined - and some are - pretty much Big Brother it as he chooses.

That may well be true in many "congregational" denominations. But in my "birth church," the Seventh Day Baptists, it is less true, mostly because there are many in the churches who know many others, attend General Conference regularly, and see other SDB churches as "family" in the same way their own congregation is "family." Any pastor--and there have been some--who tried to set up his (usually "his," although we have women pastors) own fiefdom because "I am the LORD's anointed!" would only succeed in alienating the best, most mature and dedicated members of the church, who may well set up their own church. So the "body of believers" itself functions as a check and a balance for folks with delusions of grandeur.

[Petros]

Right -

That sort of active conference / convention - the church of choice of a formar associate also does that - may actually be a better safeguard against the goofball anointed than the episcopal structure.