|
|
Post by dan on Jan 11, 2012 7:14:56 GMT -7
Thank you, Cy.
All I can do right now is say, Hi.....
Hi.....
I hope to be back on line, this evening.....
.
|
|
|
|
Post by a99 on Jan 11, 2012 7:39:02 GMT -7
We're so happy you asked Cy to set up a blog here Dan! Make yourself at home and have fun!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cyrellys on Jan 11, 2012 11:10:20 GMT -7
You are most welcome Dan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo Jones on Jan 11, 2012 12:04:07 GMT -7
Welcome Dan!
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Jan 11, 2012 15:51:55 GMT -7
Thanks for the welcomes.......
Yes, I am a sucker for bonhomie or whatever. Help me now with my agenda for next Wednesday at Grace Fellowship, which Ron is inclined to micromanage. I'm very glad that he continues to evince an interest in my affairs, more so than any other mortal has evinced. But I always try to seek second opinions.
That is why I am here. Ron was role playing as Danny O', the senior pastor at GFC. He suggested that mainly Danny would want to minimize the contention that has been provoked by my nine month sojourn at his church. Twice there was a threat to call the gendarmes. Ron urges me to request a separate meeting venue. That's ok, but as long as SfA bills itself as such, I cannot leave them alone..... me claiming to be the Answer person, and all that.....
Also, the recent schism is allowing me to make a fresh start. I get to play the field for a spell. I am posting on the two competing forums..... looking for love, in all the wrong places.....
I probably 'think that this song is about you'/me. Yes, it's all about WWGD. If your were God, how would you orchestrate Disclosure?
(cont.)
|
|
|
|
Post by a99 on Jan 11, 2012 16:38:54 GMT -7
Request a separate meeting venue? Interesting strategy. So is Ron suggesting that an alternative meeting venue would be to simply arrange a phone-in with the Sr. Pastor as opposed to meeting ‘on-site’ with him on his home turf? Under the circumstances, I would understand why he would think that's the safest way to go to avoid any face-to-face confrontation with him.
|
|
|
|
Post by a99 on Jan 12, 2012 5:27:52 GMT -7
Dan, check your PMs, I sent you a message. Cy wants to move your sub-forum/blog here to the homepage of this forum so that anyone who logs onto this forum will see your sub-forum right away and will not have to search for it. Your blog will be more noticeable on the hompage than it is here.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Jan 12, 2012 14:27:33 GMT -7
I asked 99 if she thought I were the bashful type. If so, I guess I chose the wrong line of business!
Meeting at GFC, next week.....
Danny requested the meeting, presumably in his office, with one other pastor who has seemed somewhat sympathetic with my messy-antics.
I'll tell you that this messy-antics is a tough line of work. Here I am sipping wine on a patio overlooking the Pacific, with the Howler monkeys quite audible in the background. Does it beat ranching in Montana, something that my sister, Louise, and Cy have in common?
Ron's advice was basically that Danny could care less if I was Jesus or Atilla the Hun. He only wants to keep peace amongst his flock, and I'm like the wolf who wants to eat his flock and/or create divisions therein. So I make like little Red Ridinghood. Yes? What else do I need to know?
.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cyrellys on Jan 12, 2012 16:05:21 GMT -7
Hi Dan your board has now been moved to the main forum page of Compass Morainn, at the top of the page. Titled: Special Guest Dan Smith: Best Possible World
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Jan 12, 2012 17:04:53 GMT -7
|
|
rpm
Full Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by rpm on Jan 12, 2012 21:04:04 GMT -7
Judging from their website, organization and doctrinal statements, the GFC has one foot in the Reformed tradition and the other in the 'emergent church' movement. Given their context, that would be a strength. They may not have pulpits and preachers in the traditional sense, but any event they 'host' would to the leadership, be tantamount to giving 'pulpit time', and that would be fiercely scrutinized by that leadership. (forgive me if I am stating the obvious)
You are also stuck with the fact that 'preachers' (pastors, clergy, whathaveyou) are a tougher crowd than the broader audience you wish to reach directly (speaking as a preacher and a preacher's kid). Not only will they be more scripturally astute, but they, as mr pandolfi has already pointed out, do not want division or contention (which naturally occurs in churches anyway, and is hard enough to deal with, quite apart from 'agitating influences')
A low key meeting with Pastor D. O'Brien and other members of his team is necessary and likely unavoidable, but seeing as they rely on the office of "Elder" it might be worth while trying to speak to them as well. Not bypassing the lead pastor, but as an exercise of their leadership and discernment role.
umm... I'm also rather new to posting, having lurked for years at omf. Dan has been a significant influence in my work and I would like to assist his endeavour
|
|
|
|
Post by mdonnall2002 on Jan 13, 2012 2:55:29 GMT -7
Welcome RPM.
I am sure you have a unique perspective to add!
Dan, your trifecta approach to posting is quite noble. I'm already placing my bets and was just curious - will each post be a replica of the others? No sense forum chasing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake Reason on Jan 13, 2012 8:15:55 GMT -7
Judging from their website, organization and doctrinal statements, the GFC has one foot in the Reformed tradition and the other in the 'emergent church' movement. Given their context, that would be a strength. They may not have pulpits and preachers in the traditional sense, but any event they 'host' would to the leadership, be tantamount to giving 'pulpit time', and that would be fiercely scrutinized by that leadership. (forgive me if I am stating the obvious) You are also stuck with the fact that 'preachers' (pastors, clergy, whathaveyou) are a tougher crowd than the broader audience you wish to reach directly (speaking as a preacher and a preacher's kid). Not only will they be more scripturally astute, but they, as mr pandolfi has already pointed out, do not want division or contention (which naturally occurs in churches anyway, and is hard enough to deal with, quite apart from 'agitating influences') A low key meeting with Pastor D. O'Brien and other members of his team is necessary and likely unavoidable, but seeing as they rely on the office of "Elder" it might be worth while trying to speak to them as well. Not bypassing the lead pastor, but as an exercise of their leadership and discernment role. Excellent summary, and sound advice. Dan, RPM's explanation would apply with our local church group as well. I have been toying with teaching a couple courses at our church (between services). Given my association with the Pastoral team, coupled with their experience with me, they would be keen to provide me with a large class room, equipped with all the audio-visual tools available. And one or more of the tech guys would gladly give their time to run, projectors, sound, DVDs, PowerPoint & direct internet hookup display on large screen. The biggest hurdle, would be approving the content and subject matter of my courses. For the reasons that RPM stated above. |
|
|
|
Post by dan on Jan 13, 2012 18:30:06 GMT -7
RPM and Jake,
Half measures will never succeed, when it comes to salvation. So I make a Fedeal/cosmic case out of the BPWH. That is why the Ron connection is absolutely essential for both the federal and cosmic connections, despite the fact that he provides me with no further connections or information. Minimalism is the name of the R&D show.
This is what I take to Danny O'. Show me that R&D is not cosmic, and I'll take my marbles and go home. Until then, I can only assume that this is serious business, and I will continue to act accordingly.
I will not leave their Search for Answers ministry alone. They built it, I came. If they don't like my answers, then they need to clearly demonstrate that I am either incompetent or operating under a negative influence.
I am here to prevent the Tribulation. If there is not decisive divine intervention soon, then there will be an apocalypse, in the conventional sense of that word.
I suggest that the decisive intervention will be as prophesied in John 16:12ff..... the Spirit of Truth. Only a spiritual Apocalypse can prevent a physical apocalypse. The spiritual apocalypse is synonymous with the MoAPS, mother of all paradigm shifts, i.e. from materialism to immaterialism. It is also a spiritual metamorphosis from an egoic state to a cooperative state. We will have at least a couple of centuries to complete this transformation.
(cont.)
|
|
rpm
Full Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by rpm on Jan 13, 2012 20:23:08 GMT -7
I take your point regarding half measures. However, I do feel that speaking with the elders collectively might serve as a 'testing of the spirit'. The opportunity to demonstrate incompetence or negative influence. If their beliefs and my own tradition are at all similar, that is really the only means of testing. If they doubt, shake the dust from your sandles.
as an exercise, I tried to respond to the introduction of the SfA ministry (from website) and then followed with an expression of what I understood to be crucial. I'll post it here: (their questions in Italics)
-----
Is faith in Jesus a blind leap?
-"Blind leap” in that faith is not a logical conclusion, yes. However, there is a resonance which in the hearts and minds of believers makes that leap an obvious progression. There are reasons, which can be expressed, but they will not be purely rational arguments.
What about religions other than Christianity?
-What about them? No disrespect intended, but Christ called for Disciples, not Judges. Followers, not adjudicators
Is Christ the only way to God?
-Yes, at least according to Christian scripture, but there is the caveat which comes from Christ himself, that many will call on Him and he will respond with ‘I know ye not’. Also since humans are repeatedly admonished not to sit in judgment, the way to God is an intensely personal issue.
Do evolution and the “big bang” of cosmology conflict with what the Bible says about man and the universe?
-Evolution and cosmology, as fields of study are best understood to be in a state of flux rather than unchanging doctrine. While it may appear to conflict at one point in time, ie the present, it may come to a closer correspondence in the future, as it has in the past. Darwin never posited his theory of natural selection in opposition to scriptural accounts. Cosmology has its roots in the same science that sent the Magi to Jerusalem
Are there reasonable answers?
- Reasonable, yes. Rational, no. Rational answers rely strictly on logical-positivist grounds, and thus assume materialist presuppositions which will not be tenable with religious conviction or even consciousness for that matter. Reasonable answers, on the other hand, are satisfactory to lines of thinking without rigid adherence to logic.
Going forward in the Spirit of Truth.
One of the primary characteristics of the so called ‘post-modern’ era has been a shift from ‘fact based’ knowledge to a grasp of narrative. Conscious creatures are the only narrative bearing things in existence, apart from God. In effect, we are the pillars of creation. Narrative comes in two aspects, context and actors. The absence of either will render narrative meaningless. How many jokes open with ‘a man walks into a bar’, now omit ‘man’ or ‘bar’.
A second characteristic of the ‘post modern era’ has been the recognition of the ‘meta’, or levels upon which our understanding plays out. With respect to the discussion of narratives, you have context and actors, but you also have narrators and audiences. We forget this easily, because much of the world is overwhelmed as an audience, and numb to the narrators.
The best possible world hypothesis is an attempt to harmonize these aspects in a Christian context; the interplay between creator and creation, story teller and audience, flesh and spirit. While this may sound dualistic, you are forgetting that there is the I that is writing this, the I that is reading it and I am who I am. Who is telling the story, who is listening and where is it all going? The last question is paramount to the Best Possible World Hypothesis. In a world in which our population growth threatens to outstrip our food production, our media dreams of endless growth and advancement, that we will travel to the stars and our souls into machines. Is this tenable? Is this the will of God? Or is the telos, the eschaton, something far more profound and meaningful? To put this another way, the ethos of ‘endless growth’ is the ethos of the cancer cell. Is _that_ God’s intent, He who came as a human child, to live a human life and die a miserable human death for the sake of all. This is not being presented to you as a philosophical conundrum, but a very real and pressing concern for creation to confront. Stories end.
-------
this was just an exercise. More or less how I'd express the issues succinctly. Anyone with input is welcome to take a crack at it, i mean, that's why we are all here. I don't even know if this is useful to Dan for your upcoming meeting. And thanks for the kind words from mdonnell and jake. I've enjoyed reading your comments over the years at omf and to actually be in dialog is pretty neat.
|
|
