Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > Bonhoeffer Chapter THREE -- finally!

Forum Quick Jump

260 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 7/12/2002 3:01 PM (GMT -6)

), which makes discussion really interesting but also more difficult. Anyway I hope to pick this up later.....

Blessings,
Electra

~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~

Edited by - Electra on 07/12/2002 8:09:37 PM

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 7/12/2002 6:44 PM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast: 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?

Modes: Of course, this was addressed to Electra, but I think these questions can help get at what I intended above. I need to admit first that I am responding more out of my personal response to my recent reading of Greg's new book on this topic. That is my context more directly than this or any other thread here. i will respond directly to your questions for clarity:

a. Are you suggesting that general principles and/or criteria have no role to play in guiding us toward more loving action?

This question is worded in such a way as to make any response other than "of course not" quite foolish. This is probably not intentional. However, I will modfiy and answer it as I think you intended: Q: Do you mean that principles and criteria are all fallible and cannot serve as sound bases for loving action? To this I would give an affirmative answer. In particular, I would say if we are to do what Jesus did, we must walk as Jesus walked, and that is not by principle but the Spirit. Jesus obeyed the Father's voice and the Spirit's leading (Romans 8 describes this well). The same is true of Abraham and other heros of faith. It is this relation of obedience to the Spirit that is admirable and to be imitated. Not various principles or criteria which put the power of good and evil back into our own hands again. That only makes us judges again.

The short answer here is: yes. That is what I am suggesting. It may look like loving behavior but if it does not proceed from faith, then it is sin.

b. Are you trying to say that truly loving action requires a much deeper knowledge than can be captured by any principles or criteria?

The "knowledge" here is misleading. What we need to know is that we are sinners and are forgiven. That's all we really need to know. From there, behavior is a matter of obedience. Not obedience to "a knowledge," principles, or criteria.... but to the Spirit. Romans 8 again. Sorry to be so redundant.

c. 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?

Yes, we cannot rely on any codified knowledge and no, this is not about an intuition. Its actually not about us. It is about a God who speaks and a people who listen. Christianity is rooted in a self-revealing God.

d. 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?

No. We can in fact, have a social contract of sorts that establishes "love" as the fulfilling of certain obligations. This is required for social institutions and even family relations to work. But it is not really provable whether a person who performs them expresses genuine love or merely compliance with the contract. We cannot judge whether or not others are acting genuinely lovingly. Even with ourselves, this is exceedingly difficult. I can always come up with alternative reasons why I might have done some loving act or other. What we can know is what the Lord requires of us and whether we comply with that unhesitantly and unswervingly or not. Do we manifest an agile willingness toward God regardless of the request? Faith is very dangerous stuff.

Edited by - ModesofThought on 07/12/2002 11:47:21 PM

brandi
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118

Posted 7/12/2002 7:02 PM (GMT -6)

ModesofThought

quote:
The short answer here is: yes. That is what I am suggesting. It may look like loving behavior but if it does not proceed from faith, then it is sin.

Yes, works without faith are dead. FAITH is listed right along with love! We need to operate in all three (FAITH, HOPE, and LOVE)

ModesofThought

quote:
we cannot rely on any codified knowledge and no, this is not about an intuition. Its actually not about us. It is about a God who speaks and a people who listen. Christianity is rooted in a self-revealing God.

Yes, it's NOT about us at all! We must deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Christ. God speaks through the Holy Spirit if we listen. His sheep know his voice and follow him.

Amen brother Modes!
~Brandi~

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/12/2002 7:03 PM (GMT -6)

Electra

I think we are operating out of very different language games (maybe Mephi can translate???? Pretty please???), which makes discussion really interesting but also more difficult.

Iconoclast

Yes, we definitely have a significant language barrier. My experience is that this stuff is extremely hard to language. One moment I think I have a grasp on it but when I try to language it I get very confused. Then when I read what I wrote I see that I am not saying it very well but when I try to correct I get confused again. Bonhoeffer argues that the knowledge of good and evil is now our very fallen essence. Which to me means that it is one of if not our very deepest presupposition or filter that we view everything through. Our very language is completely infected with this presupposition. The very word judgment is now almost useless. Bonhoeffer tries to language this issue by showing how there must be two very distinct and, in fact, polar opposite kinds of “judgment” talked about in the Bible – one that is condemnation and accusation and one that is pure loving action. Very confusing.

I apologize if I am coming across with most if not all mismatching statements. It is really an attempt to clarify thoughts by assuming that with just this or that clarification we will somehow then be oriented in what we are saying. Perhaps it would be more helpful to state what I am hearing you say first, then match and then mismatch. If this continues to be frustrating or unproductive for you please don’t feel that you need to respond for my sake. I very much enjoy the dialogue if for no other reason than just to try and find ways to “language” this stuff and to learn.

Electra

I’m going to try a different approach. The only way we can know that the outcome of our actions toward others will be loving (which seems to be what you are interested in) is if the only criteria for our knowledge of good and evil is Christ crucified (as opposed to having ourselves as the criteria).

Iconoclast

I hear you saying that it is possible ahead of time to know for sure that a particular action will be done with a loving intent and will indeed produce a loving result as long as we are not operating out of our knowledge of good and evil but rather operating out of Christ as our center.

I hear you saying that operating out of our own knowledge of good and evil means having ourselves as the “criteria”. Where as, operating out of Christ as our center means that our knowledge of good and evil must place Christ crucified as the only “criteria”.

I agree that when operating out of Christ as our center that we can be assured that our action will be done with a loving intent.

I disagree (assuming you are even trying to say this of course) that we can be assured that the impact will in fact be loving. This is not to say that then we are now somehow guilty before the Lord and we are bad again in any way when it isn't – unless of course we go into denial that we made a mistake and hide or blame. When we hide or blame we are right back in the fall and by definition no longer operating out of Christ as our center. So then, how do we know that the impact will, in fact, be loving? We only know this “probabilistically” to the extent of our God given abilities and the learning we have done.

I am a little confused about what you mean by “criteria” – I will assume you mean something like “ultimate source” or “ultimate authority”.

I agree that operating out of our own knowledge of good and evil means that we are the ultimate source or criteria for whether something is good or evil.

I disagree (again, assuming that you are even trying to say this) that operating out of Christ as our center means that “our knowledge of good and evil” has any meaning whatsoever – even trying to say that it means that “our knowledge of good and evil” must place Christ and him crucified as the ultimate source or criteria – can at best be a transitional statement that immediately results in the total annihilation of “our knowledge of good and evil”. We truly no longer know our own good or our own evil – nor do we know another’s good or another’s evil. When we give alms our left hand no longer knows what our right hand is doing. We absolutely do not know whether our actions will produce loving results or not. We do know to the extent that our conscious self can know (and we have trained it to know) that we are acting out of a loving intent. But we completely give the action to God – not knowing for sure whether we have done good or ill – we give it completely to Him – never looking back and judging ourselves for being good or bad based on the result – we always and only act on faith and in total trust that God will bless this action and cause it to produce a loving result – neither do we then act only based on “intentionality” as though we don’t care whether the result was loving or not – we absolutely learn from the results we have produced – knowing that all we know is fallible and “probabilistic” – even whether the result was in fact loving and even whether it really was our intention that was primarily responsible for producing that result.

It is not necessary or even desirable that we are able to perfectly produce loving results every time we take an action. The very thought that we should be able to, when acted upon, brings about the fall – for it accuses God – it seeks to be God.

Doc’s SATPOE:

TWT1 - Love entails freedom.
TWT2 - Freedom entails risk.
TWT3 - Risk entails moral responsibility.
TWT4 - Moral responsibility is proportionate to the power to influence.

Our power to influence loving results is limited by our God given abilities. God will not intervene to help us produce loving results when we act out of ourselves – out of our own knowledge of good and evil. When we operate out of Christ as our center and freely give up our action to God then and only then do we free God to bless our action and cause loving results to come out of it – even when we actually screw it up. In fact, both can happen at the same time and in a way that we can see. I can take an action and give it completely to God. I can then see how I screwed up and learn from that to do it differently and at the exact same time I can also see how it ended up working out in the end to produce a loving result. All because of the nature of probabilities and the Spirit of God among us.

I apologize if this comes across as me preaching at you – I am really just trying to get this thought written out.

Electra

When our criteria for knowing good and evil is the cross, it doesn’t matter what a sinner’s story is (i.e. how excusable or blameworthy their actions are in light of their history), it only matters that Jesus died for them, therefore we are free to love them unconditionally and to the utmost of our God-given and Spirit-inspired gifts and abilities.

Iconoclast

What I hear you saying is that Christ choosing to die on the cross for sinners is the ultimate source or criteria or expression of what knowing good and evil really entails.

Therefore our own knowledge of good and evil, which seeks to determine what help or love a person deserves depending on how excusable or blameworthy their actions are, has no meaning or validity. Jesus dying for them effectively invalidates everything we know about good and evil and therefore we are free to die to this false knowledge, this false understanding, and completely love them to the extent we are capable of actually producing loving results at the time.

I couldn’t agree more.

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

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 7/12/2002 7:40 PM (GMT -6)

Just to confuse things some more

, I am going to respond to the fresh feedback to other posts here as though they were to me. After all, its all about ME right?

Iconoclast to Electra

I hear you saying that it is possible ahead of time to know for sure that a particular action will be done with a loving intent and will indeed produce a loving result as long as we are not operating out of our knowledge of good and evil but rather operating out of Christ as our center.

Modes: No. I am quite certain that Electra is not interested in establishing that sort of certainty. We don't need to place security in loving results. We need to trust God. We may very well not produce a loving result, who are we to judge?

I. to E: I hear you saying that operating out of our own knowledge of good and evil means having ourselves as the “criteria”. Where as, operating out of Christ as our center means that our knowledge of good and evil must place Christ crucified as the only “criteria”.

Modes: Yes. By this, I take her to mean that we crucify our selves and follow God's leading in the same manner Christ did.

I to E.: I agree that when operating out of Christ as our center that we can be assured that our action will be done with a loving intent.

Modes: Actually, I think this is a misunderstanding. Electra would not say we can have this assurance at all. It's not about results that we can see or verify. Who's intent does the second sentence refer to? Ours or Christ's? How does this jive with what comes next?

I. to E.: I disagree (assuming you are even trying to say this of course) that we can be assured that the impact will in fact be loving. This is not to say that then we are now somehow guilty before the Lord and we are bad again in any way when it isn't – unless of course we go into denial that we made a mistake and hide or blame. When we hide or blame we are right back in the fall and by definition no longer operating out of Christ as our center. So then, how do we know that the impact will, in fact, be loving? We only know this “probabilistically” to the extent of our God given abilities and the learning we have done.

Modes: Do you or do you not think that our actions can be judge loving or not loving by ourselves or another human being? You see to have asserted both.

I hope I don't come of as unpleasant, I am just trying to figure out who thinks what here. Love ya all!

"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

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/12/2002 8:23 PM (GMT -6)

Modes

Iconoclast to Electra: I agree that when operating out of Christ as our center that we can be assured that our action will be done with a loving intent.

Modes: Actually, I think this is a misunderstanding. Electra would not say we can have this assurance at all. It's not about results that we can see or verify. Who's intent does the second sentence refer to? Ours or Christ's? How does this jive with what comes next?

Iconoclast

I am trying to separate the concepts of our intent versus our impact or results. We all have an intent which produces behavior which produces an impact or results.

I am asserting that we can and do basically know our own intent. We know whether we are acting out of a loving intent or acting out of a spiteful intent.

I then go on to assert that we do not know our impact except to a certain level of probability.

Modes

Do you or do you not think that our actions can be judged loving or not loving by ourselves or another human being? You seem to have asserted both.

Iconoclast

I think that this can only be answered within the context of the separation of Intent versus Impact.

I pretty much know my intent (at least to a very high degree of probability unless I have some serious behavioral disorders). It is harder for me to know my impact. I assert that we know our impact probabilistically. Killing someone has a much higher probability of producing an unloving result than say smiling at them and saying hello.

You pretty mcuh know the impact I am having on you. You however do not know my intent except to a certain degree of probability. Again, if I try to kill someone they probably have more reason to believe that my intent is negative toward them than if I smiled at them.

I assert that one of the major negative consequences of stealing the knowledge of good and evil for ourselves is that we now believe we can both judge our impact based on our intent as well as judge someone else’s intent based on their impact.

We think that our truly loving intent of telling gay people that they are damned unless they are celibate the rest of their lives is enough to produce a loving impact on them. And if it doesn’t then they are at fault. No research, no data, and no checking to detect and correct our errors.

I cannot judge my impact and you cannot judge my intent. Yet, I can ask you what my impact is and you can ask me what my intent is. Remember the old joke about how heaven and hell are exactly the same: they are both long banquet tables full of the best food one could imagine. And in both heaven and hell each person has a 3 foot spoon attached to their hand so that no matter how hard they try they just cannot get the food to their own mouths. And how in hell everyone is starving and in heaven everyone is feeding each other.

This is how the knowledge of good and evil blocks love. When I judge my impact without regard to what your experience is of my behavior and when you judge my intent without asking me what I meant, is it possible to love one 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

Edited by - Iconoclast on 07/13/2002 01:30:25 AM

brandi
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118

Posted 7/13/2002 1:40 AM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast you asked me in an earlier post

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.

I replied that...
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?)

Then in your last post to ModesofThought you said

quote:
This is how the knowledge of good and evil blocks love. When I judge my impact without regard to what your experience is of my behavior and when you judge my intent without asking me what I meant, is it possible to love one another?

I want to ask you, Iconoclast, why are we to be so concerned with the impact we are having IF we are following the Holy Spirit's leading? I totally agree with you that our intention needs to be bathed in LOVE but we also need to be operating with the FAITH that IF we submit to the Holy Spirit's leading, and put on LOVE as our motivating intention, then the impact we have cannot and must not be the criteria we use to know if we are walking in the Spirit.

God will not judge us on the impact we had on others IF the intention of our actions were done out of love and submission to the Holy Spirit, BUT God will judge what's in our heart and if lived our life hot or lukewarm.
Revelation 3:16 16. So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth

Iconoclast

quote:
We think that our truly loving intent of telling gay people that they are damned unless they are celibate the rest of their lives is enough to produce a loving impact on them. And if it doesn’t then they are at fault. No research, no data, and no checking to detect and correct our errors.

This to me would be operating out of the knowledge of good and evil since we would be judging what we "think" the impact should be and if the person does not respond in the way we "think" they should then we blame the other person like Adam blamed Eve... I can see how this type of presupposition would NOT be of God since ONLY God can make the decision of who will be damned for ONLY God can judge! I do think a truly loving intention we can have is to encourage others (as the Holy Spirit leads) into a relationship with Jesus Christ and once they are in Christ I also believe a loving intention we are instructed to have is to encourage and exhort one another along.
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.

So, in regard with a person who is gay, I believe that we need to be operating with FAITH, HOPE, and LOVE IF for some reason we are feeling led by the Holy Spirit to speak truth. HOWEVER, I believe it will be rare when the Holy Spirit will lead us to directly confront an individual about a particular sin and this is where I agree with the log/speck teaching.

When we are operating with love and feel prompted by the Holy Spirit to speak truth in love we cannot do so with the intention of TRYING to get the other person to CHANGE (judging the impact) we can only do so with the intention of submitting to the Holy Spirit and allowing the Holy Spirit to work from there. Our goal should be one where we are being used as a vehicle for God to work. Our job is to be walking in the LIGHT and encouraging others to do the same. We are NOT to judge anyone's twilight (sin nature) but we are to be encouraging each other along to walk in the light instead of the twilight. God will spit the lukewarm believer out so the loving thing to do is to encourage one another along AS THE HOLY SPIRIT LEADS.

Iconoclast, wouldn't you agree that we should be much more concerned with being submissive to the Holy Spirit's leading then to the impact we are having IF indeed our INTENTION is bathed in LOVE?

Thanks,
~Brandi~

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/13/2002 10:31 AM (GMT -6)

Doc

Are there not times when we must simply accept divine authority? What if we can’t determine whether a behavior is hurtful to us or not? After all, our knowledge is so limited. Should we not accept on the authority of God’s word that sex outside of marriage is wrong, whether we can demonstrate this empircally or not? Do WE have to prove it to ourselves before we obey it? And if so, are we really under God’s authority, or simply operating out of our own rational authority? How would you respond to this criticism?

Iconoclast

Yes, there are times when we must simply accept divine authority. However, Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. It is the not the End of wisdom. Love is the end and the goal of wisdom and we are ultimately responsible (to the extent we have actually been given the freedom) for producing loving results. Which means (it requires and results in) becoming a person who loves.

I am assuming that by “accept divine authority” you mean “accept an absolute command or rule or “should” from what we consider to be an authoritative source – for example the Bible says that “sex outside of marriage is wrong”.

I would further say that we must at all times accept, abide by and live in the absolute command to love God and to love one another because we accept the divine authority of God revealed to us in Jesus Christ. It is not about whether this is good or evil – it is simply the command we have been given by our creator – and this command requires us to accept it and live in it at all times. But again, fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, it is not the end. We accept this command because we fear an authority; but when we live in it and actually learn to love God then we keep it because we love God. “If you love me, you will obey my commandments”. Obedience produces Love which produces obedience which produces Love. At the same time are we really keeping this command to love if we are doing so out of obedience? Couldn’t we equally say that really only Love produces a choice to Love God and Love our neighbor which produces Love? Love produces obedience which produces Love? Don’t we really only choose to obey because we come to realize that we are unconditionally loved by God as revealed to us by Jesus? Don’t we really only choose to Love God because He loves us?

I would say that we accept “divine” authority all the time for a large chunk of our behavior. Psychologists call this our “parent tapes” or our “critical parent” or just our “parent”. These are rules or “shoulds” that we have in our head that were built up within us at an early age by our parents and other authoritative figures (church leaders or Sunday school teachers for example).

As a “child” it is imperative at the peril of our lives to obey our “parent”. “Do not cross the road without looking both ways.” “Do not eat pork (you may get trichinosis).” “Clean your pots and pans really good before (and after?) eating (germs will grow and kill you if you do not).”

As we mature into an “adult” it is the very definition of neurosis to be obeying our “parent” when the rule or “should” no longer fits with the reality that we are confronting. To have a healthy “adult” within us means NOT to disregard our “parent” (we must respect our “parent”) but rather to assess the “parent” rules in the “light” of new data that we have access to. “You have been given the keys to the Kingdom.” “What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” This is freedom. But not freedom from the command but rather freedom for the command; to always and only give the most powerful effect we can to the absolute command to Love God and Love one another. Which, given the new understanding that our “adult” gains comes not out of some ultimate obedience to a command by a divine authority but rather because we see for ourselves that Love is a beautiful choice. It is who we really are (becoming) which means we are finally being fully “obedient” to being the creature that we were created to be by the creator. We are that which we are becoming by choosing to become that which we were created to be. Obedience and Love are like “entangled particles”. To separate Obedience from Love means to no longer be obedient to the creatureliness that we were created to be but rather can only mean to seek to be obedient to the god that we think we should be – to be obedient to our own knowledge of good and evil.

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

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/13/2002 7:20 PM (GMT -6)

brandi

I want to ask you, Iconoclast, why are we to be so concerned with the impact we are having IF we are following the Holy Spirit's leading? I totally agree with you that our intention needs to be bathed in LOVE but we also need to be operating with the FAITH that IF we submit to the Holy Spirit's leading, and put on LOVE as our motivating intention, then the impact we have cannot and must not be the criteria we use to know if we are walking in the Spirit.

Iconoclast

Let me turn this around. If we don’t care about the impact we are having (the fruit we are bearing) then how can we be said to be following the Holy Spirit’s leading?

If our faith doesn’t produce works is it really faith?

Is it possible to truly love someone and not care what happens to them? To not care whether our help is truly helpful or not? Doesn’t love mean that we stop “sorting by self” (trying to assess whether our intention is pure and whether we are really following the Spirit’s leading) and start “sorting by other” (determining what another person needs, designing action / behavior to meet the need and then assessing whether our actions are actually producing loving results – detecting and correcting errors in our behavior)?

If you are trying to say that IF we are following the Holy Spirit’s leading then we will KNOW that we are producing the most loving impact, then I would say – by definition, the goal is about actually producing loving results – producing the most loving impact. In which case, how is it possible that we don’t actually care about the impact we are having? Why wouldn’t we want to measure the impact to make sure that we are indeed following the Holy Spirit’s leading to the best of our ability? If we have loving intention and are following the Holy Spirit’s leading to the best of our ability but we are actually producing division and strife do we care about that? Should this cause us to at least reassess our behavioral strategies for trying to implement our loving intention? Could the Spirit be leading us to learn about our behavior and how perhaps the things we want to do we are not, in fact, doing, and the things that we don’t want to do we are, in fact, doing?

If you are trying to say that the ultimate goal we are trying to achieve is to have the most loving intention and to be fully submitted to the Holy Spirit’s leading, then I would say – by definition the goal is about ourselves. It is about ourselves being “good.” I assume that you are not trying to say this.

brandi

God will not judge us on the impact we had on others IF the intention of our actions were done out of love and submission to the Holy Spirit, BUT God will judge what's in our heart and if we lived our life hot or lukewarm.

Iconoclast

I agree. I don’t think that God will give us a hard time because our impact did not perfectly match with our intention. I am not trying to say that we will be judged by God based on our impact. That we are somehow saved or not depending on whether we are really good at producing loving results or not. If you hear me saying this then I am saying it wrong. However, if we don’t care what our impact is, if we don’t look with our own eyes and ears to determine whether we are actually producing loving results, and adjust our behavior when we see that we are not, then how can it possibly be true that we really have a loving intention? What does it mean, “if the vine produces no fruit it will be cast off”?

On the other hand, if we are extremely focused on how we are impacting others – whether our behavior is building them up or tearing them down – won’t we get really good at it? Won’t we produce a hundred fold?

brandi

Iconoclast:

quote:

We think that our truly loving intent of telling gay people that they are damned unless they are celibate the rest of their lives is enough to produce a loving impact on them. And if it doesn’t then they are at fault. No research, no data, and no checking to detect and correct our errors.

This to me would be operating out of the knowledge of good and evil since we would be judging what we "think" the impact should be and if the person does not respond in the way we "think" they should then we blame the other person like Adam blamed Eve... I can see how this type of presupposition would NOT be of God since ONLY God can make the decision of who will be damned for ONLY God can judge!

Iconoclast

I agree. We can’t judge. Why even try? Let's just find out what their current real need is and seek to meet it. Let's just set a goal of seeking to have such a loving impact on them that they feel outrageously loved. My understanding is that we are to be known for our outrageous love – that this is what will lead people to a real relationship with Jesus.

brandi

Iconoclast, wouldn't you agree that we should be much more concerned with being submissive to the Holy Spirit's leading then to the impact we are having IF indeed our INTENTION is bathed in LOVE?

Iconoclast

If it is true that we are to be known for our love - if it is true that this will lead others to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ - then doesn’t this mean that we are mostly concerned with them actually experiencing us as being loving? Doesn’t this mean that our impact on them must be seen and felt as love? Doesn’t our impact have to actually be positive in their lives? If they see us as having a loving intention but what we actually do impacts them negatively – they are not, in fact, being loved – will they want what we have? And what exactly do we have if when we give it to others it doesn’t actually help them?

I would say that since we are so outrageously and unconditionally loved by God, that since He has had such a wonderfully loving impact on us, that we now want to have a wonderfully loving impact on others. So much so that we earnestly seek the Holy Spirit’s leading in order to help us have a more loving intention more of the time, to be more aware of how we are impacting others so we can learn how to love them better, and to bless our actions so they produce loving results even when we screw up.

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 07/14/2002 12:36:24 AM

brandi
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118

Posted 7/14/2002 3:03 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Is it possible to truly love someone and not care what happens to them? To not care whether our help is truly helpful or not?

I want to restate what Electra brought up:

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?

I believe we need to care about what happens to other people and this should be the reason we would speak truth to them in the first place. However, I DON'T think we need to be concerned that every time we speak truth to someone they are having a positive impact from us IF we are being led by the Spirit. Using the examples that Electra brought up above, Jesus wasn't primarily interested in how his action might "look" as much as he was interested in following the Father's leading. The most loving action may not always look on the outside surface like it is the most loving way to act but to be so concerned with making sure we don't offend, and to be so concerned with how the other person interprets it is called "ENABLING" which is a part of "CODEPENDENCY."

Iconoclast

quote:
Doesn’t our impact have to actually be positive in their lives? If they see us as having a loving intention but what we actually do impacts them negatively – they are not, in fact, being loved – will they want what we have? And what exactly do we have if when we give it to others it doesn’t actually help them?

Helping someone and having a "positive" impact do not necessarily coincide in every particular situation. Many times throughout the scriptures God's actions towards people may not have come off as having the most positive impact but that NEVER meant that he didn't outrageously love, it only meant that God was showing "tough love" because it was the best, most loving response in the situation.

Thanks for the interaction,
~Brandi~

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 7/14/2002 3:58 AM (GMT -6)

Brandi said:

The most loving action may not always look on the outside surface like it is the most loving way to act but to be so concerned with making sure we don't offend, and to be so concerned with how the other person interprets it is called "ENABLING" which is a part of "CODEPENDENCY."

Semeia:

It seems to me that Iconoclast has repeatedly brought up Alcoholics Anonymous' interventions as an example of a loving stop action. How is his version of loving action "enabling" or "codependency"? In my experience, an intervention that is done right is not experienced as an attack by the recipient. An intervention that is done right IS experienced as loving action by the recipient, even when it doesn't work. In fact, the whole point is to get the recipient to experience the intervention as love, or it WON'T work.

A good marriage therapist teaches a couple how to give feedback and confront issues in a way that is LOVING and NOT attacking. If your spouse feels attacked, the feedback becomes meaningless and is not taken in. Therefore, love has not occurred, only anger and resentment. There is nothing codependent about framing feedback in the language of love. It is quite possible to let an alcoholic (or an adulterer, or a gambler, etc.) know the impact they are having on you without attacking them. In fact the best way of communicating the hurt is one in which they experience the love rather than the anger. Now of course we fail at this all the time, being human. But it is the goal we should be seeking. Incidentally, one reason codependency occurs is because people think that the only expression of confrontation and feedback is anger, and they have experienced the negative consequences of anger and seek to mask it. The overcoming of codependency happens when the person is guided to a way of communicating the hurt in the relationship in a way that is honest but not attacking. That is where real growth is possible.

In response to Electra's quote that you mention, I would say that Jesus knew those things because he was the son of God. I only feel capable of giving people advice when I have known them for years and they seek my advice, and even then I would be completely unable to direct someone in terms of how many possessions they should have. God doesn't whisper these things in my ear. I have a hard enough time trying to figure out how to be less angry and more loving from moment to moment. Jesus also went around healing people of their blindness. As much as I would like to be able to do that, I would be a quack if I went around offering my services in such a way, although perhaps I could drive someone to the optomologist. And if I really, really wanted to do that maybe I could go to medical school and become an eye surgeon.

But the idea that we can behave in God's will simply by "hearing" the spirit tell us what to do in our relations with people does not match up with my view of reality. I find that when God speaks to me all I can hear is, "I love you. Love, love, love." I have never felt God lead me to be hurtful to someone, even if I thought it was for their own good. I frequently fall short with my children: I find myself getting angry while I try to teach them the right way to behave. I pray to God to help me to love them better, and I constantly feel his urging for more gentleness and love. If they do not feel my love, all else is a noisy gong and clanging cymbal.

Brandi said:

Helping someone and having a "positive" impact do not necessarily coincide in every particular situation. Many times throughout the scriptures God's actions towards people may not have come off as having the most positive impact but that NEVER meant that he didn't outrageously love, it only meant that God was showing "tough love" because it was the best, most loving response in the situation.

Semeia:

No one is speaking against "tough love." But we can only do "tough love" in a close relationship with someone, and it only works when it is done in a loving way. I give my children consequences all the time, which they experience as "tough love." But I am in no position to give someone else's children consequences. It all depends on the relationship.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

brandi
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118

Posted 7/14/2002 3:59 AM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast

quote:
My understanding is that we are to be known for our outrageous love – that this is what will lead people to a real relationship with Jesus.

Iconoclast, I have appreciated our interaction so much! I know that there are some areas we are not in total agreement in but I also know that the one area we agree on is that we are to be about LOVE. God is love and he/she who abides in love abides in God and God in him/her!

This has been on my heart since I wrote my last post so I need to write this. I want to make clear that I do NOT think we, for the most part, should be going about speaking at all. God gave us TWO ears to listen, TWO eyes to see what's going on around us, but ONE mouth to speak with. I think this is no coincidence. I believe God created us physically this way because of the importance of listening both with our ears (verbally) and with our eyes (nonverbally). People need to be listened to and know that what they have to say is important to us and absolutely important to God. God wants us to come to him and talk with him so listening to people might help them to begin to realize that God wants to listen too. God desires us to converse with him constantly "Pray without ceasing."

People need to be validated for who they ARE in Christ much more than they need to be reprimanded for who they ARE NOT yet. So, I believe that speaking the truth in love is what we are called to do BUT I also believe that we are NOT called to do this all the time nor most of the time. Iconoclast we agree on this basic thing: People need to be outrageously loved -- this will lead them into a relationship with Jesus.

Thanks again for the interaction!
~Brandi~

Edited by - brandi on 07/14/2002 2:25:11 PM

brandi
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118

Posted 7/14/2002 4:17 AM (GMT -6)

Semeia

quote:
, I would say that Jesus knew those things because he was the son of God. I only feel capable of giving people advice when I have known them for years and they seek my advice, and even then I would be completely unable to direct someone in terms of how many possessions they should have. God doesn't whisper these things in my ear. I have a hard enough time trying to figure out how to be less angry and more loving from moment to moment. Jesus also went around healing people of their blindness. As much as I would like to be able to do that, I would be a quack if I went around offering my services in such a way, although perhaps I could drive someone to the optomologist. And if I really, really wanted to do that maybe I could go to medical school and become an eye surgeon.

Semeia, I am glad that you have rejoined the discussion. I have missed you! Now, concerning your quote above, Jesus told us that we would do greater things than he had done. He also told us that he called us friends for he had revealed to us all that his Father has spoken. As we draw closer to God, he draws closer to us and we can hear his voice clearer. We were given the Holy Spirit to continue on in our Masters footsteps...

I want to share with you a passage that I believe speaks about what I have been trying to say throughout my interaction on here. I received this during my prayer time last night.

1Thessalonians 5: 14-23 "14.We exhort you to admonish the unruly; cheer the fainthearted; support the weak; be patient toward all. 15. See that no one returns evil to any other; always seek one another's good and, for the matter, the good of all. 16. Rejoice always, 17. never cease praying, 18. render constant thanks; such id God's will for you in Christ Jesus. 19. Do not stifle the spirit. 20. Do not despise prophecies. 21. Test everything; retain what is good. 22. Avoid any semblance of evil. 23. May the God of peace make you perfect in holiness. May he preserve you whole and entire, spirit, soul, and body, irreproachable at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Blessings to you, Semeia!
~Brandi~

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/14/2002 3:30 PM (GMT -6)

brandi

I want to make clear that I do NOT think we, for the most part, should be going about speaking at all. God gave us TWO ears to listen, TWO eyes to see what's going on around us, but ONE mouth to speak with.

Iconoclast

I really like that. It reminds me of all the proverbs that talk about the wisdom of refraining from speech. "Even the fool who keeps his mouth shut will be thought wise" (Proverbs paraphrase). Good thing this medium is written rather than oral.

I had a leadership coach who once firmly held my gaze and told me: "Iconoclast! Always, always listen!" He told me that leadership is much more about listening and understanding where people are coming from than it is about talking and telling them where you are coming from. Another time when I was somewhat discouraged and wondering what my purpose was one of my coach's partners told me: "Look around you and find the need, therein lies your purpose."

brandi

Iconoclast we agree on this basic thing: People need to be outrageously loved -- this will lead them into a relationship with Jesus.

Iconoclast

To me this means that we agree on 99%. The 1% we disagree on is whether this tactic produces more loving results or that tactic produces more loving results. And what a great thing to dialogue on; how we can be more loving! Proverbs 27:17 "Iron sharpens iron, and one person sharpens the wits of another."

Loving the dialogue 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

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 7/14/2002 3:39 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks for the welcome back, Brandi.

Brandi said:

As we draw closer to God, he draws closer to us and we can hear his voice clearer.

Semeia:

I agree. But I don't believe that God's voice ever goes against the direct revelation of God in Jesus Christ. (And if it appears to we should be very suspicious of whether or not we are hearing God or something else.) And Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. The way I feel love is when someone impacts me in a loving way.

God never leads me to be less than loving to anyone. More often than not he asks me to be more loving than I feel capable of being. A few years ago Iconoclast went through an incredibly difficult situation in which he was betrayed in a brutal way by several people close to him. In the darkest hours of that experience we prayed and prayed for God’s guidance. And the answer came back loud and clear: treat these people as if they had your best interest at heart. Even though all the evidence is to the contrary, in spite of their betrayal, behave as if they meant well. Remember that they too are loved by God. Remember that Christ died for them. Treat them as if they simply and unconsciously made a misstep. Trying to follow that message from God is one of the hardest things we’ve ever had to do, particularly for Iconoclast on the front lines of the situation. It was a message to love even our betrayers. It was gut-wrenchingly difficult at times. And yet to the extent to which we were able to do it we discovered peace and healing, and over time the love was a self-fulfilling prophecy, that spread to everyone involved. I can’t say much more than that without giving details, but suffice it to say that it was a viscerally transformative experience in which out of enormous pain God blessed us with a proof statement for the transfiguring power of forgiveness and love.

Brandi said:

1Thessalonians 5: 14-23 "14.We exhort you to admonish the unruly…”

Semeia:

I think where we disagree is on what this means: “to admonish the unruly.” In Old Testament times the unruly were often admonished by being stoned. Jesus clearly showed a different way. Iconoclast and I would argue that there is sound psychological and scientific evidence that shows what type of feedback is effective in changing behavior. If we love people and seek to help them when they are suffering in a negative behavior, knowing how to effectively influence them should be of utmost importance to us. It’s pretty clear from the evidence that going around rebuking people of their sinfulness isn’t effective. If people intend to “speak the truth in love” but they are perceived as being attacking, then neither truth nor love has happened. It falls flat; it bears no fruit. If we truly love someone then we care deeply about the impact we are having on them. If we do not, then we are elevating our own good intentions above the actual result of love. God does not ask us to have good intentions. (How does that go – the road to hell is paved with good intentions?) God asks us to love.

Love is relational. It comes to life only in relationship. In a sense it has to be given in order for it to exist. And in a sense it has to be received for it to exist. Love is not a thought it is an action. Love as a thought is stillborn: it could have had life, it had the seeds of life, but until it finds expression in a concrete action it cannot be said to have come to life.

If we are to love we must find the language of the individual in front of us. We don’t paint a painting as an expression of love for a blind person. If a husband thinks sweet talk and a back rub is an expression of love, but a wife thinks doing the dishes is an expression of love, should they stick with their good intent? Or should they seek to understand the other, and speak the other’s language of love? It seems to me that loving someone is all about seeking to understand, and seeking to walk in their shoes. Isn’t that what Jesus did, when he became man? Isn’t that an expression of how far he was willing to go to walk in our shoes? Isn’t that the fullest expression of love that is possible, to take on another’s pain, and all their failures and shortcomings, and forgive them utterly in the name of love, even as they seek to destroy you? With that image as the fullest example of God incarnate, love incarnate, what the full expression of love looks like, how is it that we believe for a second that our impact doesn’t matter, as long as we have the right intentions?

The Pharisees believed that they had the right intentions. They were upholding the law of God. They believed that they were doing God’s work. But they mistook their good intentions as the goal, and they refused to consider the reality of the people in front of them. They saw their job as externally applying the law while assuming their own righteousness. But they got it backward. The law is there for the doing, and the assumption to be made is that everyone in God’s eyes has unsurpassable worth.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/14/2002 5:22 PM (GMT -6)

Modes

Q: Do you mean that principles and criteria are all fallible and cannot serve as sound bases for loving action? To this I would give an affirmative answer.

Iconoclast

I struggle with this a bit. I certainly agree that principles and criteria are fallible. That they are never absolute. I agree that this is not our ultimate basis for action. Only the command of God can be our ultimate basis for action. I agree that they cannot serve as the ONLY sound bases for loving action. However, it seems to me that they are an extremely important guide for producing loving action in the concrete situations that we face. The analogy that comes to mind is Newtonian Mechanics. Sir Isaac Newton discovered principles of force and motion that are an extremely sound basis for action. Using them we can send a man to the moon and back. Without them we are toast. However, Newtonian Mechanics is only an approximation of reality. Relativity Theory is a much better approximation than Newtonian Mechanics. Without using the better approximations of Relativity Theory our satellites have a greater tendency toward orbital decay. At the same time even Relativity Theory cannot account for the reality of random hits by small particles on our satellites. Thus, we must constantly measure the actual orbital trajectories against the ultimate goal; Keep Them Up There. We must measure the actual impact of what is happening, compare it to our goal and make minor adjustments. If at some point we become aware of a consistent pattern of behavior leading to orbital decay then we seek to understand where our principles are not accounting for some phenomenon. This typically leads to better understanding. I call this whole process learning. When followed using a spirit of always seeking a better model of reality – always seeking truth in this sense – then the result is Wisdom.

We have a command (a goal), we have tools to accomplish that goal (principles, criteria, sensory apparatus and so on), and we have the ability to learn.

I think the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Truth) leads us to deeply understand and be motivated by the commandment of God (to Love) and then leads us to Wisdom as we seek to more effectively implement His command. Principles are simply tools to help us execute His command. They are useless if we do not use our sensory apparatus (our detectors) to directly monitor whether we are actually giving effect to His command. However, if we did not have them, how could we possibly design behavior (action) that produces loving results?

Modes

The short answer here is: yes. That is what I am suggesting. It may look like loving behavior but if it does not proceed from faith, then it is sin.

Iconoclast

I agree that if our goal is NOT to give effect to God’s command then following a loving principle is sin. In fact, I would argue that it is a much greater sin than seeking earnestly to give effect to God’s command and NOT following a loving principle. B. says that it is much worse for a child of the devil to tell the truth than for a man of God to lie.

Modes

Iconoclast: Are you trying to say that truly loving action requires a much deeper knowledge than can be captured by any principles or criteria?

The "knowledge" here is misleading. What we need to know is that we are sinners and are forgiven. That's all we really need to know. From there, behavior is a matter of obedience. Not obedience to "a knowledge," principles, or criteria.... but to the Spirit. Romans 8 again. Sorry to be so redundant.

Iconoclast

I certainly agree that it is NOT about being obedient to a “knowledge”. I agree that this is indeed operating out of our own knowledge of good and evil, because it really means being obedient to ourselves.

Modes

Iconoclast: 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?

Yes, we cannot rely on any codified knowledge and no, this is not about an intuition. Its actually not about us. It is about a God who speaks and a people who listen. Christianity is rooted in a self-revealing God.

Iconoclast

Perhaps the disconnect here is that you are specifically and only talking about what our ultimate goal or “referent” for our behavior is. I agree that it is God’s command. And that God’s command is a living command. It is NEVER about some abstract set of knowledge or rules.

I totally agree with this. What I would like to assert is that since God’s primary and overriding command – his Will – is that we love one another, then in general we can say two very important things relating to how we treat the Law (principles, rules, knowledge):

One) We must measure our action based on the impact we are having on others – are we producing “fruit” – are our actions producing loving results or not? We know this through our “detectors” - through our sensory apparatus. This is what it means to see reality as it is and to see into the depths of things. Does this require the Spirit of Truth operating within us? Absolutely. It requires that we totally put away our own knowledge of good and evil – that we throw off this filter – this grid which we see the world through and allow our sensory apparatus to see it as it really is.

Two) Principles, rules, knowledge are tools that we use to help us guide our behavior. They are never absolute – they are only probabilistic – which means they are subject to God’s command to Love, which means when they are not producing a loving impact we of course want to update them. This is what it means to learn. Jesus came not to abolish the Law, He came to fulfill it. Without principles and rules, without any laws, all would be utter chaos and meaninglessness. It can be shown that the synaptic circuits in our brain form very complex rule structures and that it is impossible for us to do even the simplest of things without invoking these rules. We have a "rule" engine in our head that first and foremost we must submit to God's command but secondly in order to actually execute His command we must bring our actual rules more into alignment with His command. This is a process of learning – of being transformed – at its simplest it just means that we now measure the effectiveness of these rules based on whether they are actually implementing loving results and if they are we reinforce them and if they are not we modify them.

To assign “good” or “evil” to different rules blocks the process of learning. It blocks Wisdom. And it ultimately blocks love. Why? Because we no longer have freedom to actually produce the end result. Even when we have a Relativity Theory we must still measure based on the result. If we think Relativity Theory is the ultimate good then we won’t adjust our satellite trajectories when see them decaying. Are we then saying that we must assign “good” or “evil” to the results we produce? To this I would say yes and no.

My No would be that it is not about “good” and “evil” at all. It is only about God’s command: to Love. We are measuring whether our results are in alignment with this command or not. Good and Evil are still reserved for God. We are only doing to the best of our ability what He has commanded us to do.

My Yes would be that today we all have a language that we use to communicate with and the words “good” and “evil” when used in the context of a concrete result or impact are good approximations for determining whether the result is in alignment with God’s command and, I would argue, this is an objective evaluation. We pretty much all agree when a result is good or evil when we are able to actually experience the situation. We all agree that the bombing of the trade towers was an evil result. We all agree that the genocide of the Canaanites was an evil result. Love never wishes this. Now, we know that God ordered the genocide of the Canaanites which means that He must have been presented with a much greater evil result that ordering this result prevented. We all agree that the death of Jesus on the cross was an evil result. Yet, again, we know that this is God’s plan for salvation, he ordered it. Thus, we may be required to act in a way that we know produces an evil result in order to prevent a much more evil result. B. deciding to assassinate Hitler is an example of this.

This is how I conceptualize B.’s combining of simplicity with wisdom.

Doc posted

The Way of Simplicity and Wisdom

These approaches, argues Bonhoeffer, reflect "noble humanity." He does not judge them. They mean well. But there approaches all fail, at least in times such as Bonhoeffer is in. Against these, Bonhoeffer hammers out a different approach.

Bonhoeffer argues that the only approach that will have any real effect in confronting the evil of his age is for a person "to combine simplicity with wisdom" (70). To be simple is "to fix one’s eye solely on the simple truth of God at a time when all concepts are being confused, distorted, and turned upside-down." This person is "not fettered by principles, but bound by love for God." Because of this, "he has been set free from the problems and conflicts of ethical decision. They no longer oppress him. He belongs simply and solely to God and to the will of God." He can therefore look squarely at the ambiguous world "freely and without prejudice" (70). He sees reality "as it is." He sees "into the depths of things." This is why only such a person can be "wise." (70).

The wise person, fixed on God, "is aware of the limited receptiveness of reality for principles; for he knows that reality is not built upon principles but that it rests upon the living and creating God." He recognizes that "reality cannot be helped by even the purest of principles… but only by the living God. Principles are only tools in God’s hand, soon to be thrown away as unserviceable." This is wisdom and simplicity. The two go hand in hand.

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 07/15/2002 08:49:02 AM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 7/14/2002 8:02 PM (GMT -6)

Great use of science analogies Icon. Seems to me that reality always outruns our knowledge for the simple reason that reality is virtually infinitely complex while our knowledge is finite. Hence our theories are always approximations and probablistic. Hence too we can only concern ourselves with impact. And hence too our only hope of progress is to remain in a learning mode that is forever willing to adjust the application of our theories based on the 'feedback' reality gives us.

The complexity of reality which we confront in science is no different than the complexity of person's and situations we confront in trying to live out the command of God. In truth, we can never know "why" a person does what they do in any comprehensive sense, for the same reason I can't know "why" a duck landed in my pond at 2:31pm this afternoon. The variables that factored into the particularity are far too complex and extend back to the big bang. We can only be impacted by the last domino in the infinite change of dominos and respond to this] impact. And because we can't know the entire chain, we can't judge the last domino. (Socially, of course, we have to assign responsibility. But we can't KNOW the extent of this personal responsibility: we cannot "judge").

Not only can we not judge the last domino, our response can only be a best guess -- for the same reason all of our thinking about reality is a best guess. So we faithful employ principles, listen to intuitions, try to hear God's leading, etc... and then look for feedback.

Bottom line: if love isn't communicated, our theory didn't work, however "noble" our intentions and however good the theory otherwise was.

As Icon notes, the judgment "good" and "evil" precludes the feedback and feeds the soul that makes it with illusory life. It is the quintessential expression of our fallenness.

And, in my opinion, most religion is the quintessential expression of this quintessential expression.

Blessings

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

brandi
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118

Posted 7/14/2002 8:25 PM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast and Semeia, thank you again for the dialogue. This has been very insightful. As Iconoclast quoted "Iron sharpens iron." I believe we agree on the basic thing that we are to be about spreading God's love to everyone around us. How this love is played out, what our approach should be on what sin is, who to confront, and when to exhort one another, is not as agreed upon. I guess the bottom line is that each of us will one day stand before the Lord and give an account of our life, right? I have enjoyed out dialogue. Thank you.

Semeia

quote:
Remember that Christ died for them. Treat them as if they simply and unconsciously made a misstep. Trying to follow that message from God is one of the hardest things we’ve ever had to do, particularly for Iconoclast on the front lines of the situation. It was a message to love even our betrayers. It was gut-wrenchingly difficult at times. And yet to the extent to which we were able to do it we discovered peace and healing, and over time the love was a self-fulfilling prophecy, that spread to everyone involved. I can’t say much more than that without giving details, but suffice it to say that it was a viscerally transformative experience in which out of enormous pain God blessed us with a proof statement for the transfiguring power of forgiveness and love.

Beautiful! The two of you probably learned so much more about what it meant for Christ to go to the cross knowing that he was innocent yet willing to put aside himself for the sake of those who persecuted him. The verse that has always had the most impact on me in the bible is the one where while Jesus hung on the cross he cried up to God "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." I have always been so touched by that verse. There have been many times when I've seen a play, a movie, or heard the story read about Christ death and have cried when I have heard those words. It gives me goosebumps even writing it now!

We must be willing to forgive if we are to walk in the same footsteps of our Lord. Jesus taught us in the Lord's Prayer, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us," so it is apparent that forgiveness is necessary. Not only is it necessary in order for us to be forgiven but it is necessary for our overall well-being. Unforgiveness leads to bitterness which leads to hatred and death BUT forgiveness leads to love and life.

Semeia

quote:
The law is there for the doing, and the assumption to be made is that everyone in God’s eyes has unsurpassable worth.

Amen! Yes, I agree.

All of God's creation (both the born and the unborn) have unsurpassable worth to the Father!

Thanks again Iconoclast and Semeia for the dialogue!
~Brandi~

brandi
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118

Posted 7/14/2002 9:05 PM (GMT -6)

Greg Boyd

quote:
Hence our theories are always approximations and probablistic. Hence too we can only concern ourselves with impact. And hence too our only hope of progress is to remain in a learning mode that is forever willing to adjust the application of our theories based on the 'feedback' reality gives us.

and

quote:
And, in my opinion, most religion is the quintessential expression of this quintessential expression.

Okay, one last thing before I go. For the sake of Christianity I want to say that "religion" and being a true disciple of Christ "Christianity" are not always the same thing.

We are NOT to get life from judging right/wrong, good/evil(religion) but rather we are to get our life from God and God alone. A follower of Christ does just that "follows Christ" and gets their life from Christ. We may not be able to always have absolutes and yes, we are to remain in a learning mode but let us not forget the truths and the guidance we find still today in the bible. Jesus (who we are to follow after) was NOT always concerned with what kind of an impact his behavior or actions had yet Jesus was the icon of LOVE. Therefore, to say the "we can only concern ourselves with the impact" does not seem to follow along with what I find in the reality of Christ ministry.

Being a follower of Christ is NOT about impact as much as it's about following after the Holy Spirit's leading! It's always about LOVE! Abide in faith, hope, and love.

BTW, welcome back to this thread, Doc.
~Brandi~

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 7/15/2002 4:25 AM (GMT -6)

Doc said: Bottom line: if love isn't communicated, our theory didn't work, however "noble" our intentions and however good the theory otherwise was.

Electra: Hmm. Doc, it would help me if you would respond to my post at the top of page 5.

Doc and others, it would help me if you would answer the following questions:

1. It seems like your bottom line amounts to this: love successfully communicated (e.g. those who openly receive and correctly interpret the feedback they receive from the world around them) = good; love unsuccessfully communicated (e.g. Pharisees) = evil. I assume I’m misunderstanding something, because you present this bottom line over and against the knowledge of good and evil. So how is this bottom line NOT a way of knowing good and evil, and identifying some sinners as more exceptional than others?

2. The New Testament talks a lot about suffering for the sake of the gospel. Why would anyone whose prime directive was to successfully communicate love to others have to worry about suffering? Is it possible that their love toward others might me misinterpreted? And if their intention to successfully communicate love to others is misinterpreted, does that mean that they are really living out of the knowledge of good and evil after all?

3. We usually consider Christ’s sacrifice on the cross to be the supreme communication of love. However, lots of people “don’t get the message” and reject the cross. Does this “feedback” demonstrate that Christ’s noble intentions and good theory just didn’t quite cut it?

This bottom line seems to presume

1. that by being open to receiving feedback and equipped to correctly interpret it, we can figure out how to successfully communicate love to others.

2. that people recognize love when it is correctly communicated.

The fact that we crucified “the love that God is” when God showed up challenges both these premises.

Peace,
Electra

~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~

Edited by - Electra on 07/15/2002 11:34:43 AM

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 7/15/2002 10:41 AM (GMT -6)

I have to press this a bit (I believe this will be somewhat redundant to Electra's issues):

I still think the problem here is very basic. The view being presented as I understand it doesn't take sin seriously enough. As it cashes out, you continue to be the ones who, through all sorts of intellectual/psychological and sociological resources are now the new possessors of a higher order of "knowledge." This knowledge DOES indeed fit the paradigm of "good" and "evil" as Electra points out. You assume the YOU know love when you see it, even though you and I would have crucified Christ as surely as the first century folks did. the ONLY consistant position with this stuff is to give up ALL together on the judgment game. That means ALL of it. You don't get to judge whether something is loving or not. You don't get to judge whether or not to respond to, or how to respond to "feedback." You don't get to decide whether the results are loving or not and to what extent. IF doc is standing on anything at all with his complexity stuff this should be obvious.

I DO see the analogy with science and the fact that we do have to go on living and doing life in this world. And the point being that we do that best with a continual upgrading of out functioning analogies. BUT people, please say you see that these paradigms are SINFUL and JUDGING. God does not want to impart a new wisdom to you. God wants you to refer to GOD in all things. To walk CONTINUALLY in God's Spirit. Yes, it is possible. Christ demonstrates this: "Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do NOTHING on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise." (John 5:19) How you interpret this will significantly affect the direction this conversation goes.

"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

Edited by - ModesofThought on 07/15/2002 3:42:26 PM

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 7/15/2002 12:04 PM (GMT -6)

As I see it, this system misses in both directions. It shoots too high and too low.

It shoots too high in its assessment of our sin and how sin truly does prevent us from being able to love and judge at the same time. It does this by sweeping the judging game under the carpet of a particular type of judging while baptising a more palpable brand of it. (A more profound understanding of sin would prevent us from bumping old problems up a notch, because we'd remember that every imagination of the human heart is wicked in comparison to God's justice and righteousness. Seymour's reference to menstral rags, etc. is on point.)

It shoots too low in terms of our vocation. Despite the above, and because of the reconciling and redeeming power of God in Christ....we are called to obedience to God IN Christ. Jesus assures us that we can do this by the power of the Spirit, but as we know, we do fail at it. The solution to our failure is not to lower the standards by reinstating ourselves as judges (now of "loving/not loving" behavior) and looking to other judges for feedback on how they feel about our attempts at love, but rather repentence, restitution and a return to obedience to what God calls us to. "Love" as a criterion is not within our grasp. As soon as it is US doing the assessing, we can rest assured that the results will be less loving (read less glorifying to God) than if we let God do the assessing and us do the following. (I thought I remembered a point here about God's role vs. our role) If God is silent, we may do the best we can, or we may do nothing, either way, we don't possess the criteria for knowing whether we did the most "right (loving/God glorifying) thing."

Let me simply ask this: What is GOD'S role in a work of Love? It sounds very much to me like I could, with this new knowledge of Love, refrain from judging (to my own satisfaction, but never to God's), seek feedback on my behavior, and progress in love. All without relating to God in the manner Christ did. All without relating to God in the manner that Abraham did. All without relating to God in the manner that Job did. These three are very good biblical examples of people who loved God, obeyed God, and yet were not helped in the LEAST by any feedback they got. If they had succombed to any of it, it would have been devestating to the integrity of their relationships with God. If it is true that we are not to let our right hand know what our left hand is doing, how can we seek feedback, not only from our other hand but from the recipients!!! of our loving deeds and expect that this meets the standard spoken of here?

I know this is strongly stated. I hope I have not offended. I am just surprised at this problem. It is one thing to discuss what may be "ethical" behavior (a new ethic of love, but as ethic--it is penultimate) and how we might encourge this sort of behavior (admitting it as a concession to the ongoing reality and power of sin) through social contracts (for churches and small groups, such covenants are appropriate), it is quite another to suppose that this has anything to do with God's command to "be perfect as God is perfect." In THIS ordinance (to be perfect), there is, frankly, NO room for error. There is no room for feedback other than God's. There is no room for even a tentative and dynamic set of guidances which may or may not support what we think is loving. WHO ARE WE to think we know what love means? Is it REALLY more loving for me to give my neighbor a ride across town than to spend that same amount of time and energy contributing to feeding the poor in Haiti? Or How about calling my mom with that time? Who can make such decisions with the confidence of perfection? (please don't say that it really doesn't matter because, after all, perhaps they are all "equally good." The point is, it is very likely that what is [are] really the perfect thing to do isn't even among the options I come up with on my own.)

Well?

Exactly. God. AND SO, we are out of luck when it comes to what is truly loving or not. We need it to be revealed. Over and over again. Every day. This is why Paul says "pray continually." THIS is why Paul doesn't judge himself. This is why feedback is next to irrelevant. WE die daily so that Christ might actually live in us. Not so we can improve our system.

I am convinced that we would never "get around" to most of what is most loving and God glorifying if it is left up to us to sort it out. With or without feedback. I hate to bring this up again, but, whose to say that God didn't see justice (and thereby love toward the "rest" of the world) somewhere in the twin tower thing? Not that God gloats or delights in the destruction of anyone, but that God does have a track record of being behind the destruction/colapse of oppressive regimes. (Please note, this is NOT my political view of this event, it is a hypothetical WHAT IF that I think we must consider) I'd say we qualify as oppressors. But of course, we'd never get around to really addressing that would we? After all, we've got other things to do and feedback to consider. Feedback from those who benefit from what we benefit from, for the most part.

Anyway. As you can see, I am not convinced.

I don't pretend to be loving, nor do I pretend to be perfect, or even better than average in terms of obedience. I am simply saying that that is my goal: obeying God. To say more implies that I now control my goal, as though God has handed it over to me. No. I enlisted in God's army, not the other way around. I am not a mystic nor a obscurantist naively waiting for God to whisper in my ear as I wander through life. Though these may be handy ways to dismiss what I am saying. Rather, I believe that discernment is real and necessary for action. God wired us for intimacy with God and God wants in on our lives. God even has opinions about what we should be doing to further the kingdom and intends to communicate them. This doesn't happen unless we trust God and expect God to lead us. This is what faith is.

ps: it is particularly tragic to employ a self-agrandizing standard such as "we can be assured that we are on the right track if we anger the pharisees." What if we are the pharisees? What if a pharisee where to repent? What if you misjudged someone as a pharisee and then, when they were offended, you took this as confirmation that you are doing well in your stop action? I confess, I am surprised at the direction this is all headed. How can anyone employ this language and avoid the charge of "pharisee" themselves? "Hey, I really tick off THOSE guys, THOSE particular sinners over there."

Just tell me how this is not judging. Thanks.

Now, I can understand using some of this stuff in social contract contexts or covenants but I cannot grasp how it could ever be adequate as any sort of basis for love. It should just conceed the failure before it starts. It stands as its own judge.

"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

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 7/15/2002 3:26 PM (GMT -6)

Hey JC Sites Guy!!!
If we ever needed a poll function, now is the time!
I realize this thread isn't even near completion, but it seems that Electra and Modes have summed up this portion really well. I send my compliments and heartfelt appreciation to both of you. (you too Brandi) I am very thankful for the loving hearts of Icon and Semeia and Doc, but I think they've gone off the deep end on this one. On the one hand, I would like to read Doc's response to the areas Electra's has directed his attention. On the other hand I'm hoping he'll wait till he gets of the meds, and comes to his senses.

puzzled,
Springs

...but I have called you friends... Jn 15:15

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/15/2002 3:26 PM (GMT -6)

Electra

It seems like your bottom line amounts to this: love successfully communicated (e.g. those who openly receive and correctly interpret the feedback they receive from the world around them) = good; love unsuccessfully communicated (e.g. Pharisees) = evil.

Iconoclast

This is in no way what I am intending to communicate. God wants us to love each other. Love means that we seek to have a loving impact on others. It is not about being good it is about being obedient to God.

Electra

Why would anyone whose prime directive was to successfully communicate love to others have to worry about suffering? Is it possible that their love toward others might me misinterpreted?

Iconoclast

Yes. There is a huge disconnect between intention and impact. I will argue that this is because we are in disunity with God and others when we are operating out of our own knowledge of good and evil.

Electra

And if their intention to successfully communicate love to others is misinterpreted, does that mean that they are really living out of the knowledge of good and evil after all?

Iconoclast

No. It is possible to communicate love perfectly and still have it experienced by the other person as hate.

Electra

We usually consider Christ’s sacrifice on the cross to be the supreme communication of love. However, lots of people “don’t get the message” and reject the cross. Does this “feedback” demonstrate that Christ’s noble intentions and good theory just didn’t quite cut it?

Iconoclast

Yes. I would go further and say that Christ’s PERFECT intention and PERFECT theory / understanding and PERFECT execution failed to produce what God wants: ALL people to know the truth about Him and to know the truth about themselves: that God is Love and that we are loved. When a person is completely and utterly steeped in their own knowledge of good and evil they actually SEE perfect love and consider it to be hate – the Pharisee sees Jesus heal and says it is from the power of Beelzebub.

My understanding is that God wants all to be saved and that He did the most loving thing He could do: He laid down His life. Yet perfect love does not mean perfect impact. Love must be chosen. The knowledge of good and evil blocks love. Therefore even perfect Love can be blocked by someone who is much steeped in the knowledge of good and evil.

Electra

This bottom line seems to presume
1. that by being open to receiving feedback and equipped to correctly interpret it, we can figure out how to successfully communicate love to others.
2. that people recognize love when it is correctly communicated.

Iconoclast

Perfect love does not guarantee a loving impact. However, perfect love SEEKS a loving impact and adjust and adjusts and adjusts and adjusts in order to try and gain a loving impact. Perfect love pursues and pursues and pursues and pursues - all the way to laying down one’s life. Unfortunately, man hath no greater love than to lay down his life.

What does it mean to “correctly” communicate love to another person? I would argue that our communication of love is “correct” when it has the impact we desire – that is – the other person actually feels loved. Now, we may end up laying down our life in order to communicate love – but if love is never felt how can it be said that we have communicated “correctly”? Certainly we can say that we have loved with a perfect love. But by definition “correct” communication means that we actually communicated what we intended to communicate.

What is the meaning of a person’s communication? Is it what they intended to mean? Or is it what the other person actually understood them to mean?

When we see that the other person did not actually understand our meaning do we try and restate it so that they will? Is this not the process of acting upon an intent, evaluating the results of our intent by seeing the impact it had, and then adjusting our action? Don’t we measure the meaning of our communication based on what the other person thinks we meant? And when a person does not measure their communication based on the meaning it had to you – when they blame you for hearing them wrong – do we really get anywhere? Does “meaning” or communication happen then or is it just shut down – does it get blocked?

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

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/15/2002 3:36 PM (GMT -6)

Springs

I realize this thread isn't even near completion, but it seems that Electra and Modes have summed up this portion really well.

Iconoclast

Hey Springs, could you please provide your understanding of Electra and Modes summary. I am, unfortunately, still struggling to comprehend what they are saying and it would be helpful to have another view.

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

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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual