Hey there,

Well, I must say, I have rarely had my blog (and my character) so shallowly critiqued without any qualification.

I am a married man. The traditional monastic meaning of chastity is not available to me, so I have searched (within Scripture and church tradition) for an applicable understanding for someone in my context. I didn't simply define it to suit me.

Further, I chosen to give up the security of good job and safe community to live and serve in an inner city community. I am not poor, but I do live very simply by necessity, as my wife & I technically live under the poverty line and still give more than 40% of our income away in service of Christ. I am continually making choices that allow me to let go of more material wealth for the benefit of others. So while I am not embracing the extreme poverty of St. Francis, I am intentionally resisting the materialism and consumerism to embrace a poverty of the spirit.

As for obedience, I am seeking to live my life in the context of community with accountability and humility under a general rule of life that seeks to call me into greater obedience to the teachings and example of Christ, as best as I understand them.

You refer to me (seemingly derogatorily) as a "post-modern", though I am not sure I know what you mean by that. That aside, I find the tone and assumptions of your post about me to be dishonest, misleading and thoroughly unchristian.

Peace,
Jamie Arpin-Ricci

The above comment belongs in an appendix to Foxe's Book of Martyrs.

Clever Chris. I can be misrepresented without any qualification, but to defend myself makes me a martyr. I am happy with my life, so feel no need to make it sound bad for anyone. I was giving context to the questions posted on my blog which were misrepresented by this post. Nothing more.

Peace
Jamie

Hey there, Jamie:

It seems we agree on a few things here. Fortunately for me, the points we agree on are the ones I remarked in my post. I’m not sure on what grounds you accuse me of dishonesty. Your response does not help me with that at all.

I said you were not chaste in the way St. Francis or the church has defined chastity. You admit this by pointing to your marriage. For me to say that you have been faithful to a vow of chastity would be to snub Christians who have really taken an oath of real chastity and have forgone entirely those pleasures and blessings judged by some to be a hindrance to total devotion to Christ or the Church.

You admit that your poverty level (apparently as determined by the state?!) leaves you withholding 60% of your earnings. No doubt living on 60% is far more spiritual than living on 80% or 90% and probably justifies a few moments of prancing, but it does not, again, warrant the claim that you are honoring a vow of poverty. If St. Francis took a vow of frugality I am not aware of it.

“As for obedience, I am seeking to live my life in the context of community with accountability and humility under a general rule of life that seeks to call me into greater obedience to the teachings and example of Christ, as best as I understand them.”

That’s very sweet.

“…the context of community with accountability and humility under a general rule of life…as you understand them” is a fine and gaseous phrase, but again, I think we can all be grateful St. Francis didn’t have to talk like this.

The point of my post was not to take issue with your middle-of-the-road sainthood. That is your choice, of course. But the notion that your more “applicable applications” somehow exist in the same solar system with chastity, poverty and obedience is a serious demeaning of those virtues you claim to cherish.

What sort of example would St. Francis and St. Paul have set for us if it were just traditional virtues “as they understood them”?

Nothing I could say would be helpful in this "conversation". I am sorry to have wasted your time. It seems as though my attempt to follow Christ is laughable to you, which leaves me confused and discouraged.

For your own interest, you might like to know that Francis strongly encouraged those who did not take the full vows (especially married Christians) to follow them from within their context. I am thankful that he (and Christ) have more grace for me than you. I am not sure what I have done to deserve your harsh criticism, but I will seek to follow Christ as best I can.

Peace,
Jamie

P.S. What is odd is that I never claimed that my "applicable applications" were in the same solar system as the traditional vows. I have never claimed that I am on the road to "sainthood", middle of the road or otherwise. Can you please explain to me why you would so harshly attack something that could not but help myself or others pursue Christ more fully? Further, what makes me a "post-modern"?

Jamie:

The fact is that the criticism was based on your re-interpretation of Chastity, Poverty, and Obedience. The vows weren't created so you could interpret them in whatever way fits your own context; by doing so you completely defeat their purpose and essentially destroy their value. What's the good in a vow of chastity that requires no actual chastity? I know Barney would prefer us to only have vows that everyone can make so that no-one feels left out, but there really are other excellent spiritual virtues for the unchaste and the wealthy.

The problem lies not in the values you claim to pursue. It's quite lovely and, if you're given the benefit of the doubt, perhaps even godly of you to give much of your income to the poor, to commit to total fidelity toward your wife, to seek to obey God's Word faithfully. Bravo, but don't call these pursuits by such ridiculous names. You might skim by on the Obedience one (though the language you described it by was biblically unintelligible) but you simply cannot pursue the other two.

I could go on, but I'm sure dissidens has this more than covered. I understand you're offended at being criticized, but that's what happens when you place things in the Publick Square for examination. Perhaps next time you may bring a proper rebuttal, instead of an unmanly complaint that dissidens was a big meanie for making an example of your blog.

Hey MAS,

Thanks for the balanced and fair critique. I appreciate it. What my original post did not mention is that I am pursuing involvement in a "secular" Franciscan order. The order itself requires that we look at these vows from within our context. I am close friends with a Franciscan friar who says that this process is quite common and encouraged widely.

It should be noted that chastity does not equal abstinence. For Francis and his order, it did, but he still told all Christians to be chaste. In fact, Francis drew this particular vow from the courtly virtues of the knights of his day. Chastity, therefore, is moral and sexual purity, which included the married.

Poverty as embraced by Francis, while inspirational in many ways, was also destructive. Francis himself repented of his extremes later in life. The spirit of his intention was to follow what Scripture refers to as the "poor in spirit" (which is not simply an internal discipline without external expression). As someone who works among the poor, I am well aware of my relative wealth, but also of how offensive the idea of voluntary poverty can be to many.

Obedience is a more challenge one and I well acknowledge that my brief comments in this thread are far from adequate and deserve more developed and Biblical referencing. I hope can take my word for it that I take Scripture seriously in this respect.

My concern is not that I am being publicly critiqued- that I am well used to, rightfully so. Rather, my concern is that a fellow Christian, without so much as a single inquiry for clarity, would feel it acceptable to critique in the manner and tone that he has. Further, since these are Franciscan vows and my question was put to me by more than one Franciscan, I wonder how it can be said that my use of the terms is inappropriate.

If my complaint is "unmanly", I apologize. My initial response to this post does not appear (to me, at least) as anything more than my attempt to bring clarity and context to my post and to challenge the assumptions that, frankly, misrepresent my character. It seems I can be critiqued for my words, but when I do the same I am making "unmanly complaints". Alas...

Peace,
Jamie

Hi Jamie

I was wondering what you mean by a spirit of poverty. I'm not as well read as many here so perhaps it is a common term or even a biblical reference that I'm unaccustomed to. I'm just wondering what resistance of materialism and consumerism looks like and how it relates to the "spirit of poverty."

I apologize if the answer is blatantly obvious.

Jamie, many take challenges on their beliefs as being attacked, when, in fact, these challenges can be opportunities to fully examine what we believe and why we believe what we do. It can also keep us humble when we think our version of Christianity is as strong or faithful as those of our fore bearers. When that little six year old girl that was thrown to the lions centuries ago comes up to you in heaven and asks what sacrifices YOU made for Christ..what will you say? Do you understand how frivolous our stances seem in that context? When dissidens posed that question once, it made me stop and think how we really have no idea what a true life lived for Christ may involve. I say all this to reinforce what appears to so many as "simply being mean" or unloving from this site and dissidens in particular. He needs no defending on my part, however, I sometimes feel it necessary to ask people to really examine their Christianity and see if it is only "their version" that they are holding to. We who call ourselves Christian should all be attempting to grow in the manner Paul and the Lord prescribes, and sometimes that may appear hard or harsh to our flesh. Who among us can say we have arrived, or have an answer ready to those who have defended the faith with their very lives? I count myself among those who have really, in context, given up very little in comparison. So, let us all be careful in selecting terms such as "sacrifice" when describing our faith.

Jamie:

I don’t know if it is possible for us to arrive at some consensus here: I think you are interjecting interpretations as you find them convenient. I don’t care if you drive a Hummer, own a yacht, a Gulfstream, two dirt bikes and a four-wheeler. I don’t care if you ride a horse to work. I don’t care if you pull down six figures; I don’t care if you scoop fries for a living.

Nor do I deny that there are mediating positions between Franciscan vows of chastity, poverty and obedience and simple fidelity within marriage. But those are not the distinctions you made in your post; you make them now to obfuscate the real point.

Nor is this about how laughable is “your attempt to follow Christ”. What is noteworthy is that you think you can define for yourself, that you can decide what spiritual disciplines are meaningful, reasonable or “applicable”. In fact, if you read anything on this blog you will notice it is not about you at all. It is as much about emergents, neo-evangelicals and fundamentalists. No matter how disparate and antagonistic these groups appear on issues of importance to themselves, there is a commonality: you all are defining these things for yourselves.

Fundamentalists will separate from someone who uses the wrong Bible translation but they will yuk it up together over a play by Oscar Wilde which ridicules every belief they profess. New evangelicals cannot imagine a distinction between reviewing a movie and commending soft porn. Emergents teach that the perfect church is a place where people meet to say whatever they want, and they claim that “irony and camp are the means by which the Spirit touches a generation of hipsters-- and in some strange way kitsch camp becomes real revival”.

As I say, there is a commonality. Now I don’t care what use emergents put “mock revivals” to any more than I care about what uses fundamentalists make of a comedy of manners, and I don’t really care what knots in a string mean to you. Personally, I say a pox on all your houses.

What is significant (and what your post illustrates so well) is the appalling presumption that each of you assumes this is something you are competent to decide. This is what you actually said:

With a more inclusive embrace than the traditional meanings what do (or could) the vows of Chastity, Poverty & Obedience mean to you?

This is just preposterous. Chastity, Poverty and Obedience have meaning—profound meaning—far beyond what you would make of them. It is no more for you determine what these “traditional meanings” entail than it is for emergents to opine that sexuality aims at the eschaton. Yours is not an “inclusive embrace”, it is a dilettante’s conjecture. Chastity, Poverty and Obedience are applicable. They are still applicable. They will always be applicable.

You may not choose to take such vows, but that does not mean:

Chastity has come to mean, for me, a purity in relationships on all levels- that is, to pursue and nurture genuine community (not individualism). And yet, not to lose the individual in the group.

It is one thing to speculate about disciplines you might embrace in lieu of Chastity, Poverty and Obedience, it is a different thing to say that “chastity, for me, is to pursue and nurture genuine community (not individualism), and yet not lose the individual in the group.”

Those two things don’t look similar even if you squint at them from across the parking lot.

We can agree that there are disparate obligations we might assume, we cannot agree that what you say is anything less than a repudiation of St. Francis’ meaning.

Unfortunately, what everybody is missing is that members of the Secular Franciscan Order do not "take VOWS"--they make PROMISES. There is a huge difference here. Anyone needing clarification can call National at 1-800-FRANCIS. If you think you are taking "vows", something has been lacking in your formation. God bless you.

Gertrude J:

Thanks for that clarification, however I was not discussing the Secular Fransiscan Order.

You might verify from the on-line Catholic encyclopedia that the Fransiscans did very much take vows. Cf.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06208a.htm

s.v. Rule of 1209

This is the rule St. Francis presented to Innocent III for approval in the year 1209; its real text is not known. If, however, we regard the statements of Thomas of Celano (I Cel., i, 9 and 13, ed. d'Alencon, Rome, 1906) and St. Bonaventure (Legenda major, c. iii), we are forced to conclude that this primitive rule was little more than some passages of the Gospel heard in 1208 in the chapel of Portiuncula. From which Gospel precisely these words were taken, we do not know. The following passages, Matt., xix, 21; Matt., xvi, 24; Luke, ix, 3, occurring in the second rule (i and xiv), are considered as a part of the original one of 1209. They enjoin apostolical life with all its renouncements and privations. The three vows of obedience, chastity, and poverty, essential to any religious order, and some practical rules of conduct were added.

Dissidens,
I do not disagree with your analysis, but you picked a fight with a YWAM missionary in Winnepeg because you somehow stumbled across his blog when surfing the web. Jaime's readership is likely tiny, and no matter how say you are not attacking him personally that is how it will come across. This man and his wife are not likely to start any movements or write any books with a wide readership.

With his YWAM background, he likely knows little or nothing about the context of the following statement: "Fundamentalists will separate from someone who uses the wrong Bible translation but they will yuk it up together over a play by Oscar Wilde which ridicules every belief they profess." Why would you bother with such a statement with someone of a YWAM background? If you want to ridicule "Church Basement" Roadshow Church Marketeers and those who would follow such clowns, have at it, but why are you doing drive-bys against those you really do not know much about personally? You can bring up once again the approach and tone of Paul and Jesus in Galatians 5 and Matthew 23. However, ridicule and sarcasm are not the only tones they used, and wrong-headed ideas abounded both inside and outside the church in the first century. Why didn't they always use the tone of Matthew 23 and Galatians 5? That is important question to answer. I fully expect to be ridiculed here, especially if I am not a good editor of what I have written. Ridicule away, but you need to seriously think about dressing down the Jaime(s) of this world. He is not widely published (other than his tiny readership blog), he has nothing to do with the usual issues vented here, and he certainly does not seem like someone who would randomly try to pick a fight with you. Argue away that your issues are with Jaime's ideas, but at the end of the day, your writing in this post comes across as a personal attack.

Jaime knows nothing about the arguments you have been building in posts for weeks, but you chose to bring him as an exhibit of ridicule when his blog is likely a little hobby on the side. I shake my head in disbelief.

Wow, Brian. I was pleased that someone was finally defending Jamie against this unkind attack only to discover that you are essentially dismissing him as a shallow fundamentalist who isn't smart enough to know better. I think you will find Jaime to be a far more intelligent, learned person than you suggest.

Eric,
You miss the point entirely. I would not agree with Jamie's interpretation or even use of the Francisan vows, but I never said he was unintelligent. The nuances and laughable inconsistencies that Dissidens comments upon from the Fundamentalist Baptist subculture are known very well from those who have been in or acquainted with it--it is insider stuff. Jamie does not likely have that context. I happened to understand that context because I have spent some time in that neighborhood. However, if I did not have that context, I would wonder why you bringing up plays performed at Baptist fundamentalist schools when the topic is the meaning of the Fransiscan vows? My point is that Dissidens brought in Jamie's views on the "Three Vows" in a context that is totally unfair and unkind. Jamie is in a different theological neighborhood and has not likely been a part of the discussion for the past few weeks at this blog, and Dissidens stumbles across his blog and makes him an issue or an exhibit. I do not agree with YWAM theology, but I understand that they are not "unthinking" fundamentalists. Do not take anything from comments on Jamie's likely blog readership as any judgment on his abilities or worthiness. Heavy Christian blog traffic does not mean that the blogger is worthy of such "fan worship." Some blogs take off and others have a modest readership for whatever reason. My point is that Jamie's views were dragged into context that had nothing to do with Dissidens has been venting about. I could apologize for Jamie's views being picked on randomly for the purpose of venting against "Kitsch Christianity", but I am not member of the Remonstrans group. The point is what is a former Baptist Fundamentalist from Dallas doing making a spectacle out of a YWAM missionary from Winnepeg's thoughts? Especially when he just stumbled across his blog on the web somehow? Is anyone embarrassed by this tactic?

Thanks for sharing, Brian. Perhaps this can be a time of mutual sharing.

I did not “somehow stumble” across Jamie’s blog; I have been following it and quite a few others, some for over a year. I did not attack him personally, I took exception to ideas he posited on his public blog and on which he solicited public comment.

“Fundamentalists will separate from someone who uses the wrong Bible translation but they will yuk it up together over a play by Oscar Wilde which ridicules every belief they profess." Why would you bother with such a statement with someone of a YWAM background?

That’s easy: I am making a point for my readers. I am suggesting that there is a continuum here that demands our attention, and I have been giving examples of that for months now. Had I made my comparison on Jamie’s blog I might credit your point, but that’s not what happened. The examples I gave have meaning to the readers of this blog. Jamie, of all the silly and heretical things he has said and on which judgment might have been passed, on this occasion has provided us an especially apt illustration of modern spirituality.

Here is the issue. Jamie and others are conducting a frontal assault on traditional Christianity. I’m not even talking here about the form of Christianity I myself embrace; I’m talking about the common faith which we all ought to be sharing. Now it has become fair game for every part-time thinker with web access. I could cite his post for 14 July and many others, but that would constitute a personal attack.

I am genuinely sorry for the pig’s breakfast fundamentalists have made of separation, holiness and orthodoxy. I really am. I’ve told them this but they don’t listen to me either. But none of this changes the fact that St. John, St. Paul (and indeed a consistent theme through the epistles which close the canon) make clear the danger false teachers are to the church. Believers in the New Testament are not invited to mark false teachers and reject their heterodoxies as whim might strike them. This is the unambiguous instruction of Scripture.

I might feel a tiny little bit bad for my ridicule and sarcasm if it were not for the fact that these ideas—and these false teachers—have been confronted by pastors (like MacArthur) and academics (like Carson and Wells). How has this worked out for you?

No, let’s dispense with this charade, Brian. What Jamie and Makeesha and Tony and Doug and Ed and Mark and Steve and David and Kevin and Scot are engaged in falls under the condemnation of the New Testament. There is no interest in dialogue here, this is a transparent ploy to discourage criticism of their agendas and innovations.

I thought dissidens did a good job explaining in comment #11 how Jaime's post fit into the context of this site:

What is noteworthy is that you think you can define for yourself, that you can decide what spiritual disciplines are meaningful, reasonable or “applicable”. In fact, if you read anything on this blog you will notice it is not about you at all. It is as much about emergents, neo-evangelicals and fundamentalists. No matter how disparate and antagonistic these groups appear on issues of importance to themselves, there is a commonality: you all are defining these things for yourselves.

I know it has been said in the comments that this blog was not intended to be an attack on Jamie, however it was intended it does come accross as an attack. I have no problem with constructive criticism, it is afterall how we grow. The bible does tell us to speak the truth in love but this blog seems to be missing thhe love part of that equation. The first paragraph is filled with sarcasm, a more gentle tone probably would have been more appropriate.

I'm a bit confused by the second paragrah, it seems to be criticizing Jamie for purchasing a tao cross as opposed to crawling through broken glass or living among lepers. I'm not sure what value their would be in crawling through broken glass, I don't believe that intentionally inflicting pain on oneself equals sacridfice if their is no benefit for anyone else. As for the living among lepers I assume that is to stress the idea of sacrificing for ministry (one's faith), although he hasn't moved to a leper colony Jamie is actively involved in ministry and has moved to the inner city as a commitment to this ministry (his faith). It is also important to remember that the tao cross is only one part of his journey. It is a symbol of his faith and commitment to the lifestyle and values which are important to him.

I also don't think that he has "redefined" the vows to suit him. He is not becoming a Catholic Friar, he is choosing to live in accordance (to the best of his ability) with the virtues of chastity, poverty, and obedience. He has not redefined chastity, granted the chastity that he is practicing is different from the Catholic Friars, one of the dictionary definitions of chastity is "morality with regards to sexual relations". If Jamie is married and is having sex with his wife and only his wife he is chaste.

The general consensus from this blog, and its commenters seems to be that Jamie needs to learn to take criticism however his comments have tended to be dismissed. I agree that Jamie needs to take criticism although I've seen nothing in his comments to idicate that he can't do so, but I think that the others on here also need to reevaluate their own opinions, since none of us has yet "arrived" none of our opinions are infallible.

Thanks, Michelle.

It came across as an attack because it was an attack! Not an attack on Jamie but on what Jamie said. This distinction has been lost to our contemporary religious hobbyists. This is why Marie and Trucker Frank act the way they do. They want to be able to say whatever they want with impunity. Same with Kevin: just make something up about the eschaton.

This justifies an attack in our day and age.

(Believe me, if I wanted to attack Jamie, he gave me all the opportunity I required with some earlier posts.)

My post was always intended to be an attack on a preposterous notion that what was once a commendable aspiration can be devalued so severely. Vows of chastity, poverty and obedience are good things and hard things to keep; the fact that they are not for everyone is no reason to devalue or domesticate them. To reserve oneself for total devotion to God or a calling is a noble thing. To equate it with “nurturing genuine community (not individualism)” is to corrupt a noble idea.

To believe that one can “reassess” serious commitments with trendy phrases like “nurturing genuine community” or “as best as I understand them” is bafflegab.

Vows of chastity, poverty and obedience were taken precisely out of one’s best understanding of what genuine community and devotion to duty involve.

The point has been mooted, by the way, with Jamie’s clarification in today’s post. Compare what he said with what he says and you get a sense of the distinction I was making.

Can you be more clear by your last comment to Michelle? What does his post today prove, in your mind?

I don’t say that his last post proves anything. What I say is that it comes closer to the facts; it at least defines the terms as they have always been understood. The last post doesn’t pretend that trendy commitments to “community” are “more applicable applications” of traditional vows.

It may not be all we desire, but it is a step on the road to recovery of meaning.

Thanks for clarifying. For what it is worth, his original post doesn't seem to be trying to be giving a thorough explanation of these vows. He seems to be admitting that he was clumsy with language (which he now corrects), not playing loose with meaning as you suggest.

I think the relevant distinction is between thorough and accurate. We don’t need a comprehensive explanation of the terms, but that doesn’t mean we can tolerate an alternative meaning.

Jamie himself used the term “different meanings”.

Chastity to me means nurturing community?

I don’t think so.

I'm sorry but I would have to agree with Jamie, that chastity means (at least in part) nurturing community, because one of the meanings of chaste is free from obscenity; decent. God calls us to purity and chastity in a lot more than sexual relationships. Oftentimes the purity that people are lacking is the purity in relationship with friends, family, coworkers etc.

Honestly I think this blog seems a bit lacking in that type of purity due to the hostile nature of the post. I find it commendable that you would want to speak out about something you find to be taking these values out of context but it is a bit naive to think that you can do so in such a harsh nature yet differentiate that it is only an attack on the idea, not on the person who had the idea. It is a bit lacking in tact and respect for Jamie.

At first I thought that maybe it just came across strongly because of your passion on the issue. Sometimes people can get carried away with passion and forget about how things have been worded but when I got to comment 11, the end of the 5th paragraph says "A pox on all your houses." I don't think it is at all appropriate to place a curse on someone, even if it is to stress your passion for a subject.

I recall in Genesis the story of Jacob and Esau, when Jacob tricked his father into giving him the blessing Isaac was unable to take it back because the spoken word was that powerful. Their are other such stories in the bible showing that our words, whether used to bless or to curse, have power and are honored by God. Clearly, with that being the case, we should not use curses to stress our points. If the curse was not meant for emphasis it would idicate an even bigger problem, that a child of God would find it acceptable to curse another child of God over a difference of opinion. That comment also seems tow indicate that the blog was meant as an attack on Jamie, not on his ideas, as it was stated as "a pox on all your houses" not "a pox on those ideas" or "a pox on misleading information".

Michelle:

Thanks for that convoluted argument; I was able to follow it from start to finish, and I think I got to see the entire island.

You must understand that by pox I didn’t mean a plague or a curse in the more traditional sense of the word. There is a more inclusive meaning I attach to the word; to me it is more the idea of clear sailing, sunny days and good fortune.

Sometimes I find novel interpretations of a word to be more applicably applicable.

As for your rather harsh and judgmental attitude toward our blog, I’m afraid I cannot be entirely forgiving. The task of redefining all our terms and eviscerating all our virtues cannot be left to a handful of amateurs. We really need to be thorough here.

I think you should extend to me the same courtesies you desire for Jamie.

Clever response, Dissidens. However, you still did not answer to the very evident reality that you cursed someone(s) on your blog. Wow...

Oh, I thought I did.

It wasn't a curse; it was a blessing.

Nice evasion of responsibility. The whole "I know you are but what am I" defense is priceless. And by your own words you are shown for what you are. Sad, I once respected what was written at this blog.

Good bye.

Drat!

Lost another one.

Phillipians 2:1-4 1If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. 3Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Personally, I took dissiden's comment to mean a pox on the "houses" of the Emergent church and Fundamentalism.

I am somewhat perplexed by the ideas that are expressed in post #25. I will have to figure out how the first idea that we can import our own meaning into words agrees with the last idea that words are important and should be used carefully.

I think it might take me some time. Or Lewis Carroll.

Words can mean whatever you want them to mean if you pay them enough.

Hi Dissiden,

Sorry you found my post so confusing but I'm glad you could still follow it. I'm trying to figure out if you were being serious or sarcastic about meaning pox as a blessing. Judging by your insistance that words can only have one meaning I must assume that it was sarcasm which would mean that you were indeed cursing someone which is really quite sad.

Sorry you found my comment to be harsh. It certainly was not intended to be. towards the beginning I did call it commendable that you would want to speak out against something that you felt such deep conviction about. I meant that too, maybe it came across as sarcasm, if it did I'm sorry.

I wasn't trying to be judgemental or harsh, as a sister in Christ I was trying to challenge your thoughts. I thought you would be open to this since it was on a public blog. Since this apparently is offensive to you I will try to refrain from further comments on your blog. I wish you nothing but the best.

To de profundis, I'm sorry if my post confused you, I obviously was not clear with what I was trying to say. I don't believe we can each change the meanings of words to best suit us, I looked up the meaning of the words chastity and chaste. As a church (I'm generalizing) we tend to focus on chaste meaning virgin or celibate. According to the dictionary chastity and chaste have many other meaning, including, "refraining from sexual intercourse that is regarded as contrary to morality or religion" and "free from obscenity; decent. ie chaste conversation" I'm not making my own definitions, just trying to make sure we look at the full meaning of the word. I think we can lose out on a lot when we focus narrowly on only one aspect of a word. Again, sorry it came across as making my own definition, I hope this cleared it up for you.

Hi, Michelle:

Not at all. It is not easy to offend me; I was born in Brooklyn. I suppose it could be done, but it generally takes a steady diet of fish and hours of pretty tense thinking. And since I don’t take it personally, not many people smell up the house or waste the effort.

But if I’m not easily offended, perhaps I compensate by being easily irritated. I think certain people are not being entirely straightforward here. So I was actually being facetious in turn: for someone who can be so accepting of a tenuous connection between a vow of chastity and a desire to “nurture community”, you seem strangely literalistic about “pox”. I didn’t curse anyone; I used a commonly-accepted phrase of Shakespeare’s as a metaphor for rejection or repudiation of these stunts among fundamentalists, evangelicals and emergents.

I don’t insist that words have only one meaning. Surely chastity has multiple meanings, and just as surely context makes clear which meaning is intended. Tying knots in a religious pendant tends not to suggest a commitment to nurturing a sense of community with people in the workplace. This is especially true when chastity is coupled with poverty and obedience, capitalized, and mentioned in connection with St. Francis.

Unlike emergents, I think conversation is very important. I don’t commit fully to the whole Couch Doctrine, but conversation is good. Conversation is most productive when we use words to refer to known things or actions. It is less useful when religious words are used in ambiguous and tendentious ways. The religious world is full of people who simply don’t mean what they say. They just talk with the expectation that gaining a hearing is a promise of acceptance.

Some guy came through here who taught that sexuality was aimed at the eschaton. Can you even imagine such a thing?! Kinda makes me wonder what sits in that guy’s magazine rack.

You don’t have to leave on my account, but I should remind you that you will not be the first person this exchange has driven off. Please give some thought to our advertising revenue. We don’t want to be forced to run ads for tattoo parlors and adult bookstores just to keep the emergents visiting our little blog.

Thanks.

Conversation? I can't speak for "emergents" (not sure what they are), but you have shown none of the elements of what constitutes genuine conversation.

You are clearly a very intelligent person with quite the gift with words. I hope you will begin to use these gifts for something more constructive. You are good at dismantling (a fairly postmodern commonality), but perhaps you should build something instead.

Just a thought...

"Something more constructive"?

Everyone tells me deconstruction is where it's at.

If only there were a church door worth nailing 95 theses to, THEN one could consider construction!

dissidens, you have demonstrated my point by avoiding actual conversation. It is your blog, though, so it is your call.

You had a point?!

No, I didn't, dissidens. Clearly I just like to hear myself talk. Surely you, of all people, can understand that! (wink)

That you just like to hear yourself talk?

Better than you know.

There appears to be no love in your heart--for just about anyone--possibly anything.

So, I can't believe I wasted this much time reading your inane and derogatory posts. I won't do it again.

You are obviously a misanthropic religious crank with more axe to grind than a 1000 lumberjacks. Boy, that is something to be proud of...

Wouldn't you be happier as a hermit in the woods where you can keep all your perfectly formed and defined 'vows' and doctrines (which you are obligated to keep pure and 'accurate')--all by yourself, alone, without being bothered by all these other people on the planet?

We can only hope so.

You should be ashamed of your drive-by tactics and your persistent noxiousness. They are of no credit to you before God. I'm not sure anything on this blog could be. I searched in vain for something that I would find 'profitable' and failed.

You raise an interesting question, Bob. Would I be happier living in the woods where I can keep my vows all by myself, alone, without being bothered by other people on the planet?

I must admit that that sounds very attractive, especially if these other people on the planet talk like Helen, Tony, and Jamie.

It doesn’t make much sense to think of oneself as being bound by a vow of poverty when one lives as a middle-class shopkeeper among people poorer than one’s self. It’s not a great virtue to speak of a vow of chastity when one enjoys the pleasures of a wife. And it doesn’t really compel admiration to profess obedience when one gets to pick and choose from an assortment of suitable commands.

In the same exact way, it makes no sense at all to regard faith as a great Christian virtue if you get to redefine it and you choose to “incorporate doubt”.

This sounds like some sort of Playskool piety not worthy of a man created with a language, a conscience, a will and a sense of duty.

This is just piffle, Bob. Religious piffle.

I have read the blog is question and the young man does not claim to have taken a vow of poverty (but rather something closer to simplicity). That said, from what I read in other posts, his is certainly not a middle-class lifestyle. Vows of chastity are held by the married and have been for centuries, so your point is absurd. And what gives you the impression that his commitment to obedience is a pick and choose approach?

What is the nature of Christian life do YOU lead in contrast to those you so childishly deride?