 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Asher/One Love: The Concept of Ownership, Round 3 | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/14/2010 12:16 PM (GMT -6) |   | On the other hand, I can definitely see that the more loving self-sacrifice that is done the better things might be whether or not most people convert to Christianity. But one must remember that the government is a very JEALOUS god. When things started progressing in that way in early Acts, the level of accountability got so high that Annanias and Sapphiras were dropped dead. And then the unconverted feared. And the government IMMEDIATELY exploited that fear by killing Stephen while the people weren't as likely to side with the Christians.
What then is the point? That the reason why the prophets portray the political reign of the Messiah as being one of relative peace is because he will also reign JUSTLY with a rod of IRON. IOW, the notion of deterrence is never too far-removed.
In this world, there are people that are so hard-hearted that they are un-phased EVEN by signs and wonders. And many of them can be in positions of GREAT power. And what is more ironic (in a non-humorous way) is that they can be quite religious, as were the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, priests, etal that killed Christ and his apostles. Indeed, it's typically the religious ones that aren't phased by signs and wonders. Because THEY have a world view that can more easily explain them away ("he casts out demons by the prince of demons").
Post Edited (Similitude) : 11/14/2010 11:26:20 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/14/2010 2:58 PM (GMT -6) | | I don't have much free time in the next couple of days, but wanted to "get in the game" just so you know I'm here. I've only read the first post thoroughly and kind of scanned a few following, so I haven't digested everything written here yet, but here's my initial thoughts:
1) There is both rational and irrational conflicts among people. The primary source of rational conflict is scarcity. This is why economics is center stage in people's ethical, or unethical, behavior.
2) Human beings are material beings. That statement alone is insufficient to describe humans in entirety. So, however we want to describe the "interiority" of humans - spirit, soul, mind, emotion, etc. - we acknowledge that humans are more than simply material stuff; which does not negate the fact that we are material stuff. We are made of matter. We must continually partake of matter to continue our existence.
3) So, given the conflict over the scarcity of matter, that is what has to be addressed to resolve conflict between people. A theory of property is required! So, when we talk about "mine-ing" as ownership, there is something that I agree with in the discussion; "mine-ing" seems to be denying the interior aspects of what it means to be a human being. It seems to be implying that humans are only material, and that increasing the amount of material someone controls is perhaps the most important aspect of being a human being. On the other hand, often times when a particular person is attacking the "mine-ing" position, they themselves are falling into the opposite error. They are downplaying the material side of human beings and vaunting the interior aspects. That is inadequate. It simply does not resolve conflicts. It doesn't address the full range of possible conflicts between people. Because when I talk about ownership the primary thing I am addressing is this question, "Who gets to decide how resource x is going to be used?" This doesn't have to be a case of "mine-ing", this question negates neither the outer material aspects of being a human being, nor does it negate the interior spiritual aspects of being a human being.
4) So, the primary genuine question that is at center stage of ethics is "Who gets to decide how resource x is going to be used?"
- Conflict can only be addressed by argumentation or by force (initial use of force...I am not talking about responding force, nor do I equate responding force with initial use of force, as if they are ethical equals).
- Having forsworn force as the means to resolve conflict we are left with argumentation alone.
- Argumentation has preconditions. To advocate argumentation IS to advocate it's preconditions, even if you are only advocating the preconditions implicitly instead of explicitly.
- The preconditions of argumentation are life, liberty, and property.
Argumentation is not a bunch of floating abstractions. Argumentation is engaged in by material beings. Argumentation is engaged in only by material beings who possess life (not denying life after death...as far as we know life after death is not subject to the same limitations of life now...in any case, the dead are not in competition with the living for the same scarce resources). Argumentation is engaged in by people who possess liberty. Internally speaking, they have what we refer to as freedom of conscience. We respect the right of other people to think through issues and decide for themselves what is right.
Externally speaking (here we first enter into property rights) we acknowledge a person's right to act upon their conscience. Many, probably most, forms of action are one material form acting upon another material form (i.e. I move my hand to pick up a pencil) Unless a person is willing to enslave another person, then at a very minimum we acknowledge that an individual person has the right to make use of his own body...even in argumentation we make use of our brain, vocal cords, tongue, etc.
All material beings must partake of material that is external to their bodies in order to continue living. We acknowledge that people have a right to material possessions external to their body. There are both ethical and unethical means of obtaining said resources. First use and obtaining by contractual consent does not violate the "no use of force" rule. All other ways of obtaining material resources violate the "no use of force" rule.
So, at an ethical minimum we acknowledge a sacrosanct circle that respects the life, liberty, and property of others. I have referred to this in other threads as Set A of ethics. Because men are not simply material beings, Set A of ethics is not sufficient alone to address all ethical issues. And so, people add other propositions that they restrict themselves by ethically, Set B. I agree, we need more than Set A...but we must clearly distinguish Set A from Set B...Why? Set A just is the preconditions for argumentation. To deny Set A means that you have entered the arena of force. All people engage in argumentation. Some people are willing to engage in force if argumentation doesn't get them what they want (or doesn't get them what they want fast enough).
Other people make a logically flawed run at Set A ethics by attacking Set A ethics with some proposition from their Set B ethics. Inasmuch as they made use of the properties of Set A ethics to even arrive at their belief in their Set B ethics they are in a performative contradiction to themselves. In other words...you cannot argue that Set A ethics (the preconditions of argumentation) are invalid...no matter what argument you compose against them. Set A ethics are logically inviolate. Unfortunately, they are not via human action inviolate...witness slavery and force throughout human history.
So, argumentation or force? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/14/2010 3:18 PM (GMT -6) | | A quick addenda:
There is nothing illegitimate about a person HAVING a proposition in their Set B ethics that surrenders THEIR instantiation of Set A ethics. You can say, "I would rather die than risk killing someone else in defending some material item that I own."
What you can't legitimately do is FORCE your Set B ethics upon someone else. And so, if they DO decide to defend their material possessions against forceful taking...your only recourse against them is to try to get them to agree with you...via argumentation.
And if they never agree with you...your only ethically correct actions are 1) continued argumentation or 2) withdrawal of engagement.
Now as part of my own Set B ethics, I think that withdrawal of engagement should be a last resort. If you have adequately engaged in argumentation (i.e. you can state the other person's position to their liking...so you do understand their position) and there is something about their position that adversely affects your own sensibilities, making it uncomfortable to engage them socially...then maybe you should just withdraw and leave them alone. Until one of you come up with a new line of argumentation. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/14/2010 5:38 PM (GMT -6) | | So, economics deals inherently with matter...and we need matter to continue our existence. Agreed. And I understand the primary question you asked. about how resource x is going to be used. (That is a primary question of racism and sexism. Material and immaterial resources--and the power associated with them--being allocated on an arbitrary basis based upon beliefs dealing with race or sex.) And the argumentation conditions thing. Basically, if life, liberty, and property were not allowed just for basic interactions, there's be so much individual and social violation that no conversation could even be started. Just makes sense.
But maybe that's my thing. What IS "matter" and how do we see it? THAT is a very important perspective to think about...because people will seek to allocate resources as they perceive them. If a person thinks that all "matter/energy" are realities only sustained by Grace (God Himself working for Creation)...if a person sees all matter as "burning-bush" reality (See Theophany)...wouldn't that at least ALTER the way individuals and collectives relate to having dominion of the material?
Basically...who "owns" all matter? Obviously, the Uncreated Creator of it all, without whose direct willing of it's existence would cease to be...right? And if all matter really is, at it's most fundamental level, is God's very Empowering Presence...then everything is truly and actually belongs to God...not to the persons composed of created reality.
Maybe this is why certain Native peoples who believed in the Great Spirit couldn't understand the meaning of humans "owning" land. Something Europeans seemed to understand all too well, I guess...
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/14/2010 5:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher:
Because when I talk about ownership the primary thing I am addressing is this question, "Who gets to decide how resource x is going to be used?" This doesn't have to be a case of "mine-ing", this question negates neither the outer material aspects of being a human being, nor does it negate the interior spiritual aspects of being a human being.
You have a 7 year old girl who has two cookies that she really likes. There are only two cookies. Her little sister just walked in the room, and she really likes the cookies too. The question of "who gets to decide how the cookies are going to be consumed" is right there. See it? So, let's say that she believes "These cookies are MINE. I bought them with the money Mommy gave me. Susie already spent hers. I'm keeping them." Can you see her sharing them? Probably not. But what if the little girl believed that "every good gift comes from the Lord" and every time she shared with someone (like her sister) she actually shared with the Lord too because the Lord was in them. How would you see her decide how the cookies would be allocated then?
See what I'm getting at? Mine-ing IS involved in the question, particular how it's raised, WHO raises it, and who answers it.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/14/2010 4:58:29 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/14/2010 8:35 PM (GMT -6) | | But the problem D...even if I agree with you in your assessment...is that the ideas underlying everything you are saying...are propositions from your Set B ethics. And as such, you can engage people in argumentation to get them to agree with you about your basic ideas...but if they don't agree, even then...What do you do about that? If you do anything about it other than continued argumentation and/or withdrawal of engagement...then you have violated the most fundamental ethical propositions.
Yes, we can hope that the 7 year old girl will share. We can even SAY "Sharing is the right thing to do." But ultimately...it's the 7 year old girl who has to decide what do to with her cookies. And if she doesn't share, and eats both cookies; we can either continue telling her things like, "That was not the best thing to do. You should share in the future."...or we can inflict social opprobrium by withdrawing from engagement. But if we reach down and take one of the cookies and give it to sister, guess what?
We have engaged in force. We have said "It's not your cookie, it's MINE. I get to decide what to do with it."
See, your whole argument about "mine-ing" if it means on any level that someone other than the 7 year old girl decides what to do with the cookies...is just a convoluted complex way of engaging in "mine-ing" yourself.
To even get to the idea of yours that says "God owns everything." you first had to be alive, you had to have liberty, freedom of conscience to decide that "God owns everything" was right and proper...and you made use of your body, and also external resources both for continuing your existence and for making it possible for you to say "God owns everything."
So, to be an evangelist for the idea "God owns everything" You are implicitly endorsing life, liberty and property. And you can only ethically be an advocate via argumentation and social opprobrium, otherwise you are acting unethically. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/14/2010 8:42 PM (GMT -6) | | D: Hey, Tom. If you have person A who has a "one-storey" view...and person B who has a "two-storey" or completely atheistic view, can you see any possible differences on how they would think about scarcity and the distribution of material goods for the purpose of human flourishing?
T: Yep. For a one-story worldview where the security and endurance of personal identity does not in any sense depend upon material scarcity (because our identity and survival in the most fundamental and meaningful sense is grounded in what can never be scarce, i.e., God), choices about survival and quality of material life CAN be driven by Kingdom (non-scarcity oriented) values and motivation. But atheistic worldviews would have to ground the meaningfulness and personal existence in the limited resources of matter. Big differences.
--------------
Yes, there are differences, I'm not denying such. What I am saying is that the differences can be found in each persons Set B ethics.
Imagine a society that enforced Set A ethics. Life, liberty and property were defended against the aggression of force. And as long as no one was acting aggressively against Set A properties, then everyone is free to think, believe, and act as they think right. In such a society, a theist and an atheist, even though they have major belief differences, can exist peacefully side by side. Because all that is required for a society that is free from force as it's grounding principle is adherence to Set A ethics. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/14/2010 8:53 PM (GMT -6) | | I think we have to use judgment in determining when a person is wanting something in a really selfish way. If that is the case, and there is no need involved, I'm not sure sharing is proper in all instances. There may be a reason to do it in certain cases. But I can't see a reason why we would just give to people we know are intentionally trying to scam others out of their stuff merely because that would be "sharing."
E.g., I had a guy come up to me, in an alley behing the building where I work, with a bible in hand asking for some money with the usual kind of story as to why he was without. He was using religious lingo and the whole bit. As soon as I gave him some money, he stormed off cussing. It was freaky. It was like this guy had memorized an acting role by which he could touch people where they were most emotionally vulnerable.
But on the other hand, he was shameless and short-sighted enough to reveal his scam immediately after it worked, as if he had no concern about how I might, by telling that story to others, hinder the future success of his scam to some extent.
My thing is, if I (or anyone, for that matter) keep giving that guy money according to that same scenario, am I really helping him in any conceivable way? I seriously doubt it. Not saying I shoudn't take him for a meal (assuming he's willing) and engage him in conversation to see if there's something I can accomplish that way, but that's something else altogether.
I think these things always require judgment. There is no hard fast rule. And I think that is exactly what Jesus was saying with the "go two miles" thang. SOMETIMES that is what we ought to do, because SOMETIMES it overcomes evil. But other times it doesn't. Otherwise, there would be no sense in which the government is a minister UNTO GOOD by acting as a just deterrent. We have to use judgment.
But Jesus was emphasizing that not only do we, as individuals, not have the right to avenge, as the State DOES, but there are actually times when "going two miles" (rather than the one mile requested by the "enemy"--i.e., a Roman soldier) will produce a greater good than worrying about getting the fairest treatment for ourselves that we can in this world. The same point is made by Paul in 1 Cor. where he says it is better to SUFFER being defrauded by a brother than taking that brother to law.
We are called to bear the infirmities of the weak to the EXTENT to which we are the STRONG in that respect. But we are not to just ENABLE weakness for the sake of feeling humanitarian or compassionate. Because REAL mal-solidification is at stake in such cases. Consequently, we ought not enable the vices and weaknesses in adults in a way that is analogous to spoiling a child.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/14/2010 9:01 PM (GMT -6) | | D: Basically...who "owns" all matter? Obviously, the Uncreated Creator of it all, without whose direct willing of it's existence would cease to be...right? And if all matter really is, at it's most fundamental level, is God's very Empowering Presence...then everything is truly and actually belongs to God...not to the persons composed of created reality.
---------------
Whether or not we say "God owns everything" doesn't really address the issue where the rubber meets the road.
First, if owning means getting to decide how a resource is to be used...and that is the power we are saying God has over all matter...we are still left with massive problems. 1) There are some people who believe in the existence of God and some who do not 2) Even among the set of all theists, we have such a divergence of ideas about God that two theists may disagree with each other more strongly than they disagree with one of the atheists.
The problem is not solved to any measure by saying "God owns everything".
Even if I agree with your proposition "God owns everything" and I am only a steward. The question is just pushed back a level. I no longer ask "Who gets to decide what is to be done with resource x" I now have to ask, "Who gets to decide how God wants resource x to be used." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/14/2010 9:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher, I absolutely agree with your approach IN THEORY. The problem I see is that it would almost certainly require force to wrest from any extant regime the power they currently have. They're not going to give it up without a fight. So then what? How do we make this practical instead of theoretical?
States love being deemed benefactors by those they are lording over just like Jesus (and Plato, even) said. And as a matter of fact, there are some who actually ARE beneficiaries of State injustice. So how do you change things the way you are wanting to without the use of force?
Your ideas aren't new. They're ancient. There have always been people who believed them, for the most part. But unjust governments maintain power because significant percentages of societies actually LIKE their current regimes or prefer them over the COST of change.
This is why I think Jesus was teaching just what Noah Porter said is important. Porter said it's not near so important (because there's less you can do it about it, practically) what kind of government you have as it is to know what your duty TO it is. This is how Jesus approached the subject, too. He expressed no conviction that human government was ever gonna be anything other than people lording over others while, nevertheless, being deemed benefactors by many.
So the scripture helps us know what our duty TO the State is. Granted, this ultimately relates to what God instituted government FOR. And that's why I think theory can help us adjudicate hard cases SINCE actual States fall way short of the theoretically perfect government.
IOW, we apply the golden rule in terms of the divinely-given role of the State. And this can involve lots of hard cases. I think this is what D is getting at. There is no fixed list of hard fast rules that are EVER going to be sufficient in the kind of world we live in.
But that is not to say that the kind of rules that work in statistically normal life (i.e., no war, etc) are not indicative of more fundamental principles that render them proper. And it's knowing that those rules are INSTANCES of applying principles that is imporant. By knowing the more fundamental principles, we can adjudicate harder cases in the statistically ABnormal times.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 11/14/2010 8:27:43 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/14/2010 9:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Jeff,
No, it is not likely that a society will so order itself. Too many people benefit from injustice.
But, to talk about justice, you start with what is actually just as the starting point of your conversation. We don't say about "what is", simply because it is "what is" that it is just...or even to say that pragmatically we just have to take it as the starting point...that is to surrender justice from the outset. No, we point to what is just...not what we think is just, but can't show logically to be universal...we point to what is logically demonstrable to be just as the starting point for conversation.
To surrender on the grounds of pragmatism the intellectual debate is to not stand for the just. I'm not saying we can't recognize what pragmatically is, nor that we can't converse from that point...only that we have to acknowledge what is just in our conversation about what is. And it is very important when engaging in argument with someone else to see where their allegiances lie. Do they agree about Set A, but then because of pragmatic reasons want to discuss what to do given we don't live in such a society? Or do they not even agree about Set A, and are engaging in argumentation inauthentically? i.e I'll engage in argument with you, but ultimately if I don't get what I want from you then I will resort to force.
So, there is the same conversation to be had at the level of society, but also at the level of individual conversation. If I know I am talking to a person who in their own personal life adhere to Set A ethics (i.e. they themselves hold to Set A in practice, and neither do they proxy their use of force to a state body to violate Set A) then my engagement with them will be different than it will with someone who is willing to use force, or to have force done in their name via proxy.
And alarmingly, I am seeing more and more Christians proxy to state force in the interest of "social justice". At which point, for me, they lose some measure of moral credibility. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/15/2010 6:09 AM (GMT -6) | | |
I'm with you Asher. The golden rule is ultimately a form of justice. Christ's atonement is ultimately a form of justice--it renders God righteous (Rom 3). Compassion is ultimately a form of justice--it's just treating people the way WE want to be treated.
Hypocrisy is what is injustice. And people who will, to gain and maintain power, ENABLE all kinds of vice, etc in their constituents that they would never tolerate or enable in their own loved ones, because they actually care about their loved ones, are hypocrites. Thus, to confiscate, by force, the resources of others to implement that ENABLING in the name of public service is even more hypocritical.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 11/15/2010 5:23:47 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/15/2010 7:17 AM (GMT -6) | | | How can this be brought to bear on D's question? For example, if ownership of personal property in the classical sense is unbiblical (i.e., no one can realy "own" anything other than his own choices, but one can be said to be responsible for stewarding those resources under his control) then WHO determines stewardship? And can't God and the State come into conflict regarding stewardship issues? What if God entrusts to ME something the State says it owns? How do I fulfill me stewardly tasks in such instances? D, you're not suggesting that a proper understanding of the relationship between the believer and the material cosmos requires believers to never own cars, homes, clothes, etc. It seems like what you want is for believers to internally adjust their perspectives and understanding of what that relationship is (from ownership to stewardship). That's cool. So how's that change the way believers concretely maintain that relationship? When should believers stand up for those items placed under their stewardship by God? One verse comes to mind: "If someone asks for your cloak (I'm misquoting), offer him your shirt as well. Give to those who ask, etc."
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 11/15/2010 6:20:36 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/15/2010 7:26 AM (GMT -6) | | | T: One verse comes to mind: "If someone asks for your cloak (I'm misquoting), offer him your shirt as well. Give to those who ask, etc."
J: I've addressed this above. I think such actions require judgment. IOW, take Paul's quote from Proverbs: "If your enemy thirst ...." Taken absolutely, that would mean no one could ever use self-defense, etc. SOMETIMES these things overcome evil. Sometimes they don't, though. Otherwise, it would never be the case that the State is a minister unto good. And yet Paul says it is a minister unto good RIGHT AFTER quoting Proverbs.
As individuals, we can and ought to sacrifice our own good to overcome evil. But even THAT takes judgment to know when it will work that way.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/15/2010 11:03 AM (GMT -6) | | |
OK, I just listen to Greg's sermon you posted D. What I come away with is this:
1. My posture. Am I chasing after riches and possessions?
2. Thankfulness: This seems to offset the questions Greg asked: Do I want it and can I afford it. It also offsets seeing the world in terms "Good Spiritual stuff vs Bad Spiritual stuff and the rest being neutral.
I do think because of Greg's Anabaptist views/tendencies he sees things in a very pieistic fashion ie, when he says at around the 6:50min mark that we in North America look on the externals as opposed to looking at what we can't see, ie., looking on the heart. Thus, he is going to have a dim view of possessions, which he does. Look at the very beginning of the message where he says, "possessions divide" (is THAT some sort of rule without exception?).
I see this, to use the terms you guys use here quite a bit, as misrelation. The chasing after possessions (misrelation itself) is misrelation to not only God but the rest of creation.
We have a lot of texts that speak dimly (especially in Luke) of possessions and riches. Are we to conclude from such texts that the mere ownership of possessions, much less ENJOYING THEM IN ABUNDANCE OR EXCESS testifies to our lack of faith/relation contra misrelation ie., Greg's lacking power to be God's disciple because you are supposedly "mining" in such instances(?). Wouldn't such a view of the world see creation as say a sorta "radio-active landscape?"
I mean think about this with regard to children that you spoke of. They have a toy or two. Interestingly, isn't more than one toy going against what Greg said about greed? That it is hoarding more than you need? Some, especially Catholics think that Jesus life of poverty was ideal for a blessed few. Seriously. Do not the scriptures say that if ANYONE wants to follow Christ that we should go do likewise? I don't think that is the best interpretation. I also don't think that liberation theology (which I see some Christians, especially at Cornerstone Music Festival adopting to some extent or another) as a good interpretation either. C'mon, was the social and political liberation of the poor Jesus main priority? That seems strained to me as Jesus life is obviously not pictured as a means of liberating the poor. On the contrary, it seems Christ blessed the poor BECAUSE of their poverty. Its also quite confusing to say that Jesus blessed poverty but saw it as a vision for enriching the poor. Huh???
I don't think Jesus was both rich or poor in the sense that we have placed on him today ie., Health and wealth Gospel and Liberation Theology. I think we have to view possessions in terms of delight and compassion. This image seems to have been overlooked by a majority of Christians today and is the basis for how we are to handle possessions.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 11/15/2010 10:07:25 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/15/2010 11:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Let me ask this. "Can not the economic lives of Christians express faith in ways we are not familiar with?"
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/15/2010 11:26 AM (GMT -6) | | OK. One more thing. I see Greg's whole sermon as a "negative apologetic" instead of a "positive apologetic" for lack of a better term. I mean, look at the title of the message! Exorcism. I guess something positive can come of exorcism, but I rather talk about "filling." Doesn't strike me as being outrageously Christus Victor.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 11/15/2010 12:08 PM (GMT -6) | | I think it really, REALLY, might do you guys good to read the Anabaptist literature Greg is being influenced by. If I remember correctly, he references John Howard Yoder quite a bit in the Sword and the Cross (and rightly so). And I think there is way too much liberalism being forced upon the new testament here. We're forcing categories of property, and systemic understandings of power-relations that simply didn't exist in the New Testament vocabulary or thought.
“That lordship is servanthood, that he who empties himself unto death is elevated to the right hand of the Father, is not a gnostic redemption cult historicized, it is the career of JHWH’s Servant doxologized. It constitutes within real human history a concrete (civil!) alternative both to the world-dominating claims of Cyrus (or Caesar) and to the righteous zeal of the Maccabees. This is not political language being used metaphorically to describe spiritual transcendence or quietism. It is a concretely alternative way to be God’s Servant, in both corporate and individual personhood.”
“The falleness of the world is not just the fallenness of individual sinners; the world as structure is gone awry. Those of us who seek to ‘take charge’ of events by challenging the Powers at their own game, trying to manipulate events in terms of their own inherent dynamics, may be selling out morally and practically at the very point where they claim to be taking responsibility. By agreeing to play by their rules we grant their idolatrous claim to be in charge of history in JHWH’s stead. Our refusal to play the game by the agreed rules may be more morally basic than our courageous wrestling with things as they are. Jesus defeated the powers by refusing to meet them on that terrain, at the cost of his life.”
~ John Howard Yoder
I don't think Greg is advocating that Christians ought to take some time away from political engagement to purify themselves so that they can simply re-enter that political realm with more caution and wisdom. I'm fairly certain Greg, and his Anabaptist influences, are trying to articulate that the christian ought to refuse the fallen systems definition of what it means to be political (and the world defines political as a dominating, coercive power). And work as though they exist in a polis that is based upon servant-hood. To live as though the Kingdom of the Lamb has already been established. | | Back to Top | | |
| 189 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:22 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|