quote:

---

ME: faith assumes that the sheep hear the shepherd’s voice (BOTH from below AND from ABOVE). That’s not simply existential, it is biblical. It is equally existential to draw epistemological confidence from the individual assessment of an individual’s engagement within a given context. One is existentially engaged with God (or so they believe) and the other is existentially engaged with creation around them (or so they assume).

---

One has to end up basically taking constant LEAPS OF FAITH about somehow KNOWING they are hearing the "shepherd's voice" at any given "order" from God. But isn't this problematic when we have people in criminally insane asylums who have done some atrocious, crazy acts because they felt they were hearing voices from God? What would in any REAL way separate people who hear from God from these "insane" people? Heck, maybe they are NOT insane and really ARE hearing from God!

Let's go deeper. What if you felt God spoke to you about some new revelation and told you to ACT on it? ON WHAT PRINCIPLE would you be able to definitively say that it wasn't God? Sure, you could try to say that "God said in His Word that he doesn't lie." But given God's obvious ability to speak AGAINST what WE PERCEIVE to be primal goods, is it so much of a stretch to think that he would use lies (in the guise of "lying spirits", of course ) in order to fulfill some things for His glory? Not really.

Bottom line: If the TSE idea is truly taken fully seriously, the line between divine and non-divine communication that "breaks in upon our reality" blurs greatly. God (as we understand God) can make NON-GOD sounding commands. And we just have to somehow trust that it really IS God. And find the very ambiguous means to do so.

***********************************************

Meph's Perspective:

I've been trying to say this for some time now. I think earlier I had inadequate ways of stating it. This is why I said, at first, that God was "above good and evil" This is why to reconcile "omnibenevolence", I felt something like the "glory variable" was necessary. Generally, God's omnibenevolence is looked at either by "moral wiring" as evidenced by general human perceptions (from below) or by some PARTICULAR VIEW of Christ via Christ's words and behavior (from above). But with either of these, they want to say that it's still the case that people want to say that God can't FUNDAMENTALLY behave or speak different from these sources. But this negates the full implications of the possibility of TSE. The "glory variable" gave a crawlspace that could AFFIRM God's omnibenevolence that IS dogma...while being consistent with the existence of TSE.

What ends up happening is simply that the ambiguity grows by leaps and bounds...as does the ULTIMATE reliance on the presuppositions that:

1) God truly does want relationship with us.
2) We have the capacity to hear God and KNOW his Voice.
3) God's Voice is to be obeyed...period.

This is what Abraham HAD to have assumed, as I see it. And we have to keep the same assumption. It goes back to what I said in the analogy. We have to trust OURSELVES (ie our ability to hear and KNOW the voice of God), reality (ie outcomes and circumstances), and the PROCESS (ie risking that sometimes we will miss the boat terribly!)

Bottom line: TSE forces us to have a LOT MORE FAITH than we would otherwise have.


Just thinking,

quote:

---

I think this is a very balanced statement, incorporating all three aspects of obeying God. My concern with Model 2 has always been that it allows, if not encourages, the suspension of the second aspect – reality, for assessing this requires feedback. If this is suspended (because of TSE) then the question is, how do we "do" aspect #1 (trusting our ability to hear). And my main concern here has not been with either the ontological or social sphere, but with the neurological sphere (recall my three concentric rings of discourse). The question I’m living in is how do we DO (internally, mentally, representationally) hearing God? And the answer, I hope, allows us to distinguish a healthy way of doing this from wacko ways of doing this. But the only answer I can come up with involves aspect #2 – looking at reality, via feedback. This is the very thing that Model #2 wants to minimize. See my worry?

---

I see it very clearly, Doc. For real. But I think Modes said it best. It's not that we want to MINIMIZE looking at reality. We want to place a HIGHER PREMIUM on trusting OURSELVES to hear God in light of God's WILLINGNESS to speak to us in a way we can hear. And the deal is that most people would rather err on the side of caution when it comes to this stuff. This would include an extensive review of "reality", right? Better to be overcautious and TOO SLOW obeying God's commands than PRESUMPTUOUS and outrunning God completely. If something sounds TOO way out, stick with the general principles of the Bible and common sense. It happens all the time.

The kicker, though, is that when it comes down to it...we're GOING to miss the boat either way. How many times have things probably been undone because too many people have been afraid to "step out of the boat" to follow God's voice into uncharted territory?? Too many people saying "This ain't God." Too many nay-sayers. I would say many.

The only thing I can think of to help remedy this is to 1) make faith commitments and 2) be willing to take the consequences for them. Suppose you step out in faith and fall flat on your face? Be person enough to say "Hey, I made a stand, but maybe I made a mistake" Suppose you DON'T step out in faith, and God tells you about it? Be person enough to say "Hey, I made a stand, but I guess I made a mistake" I'm sorry to say, Doc, but I don't think that anything really exists that will allay your worries. The "erring on the side of caution" thing does work to relieve existential tension with one's peers and one self...but could be doing it at the expense of MISSING God work in a unique way. So, my thing is this: Pray, look at reality, and get good "godly" counsel...but at the end of the day, it you are being SO CONVICTED by what you feel to be God...you have to be the one to decide to ignore or follow that voice. But be prepared to face the consequences of your actions, whether you were right or wrong.

Don't you love ambiguity?




PS: Speaking of "wacko", Doc...have YOU ever been in a position where you honestly following the voice of God seemed to go against MUCH common sense?

quote:

---

Meph: We have to trust OURSELVES (ie our ability to hear and KNOW the voice of God), reality (ie outcomes and circumstances), and the PROCESS (ie risking that sometimes we will miss the boat terribly!)

---

quote:

---

"So, any of you pastors out there, of course we would not tell someone to "do whatever God lead's you to do" without qualification, right?"

---

What is the qualification? The Bible? (speaking generally here) Yes. Feedback and assessment? Yes. Our conscience? Yes. And of course we need to take responsibilty for whatever happens as a result of our actions. That's a given.

But when we have the Bible saying a consistent "no," the church (we should not separate ethics from community, I see an attempt at balance, with regard to small groups in this discussion, but it still seems way to individualistic for me) saying a consistent "no," natural revelation saying a consistent "no," why would anyone then claim God telling them to do something against all these "no's?"

I know, we have examples of suspending the ethical in the Bible, as Electra pointed out, (which she did sooo engenouiously, which is not a word, but it is derived from the root word engenious, ) from Abraham in the O.T. to Jesus to Peter. She killed two birds with one stone.

1. She showed that "suspending the ethical" occurs in the Bible.
2. That it occurs in both dispensations if you will. Why should it not occur with us?

To this I haven't a solid response other than that Peter's eating unkosher food concerned foodstuffs and not necessarily moral actions as some have pointed out. Secondly, I have a real big problem with this,

quote:

---

"They'd HAVE to be psychotic to expect another responsible person to encourage them to do something that suspends ethics. If the ethical is suspended, it is so between the individual and God, not the individual and society. SO, do you job and defend the world from wackos to the extent that you are able.

---

C'maaaan. First, we don't live in a moral vacuum Modes. What we do, the decisions that we make, affect others to who knows what generation. I find it interesting that Greg would espouse this in his writings and then resort to individuality and particularity when it comes to hearing the divine voice.

Secondly, in the case of Abraham, the ethical was not suspended in isolation from others...there was an Issac. As one author points out, "the poor kid didn't even know he was carrying his own fire wood!"

That's ruinous.

Lastly, this isn't just about some wackos both intellectually and morally, as opposed to clear headed thinking people dealing with some difficult moral dilemmas. Clear headed thinking people have moral impoverishment as well.






Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War

quote:

---

I have a real big problem with this,

quote:

---

Modes:
"They'd HAVE to be psychotic to expect another responsible person to encourage them to do something that suspends ethics. If the ethical is suspended, it is so between the individual and God, not the individual and society. SO, do you job and defend the world from wackos to the extent that you are able.

---

C'maaaan. First, we don't live in a moral vacuum Modes. What we do, the decisions that we make, affect others to who knows what generation. I find it interesting that Greg would espouse this in his writings and then resort to individuality and particularity when it comes to hearing the divine voice.

Secondly, in the case of Abraham, the ethical was not suspended in isolation from others...there was an Issac. As one author points out, "the poor kid didn't even know he was carrying his own fire wood!"

That's ruinous.

Lastly, this isn't just about some wackos both intellectually and morally, as opposed to clear headed thinking people dealing with some difficult moral dilemmas. Clear headed thinking people have moral impoverishment as well.

---

quote:

---

The question is really not about moral impoverishment per se, it is about hearing God and taking responsibility for your actions. Even when you believe they are a direct response to the command of God. In one sense the responsibility shifts to God in Abraham's scenario. God said to do it, and Abe obeys God, he has learned to do this over a lifetime. God takes responsibility ultimately for this action. But Abraham still has to face Isaac after the incident (and Sarah when they get home!). He is not off the hook. God did not speak to them about all this, so they have to trust Abraham, and THAT is precarious. The Bible consistantly teaches us to trust God alone, ultimately. If Abe existed to day and went through the motions, he'd get locked up. And rightfully so.

---

quote:

---

BBB: I understand your concern with "the ethical," but I don't see that you've addressed the particular issues Electra and Modes have raised. I think they have made their case (and here they agree with Semeia, Icon, myself and others) that the relationship is more fundamental than the ethical. The ethical principles serve the RELATIONSHIP, not vice and versa. Which opens up the possibility that the relationship may occasionally lead you outside the ethical.

And this leads to Mephi's question: Can God act in non-God ways?

My take: a) Maybe... but we can't theologize his doing so. Our theology-- our THINKING ABOUT GOD -- has to conform to what he's told us about himself. And this he has decisively done in Christ, on the cross. God has the right to be more than (but contradictory to???) what he's disclosed himself as being, but I don't know if WE have the right to theologize about this "more than."

---

quote:

---

And this leads to Mephi's question: Can God act in non-God ways?

My take: a) Maybe... but we can't theologize his doing so. Our theology -- our THINKING ABOUT GOD -- has to conform to what he's told us about himself. And this he has decisively done in Christ, on the cross. God has the right to be more than (but contradictory to???) what he's disclosed himself as being, but I don't know if WE have the right to theologize about this "more than."

---

I think that we do have the right to theologize about it...if only to recover a truer sense of the AMBIGUITY of walking in faith. I believe that far too many people think they KNOW what God does and KNOW what God definitely WILL OR WON'T do. (As evidenced by the utterly dogmatic claims of God's activity on the Sept. 11th tragedy) In my opinion, this is epistemological hubris and presumption of the lowest caliber. The wind of the Spirit blows (water rushes, fire burns, etc) where it will. And as you well know wind, water, and fire can be both pleasure enhancing or PAIN PRODUCING things. I would agree that only by reliance on God via our CONTINUING OPENNESS TO RELATIONSHIP with God can we have any real means of walking amidst the ambiguity. THAT God loves the world is shown in the Cross. No doubt. What this entails that God will or will not do in (or through) any given painful, suffering, or death-filled situations is a WHOLE other story. Right?

Sweet!

Blessings,


PS: Move on to the next chapter as you will, Doc!

quote:

---

I would agree that only by reliance on God via our CONTINUING OPENNESS TO RELATIONSHIP with God can we have any real means of walking amidst the ambiguity. THAT God loves the world is shown in the Cross. No doubt. What this entails that God will or will not do in (or through) any given painful, suffering, or death-filled situations is a WHOLE other story. Right?

Sweet!

---

AMEN, MEPH!

quote:

---

The ethical principles serve the RELATIONSHIP, not vice and versa. Which opens up the possibility that the relationship may occasionally lead you outside the ethical.

---

quote:

---

I get the hint dude. I take it you think my piece on Sept 11 was an example of "epistemological hubris and presumption of the lowest caliber." Dang dude, why not tell us what you really think!

---

Oh, Doc. Now you know I love ya. Heh. First of all, I wasn't thinking specifically about your piece. I was thinking about EVERYONE who's done it, including those people like Jerry Falwell who believed that it was some type of judgment on America. Your piece just happens to fall into the category. It's nothing personal, and you know this, of course...right?

Second of all, perhaps my terms were slightly more caustic than necessary. The bottom line is that some people express convictions about God and God's action in ways that could appear like dogmatism...but this doesn't necessary mean that they are being epistemologically arrogant. So not EVERYONE who sounds like this is a dogmatist and/or presumptive. Fine. I'll take that.

**************************************

Doc:

quote:

---

In response, Meph, I want to say "yes, but…" There are limits to this, aren’t there Meph? I recently read an account of three guys who kidnapped these two teenage girls in Texas, tortured and raped them for three days, then killed them…slowly. They bragged about it even when brought to court. Do YOU want to say, "well, yes God loves us, but maybe he ordained this for his glory?" If so, what the *&%&^$%#@! does "love" mean?

---

Doc, you are much more versed in Scripture than I am. I am sure that you are VERY AWARE of some of the atrocious behavior in the Bible that has been allowed (if not OPENLY SANCTIONED) and ordained by God. Frankly, it has ALWAYS amazed me that people can take biblical stories seriously and what God has done within...and consistently maintain that God is like unto some flower-totin' person who hates blood. God has exhibited the modus operandi of using GROSS EVIL in his service. How can this be denied? And on what basis could one say things are THAT different because of Jesus? We really can't. And this is the thing, Doc. The bottom line is that it is genuinely POSSIBLE that that incident was allowed for some divine reason. You can't deny it JUST because you don't like it. If that were the case, I (and probably others) would deny a whole BUNCH of stuff in the Bible that's attributed to God as being atrocious. Personally, I didn't feel the slaying of the firstborn of Egypt or the mauling of the 42 kids was very loving at friggin ALL. But it's there, so, I say we just face it.

Look, we can't just try to give answers that make us feel better. That's not cool. Life's hard and sometimes it sucks big. And sometimes God's activity may promotes LOTS of suffering, confusion, and pain...for reasons that we couldn't even BEGIN to understand. And YES, it's friggin POSSIBLE that God arranged for that tragedy to happen for reasons that only GOD is privy to. Can we handle this or WHAT?

And as far as what "love" means? I thought it meant what was shown to us on the Cross. EVERYTHING ELSE is gravy, right?

Do me a favor, Doc? LOOKING AT SCRIPTURE and what God's done in the past, you tell ME where I should draw limits about what type of stuff God will allow.



*****************************************



Doc:

quote:

---

The paradigm of Jesus confronting evil as Satanic has got to count for <i>something.</i> If our definitive picture of God is Jesus Christ (as image, Word, expression, etc…) then we have an idea of what God is like and an idea for what God does. So, given any atrocity, we have, I believe, every reason to default to the position that "if Jesus wouldn’t have done it, God didn’t do it"! ESPECIALLY if there are other explanations readily available – like the free will of the three torturers, or the free will of terrorists, or the free will of demons.

---

It does count for something. It's VERY consistent with God's revelation in the Old Testament. How could one look through Scripture and NOT get the idea that God was definitively against human avarice, hubris, and greed? That God WASN'T against the slaughter and misuse of the oppressed? That's clear as day, it would seem, Doc.

HOWEVER...

we must acknowledge some really ill stuff that God does, too. Stuff that doesn't seem fair to us...but that we trust divine wisdom is leading. I believe that Jesus is consistent in THIS as well (primarily in some of things that he is believed to have said) See, Doc, you had this sermon called "Jesus Wasn't A Nice Guy", isn't that right? Well, you were right on the money. He WASN'T a nice guy, especially according to 21st century humanistic, politically correct, liberalized standards...no matter how some theologians want to paint him as such.

I get the impression, Doc, that some people implicitly are saying that they would expect Jesus to have been different if what I'm saying is true. Perhaps Jesus would have been more of a PRAGMATIST who would be willing to use "evil" means for what He percieved to be greater goods. But this is not the Jesus they see. They see the Jesus who said that he came to destroy the works of the devil. They see the Jesus who, with great compassion and conviction, healed the sick and encouraged the broken hearted. They see the Jesus who dies an ignomous death on the Christ for people who didn't even like him. Surely, they may think, all this depicts the ANTITHESIS of some being who would use gross evils for the sake of pragmatic expediency! Jesus, who would take such pain and mission on himself, doesn't seem to fit the mold of someone who would do such a thing. And since, Jesus is the express representation of who God is, we have reason to believe that God wouldn't do that either.

Ok. There are a number of things that I could say about this. But I don't think going the Jesus analysis route is the way to go. I think a far more productive way to deal with this would be to look at some of God's providential behavior in the New Testament. Why? Because THAT'S mainly what we are discussing See, Doc, we are NOT disputing about whether God is "for us" or not. God has shown us that in WORD and ACT, both in the Old and New Testaments. Where we differ is that while YOU obviously believe somehow God loving us is supposed to mean a LIMITATION on how much evil God's willing to use for his purposes. I don't see it. Let's look at some things:


1) Ananias and Sapphira
2) Blinding of Simon Magus
3) God allowing "the thorn" in Paul for God's purposes

Now, Doc, I believe looking at these things is very important for a number of reasons. First of all, these events took place AFTER the coming (and leaving) of Jesus...and AFTER the Pentecost event. Second, these events seem to be involving some type of "evil" (if by evil, we are referring to death, suffering, and pain") It seems clear that in each of these instances, divine intention and/or allowing facilitated "evil" as means to ends. The killing of Ananias and Sapphira seemed to lead to great fear being spread through the community. God made an example out of them. Pretty much the same way with Simon Magus probably. With the "thorn" thing, God was GRACIOUS ENOUGH to tell Paul why it was there...and why he wouldn't heal it. But surely we know that this needn't have been the case. (Job never DID get an explanation, now did he?)

Now, as I'm looking at this, the type of divine action in these 3 instances seem VERY IN LINE with some of the apparently "less-than-loving" actions of God seen in Scripture. And it's not too much of stretch to think that the people who formed the context of these instances may have thought so too. So, it would seem to me that it MAY be possible for God to do some f'ed up things for his purposes POST-ADVENT.



*****************************************



Doc:

quote:

---

I’m just curious, Meph, WHY the heck and you so concerned to preserve God’s "right" to be involved in evil events? WHAT is the theological gain you are interested in preserving?

---

Hmmm...how about because the "right" is there? As much as some people want to deny it, it's friggin THERE. We've all hashed this out here long enough to see that. I don't care HOW much people desired to relegate much evil directly to human or demonic wills by sheer assumption, the truth of the matter is that it is POSSIBLE that God does some, if not a LOT, of it. Biblically, it doesn't seem to contradict God's MO. See, Doc, in times of ambiguity like this, one usually goes by PAST BEHAVIOR to assess one's potential for FUTURE BEHAVIOR. And from what I see, God has done some immeasurably cool stuff...and some very nefarious-type stuff too. (Think about Empiress's issues with some of that stuff. Don't you think that some of her impressions are justified?)


It's not about theological gain. It's about trying to be as HONEST with the Biblical data and prospective open view as I can. And this is the conclusion I come to. And so far, I've found NO theologian that has been able to really explain my concerns away. Your theodicy does a lot to add a lot of NON-GOD ambiguity to the situation, but essentially the problem still hasn't really left. Only PROCESS takes it away completely...but then you obviously don't have a very unilaterally efficacious God (meaning the BIBLICAL God) So, I feel I'm going to take the implications seriously.

I don't have a problem with this. Bottom line: Open View theism is on the SAME PROBLEMATIC GROUND as Calvinism essentially...just on a slightly lesser scale. Let's just accept that.


Here's MY question for you, Doc? What's the big problem that YOU have with it? Isn't the blood of Jesus ENOUGH "love" for you? So WHAT if God uses some rapists or lightning hitting houses or Nazi guards with fetishes for beautiful young eyes? Doesn't Jesus MAKE UP for all this? You tell me.

Sweet,

quote:

---

Come on. It's repugnant to many people to even CONSIDER that Sept. 11th could IN ANY WAY be divinely allowed and/or orchestrated for a SPECIFIC purpose by God. But on what basis could they argue against it a priori? They can't...and they know darn well they can't. And the problem is this: Once you admit that ONE immense tragedy COULD have been orchestrated by God, then you've opened a veritable Pandora's Box of ambiguity? What about Zosia? What about Josephine? Hell, what about what happened to ME?? Talk about existentially anxiety producing.

---

quote:

---

What I mean is this: It doesn't seem that we can ever know FOR SURE whether an evil action/occurrence is God-ordained or not. So I don't think we can say that Sept. 11th, the Holocaust, etc., were DEFINITELY not purposed by God for some mysterious "greater good.”

However, the fact that any action God does take always has a "greater good" as its purpose gives me comfort regarding God's NATURE. In other words, the spiritual warfare motif confirms my faith in God's omnibenevolence. This motif assures me that God, when taking seemingly evil action, is actually just making pragmatic “battlefield” decisions that are always “lesser evil for greater good.”

In essence, I don’t think we can ever say DEFINITIVELY that God can’t be behind something like Sept. 11, Holocaust, Zosia, etc. What we CAN say is that God never wanted any of it to happen. In THAT sense, he is not “behind” bad stuff.

Know what I’m saying?

---

Yes, Brett, I know EXACTLY what you're saying...and bless ya for saying it! Well said.