 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > Bonhoeffer Chapter THREE -- finally! | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 7/2/2002 5:20 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hey azusastreet,
Jam 2:13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
Jam 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, [and] easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
TIM: Exegesis that, to your hearts content  , and the brackets/grammer which follow are mine, not Greg’s.
Greg: The thing is, Azusa… [Subjectivity and objectivity aside] …can we LOVE each other although we disagree?
…I think it IS possible and advantageous, to be SATISFIED simply trying to follow the leading of the Spirit in the light of the Word, in a world that is incredibly ambiguous, acknowledge that you are NOT judge, and being thankful that you are not judged.
God’s Love,
Tim
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
brandi
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118
| Posted 7/2/2002 12:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Faithfulservent, thank you for your words and for the welcome. Greg, thank you and I am enjoying interacting with you as well.
Greg:quote:
The only way to avoid rationalizing sin is to personally strive to have the kind of relationship with Christ where you don’t WANT or NEED to justify yourself. I find that as I grow in Christ, I become more honest with myself and with God – and even with close friends – for I come to realize that I don’t gain any worth by not having sin or loose any worth by having it, which means I am freed to be honest with it and deal with it. Moreover, the more in love with Christ I become, the more I WANT to turn from thesin in my life.
That was beautifully put! This is the path for the true disciple of Christ. It’s natural that as God increases in us, we decrease. “You will know them by their fruit.” He replaces the natural man with the infiltration of the Holy Spirit and we fall more and more in love with God and the Word.
Matthew 16:24- 27”Jesus then said to his disciples: “If a man wishes to come after me, he must deny his very self, take up his cross (I insert: whatever our sinful nature would want us to strive toward), and begin (I insert : not perfectly mind you) to follow in my
footsteps. Whoever would save their life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. What profit would a man show if he were to gain the whole world and destroy himself in the process? What can a man offer in exchange for his very self? The
Son of Man will come with the Father’s glory accompanied by angels. When he does, he will repay each man according to his conduct.”
Greg:quote:
The evaluation of people in leadership is DESCRIPTIVE of where a person needs to be to qualify as a leader in a particular ministry, it is not PRESCRIPTIVE of how we can make everyone holy.
I’m sorry if I gave anyone the impression that I am trying to define a clear prescription for how to make everyone holy. The truth of the matter is I completely agree with you, Greg. As we fall more in love with God, and are filled with this supernatural love, we are freed
up inside. Instead of striving toward living in truth and love it becomes an overwhelming response we choose to participate in freely. I believe this is a big reason God gave us freewill. God wants us to get to the place where we submit to His authority but He wants us to do so because we are overcome by His LOVE. To submit for any other reason is not freedom but imprisonment which is definitely not what God created us for.
There is a dilemma though, not all people have come to the point of having this kind of sold out abandon for God that you’re talking about. In fact, some people are still in the process of trying to figure out what it means to be a disciple of Christ. I believe the
reason why Jesus told us to be “The light for the world” is because the only way a person can see the truth and walk in true freedom is through being brought into the “light” of God.
Don’t you just find God’s creativity in the world intriguing? I love how throughout the scriptures the use of nature (birds, water, trees, rainbows, precious jewels, the hair on our heads...) are all the images that are chosen to make a point. I find that God gives us a lot of our answers today as well through gazing up at the night sky, through the images formed in the clouds, through the changing seasons ... if we but take the time to look. For instance, if we think about the process of a day turning into night we can learn some
valuable lessons from God’s creativity in this. The separation of the night from day is marked with a brief period of twilight. Using day/night as an analogy the day represents God’s light, the night represents Satan, and the twilight (the gray area) represents the
knowledge of “good and evil”. Jesus came to the world to shed light into the gray area. To fill in the void. Jesus came as the Light to the world and instructed us to follow in his footsteps. We are told to “Let your light so shine before man (woman) that they may see
your GOOD works and glorify your Father in Heaven.”
When we spend our time and energy trying to justify and rationalize the sinful nature (the gray area that Jesus came to destroy), we are operating in the twilight. I find it amazing that the largest percentage of car accidents happen during the twilight hours because vision is distorted. We cannot see clearly when we live, operate, or try to rationalize the twilight (sin nature). We are more prone to fall into traps and snares when living in the twilight too. The ONLY way to find true freedom and life is through walking in the light and helping others to see the Light too. Our mission is to get people to live in the light not the twilight!
azusastreet: quote:
Unfortunately, it is a slipper-slope once one takes the plunge and justifies lying in the name of "what would love do
It’s slipper-slope indeed. Have you ever found yourself caught in a “little” white lie then later found that the only way to cover up this one was to make another and the spiral began? When I read your post I thought of the disciples after Jesus death. They laid low
and hid out until Jesus reappeared and empowered them with the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t say anywhere that they lied though. Peter, however, did lie before the rooster crowed and later grieved this act. I wonder if this tells us anything? I’m not passing judgment or
giving my opinion just making observations. Sometimes I wonder if we take away from allowing God to work and move when we step in too quickly?
In any event I feel for those who have to live out their Christian faith on the line. I think as people read this they might stop for a moment and consider saying a prayer for the persecuted saints.
~Brandi~
Edited by - brandi on 07/02/2002 5:01:46 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/5/2002 7:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandi: There is a dilemma though, not all people have come to the point of having this kind of sold out abandon for God that you’re talking about. In fact, some people are still in the process of trying to figure out what it means to be a disciple of Christ. I believe the
reason why Jesus told us to be “The light for the world” is because the only way a person can see the truth and walk in true freedom is through being brought into the “light” of God.
Doc: You got that right! The funny thing for me is that I know I am myself NOT "sold out" and wholly "abandoned" to God. In fact, I'm still in process trying to figure out what it means to be a disciple. I thought I knew last year, but recently God has shown me new stuff that convinces me I didn't know Jack last year. I wonder what will come NEXT year? The only think I know how to do is to strive to be light on my own. God will use my little light to further grow me and grow others as he sees fit.
Brandi: he ONLY way to find true freedom and life is through walking in the light and helping others to see the Light too. Our mission is to get people to live in the light not the twilight!
Doc: Loved your twilight analogy. Nice one. I think our mission is to be light and to shed light, and the only way we can do the latter is by being the former. So our primary energy, Ibelieve, should be on the former. How can I grow in light, in truth, in love, in honesty, in integrity, in compassion -- in Christ-likeness? In the end, I think the most good you can do for others is to do good for yourself -- be all you can be. Others will invariably be blessed when you are.
Blessings
Doc
i
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
azusastreet
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 10
| Posted 7/6/2002 3:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg,
Thank you for your reply re: righteous lying, etc.
quote:
The thing is, Azuza, that there is no pure subjectivity nor pure objectivity. They are two theoretical poles of one thing: reality. The only subjective we know is over and against the objective, and the only objective we know is via our subjectivity.
So the Spirit leads us, and he uses Scripture to do it. But the leading of the Spirit can't be reduced to the verses of the Bible (otherwise there's nothing for the Spirit to lead us in), nor can the leading of the Spirit be divorced from the reading of the Bible (otherwise theres no distinction between Spirit and personal preference).
But, someone might worry, if there is ANY room for subjectivity in our ethical decisions -- if the Spirit goes beyond scripture in any way -- then theres no way to resolve ethical disagreements and we are on a slippery slope.
Two things: 1) There IS a subjective element in all Bible reading (see above, no purely objective or subjective) and theres no way to avoid it. People who do not acknowledge the role their subjectivity plays think their interpretation is equivalent to "the objective word" and are impossible to dialogue with -- for they will concede no ambiguity. But this obviously does help resolve ethical disputes.
2) Who said all ethical disputes should be resolvable? Theoretically, if we all were perfectly intelligence, free from sin, and followed God's leading perfectly -- we'd all end up with the same conclusions. But were not. Indeed, if we all followed God's leading perfectly, WE WOULDN'T BE OPERATING OUT OF OUR KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL I N THE FIRST PLACE. This is one of the reasons why LOVE is "above all" ethical decisions or religious opinions. (Eph 5:2; 1 cor 13:1-5). We CAN'T resolve all these issues. The question is, can we LOVE each other even though we can't agree?
Yes, even our interpretation of an objective text is subjective. Without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, even the spiritual words of the Bible are incomprehensible. Your appeal that (paraphrasing) 'everything is subjective, get over it!' is only partially true. The assumed authenticity, authority, historicity, and veracity of the Sacred texts elevates those texts by some measure above our subjective guidance of the Holy Spirit, wouldn't you say?
On the other hand, your point is well taken that there is ample evidence of God apparently commanding His people to do things which are plainly spoken against elsewhere in the scriptures. You say, therefore, I presented a false dichotomy since I want it either all objective or all subjective. You imply, it should be both Word and Spirit. But your only guiding principle is also subjective, "Love". What is Love? It cannot be measured/judge by mere acts of self-sacrifice, since these can be done (even to death) without there being Love present.
Obedience is better than sacrifice. And to Love God is to obey His commandments. But, there we are again--which commandents--all of them? The one's written down (Logos) or the one's we sense by the Holy Spirit (Rhema)? (Or both?!) To love one another as we'd love ourselves still leaves room for a judgment call. Am I better loving my persecuted Christian brother by lying to keep him from abuse, prison or death? Or is that taking a short-view/worldly view at the importance of this lifetime? Am I better loving him by letting him face trials and tribulations, and perhaps unjust death as our Lord did, that he obtain a "better resurrection"? I don't see an answer that can be provided by Ethics, but only by a close relationship with the Lord, who alone knows what He wants for that servant.
So, your other point, that "who says we can expect an answer to ethical dilemmas" is also correct. Dilemmas are part of the package. Grow deep in your walk with the Lord, learning to be led by His Spirit, because you won't find the answer in your Bible. You will face situations in your Christian walk where you must find out at that moment what to say and what to do, by the Spirit.
And, using the Bible as a measure, is not necessarily an absolute diviner of what was or was not Spirit led. This does not sit well with me, but the evidence seems to point to this; however, I like what Brandi said in that we aren't allowing the possiblity of what God might do, knowing our hearts and hearing our prayers. We pray that we aren't led into temptation. The Bible says we are given a way of escape at the time we are presented with temptation. While the Bible shows what Rahab did and said, and the Hebrew midwives, isn't it possible that some other outcome could have happened that still let them protect the spies or the newborns without compromising their moral code? If we lift those situations (our lives) up in prayer in advance, perhaps we won't have to face the moral dilemmas because God will intervene somehow to permit us to remain righteous. So the dilemmas remain entirely theoretically, not taking into account God's power.
You also make mention of our use of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, a prelude to the book you are working on. While I don't know what you have written, the title/idea seems to have been explored somewhat by Francis Frangipane (sp?) before in a book called, "There were two trees in the Garden".
If the premise of your book is that ideally we should be lead by God's Spirit, and not a knowledge of Good or Evil, may I suggest that only finds it's fullness in a post-millienial kingdom or post-new heaven/new earth "state",eg End of Age. By definition, until knowledge passes away, we will have knowledge to judge what is "good" and what is "evil". It stands to reason then, this K/G&E won't depart from us until that time. We only participate in a partial heavenly foretaste, the earnest of our inheritance, which brings the Kingdom "now" into this age until it's fullness comes "then" at the end.
I'd also like to comment that John I points out that Moses gave the Law, but our Lord gave us Truth and Grace. We often hear the Grace message, but there is also a Truth message. Jesus defines Himself as The Way, The Truth, and The Life. Is Truth solely a Person--The indwelling Spirit of Christ within us--for which we again, have no external reference point to measure against? Truth, with no shadow or variance, full of light.
Denying our knowledge of Good and evil during this era, or not acting upon it, or not using it, is not necessarily appropriate yet. The Lion and the lamb don't presently both lay down and eat straw together. Perhaps they did in the Garden. And parhaps they will once again in the Age to come. But now, the Law is a schoolmaster bringing knowledge of sin leading to repentance from dead works. The Law is Holy. Without the Law, and more generally, without an objective moral code (even if we say it's subjective to some extent), we cannot define what sin is. If the Law leads us to Christ, do we then dispense with the Law afterward? Is sin now that which is not of faith, that which disobeys the Holy Spirit? Why then the list of sins in Galatians 5/6 and admonition to Christians that those that commit such sins "as these" will not inherit the Kingdom of God?
quote:
If not, I say we close up shop, pronounce Christianity an utter failure, and check out Islam. For Christianity could not produce a love that was any better than what the world can produce. Jesus put all his eggs in THIS basket (Jn 17:20-26). If this can't hold them, nothing holds them (including, I might say, Islam).
He hasn't failed. He cannot. Christianity, as only a religion--a philosophy--a moral code-- will always be a failure. Christ indwelling His people, His Church, by the Holy Spirit can withstand the gates of hell, preach good news to the poor, set the captives free, heal the sick, perform miracles, and even <gulp> love and forgive one another and love our enemies. It's not religion, it's relationship.
If there is a failure, it's in the weak "door prize" gospel messages that are preached which do not include the discipleship requirements. Door prize Christianity is like telling people behind door #1 is heaven and door #2 is hell, pick one. While the Gospel message is defined as the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, the Gospel of the Kingdom presented by Christ himself is no less valid; His call to discipleship and to make disciples, no less demanding.
Rather than preach a message which asks the hearer to join a bless-me club, Christ enjoined his listeners to give up all, follow him, and die. He told the rich young ruler to give away all to the poor, and then follow him. He told one let the dead bury the dead, follow me. He told another foxes have holes, but the son of man has no place to lay his head. He said he that looks back after putting his hand to the plow is not worthy of him. He said take up your cross daily and follow him. He said if a man will lose his life following him, he will find his life. He said his disciples must hate their relatives, and whoever that gives up those relationships or lands for the sake of the Kingdom, will gain 100 fold now, and also later. Like the merchant who finds a pearl of great price in a field, we must sell all that we have to buy that field. His disciples must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Love your enemies. Forgive those that sin against you. Go ye into all the world. Count it all joy when men persecute you. Preach the Gospel, heal the sick, cast of devils, etc., etc.
Instead of doing any of these literally, they all boil down to the surrender of your heart to the Lordship of Christ. To be his disciple means to qualify your heart as fully abandoned to his will for you, day by day, no matter what that means. If you wonder what it could mean, then look at the examples above and seriously consider what Christ may ask of you and that you must be willing to give up or do wholeheartedly if so asked.
I've seen elsewhere written here achieving "abandonment to Christ". I'd call it absolute surrender. The message of the Gospel of the Kingdom teaches clearly these ideas. Bon.s The Cost of Discipleship re-presents these ideas and that of Costly Grace that requires our response. If you take a minimalist Pauline letter/Romans approach, you end up only a believer, not a disciple. Often this is put as asking him to be your savior, but not your Lord and God. But James tells us, even the devils believe, and tremble!
Accepting the "free gift" has small print in the contract: you must surrender everthing! I don't confuse this with a "work" which earns me anything. It is, rather, a condition of the heart necessary for one to receive the free gift. It is one of THE ESSENTIAL ingredients often missing from presentations of the Gospel (or what purport to be presentations of the Gospel).
Someone quoted a scripture about picking up their cross and daily following Jesus. They had inserted their own interpretation about what that meant for them, eg, denying their sin nature it's lustful desires. I'm not saying that the cross we carry doesn't include that, but that's not all that is meant.
I believe the demands of the Gospel presented by Jesus to his disciples are still what need to be preached today, Pauline letters, notwithstanding.
The cross is a 2000 year old means of execution. It is an issue of surrender, absolute surrender, to the extreme. Are you so prepared to follow Christ that you have yourself prepared to die for him daily? If you are prepared to die for him, than you can be thankful every day he doesn't call you to that but only asks you to love and forgive that co-worker that hates your guts and is trying to get you fired. You can be thankful that he didn't ask you to die physically today, but to die to your pride and tell someone you highly respect that you believe in Jesus and let him think you a fool. You can be thankful he didn't ask you to die today, except that He prompted you in the grocery store to approach someone you didn't know and tell them about Jesus.
Oh, and what about that nagging feeling you've had in your gut that you were supposed to help in the <prison, children's, nursing home, street kitchen,etc.> ministry? Did you obey that prompting when volunteers were asked for? Or did you make excuses? Just how yielded we are to the Holy Spirit, moment by moment, for anything He might want to do, is the question. We must surrender it all (our life,spouse,possessions,career,etc.) at the beginning. If you didn't hear that part of the message, you didn't hear the whole Gospel.
If you have the Holy Spirit, and you know you are in relationship with your Father in heaven, then you do well. If, however, you know that something is missing in your relationship with God, then it's time to re-examine yourself, and see if you be in the faith. It is written that if you have not the Spirit of Christ, then you are none of His. It is also written in Acts 5:32 that the Holy Spirit is given to those that obey Him.
Sorry I got off the subject and started rambling on discipleship...in many words there are errors...
I'm up too late posting this. Sorry off subject... back later...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 7/6/2002 5:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg,
Haven't forgot about this. Interesting stuff that you wrote to Azuza about the "external objective word." There is actually quite a bit in that post that I would agree with. I'll try to address that with more clarity with an example, to bring across the point I was trying to make.
You didn't say I was hypocritical or anything of that nature.
Again, I need to be clearer in some of what I wrote and I still need to respond to your last post to me.
Later...
Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden | | Back to Top | | |
|
brandi
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118
| Posted 7/6/2002 8:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Azusastreet
quote:
It is an issue of surrender, absolute surrender, to the extreme.
I like what you posted. Above all, God knows what's in our heart and judges each HEART.
Phillipians 1: 9-119. And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, 10. so that you may be able to discern what is best 11. and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ - to the glory and praise of God.
Greg
quote:
I know I am myself NOT "sold out" and wholly "abandoned" to God
Greg, do you think you might be willing to expand on the above quote a little? I am not clear on what you're getting at. Thanks. 
Greg
quote:
I think our mission is to be light and to shed light, and the only way we can do the latter is by being the former. So our primary energy, Ibelieve, should be on the former
I agree!
Greg
quote:
The only think I know how to do is to strive to be light on my own. God will use my little light to further grow me and grow others as he sees fit.
Oh, my dear brother, you are not to "strive to be light on your own."
2Corinthians 4: 6-7 6. For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. 7. But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us.
I keep hearing this song in my head, perhaps you've heard it?
Brother, let me be your servant
Let me be as Christ to you
Pray that I be also willing
To let you be my servant too.
God instructs us to serve one another through encouraging and holding one another up. We are to be lights for one another in the darkened world.
Hebrews 3: 12-1312. See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called today, so that none of you may be hardened by sins deceitfulness.
Getting back to the "twilight" analogy, and way off from the intention of this thread, I was looking at the picture of Jesus holding the lost sheep tonight and thought about how Jesus left the ninety-nine others to go out and find the one. He knew the dangers that awaited this sheep outside of his safety (out in the twilight)
2Corinthians 4:4; 1Peter 5: 8-9 4. The god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that they cannot see the LIGHT of the gospel of the glory of Christ... 8. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. 9. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings.
Of course we will all be tempted and fall daily into sin but the key is to strive to live and abide in the "light." As long as we set out to justify, rationalize, or legalize the "sin nature" we are walking in the "twilight" where much danger and snares await us. God calls us to be "children of the light" NOT the "twilight"! We need to encourage one another along in walking in the light. We were NOT created to "strive to be light on our own."
I was wondering, what if we substituted the words "knowledge of good and evil" with "the truth and the lie"? God has given us access to knowing the "truth" and that is through Jesus Christ. "The truth will set you free!"
What do you think?
~Brandi~
Edited by - brandi on 07/07/2002 01:17:36 AM
Edited by - brandi on 07/07/2002 01:20:04 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
brandi
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118
| Posted 7/7/2002 3:08 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
God instructs us to serve one another through encouraging and holding one another up. We are to be lights for one another in the darkened world.
Hebrews 3: 12-1312. See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called today, so that none of you may be hardened by sins deceitfulness
Before anyone throws out that we need to be in a "small group, close relationship" with these people in order to encourage one another on daily, I'd like to make two observations:
1. Not all believers have a close, small group of "Christian" people who will hold them accountable. Some followers of Christ may be new in the Lord and all their close friends may not even know the Word of God.
2. Also, haven't you ever noticed that we tend to hang out with people who think and act a lot like ourselves? If we rely ONLY on our small, close group of friends for exhortation we may never stand corrected in some areas of our life due to the high probability that they may be struggling with the same sins ... Does this make sense?
So I'm curious how to do we work through these two observations?
~Brandi~
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 7/7/2002 3:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
1. Not all believers have a close, small group of "Christian" people who will hold them accountable. Some followers of Christ may be new in the Lord and all their close friends may not even know the Word of God.
2. Also, haven't you ever noticed that we tend to hang out with people who think and act a lot like ourselves? If we rely ONLY on our small, close group of friends for exhortation we may never stand corrected in some areas of our life due to the high probability that they may be struggling with the same sins ... Does this make sense?
Good point, brandi. The Pharisees were not in Jesus’ “small group,” but that didn’t stop him from harshly rebuking them. Electra
~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~
Edited by - Electra on 07/07/2002 08:54:37 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/7/2002 7:27 PM (GMT -6) | | [Azuza: The assumed authenticity, authority, historicity, and veracity of the Sacred texts elevates those texts by some measure above our subjective guidance of the Holy Spirit, wouldn't you say?
Doc: Oh absolutely. If I or anyone else gets a "guidance" that is contrary to Scripture, I worry about the guidance. BUT, as you have agreed, its not always a "purely objective" matter what the guidance of the Bible is. Should woman still refrain from jewlrey, braided hair, expensive clothing, and teaching men (all in the span of five verses in I Tim. 2)?
Azuza: We often hear the Grace message, but there is also a Truth message.
Doc: The "also" presupposes that the grace message is different than the truth message. I’m afraid I missed your point here.
Azuza: The Bible says we are given a way of escape at the time we are presented with temptation. While the Bible shows what Rahab did and said, and the Hebrew midwives, isn't it possible that some other outcome could have happened that still let them protect the spies or the newborns without compromising their moral code?
Doc: Who knows. But in the real world these best of all possible outcomes don’t seem to present themselves too often. Maybe if we prayed enough they be around more often, but we don’t pray enough. So the question is, what’s the most godly thing to do in THIS PRESENT less-than-ideal situation. The "way of escape" is the way that is most godly, least damaging, most loving, least sinning.
Azuza: the title/idea seems to have been explored somewhat by Francis Frangipane (sp?) before in a book called, "There were two trees in the Garden".
Doc: Aren’t you thinking of Rick Joyner’s book? I think Rick’s work is insightful and consistent with what I’m doing, though Rick doesn’t make the connection between K of G&E and judgment such as Bonhoeffer does.
Azuza: Denying our knowledge of Good and evil during this era, or not acting upon it, or not using it, is not necessarily appropriate yet.
Doc: True, we have to recognize good and evil. We’re stuck with it. Indeed, according to the author of Hebrews (5 somewhere?) maturity in the faith is a matter of REFINING your ability to recognize good and evil. But I think there is a world of different between RECOGNIZING good and evil and LIVING OFF the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When we GET LIFE from judging PEOPLE as good and evil – as though we possessed a superior knowledge and character to them – this bllocks love, and thus constitutes the heart of sin. Getting rid of this is always timely. It is why Jesus, Paul and James command us never to judge others -- though we are to recognize evil.
Azuza: He hasn't failed. He cannot. Christianity, as only a religion--a philosophy--a moral code-- will always be a failure. Christ indwelling His people, His Church, by the Holy Spirit can withstand the gates of hell, preach good news to the poor, set the captives free, heal the sick, perform miracles, and even <gulp> love and forgive one another and love our enemies. It's not religion, it's relationship.
Doc: You’re preaching my sermon brother (or sister). Com’on. Amen. Glory!!!
Azuza: Sorry I got off the subject and started rambling on discipleship...i
Doc: When we do this on the internet, its rambling. When you do it from the pulpit, its called a sermon.
Brandi" Oh, my dear brother, you are not to "strive to be light on your own."
Doc: Well, yes, of course. I mispoke. Pain medication and all. I don’t mean we have to try to be light ON OUR OWN, but our focus has to be on our selves being light – and not, say, focusing on making sure OTHERS are the light their supposed to be.
Brandi: Hebrews 3: "But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called today, so that none of you may be hardened by sins deceitfulness Before anyone throws out that we need to be in a "small group, close relationship" with these people in order to encourage one another on daily, I'd like to make two observations: 1. Not all believers have a close, small group of "Christian" people who will hold them accountable. Some followers of Christ may be new in the Lord and all their close friends may not even know the Word of God.
Doc: Yes, which is the problem. Everybody really needs to be in close covenantal relationships with others. THIS IS what it means to belong to "church" in the New Testament. How could anyone "encourage one another daily" unless they were IN RELATIONSHIP daily? How could anyone know that I’m veering off course unless they were in relationship with me? It may be that while I look "off course" to you, a stranger, those who know me actually know that I am WAY further along than I was last year, and I’m moving great in the right direction – and a rebuke from a stranger for not be as far along as they are is exactly and precisely WHAT I DON’T NEED. People who share my life know what I need.
Brandi: Also, haven't you ever noticed that we tend to hang out with people who think and act a lot like ourselves? If we rely ONLY on our small, close group of friends for exhortation we may never stand corrected in some areas of our life due to the high probability that they may be struggling with the same sins ... Does this make sense?
Doc: Good point: Here’s where the role of the teacher/preacher/ evangelist comes in. God set these up "in the Church" to minister the Word of God at large. In the early church they’d go from small group to small group (viz. From church to church) teaching their message. When possible, they could minister in a large gathering (e.g. Solomon’s court – closer to the contemporary church model). Small groups need to be submitted to leaders they trust and who proclaim truth to them. Yet, teachers can’t really help APPLY the word and LIVE IT OUT in the particularity of your individual situation, unless they are in a living incarnational context with you (viz. Part of the small group).
Electra: Good point, Brandi. The Pharisees were not in Jesus’ "small group," but that didn’t stop him from harshly rebuking them.
Doc: True, but I’d be cautious about using this as a justification to confront anybody you think is a sinner. Consider:
a) religious sinners (people sinning with their religion) who were leaders were the ONLY group Jesus confronted like this. To the run-of-the-mill sinners he had compassion, never calling out their sin publically.
b) I would argue that religious sin requires a STOP ACTION (Icon’s term) that few other sins require. The Pharisee has built in defense mechanisms to keep him in bondage. The knowledge of good and evil IS WORKING WELL for them. This is why Jesus saw religious sinners as FARTHER from the kingdom of God that "prostitutes and tax collectors"
c) Leaders more often require a public confrontation than others, for their sin is public. Jesus was trying to protect the crowds in his public confrontation.
d) Jesus was the Son of God and had more authority than any of us.
e) If we feel compelled to apply Jesus’ example in confronting sinners – where shall we start? Who will devise the top 50 sin list? And, if we are honest, how shall we ever get out our own front door, for we shall rebuking the mirror for a long while.
f) Has confronting people in general the way Jesus confronting the pharisees ever produced one good thing? I know of TWO cases of religious leaders who had many people following them who had to be publicly confronted and exposed – and for whom it was a GOOD THING. This is a proper application of Jesus’ message. But I can’t for the life of me recall ever hearing of a time when a stranger confronted another stranger about a sin that did anything more than look very pompous, ugly, shaming, and worsened whatever problem the person was trying to fix.
f) If we were to do this, how would we do so in a way that doesn't constitute a gross violation of Matt 7:1-5?
All for now. Blessings. Thanks for the dialogue.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
brandi
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118
| Posted 7/8/2002 3:58 AM (GMT -6) | | I only have a few minutes and then I have to head out the door -- I'm LATE! Yikes! I've been told how addicting this web site is.
quote:
BUT, as you have agreed, its not always a "purely objective" matter what the guidance of the Bible is. Should woman still refrain from jewlrey, braided hair, expensive clothing, and teaching men (all in the span of five verses in I Tim. 2)?
I am interested in what we would say is an objective verses a subjective matter concerning the bible and I'm glad that Azusastreet brought this up in the discussion! When would/should we compromise? When should we hold fast? How do we know for sure?
Hey, would you agree, Greg, that if something is spoken about both in the Old and the New Testament as being a thing to refrain from (sin) then we should listen up? Perhaps if something is prohibited at a "particular" period of time in the bible it is NOT necessarily meant for us today, such as women not wearing jewelry or braiding their hair, but if something is continually prohibited throughout the Old and New Testament then it is still meant for today? I am thinking of homosexuality since some on this web site want to say that it is not a sin as we know it today (at least not a sin if it's a monogamous, homosexual relationship) which to me is living in the "twilight." Some would say that the way homosexuality was referred to in the bible is different from how it is lived out today but I am totally lost on this? For those of you who say it's different today I would LOVE to get some scripture references that tell where God has changed his mind and tolerates it today -- truly I would! When would it not be an objective matter with this issue? I mean this from my heart and not out of sarcasm. Thank you.
quote:
But I think there is a world of different between RECOGNIZING good and evil and LIVING OFF the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When we GET LIFE from judging PEOPLE as good and evil – as though we possessed a superior knowledge and character to them – this bllocks love, and thus constitutes the heart of sin. Getting rid of this is always timely. It is why Jesus, Paul and James command us never to judge others -- though we are to recognize evil.
I agree that we should NOT "get life" by judging people. I don't agree, however, that we are never to "judge" good from evil. To me, it's about the heart. What is our heart's purpose in judging? Is it judging truth from lie or is it condemnation? The issue of judging really gets down to a matter of where our heart is at and what our intentions are behind the judgment.
I wonder if we could substitute the term "knowledge of good and evil" with "knowing truth (right) from lie (wrong)" which is the gift of discernment?
1John 3: 7 - 10 7. Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is RIGHT is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8. He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. 9. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10. This is how we KNOW who the children of God and who the children of the devil are; Anyone who does not do what is RIGHT is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
quote:
I know I am myself NOT "sold out" and wholly "abandoned" to God
quote:
It may be that while I look "off course" to you, a stranger, those who know me actually know that I am WAY further along than I was last year, and I’m moving great in the right direction
Greg, here's the thing, first you said that you are not "sold out" and then you say that you are further along than you were a year ago -- I don't understand what you mean by this? Could you please expand on your statement that you are not "wholly abandoned to God"? I don't know what you meant by that statement. Thank you.
quote:
and a rebuke from a stranger for not be as far along as they are is exactly and precisely WHAT I DON’T NEED. People who share my life know what I need.
I will go along wholeheartedly with this! Trying to get our "life" by judging how another may not be "as far along as we are" (compared to what?) is NOT at all encouraging nor uplifting to our brother/sister. I agree with you that those who are in close relationship with you will be FAR better at encouraging you on in your growth since they know where you started or where you were a year ago than a stranger.
quote:
But I can’t for the life of me recall ever hearing of a time when a stranger confronted another stranger about a sin that did anything more than look very pompous, ugly, shaming, and worsened whatever problem the person was trying to fix.
I believe it's about the INTENTIONS OF THE HEART. We need to ask what is the intention and purpose of our heart in the "stop action"? For example, if I see a woman whom I've never met before "harshly" abusing her child I may very likely do a "stop action" and confront her about what she is doing, yet even then I would do so in a loving way. I would be thinking in my head "I wonder what type of road she's walked that causes her to act in such a way?" Who knows, perhaps God could open a door for this woman to receive help! I wouldn't need to be in a "close, covenant relationship" with this woman to do a "stop action."
When confronting sin I believe we need to keep a few things in mind. What's in the best interest of the other person? Is it better for me to love them and pray for them on the sidelines OR is their current sin causing pain to them or others and therefore it would be better for me to confront? If so,are there other people in their lives who are more in a position to confront them on this and who WILL confront them on this? What am I gaining by confronting them "am I getting life -- living off of the tree"? ABOVE ALL, what are THEY gaining in the long run by my confronting them? AM I acting in LOVE by doing this?
For the most part we should abide in LOVE. The gift of discernment (the ability to judge) will fade but LOVE will remain. We should be getting our life through abiding and living from THE VINE.
quote:
I would argue that religious sin requires a STOP ACTION (Icon’s term) that few other sins require. The Pharisee has built in defense mechanisms to keep him in bondage. The knowledge of good and evil IS WORKING WELL for them. This is why Jesus saw religious sinners as FARTHER from the kingdom of God that "prostitutes and tax collectors"
On the contrary, there were other times when Jesus did a "stop action" besides just with "religious sin." For example, in the temple with those who were buying and selling. He was very confrontational in this situation!
quote:
Thanks for the dialogue
This is an interesting yet frustrating dialogue at the same time!
~Brandi~
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 7/8/2002 3:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra: Good point, Brandi. The Pharisees were not in Jesus’ "small group," but that didn’t stop him from harshly rebuking them.
Doc: True, but I’d be cautious about using this as a justification to confront anybody you think is a sinner.
Electra: My intention was not to use this as a justification to confront anyone—my intention was rather to question the context of a small group relationship as a criteria for deciding who qualifies for confrontation. I think that establishing criteria for confrontation is still living out of the knowledge of the tree of good and evil.
Doc:
a) religious sinners (people sinning with their religion) who were leaders were the ONLY group Jesus confronted like this. To the run-of-the-mill sinners he had compassion, never calling out their sin publically.
Electra: So how do we know which sinners are exceptional and therefore should be confronted and which sinners are just “run-of-the-mill” and therefore should receive compassion? Jesus obviously made this distinction, but how did he do it without operating out of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
Doc:
b) I would argue that religious sin requires a STOP ACTION (Icon’s term) that few other sins require. The Pharisee has built in defense mechanisms to keep him in bondage. The knowledge of good and evil IS WORKING WELL for them. This is why Jesus saw religious sinners as FARTHER from the kingdom of God that "prostitutes and tax collectors"
Electra: I must admit that I’m suspicious of your criteria for singling out certain sins as worthy of “STOP ACTION”—especially sins that you don’t seem to struggle with, but your harshest critics do. It seems self-serving. I agree that Jesus accused the Pharisees of being farther from the kingdom of God than “prostitutes and tax collectors”—but how did he do this without eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
Doc:
c) Leaders more often require a public confrontation than others, for their sin is public. Jesus was trying to protect the crowds in his public confrontation.
Electra: So in your system, you would say that sins that negatively affect the most people require public confrontation? This sounds like an ethical rationale—another criteria for deciding which sins rank higher than others.
Doc:
d) Jesus was the Son of God and had more authority than any of us.
Electra: Agreed.
Doc:
e) If we feel compelled to apply Jesus’ example in confronting sinners – where shall we start? Who will devise the top 50 sin list? And, if we are honest, how shall we ever get out our own front door, for we shall rebuking the mirror for a long while.
Electra: I think if we were compelled to apply Jesus’ example in confronting sinners, we would follow the Spirit’s leading. This might mean confronting someone within our small group, or a perfect stranger on the street. It might mean confronting a religious leader whose sin has damaged hundreds of followers, or a porn addict whose secret sin only damages only a few people. How would we know who needs to be confronted and who needs compassion? We are blinded by our own sin, and even if we were perfect (i.e. Jesus) we would still need to trust the Spirit. Only God knows human hearts.
Doc:
f) Has confronting people in general the way Jesus confronting the pharisees ever produced one good thing? I know of TWO cases of religious leaders who had many people following them who had to be publicly confronted and exposed – and for whom it was a GOOD THING. This is a proper application of Jesus’ message. But I can’t for the life of me recall ever hearing of a time when a stranger confronted another stranger about a sin that did anything more than look very pompous, ugly, shaming, and worsened whatever problem the person was trying to fix.
Electra: I guess my gut reaction to your opinion about people you’ve known who’ve confronted strangers is that those people probably weren’t acting in obedience to the Spirit. But how can I even say that much? After all, the prophets were obedient to the Spirit and they were very unpopular—many were stoned. Jesus himself was crucified. If a stranger confronted me about my sin, I would be tempted to judge them as pompous, ugly, shaming, self-righteous religious sinners. I might even be right, who knows? After all, God has been known to use asses to confront people (e.g. Balaam). But I would seriously consider the possibility that the Spirit led them to do so.
Doc:
f) If we were to do this, how would we do so in a way that doesn't constitute a gross violation of Matt 7:1-5?
Electra: We would do so in obedience to the Spirit rather than out of our own knowledge of good and evil.
~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~
Edited by - Electra on 07/08/2002 10:38:57 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
brandi
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118
| Posted 7/8/2002 4:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra
quote:
I think if we were compelled to apply Jesus’ example in confronting sinners, we would follow the Spirit’s leading.
Ah, Yes! I agree! Thanks.
Now I really need to get going! I'm LATE!!!!
~Brandi~
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 7/9/2002 4:29 AM (GMT -6) | | I think that rather than coming up with principles about which sinners should be confronted (e.g. sinners in our small group, or pharisaical sinners, or sinners in leadership positions or whatever) and which sinners should receive compassion, we should take a closer look at what Bonhoeffer means by “proving the will of God” in chapter 2.
For example, “The will of God is not a system of rules which is established from the outset; it is something new and different in each different situation in life, and for this reason a man must ever anew examine what the will of God must be...our knowledge of God’s will is not something over which we ourselves dispose, but it depends solely upon the grace of God, and this grace is and requires to be new every morning...For this reason there arises every day anew the question how here, today and in my present situation I am to remain and to be preserved in this new life with God, with Jesus Christ. And it is just this question which is involved in proving what is the Will of God. Knowledge of Jesus Christ implies ignorance of man’s own good and evil; knowledge of Jesus Christ refers the man entirely to Jesus Christ; and from this it follows that there must every day arise a new authentic proving which will consist precisely in the exclusion of other sources of knowledge of the will of God....” etc.
The only beef I have with Bonhoeffer here is that he not only doesn’t mention the Holy Spirit, he seems to border on anti-inspiration. The sense I get from his writing is that this is more of a personality thing (he values sober vs. “enthusiastic” thought and action) and a suspicion of more “fanatical” believers (he was from a high church, mainline Lutheran background), rather than any theological conviction.
I think that the Holy Spirit is what enables us to “prove God’s will.” Check out these verses in John:
14:15–17: If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you for ever. This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him not knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you.
14:26: ...the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything…
16:7 And when [the Advocate] comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment...
~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~
Edited by - Electra on 07/09/2002 09:32:18 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 7/9/2002 1:38 PM (GMT -6) | | brandi
I believe it's about the INTENTIONS OF THE HEART. We need to ask what is the intention and purpose of our heart in the "stop action"? For example, if I see a woman whom I've never met before "harshly" abusing her child I may very likely do a "stop action" and confront her about what she is doing, yet even then I would do so in a loving way. I would be thinking in my head "I wonder what type of road she's walked that causes her to act in such a way?" Who knows, perhaps God could open a door for this woman to receive help! I wouldn't need to be in a "close, covenant relationship" with this woman to do a "stop action."
Iconoclast
I agree that intention is very important. And if our intention is to love the other person then that means that our impact becomes even more important to us than our intention. We now only think about what impact our behavior is going to have on the other person – is it helpful or is it hurtful – are we building the other up or tearing them down?
The example you bring up is a rather complex situation. Certainly if the woman is abusing her child in such a way that injury or death is imminent then I hope that I would unilaterally engage in a “stop action”. If this is not the case then my understanding and experience of these types of situations would lead me far away from confronting or rebuking the woman in any way. A standard law of psychology is that power begets power. When I unilaterally choose to confront someone – when I come across with power and authority then they feel attacked. When someone feels attacked they quite naturally defend. Which means they go further into distress and further act out their negative distress sequence – in this case attacking – which is exactly the problem that is happening in the first place!! The woman is clearly in a negative distress sequence – it is “script” or “masked” behavior – it ultimately comes from a deep sense of not being okay – people who are “filled up” do not behave this way. All I would accomplish by attacking this woman is to drive her further into this behavior. She would then either attack me back or she would go into hiding. In either case when I was gone the kid would most likely experience even harsher behavior. The end result is that I just tore the woman down further rather than building her up – I helped no one. In fact, my good intention resulted in the woman feeling attacked which increased her feeling of not being okay – it reduced her sense of being “filled up”. I just added to the very problem I was trying to help.
My argument here is that practically speaking it is simply not helpful to “confront” or “rebuke” in this situation. It reminds me of a passage in Luke where just after Jesus blasted the Pharisees and Scribes a lawyer spoke up:
Luke 11:45-46
45 Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also. 46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
In other words – you lawyers come up with shoulds and should nots and let everyone know what they are but you don’t actually do anything that is actually helpful. It just isn’t helpful to tell the woman that she should not be abusing her child. Now if we could find an intervention that would actually defuse the situation by “feeding” the woman in real time and perhaps even teach her something useful for the long term then that would be helpful. My experience is that to find and execute an intervention like this requires either a whole bunch of talent and skill or it requires an already strong relationship. On the other hand, maybe it would work if we could just walk up while being totally associated into complete and utter love and concern for the woman (zero judgment!) and just ask if there was anything that we could do to help?
A “stop action” to me means a unilateral strong controlling action using the “directive” channel of communication – putting out a hand to stop the hitting, physically separating the two, yelling or sternly insisting that the woman stops or threatening the woman with consequences if she doesn’t stop.
An “intervention” I define as finding a way of inviting the woman, using the “requestive” channel of communication, to choose a different course of action. A key argument I would make here is that if I am associated into a state of condemnation or accusation or if I am myself in distress then anything I do will be perceived as an attack and will not work. In fact, I would argue that if I am not fully associated into loving concern for what is happening to the woman then my intervention will fail because the woman will of course be hypersensitive to any judgment coming from me.
I agree that you wouldn’t need to be in a “close, covenant relationship” with this woman in order to do an “intervention” given the appropriate skill. I also agree that you do not need to be in this kind of relationship to do a “stop action” if required by immediate physical necessity.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
brandi
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118
| Posted 7/9/2002 4:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast
quote:
In fact, I would argue that if I am not fully associated into loving concern for what is happening to the woman then my intervention will fail because the woman will of course be hypersensitive to any judgment coming from me.
I said
quote:
The issue of judging really gets down to a matter of where our heart is at and what our intentions are behind the judgment.
Just for clarification sake, I think we are speaking the same language on this. I said that we need to question our hearts intentions in order to discern where we are coming from. In the case with the abusive woman, I believe we must ask ourselves the question of what is our intention for intervening and will this produce more strife or will this help diffuse the present situation. I guess the ultimate hope would be that we could act in such a way that this woman could feel our concern for her as well as her child. I agree that LOVE MUST be the motivating force! God himself commands this from us "above all, LOVE."
Now, here is where we MAY differ? I am not sure? I agree with Electra in that we must ultimately be functioning out of the Holy Spirit's leading.
Electra
quote:
The only beef I have with Bonhoeffer here is that he not only doesn’t mention the Holy Spirit, he seems to border on anti-inspiration. The sense I get from his writing is that this is more of a personality thing (he values sober vs. “enthusiastic” thought and action) and a suspicion of more “fanatical” believers (he was from a high church, mainline Lutheran background), rather than any theological conviction.
I think that the Holy Spirit is what enables us to “prove God’s will.”
Iconoclast, I say we MAY differ here because I am not sure where you stand with this? I believe that the Holy Spirit is our companion in this journey of life. We must ultimately rely on the Holy Spirit's leading in making decisions even decisions on who and when to confront. We cannot rely on our own fallible minds to lead us if we want to do Kingdom work! Can I get an AMEN?
Thanks,
~Brandi~
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 7/10/2002 4:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Well, fellow Bonhoeffer fans, am I just a fanatical enthusiast or what? I invite your criticism, feedback, advice, whatever on my post at the top of this page and my brief reflections on Bonhoeffer above. I’m really struggling to understand this.
The same Spirit of the same God promised Abraham that his descendants would outnumber the stars, and then commanded him to sacrifice his beloved son, and then commanded him not to lay a hand on the boy after he had bound him and raised the knife over his head. The same Spirit of the same God led Jesus to praise Peter one moment, and then call him Satan in the next moment. The same Spirit descended on Jesus like a dove, then drove him out to the wilderness where Satan was waiting for him. The same Spirit empowered Peter to uphold the law as a faithful Jew his whole life, and then empowered him to eat unkosher food and minister to Gentiles against all his religious convictions.
Walking in the Spirit means getting knocked off our high horses and being led by the hand through life (see Paul’s conversion story). The movements of the Spirit cannot be anticipated or generalized. No principles can prepare us for where it may lead next. But when we surrender to this leading rather than our own knowledge of good and evil, we walk with God once again in the cool of the evening breeze that blows where it will. Whether we are encountering Pharisees or prostitutes, friends or strangers, leaders or followers, we find ourselves in the garden where love grows.
Electra
~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~
Edited by - Electra on 07/10/2002 10:28:46 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 7/10/2002 5:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra
I think that establishing criteria for confrontation is still living out of the knowledge of the tree of good and evil.
Iconoclast
What if the criteria is that the confrontation must both come from a loving intent as well as have a loving impact? In other words it must implement in every way the commandment to love God and love our neighbor. It must achieve the goal to love.
If you mean establishing a set of absolute principles or strategies or tactics on exactly how confrontation must be done in order to achieve this goal then I would agree that this sort of criteria seems like living out of the knowledge of good and evil.
Electra
I think if we were compelled to apply Jesus’ example in confronting sinners, we would follow the Spirit’s leading.
Iconoclast
Yes, but what exactly does this mean? Bonhoeffer goes to great lengths to say that this means using ALL of our faculties in unbroken wholeness and unity with Jesus. We cannot solely rely on our ability to do logic nor can we rely solely on our intuition nor can we rely solely on our experiences nor can we rely solely on our current understanding of scripture. Yes, we can solely rely on Jesus living in us and the leading of the Holy Spirit but how does the Holy Spirit teach us? How does he go about leading us to truth?
This reminds me of the old joke about the priest who was trapped on the roof of a house in a flood and when a boat came by to save him he said that God was going to save him. Another boat came and then a helicopter and the priest said the same thing. He died and when he came to the gates of heaven he asked St. Peter why God didn’t save him. Peter replied that God had sent two boats and a helicopter.
In other words I think the Spirit uses our full human apparatus operating in unity with him to teach us. To me this means, scripture, experience, logic, intuition, inspiration, teachings, stories and so on interacting with the actual world – making decisions, taking actions and learning from the impact we are having – it is helpful or is it hurtful?
Electra
I think that rather than coming up with principles about which sinners should be confronted (e.g. sinners in our small group, or pharisaical sinners, or sinners in leadership positions or whatever) and which sinners should receive compassion, we should take a closer look at what Bonhoeffer means by “proving the will of God” in chapter 2.
Iconoclast
I agree. These principles are only useful as a “training guide”. They help us understand why Jesus and Paul did and said the things they did – and they help us understand the concepts to some extent. It is like the principles of a writing a good poem. They are needed for beginners but not masters. When a beginner breaks a principle the result is usually pretty bad. When a master breaks a principle it is always in service to the goal of more beautifully expressing a thought. And in that sense the master’s actions are always free. They are never bound to the principles. This is what really drove the Pharisees crazy with Jesus. He acted out of complete freedom – to the Pharisees it appeared to be totally lawless and un-principled behavior.
Electra
The only beef I have with Bonhoeffer here is that he not only doesn’t mention the Holy Spirit, he seems to border on anti-inspiration. The sense I get from his writing is that this is more of a personality thing (he values sober vs. “enthusiastic” thought and action) and a suspicion of more “fanatical” believers (he was from a high church, mainline Lutheran background), rather than any theological conviction.
I think that the Holy Spirit is what enables us to “prove God’s will.”
Iconoclast
I agree that the Holy Spirit enables us to prove God’s will. I don’t read Bonhoeffer as saying that it doesn’t. I do read Bonhoeffer as saying that the leading of the Holy Spirit cannot be equated solely with inspiration. Bonhoeffer is certainly anti-(inspiration only). When you say B values sober vs “enthusiastic” thought and action I understand this to mean that we must be cautious and deliberate in using all of our faculties to determine what God’s will is in a particular situation. We are humans. Because our fallen essence is to judge out of our own knowledge of good and evil we are easily led astray. We are exceptional rationalizers and we tend to get lazy in our thought processes. It is really, really hard to “take captive all our thoughts”. It is just much easier to see the problem outside of ourselves and accuse and blame.
I think of B’s “proving God’s will” something like the following:
First, God’s will is that we always seek God’s will. This is a key aspect of what it means for Jesus to live within us and to be led by the Holy Spirit. We now seek His will and not our own.
Second, God’s absolute commandment is that we love God and love our neighbor. This is above all. All our action must be designed to accomplish this command – to meet this objective. We know that we are in God’s will when we see that our intent and our impact are in fact loving. Our measurement is both internal – we know our intent to be loving – and external – we see that our behavior is actually having a loving impact.
Third, We must use ALL of our faculties to discern God’s specific will in each concrete situation. If we have an inspiration that when fully “tested” goes against everything else we know then it is probably from us and not from God. By “tested” I mean openly “run” against all of our other detectors of truth. Sometimes we have inspirations that we quickly test and upon the first objection we find in ourselves we quit when a full and open test – actually being totally open to the possibility – might lead the spirit within us to affirm this test. Other times we have an inspiration that we quickly test and because the “fun” or “exciting” part of us wants to do it we decide to “go for it.” This is where “enthusiastic” can get us into trouble.
There are times when we might have an inspiration that we reject that really is from God. God telling Peter in his dream to eat unkosher food is an example. But notice how strong God was in driving this inspiration home with Peter. And ultimately Peter’s full “detector apparatus” came into alignment with this inspiration.
The idea of “convergent evidence” comes to mind here. Or maybe rather, the idea of congruency – when our full apparatus is congruent then we have some confidence in our action. If our eyes tell us one thing but our ears tell us something different we usually get sick. And we certainly better sort it out before taking action.
Learning also comes to mind. What have we learned about alcoholism? What is the data? What are the facts? What works? What doesn’t? Is it typically helpful to confront a stranger about their smoking? Is it more helpful to confront a close friend about their smoking? What is the best way to actually be helpful? Is there research on this? Is the spirit guiding me to do ground-breaking research on this topic so that others can learn through my efforts?
Seems to me God has given us many, many experts in many diverse fields who have a passion to find out how to help others. This to me is one aspect of the Spirit’s leading. Leading some to do the research, others to apply it, others to spread the word and all of us to learn from each other what works.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 07/10/2002 10:04:21 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 7/10/2002 5:53 AM (GMT -6) | | brandi
Iconoclast, I say we MAY differ here because I am not sure where you stand with this? I believe that the Holy Spirit is our companion in this journey of life. We must ultimately rely on the Holy Spirit's leading in making decisions even decisions on who and when to confront. We cannot rely on our own fallible minds to lead us if we want to do Kingdom work! Can I get an AMEN?
Iconoclast
AMEN!
I totally agree that we are fallible and must rely on the Holy Spirit’s leading. Where we may disagree is in what this entails. I believe it means that since we are fallible we are fallible about whether the Holy Spirit is really leading us to confront in some particular situation or whether it is really coming from our own knowledge of good and evil. I would argue that this requires much training and skill that none of us ever completely master.
Electra posted:
quote:
John:
14:15–17: If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you for ever. This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him not knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you.
14:26: ...the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything…
The “spirit of truth” will teach you everything. It doesn’t say that once you are led by this spirit that you will just “know” the truth or “intuit” the truth or somehow always be inspired in all your action. It says that the spirit of truth will teach us. To me this means that the spirit will show us how the impact we are having on other people does not line up with our intent. We measure our intent to be loving – we think and feel and believe that our intent is loving and yet this isn’t good enough. Our impact must also be loving. Over time we will then hopefully learn what it truly means to love another person in a particular situation.
What I am trying to get at is that this represents a huge shift in how we go about measuring our action. We no longer measure based on our intent or our beliefs about what is “right”. We now ultimately measure our action by what impact we are actually having. We no longer measure based on ourselves we measure based on others. The Pharisee rebukes others because it is clear to him that they are not doing the law. They may even feel that their intent is loving – isn’t is loving to help other people do God’s law? Won’t they be better off if we can just get them to see how wonderful God’s law is and do it? However, what the Pharisee never does is actually measure whether their action is producing a loving impact. They never question whether they are being helpful. They assume that the reason people are having problems is solely in the other person – that their rebukes and accusations are helping rather exacerbating the problem. They never do any actual research or seek any deeper understanding.
Brandi, would you agree with this:
To truly love another person means to measure our action based on the impact we are having. And we must use all of our faculties to determine this – if our eyes tell us we are helping but our ears tell us we are hurting then we had better spend more of our attention on determining what the truth really is.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 7/10/2002 7:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast: What if the criteria is that the confrontation must both come from a loving intent as well as have a loving impact?
Electra: Two responses. 1) This is a nice criterion, but it seemed like the criteria for confrontation that were being discussed were things like: exceptional sinners rather than “run-of-the-mill” sinners; small group members rather than strangers; leaders rather than followers. It was starting to sound a lot like a self-serving sin list to me. 2) How is this criterion not a way a distinguishing between good ways to confront, and evil ways to confront? 3) How do we know how to best love someone? How did Jesus know that instructing the rich, young ruler to sell all his possessions was the most loving thing he could do for him? How did Jesus know that sending the Gerasene Demoniac back to his friends rather than keeping the recovering man close to him was the most loving thing he could do for him? How did Jesus know that causing lots of his disciples to be confused and offended by inviting them to eat his flesh and drink his blood was the most loving thing he could do for them? How did Jesus know that refusing to heal the Syro-Phonecian woman until she begged like a dog was the most loving thing he could do for her? Did general principles and/or criteria lead him to love people this way?
Iconoclast: Yes, but what exactly does [following the Spirit’s leading] mean? Bonhoeffer goes to great lengths to say that this means using ALL of our faculties in unbroken wholeness and unity with Jesus.
Electra: I agree. It means being ready (the Hebrew word that is usually translated “Here am I” is better translated “Ready”). It means keeping oil in our lanterns (parable of the ten virgins). It means fully investing everything we have been given into life (parable of the talents). It means mourning with those who mourn and rejoicing with those who rejoice. It means taking up our cross. Although they are more ambiguous, maybe metaphors are a better way of expressing this meaning than principles are, because 1) that’s the way Jesus expressed it; 2) metaphors better express a way of being rather than a way of doing.
Iconoclast: These principles are only useful as a “training guide”. They help us understand why Jesus and Paul did and said the things they did – and they help us understand the concepts to some extent.
Electra: Here’s how I understand why Jesus and Paul did and said the things they did, and what they want for us:
Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.
Iconoclast: It is like the principles of a writing a good poem. They are needed for beginners but not masters. When a beginner breaks a principle the result is usually pretty bad. When a master breaks a principle it is always in service to the goal of more beautifully expressing a thought. And in that sense the master’s actions are always free. They are never bound to the principles. This is what really drove the Pharisees crazy with Jesus. He acted out of complete freedom – to the Pharisees it appeared to be totally lawless and un-principled behavior.
Electra: I like this analogy, but I’m not sure how it fits. Is thinking and acting like Jesus something we train for and eventually master? Or is it a matter of dying to sin and being resurrected in Christ? The mind and body of Christ are not things we achieve with training (I don’t see how we can attempt to do so without continuing to violate the prohibition against eating of the tree knowledge of good and evil), they are things we receive by grace (freely eating of the tree of life, knowing only Christ, and him crucified).
I think that’s why Bonhoeffer says that proving God’s will "is not a system of rules which is established from the outset." Neither is it "something over which we ourselves dispose." Instead, "it depends solely upon the grace of God, and this grace is and requires to be new every morning.”
Iconoclast: I agree that the Holy Spirit enables us to prove God’s will. I don’t read Bonhoeffer as saying that it doesn’t. I do read Bonhoeffer as saying that the leading of the Holy Spirit cannot be equated solely with inspiration. Bonhoeffer is certainly anti-(inspiration only).
Electra: Thanks that’s a helpful clarification. I agree.
Iconoclast: If we have an inspiration that when fully “tested” goes against everything else we know then it is probably from us and not from God. By “tested” I mean openly “run” against all of our other detectors of truth. Sometimes we have inspirations that we quickly test and upon the first objection we find in ourselves we quit when a full and open test – actually being totally open to the possibility – might lead the spirit within us to affirm this test. Other times we have an inspiration that we quickly test and because the “fun” or “exciting” part of us wants to do it we decide to “go for it.” This is where “enthusiastic” can get us into trouble.
Electra: First, a note of clarification. We usually associate the word “enthusiastic” with “fun” or “exciting.” But when it is used in a religious context, it is usually (pejoratively) associated with “charismatic” or more “evangelical” traditions.
Second, for clarification of your understanding of “testing” inspiration, I am curious how you would respond to Emmanuel Kant’s interpretation of the story of Abraham and Isaac: “There are certain cases in which man can be convinced that it cannot be God whose voice he thinks he hears; when the voice commands him to do what is opposed to the moral law, though the phenomenon seem to him ever so majestic and surpassing the whole of nature, he must count it a deception.…The myth of the sacrifice of Abraham can serve as an example: Abraham, at God’s command, was going to slaughter his own son—the poor child in his ignorance even carried the wood. Abraham should have said to this supposed divine voice: that I am not to kill my own beloved son is quite certain; that you who appear to me are God, I am not certain, not can I ever be, even if the voice thunders from the sky” (from “The Dispute between the Philosophical and Theological Faculties”).
Third, your understanding of testing inspiration seems to presuppose that our “detectors of truth” are basically trustworthy. I haven’t read all of Bonhoeffer, but I suspect that as a Lutheran, he would rigorously deny this. Our “detectors of truth” are the problem, not the solution. If our detectors of truth are so great then why did we crucify God when God showed up? Even if our detectors of truth were infallible, they would still be finite. Even Jesus had to rely on the Spirit.
I tend to be aggressive when I process something, but I hope it is clear that I am wrestling with ideas and not you! Thanks for working through this with me; you are a gracious and thought-provoking discussion partner. Let’s continue the dialogue.
Electra
~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~
Edited by - Electra on 07/10/2002 12:40:44 PM
Edited by - Electra on 07/10/2002 12:43:22 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/10/2002 11:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast: If we have an inspiration that when fully “tested” goes against everything else we know then it is probably from us and not from God.
Modes: This is precisely the opposite of how I understand the leading of the Spirit. My understanding is that I am a sinner in need of grace and direction and that I, left to my own designs, am not loving, nor godly. It is only by the leading, sustaining, and power of the Spirit that I can act in accordance with the will of God. Anything I judge to be good or "godly" outside the Spirit's leading is not of God (rather, it is my own judgment based on the knowledge of good and evil and my limited perspective of the context/issues). For, as we know, what does not proceed from faith is sin. This faith is not in our selves, but in and from God.
Knowing God in such a way that obedience is a clear option (rather than an opaque possibility, or even multiple possibilities, among many others) is the goal. THAT is why Abaraham was the hero of faith. Abraham knew God that way.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 7/10/2002 3:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Greg,
Let me just get a few prelims out of the way first.
1. Abortion- it really is not that complex of an issue. “Ensoulment” may be more difficult of an issue. But the issue of abortion itself is not as difficult or complex. For example. There really are only four positions one can take with regard to abortion.
a) The fetus is a human person and we know that.
b) The fetus is a human person and we do not know that.
c) The fetus is not a human person and we do not know that.
d) The fetus is not a human person and we know that.
Your position would probably fall under position b. The question to ask here is not, “What would be the most loving thing to do?” but, “Is this being responsible?” Why take the chance of killing an innocent human being if we don’t know when ensoulment occurs? Isn’t that like shooting into rustling bushes when we are not for sure whether there is a human being there?? If you don’t grant that the fetus is a human person, then it is obvious that you would not come to the same conclusions that I would that it would be murder. In the abortion debate this ultimately is what the question (of murder) hinges on. Also, I would like to know what exactly you mean by “body-rights of women vs the status of the fetus?”
It would seem to me that if you are saying that the status of the fetus is such that it is not a human person, then the body-rights of the “mother” are first and foremost. But I don’t share your view of the fetus, that is that the time of ensoulment is debatable, so therefore, I don’t share your view of the body-rights of the mother. An embryo, fetus, baby, etc is not a part of the mother like a kidney or appendix.
Greg, you did not say that I was evil or imply that I was a hypocrite. I was asking a rhetorical question. The argument went as such:
Me: Inuit have good moral reasons for “infanticide.”
Greg’s response: why are you lenient on the Inuit and on abortion things are black and white? Abortion to you (Brandon) is always wrong. It’s black and white.
My response: What are you appealing to here? Aren’t you appealing to some higher absolute (fairness) when at the same time you are saying that there are no absolutes (in agreement with Bon)?
I was the one who was saying that you Greg, were being inconsistent here and therefore the hypocrisy was on your part. It seems to me to be inconsistent on the part of Semeia who says that we cannot know good and evil, but then to say that sexism is wrong or evil:
quote:
For example, it doesn’t take a lot of sexism in a system to get women to start behaving helplessly and dependently.
or to say that racism or homophobia is wrong.
quote:
With racism and homophobia I think the best chance of changing beliefs comes about when people become close enough to love each other in real relationships.
Isn’t she doing the same thing she is accusing others of doing something they can’t or should not do and that is having a knowledge of good and evil or identifying sin in others?
quote:
This is one more reason why identifying sin in others is such a losing proposition.
Show me my misunderstanding here. Seriously.
See, it seems to me that when one says, “What is the most loving thing to do in this situation?” (which is lifted up as a moral absolute as far as I can see), the next question to ask is, “To whom?”
Why should I believe that “lying” to the Nazi’s about having Jew’s in my cellar is the most loving thing to do? It certainly isn’t the most loving thing to a Nazi or even to many Germans! As a matter of fact, to the Nazi’s, the most loving thing to do would be to expose the Jews. For to exterminate Jews would be to rid the world of parasites and therefore one would be helping humanity. If one thinks of Communism, the most loving thing to do would be to help the collective. One could truly justify anything in the name of, “What is the most loving thing to do?”
quote:
When did I ever deny there are rights and wrongs? When did I ever deny absolutes?
I thought you were in agreement with Bon who denies absolutes.
quote:
Where did you get the impression that either Bonhoeffer, or I, or Semeia, or Iconoclast, are moral relativists?
It seemed to me that you were in agreement with Bon who denies absolutes. But not only this, it seems to me when I read statements such as:
quote:
With homosexuality, the condemnation that refuses to allow homosexuals to participate in church-sanctioned marriages far reduces the chance that a gay person will find a partner for life. Think how difficult it is for heterosexual marriages: even with the support of our church, family and society, over half of all marriages end in divorce. With gays we refuse to support their efforts to make a lifelong commitment to a partner, and then we condemn them for being promiscuous when they fail to do it on their own! And we refuse to admit our participation in their failure.
Also, it seemed to me even from the “Christian and Politics” thread that Semeia did not take into consideration the ethical implications of the status of the embryo and surrounding issues, i.e. one’s need to have a baby so badly that they would be willing to discard human embryos, and individualism That seems like a price to steep to be paid.
Anyhoo, I see relativism, at least with bioethical issues and homosexuality. Again, show me my misunderstanding here.
Lastly, when I speak of absolutes, I speak about them the way that C.S. Lewis spoke about them in Mere Christianity. Very general rules, such as fairness, obligations, etc. When I speak of biblical values or principles, I think of something like what Colson talks about in the June 10th edition of CT magazine when he talks about ethics in business.
Examine the roots of the Western free market, and we see the profound influence of Judeo-Christian revelation. Scripture endorses concepts like private property, contract rights, rule of law, and the discharge of debts—all essential to free markets.
The Bible also demands justice, warning of God's judgment against oppressors who withhold wages or take advantage of the needy; it condemns those who manipulate the economy, whether by greed, hoarding, indolence, or deception. The command to permit gleaning—allowing the poor to harvest crops along the borders of farms—shows us how a biblical welfare system works. The scriptural system, in short, balances the acquisition of wealth with a demand for both justice and compassion, and requires people to subordinate self-interest to moral demands.
How can we take general principles like these and bring them to bear say in the work place. This is where I think the guiding of the Holy Spirit is needed.
Anyhoo, gotta skittle daddle. Sorry for make this abrupt.
Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 7/11/2002 6:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Electra
Two responses. 1) This is a nice criterion, but it seemed like the criteria for confrontation that were being discussed were things like: exceptional sinners rather than “run-of-the-mill” sinners; small group members rather than strangers; leaders rather than followers. It was starting to sound a lot like a self-serving sin list to me. 2) How is this criterion not a way a distinguishing between good ways to confront, and evil ways to confront? 3) How do we know how to best love someone?
Iconoclast
The issue is what we mean by “criteria”. I would argue that the ONLY valid ultimate criteria for our action (in this specific case confrontation) is that it serves the goal (the criteria) that it produces loving results.
Living from our own knowledge of good and evil means to see the ONLY valid ultimate criteria for our action being faithful to the knowledge of what is good and what is evil and therefore seeking to make that picture come true. Notice that this picture is a very detailed picture – it requires absolutes at every level competing with other absolutes – it is a “prescriptive rule structure” that we build up in our head – a mental model for how to do or be good. Thus our task becomes understanding and implementing this complete picture faithfully – and of course making sure everyone else does also! This is something a non-omniscient being can never do.
“Criteria” in this sense means the ultimate goal.
Living from Christ as our center blows away this detailed picture of what is good and what is evil. It really no longer exists. In a very real sense now, for us, there is no good and evil. This doesn’t mean that we don’t detect evil. We can train ourselves to detect good and evil very, very accurately but ONLY in the realm of the real – the realm of results – the realm of what is happening – NOT the realm of our “prescriptive rule structures” in our head.
At the same time this does NOT mean that we no longer have a prescriptive rule structure. It ONLY means that we no longer place a good and evil filter over this rule structure.
I think the disconnect is that you are hearing Doc as though he is building up a prescriptive rule structure WITH a good and evil filter on it.
When I say a “prescriptive rule structure” with a “good and evil” filter on it I picture something like a decision tree with each branch off of each node having a “good” value and an “evil” value.
Our own knowledge of good and evil requires us to achieve the goal of building a complete “good and evil knowledge tree” and enforcing it on ourselves and others. And, of course, for a lot of us it is sure a lot more fun to enforce it on others.
Living from Christ as our center requires us to achieve the goal of producing loving results by building an ever learning “decision tree” where we take off the “good” values and “evil” values at each branch and replace those with probabilities of producing a loving action.
I hear Doc building up a prescriptive rule structure with probabilities of producing a loving result (for example - it is more probable that confrontation produces a non-loving result when done to a stranger than when done to someone who has invited us into their life.) I also hear him measuring the results of his prescriptive rule structure based solely on the impact it has in terms of producing loving results rather than on whether it is the “right” or “good” thing to do. This to me is crucial.
quote:
Doc:
f) Has confronting people in general the way Jesus confronting the pharisees ever produced one good thing? I know of TWO cases of religious leaders who had many people following them who had to be publicly confronted and exposed – and for whom it was a GOOD THING. This is a proper application of Jesus’ message. But I can’t for the life of me recall ever hearing of a time when a stranger confronted another stranger about a sin that did anything more than look very pompous, ugly, shaming, and worsened whatever problem the person was trying to fix.
I think most people read the Bible as though it is God’s law in the form of a prescriptive rule structure and with a good and evil filter on top of it. Imagine looking at it instead as a prescriptive rule structure with probabilities of producing a loving result. Suddenly – “the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath” – becomes much clearer. It is also much clearer why God “allowed” divorce when this isn’t His ideal – or when He “blessed” King David with many wives and concubines. In any particular real situation it is not about what is “good” and what is “evil” it is only about producing a more loving result.
Electra
3) How do we know how to best love someone?
Iconoclast
This requires wisdom. It requires deep knowledge of people in general and deep knowledge of an individual in particular. How do we gain this knowledge? We learn. It requires training. The bible speaks quite a bit about this. We must build up in our head the most accurate model we can about this reality that God has created. And we must test our mental models – our prescriptive rule structures - openly and honestly – measuring always and only against the results we are producing – against the impact we are having – are we producing loving results? You will know them by the fruit they bear. Be ye transparent. Confess to one another. Do not hide mistakes. Do not blame.
Electra
I like this analogy, but I’m not sure how it fits. Is thinking and acting like Jesus something we train for and eventually master? Or is it a matter of dying to sin and being resurrected in Christ?
Iconoclast
It is certainly something we train for. Do we every master it? I would say no. Jesus mentioned that the pupil is never greater than the master. I would even venture to guess that we won’t have mastered it even after a million years in heaven. I believe learning is never ending.
I don’t think we really even get off the starting blocks unless we start dying to sin (dying to this death of living from our own knowledge of good and evil) and being resurrected in Christ (living from Christ as our center).
Think of the rules of poetry as higher probability prescriptive rule structures for creating a beautiful poem. The master simply has a much richer rule structure AND a deep understanding of what “beautiful” poetry looks like. It is only to the novice that they “seem” to be breaking the rules.
Electra
I think that’s why Bonhoeffer says that proving God’s will "is not a system of rules which is established from the outset." Neither is it "something over which we ourselves dispose." Instead, "it depends solely upon the grace of God, and this grace is and requires to be new every morning.”
Iconoclast
I understand this to mean that God’s will is not some prescriptive rule structure that He created in the beginning. God’s will is that we Love. And it doesn’t mean that we can now dispose over what it means to love either! It means that we actually have to produce the result of love. This is an objective quality – it is outside ourselves. We must participate in creating the most beautiful poem ever. God knows what it looks like. With Christ in us we are now capable of training our detectors (really allowing them) to also learn what it looks like. The prescriptive rule structure is a guide – it is a tool to help us get there – it is not complete in and of itself – nor will it ever be – not even for God. God is a living God – prescriptive rule structures, the law, principles are therefore living also. The master writes entirely new rules of poetry that have never even been imagined before in his quest to create a more beautiful poem.
Electra
Second, for clarification of your understanding of “testing” inspiration, I am curious how you would respond to Emmanuel Kant’s interpretation of the story of Abraham and Isaac: “There are certain cases in which man can be convinced that it cannot be God whose voice he thinks he hears; when the voice commands him to do what is opposed to the moral law, though the phenomenon seem to him ever so majestic and surpassing the whole of nature, he must count it a deception.…The myth of the sacrifice of Abraham can serve as an example: Abraham, at God’s command, was going to slaughter his own son—the poor child in his ignorance even carried the wood. Abraham should have said to this supposed divine voice: that I am not to kill my own beloved son is quite certain; that you who appear to me are God, I am not certain, not can I ever be, even if the voice thunders from the sky” (from “The Dispute between the Philosophical and Theological Faculties”).
Iconoclast
For the man who lives out of the knowledge of good and evil his detectors are oriented toward this knowledge as the primary source of reality – really himself of course. Thus the moral code is absolute and strong, which means nothing except that he knows himself, and the voice of God is relative and weak, which means nothing except that he does not really know God.
Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Abraham knew the voice of God. His detectors were perfectly aligned to it. He did not question whether this is what God wanted or whether it was indeed God. The real question and the test for Abraham was to see whether he was really willing to live completely and solely from the voice of God. In order for Abraham to have chosen to obey in a “congruent” fashion it required him to align his other detectors – he had to choose to trust God by abducting a reason for why God would tell him to do this and still be faithful to His promise. This then was not really even a test – rather it was a learning experience for Abraham – it was really great experiential training – it furthered Abraham’s instruction in how to totally trust God – to KNOW the truth about God – that God is Love AND to know the truth about himself – that he is loved by God – it was a gift to Abraham. “Even the merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving” – Emerson.
Electra
Third, your understanding of testing inspiration seems to presuppose that our “detectors of truth” are basically trustworthy. I haven’t read all of Bonhoeffer, but I suspect that as a Lutheran, he would rigorously deny this. Our “detectors of truth” are the problem, not the solution. If our detectors of truth are so great then why did we crucify God when God showed up? Even if our detectors of truth were infallible, they would still be finite. Even Jesus had to rely on the Spirit.
Iconoclast
I see now that “detectors of truth” is probably not the best choice of words. When I say “detectors” I am referring to our full sensory and cognitive processing apparatus in our synaptic circuits. The human visual system has a synaptic circuit for detecting motion. All seeing humans are capable of detecting motion. This is an “embodied” objective phenomenon. Our detectors are very accurate to the extent that they are designed for. Clearly none of us can detect light in the infrared spectrum.
Our detectors are highly tuned to detect good and evil but ONLY passively in a concrete situation – we detect motion when it is concretely happening right in front of us. We have no ability to detect abstract motion. Neither do we have an ability to detect abstract good and evil. The key problem with living out of our own knowledge of good and evil is that it requires us to determine abstract good and evil – it requires us to disregard the direct evidence of our detectors when they are out of line with our abstract knowledge of what is good and what is evil. Think of all the passages where Jesus tells the Pharisees they are blind or that they cannot hear. Or the verse about how this generation can see a wind rising in the East and say that it is going to storm but they can’t figure out the sign of the times and what is happening. This is why none of can escape guilt. We know what is right, we detect when we are having an unloving impact, but we disregard this in favor of our own knowledge of good and evil – in favor of ourselves. And at some point, we are no longer even conscious of what our detectors have to say, or perhaps, we filter them so strongly we think they are saying exactly the opposite – we see Jesus heal and think it is from Beelzebub.
To me relying on the Spirit of Truth means denying myself, denying what I wish my detectors were saying, and simply listening to what they really are saying, unfiltered. I believe this requires not only first and foremost a choice but also training. It is not easy to shut off the internal dialogue and actually listen to your full array of detectors. It requires discipline. It requires meditation, it requires prayer, it requires openness to being wrong, it requires openness to having to do really hard things sometimes, and it requires faith.
Electra
I tend to be aggressive when I process something, but I hope it is clear that I am wrestling with ideas and not you! Thanks for working through this with me; you are a gracious and thought-provoking discussion partner. Let’s continue the dialogue.
Iconoclast
Thank you. I appreciate that. And yes it is clear to me that you are going after the ideas and not me. I also hope that my communication is all about learning as well.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 07/12/2002 12:42:07 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 7/11/2002 7:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Modes:
Iconoclast: If we have an inspiration that when fully “tested” goes against everything else we know then it is probably from us and not from God.
Modes: This is precisely the opposite of how I understand the leading of the Spirit. My understanding is that I am a sinner in need of grace and direction and that I, left to my own designs, am not loving, nor godly. It is only by the leading, sustaining, and power of the Spirit that I can act in accordance with the will of God. Anything I judge to be good or "godly" outside the Spirit's leading is not of God (rather, it is my own judgment based on the knowledge of good and evil and my limited perspective of the context/issues). For, as we know, what does not proceed from faith is sin. This faith is not in our selves, but in and from God.
Knowing God in such a way that obedience is a clear option (rather than an opaque possibility, or even multiple possibilities, among many others) is the goal. THAT is why Abaraham was the hero of faith. Abraham knew God that way.
Iconoclast
I am a little confused as to how to respond to this. I agree with everything you are saying except that I don’t see exactly how it is the opposite of what I said. I posted more on this topic in response to Electra. Perhaps that clarifies what I was trying to get at. If not – please elaborate on what you hear me saying and then maybe I can clarify.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
brandi
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118
| Posted 7/11/2002 7:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast
quote:
Brandi, would you agree with this:
To truly love another person means to measure our action based on the impact we are having. And we must use all of our faculties to determine this – if our eyes tell us we are helping but our ears tell us we are hurting then we had better spend more of our attention on determining what the truth really is.
Love, however, does NOT mean that we should condone hurtful or unholy behavior. This is where the Holy Spirit's leading is so CRUCIAL because the impact we may be having might not look totally positive (at least upfront) but that never stopped Jesus from confronting. In fact, we may be acting in a loving way toward one person while offending another (how do we choose who we will love?)
As Electra pointed out
quote:
How do we know how to best love someone? How did Jesus know that instructing the rich, young ruler to sell all his possessions was the most loving thing he could do for him? How did Jesus know that sending the Gerasene Demoniac back to his friends rather than keeping the recovering man close to him was the most loving thing he could do for him? How did Jesus know that causing lots of his disciples to be confused and offended by inviting them to eat his flesh and drink his blood was the most loving thing he could do for them? How did Jesus know that refusing to heal the Syro-Phonecian woman until she begged like a dog was the most loving thing he could do for her? Did general principles and/or criteria lead him to love people this way?
If we are experiencing disunity between our eyes and our ears then I agree with you, Iconoclast, we better spend more of our attention on determining what the truth really is because ONLY "The truth will set us free!" We need to pray, and pray, and pray until we know God's will. Jesus set up this example for us in the garden when he prayed "Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from me, but not my will but YOURS." God's will doesn't always have the impact that at the time might SEEM the most loving. In the flesh it wouldn't have looked like the most loving thing for God to do by allowing Jesus to suffer such a cruel and torturous death, but alas, it saved the world! Through prayer and submission to the Holy Spirit we are promised that as we draw near to God, he will draw near to us. He promises that those who seek him will find him. Love is great but we must not forget to have FAITH in the unseen especially when with the human eye it may appear unloving. The impact cannot be our measuring stick alone. Thank God for the Holy Spirit and for the gift of discernment!
And that's my thoughts on your quote, Iconoclast. Thanks for asking.
~Brandi~
Acts 20:28 28Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 7/12/2002 2:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Electra
How do we know how to best love someone? How did Jesus know that instructing the rich, young ruler to sell all his possessions was the most loving thing he could do for him? How did Jesus know that sending the Gerasene Demoniac back to his friends rather than keeping the recovering man close to him was the most loving thing he could do for him? How did Jesus know that causing lots of his disciples to be confused and offended by inviting them to eat his flesh and drink his blood was the most loving thing he could do for them? How did Jesus know that refusing to heal the Syro-Phonecian woman until she begged like a dog was the most loving thing he could do for her? Did general principles and/or criteria lead him to love people this way?
Iconoclast
I am a little confused about what you are trying to get at here. At first you ask "How do we know how best to love someone?" then you ask, "Did general principles and/or criteria lead him to love people this way?"
Are you suggesting that general principles and/or criteria have no role to play in guiding us toward more loving action? Are you trying to say that truly loving action requires a much deeper knowledge than can be captured by any principles or criteria? Are you trying to say that we cannot rely on any of our "codified" knowledge but must only rely on some sort of spirit-inspired intuition? Or are you trying to say that general principles and/or criteria can never be a basis upon which we can be lead to love another?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
| 260 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:47 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 |
|
|