When I read in your last post:
Quote:So, what is it if it is not us, that decides the answer to your question? And if it is us, how do we reach that decision?
I was reminded of a dialogue I read last night from the movie the Easy Rider:
They're not scared of you. They're scared of what you represent to 'em.
Hey, man. All we represent to them, man, is somebody who needs a haircut.
Oh, no. What you represent to them is freedom.
What the hell is wrong with freedom? That's what it's all about.
After my daughter surprising me with a raffle ticket, yesterday, for a Harley Davidson motorcycle that is being given away in a few weeks, I starting thinking about some things that have shaped and molded me in the past (note the proper spelling of the word molded
. . . I used to ride motorcycles when I was younger. If I win this one, I'm not sure I still have the nerve to ride one now. But, I found my mind wandering and remembered seeing this movie, Easy Rider when I was very young. And, I remembered drawing pictures of Peter Fonda's 'chopper' with the red, white, and blue gas tank. But, I couldn't remember what the movie was about, so I went back to take a look at it through these older eyes.
And, the above dialogue stood out to me. The movie as a whole I think shows a very bad type of individualism, and I think it speaks of a time in history, the hippie era, that is not without relevance to this present conversation. But, as we consider who decides, as you say above I think move again into the area of what may be considered individual faith and corporate faith.
And, now an article from the August 2007 edition of Christanity Today comes to mind. In an article here about the "New Perspective" view/scholars (viz. the new perspective on Paul) the following is expressed by Simon Gathercole:
Quote:Criticism of "individualistic" readings of Paul can throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some new perspective scholars want to guard against individualist understandings of justification. Seeing faith to be transcultural, available to both Jew and Gentile, these scholars shift the emphasis from personal conversion toward the larger canvas of God's dealings in salvation history. But we cannot escape the dimensions of conversion and personal faith in Paul. These are vitally important: The church is not a lump of humanity, but an assembly of individuals. Faith according to Paul is exercised by individuals (e.g. Rom. 4:5, 12:3; Gal 2:20), and is also a feature of the churches (e.g. Rom. 1:8, Col 1:4). Individual and corporate faith are not at odds with one another.
And, as this post has run too long before I ever taxied to the runway, it appears it will have to provide more of a smorgasbord than a specific meal today.
But, not before I address on last thing from your post. I wonder if any have ever considered the proposition that in regard to your sons' present position, which was mine not all that long ago, this position is usually in line with one's christology taking the seat of primacy over one's ecclesiology. But, in Orthodoxy, it appears to me that one's ecclesiology is one's christology. Regardless, of the perceived correctness or lack of it here, in either case, it is apparent who decides.''
Hopefully, I did not muddy the waters too much with this underdeveloped post; but if nothing else possibly some fodder for thought.