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 ]

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/20/2002 6:26 PM (GMT -6)

Modes

In my mind “unity with God” ENTAILS “hearing God’s voice in an inspirational way.”

Iconoclast

I totally agree with this statement.

To me this means that as we actually love one another more fully we become more aware of the nature of life. We become more aware of how God is acting all around us and through us. We become more aware of the myriad forces that God has created and we begin to see for ourselves what has more life and what has less life. We become more “attuned” to these forces and are thus able to access a “word of knowledge”. We are able to “hear” more deeply the moving of the Spirit. And this is indeed inspiring.

I believe we accomplish this – or rather the Spirit accomplishes it in us by the renewing of our mind – through all of our faculties. In fact, I think this means that our faculties become more congruent with the life that now emanates from within us and reaches out to God – because it is God – within us.

This to me IS what Bonhoeffer is talking about when he says that we must use all of our faculties and NOT rely on “direct inspiration” alone. Indeed that “direct inspiration” that is not congruent with all of our faculties can lead us astray for it may actually be our own knowledge of good and evil and not God at all. For, our mind is being renewed so that we have the mind of Christ.

I agree that this is a process.

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

shell
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280

Posted 7/21/2002 6:36 PM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast and Semeia, I really love this conversation. I apologize though I think I may have gone back into some things that were already addressed as I looked back again over some of the posts. I just have such a hard time keeping up on this thread with the busyness of life...I'm sure you can relate. But I will answer the questions that you asked me because of my post...at least I'll try.

I really do agree with the majority of what you have presented on this topic of feedback and impact. I just get this feeling when I've been reading these posts that that it limits God to our faculties and assessments and limits the movement of the Spirit and our sensitivity to hear God speaking directly to us and us acting in obedience to his gentle leading and speaking. Isn't that what walking in the spirit is?
I yearn to be spirit led and spirit moved. If I am constantly looking outside of that to assess, how much am I really trusting God's voice? What I hear(and I am not saying this is the case) is that we should be wary when we believe God is speaking to us. Don't trust that alone...look many other places to confirm it, assess, look at past experiences...but as in Erwin McManus's sermon today...I want to know my shepherds voice for myself. Help me understand what your belief is on this.

Semeia,
In response to your post I agree strongly with you. I am very concerned(and still learning) about how I impact others. I am concerned about love above all else and seeing others in the light of their worth before God. I would never be looking for an excuse(there is none) to not approach everything in love and with care and concern for the other person involved. And I know that God would never ask me to ever behave in a way that didn't uphold that person's worth and treat them with love.

Just to clarify, the point I was trying to make in the examples I was giving was that sometimes a situation needing to be addressed, even when handled in a completely loving way, with the best intentions, because of where that person is at, the impact may result in the person not feeling good about the event right at that moment, but sometimes it has to happen even if you believe the impact might not seem positive.(You gave examples of this also in the post)

Another thought I had about hearing God's voice and relying on impact, feedback and our faculties etc. What do you do when God asks you to do something extraordinary? A close friend of ours was working a 9-5 job and was doing ministry work on the side. The Lord spoke to his heart and told him(we've all heard these stories, but this one is so real to us)to quit his job and to do the ministry full time without any gaurantee of an income or even knowing exactly where the ministry was headed. Now that appears crazy. He didn't get ANY positive feedback from anyone. The impact could have been disasterous. Any assessment of the situation would have definitely pointed him away from doing what he knew God was calling him to do. After quitting his job the ministry was clearly defined by events the Lord obviously orchestrated, support for the ministry came in and it is a thriving beautiful ministry today led by a man who walks in faith and complete reliance on the Lord.

Shell

Edited by - shell on 07/21/2002 11:41:40 PM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/21/2002 8:20 PM (GMT -6)

shell

I apologize though I think I may have gone back into some things that were already addressed as I looked back again over some of the posts.

Iconoclast

No problem. I really appreciate your questions.

shell

I yearn to be spirit led and spirit moved. If I am constantly looking outside of that to assess, how much am I really trusting God's voice? What I hear (and I am not saying this is the case) is that we should be wary when we believe God is speaking to us. Don't trust that alone...look many other places to confirm it, assess, look at past experiences...but as in Erwin McManus's sermon today...I want to know my shepherds voice for myself. Help me understand what your belief is on this.

Iconoclast

There are two issues here: the first is whether we are indeed hearing God’s voice and the second is what we should do about it if we assess that we are.

It is impossible for us NOT to “assess” whether we are hearing God’s voice or not. This is what it means to know his voice for ourselves. Our “detectors” can become more attuned or less attuned to hearing Him.

Remember Erwin saying that he wanted to tell his son about how God’s voice is always within His character – that God never acts “outside” of his character. A key assessment we make when determining that it is God’s voice we are hearing is whether it is within His character – Erwin mentioned scripture as a source for that.

Once we believe (assess and find strong grounds that it is God’s voice we are hearing) then it is advisable to follow.

Following his voice does not mean that we then turn off our brain of course for God rarely gives us really detailed instructions (Noah might have been a bit of an exception – dimensions of the ark and all). There is certainly a place for following while continuing to seek feedback and assess impact. We may have heard God tell us to change direction in our career. That doesn’t mean that the most advisable course is to just quit on the spot without talking it over with our spouse or colleagues. Their feedback may be very negative but this does not mean that we don’t take this action. Feedback is feedback. The person receiving the feedback is responsible to assess whether it is relevant feedback or not – and / or whether the feedback is strong enough input to change our decision. If our spouse says that they will divorce us on the spot if we do that then I would suggest we need to give that input very strong consideration – and at the very least we should work it out before taking unilateral action.

Seeking feedback from people we are in relationship to before taking unilateral action is a loving thing to do and also allows them to participate in God’s will.

shell

He didn't get ANY positive feedback from anyone. The impact could have been disasterous. Any assessment of the situation would have definitely pointed him away from doing what he knew God was calling him to do.

Iconoclast

Feedback is just feedback. It is input to our full assessment of the action we are about to take. We live in relationship with other human beings. It is respectful, it is loving and it is wise to seek feedback.

When you say that “any assessment of the situation would have definitely pointed him away…” what do you really mean? Any “rational” assessment? Any assessment that ONLY focused on the feedback from others? Any assessment that ONLY looked at the risks of the decision – the potential disasterous impact of him failing?

Yes the impact could have been disasterous. This is part of the assessment. We must assess the reality of the risks we are taking. If there is no risk, why do we need God to show up?

And if you mean “rational” assessment. Then I would say this presupposes that this person is not taking into consideration God’s ability to give effect to His will. He is not trusting God’s power to make His will happen.

To me this is not the FULL assessment that Bonhoeffer is talking about.

I would like to suggest that this person’s FULL assessment of the situation included two very critical things that led him to making this choice. One was the potential gain, the potential impact he could have for furthering God’s kingdom AND the passion this gave him to do it. The other was his overall assessment given all of this input that God was calling him to do it. I say, go for it! I love what Modes quoted by Dean Sherman on this – “live in such a way that if God does not show up, you are dead meat.” (paraphrase)

Bonhoeffer is saying that proving the will of God requires us to use our FULL abilities in order to make a FULL assessment and therefore an informed decision. That it is required to gain as much input, as much data – which includes feedback and impact assessment, as we can. There is a scripture in the old testament (proverbs I would guess) that says that a King is wise to have many advisors.

The reason Bonhoeffer is so strong about this notion of using our FULL abilities to make a FULL assessment is because one of the primary problems that operating out of our own knowledge of good and evil causes is our self-centered selection of the evidence right before our own eyes. This is what the Pharisees did. They “strained gnats and swallowed camels.” When we already know what is good why seek more data? Why seek feedback? THIS is what blocks us to the voice of God.

shell

I really do agree with the majority of what you have presented on this topic of feedback and impact. I just get this feeling when I've been reading these posts that that it limits God to our faculties and assessments and limits the movement of the Spirit and our sensitivity to hear God speaking directly to us and us acting in obedience to his gentle leading and speaking.

Iconoclast

If you are hearing this then I am not saying it correctly.

Thanks for your post shell, please let me know if this helps 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

brandi
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118

Posted 7/21/2002 8:25 PM (GMT -6)

If anyone is wondering, I deleted my post here after thinking about what I wrote.

~Brandi~

Edited by - brandi on 07/22/2002 2:46:32 PM

brandi
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118

Posted 7/21/2002 8:26 PM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast:
I believe I am starting to understand more and more about what you are talking about through reading your posts in the dialogues on this thread. I agree with what you wrote to Shell that we need to use all of our faculties in making decisions and that it is vital to receive feedback from others, especially our spouse and close friends, when making life changing decisions.

Thanks for your clarity and patience in all of your interactions on this board! I just want to let you know that your LOVE has been coming out strong in your posts.
~Brandi~

Edited by - brandi on 07/22/2002 01:37:02 AM

shell
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280

Posted 7/22/2002 4:38 AM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast,
Hi. Thanks so much for your post. The way you laid out assessing God's voice here makes a lot of sense to me. I do remember in Erwin's sermon about wanting to tell his son that God's voice is always within his character, and I can see that as a form of assessment. As I really think about how I listen to the Lord's voice and leading there is assessment involved. Depending on the situation I usually pray about it more, ask for my husband's input especially if it affects him, but even just to run it by him if it doesn't.

As far as my friend being asked to do something extraordinary, the way you put it he did assess that the Lord has always shown Himself faithful and he did believe that His kingdom would be advanced. His wife was concerned but did say you need to do what God is leading you to do.

Yet I do believe there are instances such as the one Modes described as a "divine appointment" where assessment may be limited to wether or not it is within God's character and that is it. Sometimes it is a quick leading to reach out to a stranger at the airport etc., or a neighbor...I think that is where we have faith that we are hearing God's voice because we know his voice and we follow in faith.

Your right about not turning off the brain once we have heard God's leading/voice. We have experienced that a lot where we know God called us to a certain decision, but many of the details seem to be left up to us as we seek to live out that decision in the most loving way (considering impact).

Still thinking about it all...

Shell

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/22/2002 7:37 PM (GMT -6)

brandi, thank you for your kind words. I really appreciate that!

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 7/22/2002 8:20 PM (GMT -6)

Shell said:

Yet I do believe there are instances such as the one Modes described as a "divine appointment" where assessment may be limited to whether or not it is within God's character and that is it. Sometimes it is a quick leading to reach out to a stranger at the airport etc., or a neighbor...I think that is where we have faith that we are hearing God's voice because we know his voice and we follow in faith.

Semeia:

One could even argue that we don’t need to do any special assessing at all in these cases. I think we can once and for all say that it is always within God’s character for us to reach out to a stranger or a neighbor in a kind and helpful way. So, whenever we feel the Spirit leading us in this direction we can confidently act on that urging. And I think the more attentive we are to the needs of other people the more “divine appointments” we will find God making for us.

Do you remember when Tony Campolo was here, and he told the story of the man on the airplane whom he felt led by God to reach out to? If you listen to that story, Tony was using all of his senses and normal feedback mechanisms: he noticed that the guy was incredibly tense; he could actually “feel” the tension from him as their shoulders touched. He could hear the man “sigh.” (He was listening, and paying attention to all the sensory clues.) And he said that frequently when he travels as a matter of course he prays for people around him whom he happens to meet. (He is as a matter of habit opening himself up to God’s will.) And so when the man turns to him and says, “Mister, I really need to talk about God,” (I am saying this from memory – I’m not sure exactly what he said) Tony is open, and ready, and not surprised. But he has used all his faculties, plus his discipline to pray, plus inviting God in to the situation, plus an attitude of openness to the people around him. His attentiveness to the tension in the man next to him is a part of what makes him open to God’s leading. It is a part of his ability to hear the voice of God speaking to him and making “divine appointments” for him.

Thanks,
Semeia

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

shell
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280

Posted 7/23/2002 2:52 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia,

That is a great example, I do remember him sharing that. Along the lines of what you said about following the Spirit's leading when we feel that we are being urged to reach out to another, there are those times when the cues are there and other times where the spirit prompts us to do things that we don't understand why at the time. A couple of years ago the Lord prompted me to do something for a friend as she was returning from an out of town trip. I hadn't talked with her the whole month that she was gone and I could have done this thing the Lord laid on my heart a thousand other times because she traveled all the time, but the Lord laid it on my heart that time and that time only and exactly what I was supposed to do...and come to find out later she had received devastating news on her trip and the Lord knew EXACTLY what she needed down to the detail and I had no cues from her or anything else at all other than the leading of the Spirit.

Just thought I'd share it because I love it when the Lord does things like that...

love,
Shell

Edited by - shell on 07/23/2002 7:59:17 PM

Edited by - shell on 07/23/2002 11:51:06 PM

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 7/25/2002 1:39 PM (GMT -6)

Icon:

quote:
I don’t understand B. as advocating the Law’s disposal. The key issue is whether the Sabbath was made for man or man for the Sabbath. The law is there for us to do it. When we do the law we receive the gift that it was intended to give us. When we use the law to try and get others to do it, as a judge, then we are, in fact, setting ourselves up as God. We are judging our brother for not doing the law, we are judging the law (that it does not have the power to take effect by itself) and we are judging God (that He is not capable of enforcing His law). This is what it means to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The result of this is that love is blocked, trust in God is destroyed and shockingly enough we ourselves now become the agent through which the Accuser (Satan) tears down God’s creation. We actually invite our brother to further his apostasy from God by accusing Him of not doing the law.

My understanding of B. was that the categories of good and evil should be rejected. I interpret your response above as saying that these categories (i.e., the Law) are meant to be used personally, but these categories are not to be used to judge each other. But B. seems to go much further. God "forbids the man who does good to know of this good. . .he is no longer obliged to be the judge of his own goodness; he must no longer desire to know of it at all. . ." (page 38). This is what led me to believe that B. intends to dispose of the Law. All that seems necessary with B. is that we "prove the will of God" in each moment with the primary purpose of demonstrating His love. Again, to B., categories of good and evil are, well, evil. The Law should be done away with.

Icon:

quote:
Yes, he gave us His law to help us categorize better than just trying to do it on our own.

Again, your statement implies that we are to be doing some kind of categorization based upon the Law. God gave it to us "to help us." Is this really what B. is saying? I guess I don't see how the categories of good and evil factor into his view at all.

Icon:

quote:
God’s law is perfectly good. However, it still requires an omniscient being to be able to actually implement it. The problem here is that we are neither omniscient nor are we even honestly trying to implement it. We are living out of our own knowledge of good and evil and thus we filter God’s law through our own totally self-serving “re-presentation” of it into our own minds. We self-select what we choose to give attention to and what we overlook – and we are mostly unaware that we even do this! None of us really grasp what God’s law is. This is witnessed by the simple fact that none of us even totally agree on exactly what it is!

I can understand that our fallibility does not allow us to know perfectly or even very well what "good" is. But how does B.'s position do any better? If we can't ever be sure what the "good" thing to do is, what exactly would allow us to know the "loving" thing to do?

Icon:

quote:
By the way – I highly recommend reading B. “Creation and Fall” as well. I found that this book really helped me understand “Ethics” and vice versa.

I picked this up when I found Ethics. Semeia advised me that these two were complementary. Can't wait to get into it!

Icon:

quote:
The way I like to think about it is that there is only one thing that is important and that is whether we choose life or death. It is my understanding that choosing life means to choose to recover our union with God. It means to choose to accept Christ into our life. It means to really have Him live within us. Now, it is not about good and evil. It is only about following Him. It is only about obeying His commandment. And what is His commandment: love one another. Jesus said that the law and the prophets could be summed up in the command to Love God and Love our neighbor.

I understand and completely agree that all categories of "good" (i.e., the law) can be summed up in the command to love. Absolutely. By giving us the greatest commandments, Christ revealed God's intent behind His laws. We are to apply the law in a manner that achieves the expression of God's love.

Icon:

quote:
Now we just need to continue to abide in Christ and to use every God given ability we have to love other people more fully. Principles in this context are simply tools that we use in service to this goal. If the principle is failing to produce the results then we need to modify it.

But how do we get here? How do we get from the idea that the law is meant to achieve love to "if the law doesn't work, scrap it?" It seems more consistent to say that if a God-given principle is being applied in a way that does not achieve a loving result, it is being misunderstood and applied wrongly. I.e., there is nothing wrong with the principles themselves; it is our misapplication of them that can be unloving.

quote:
It is indeed a semantic effort and a very important one. The word “judgment” is an overloaded term. B. shows how the Bible talks about two kinds of judgment – one which is accusation and condemnation and one which is true loving action. He shows how these are polar opposites. How one comes from our own knowledge of good and evil and how one comes from union with Christ. (I posted this passage somewhere on page 8 of this thread, I believe I also posted some stuff on “proving the will of God” on the Chapter I thread which I highly recommend you read – especially Semeia’s post on Christopher Alexander on page 2).

When Jesus says “do not Judge lest ye be Judged” He is talking about accusation and condemnation. He is talking about using our own knowledge of good and evil as a justification to act in the place of God. B. shows that Jesus is NOT saying that we should no longer use our brains. We are absolutely called upon to make judgments. The doctor makes a judgment about whether your leg should be removed or not. Now, we sure hope he is basing His judgment on solid research, valid observation, and in complete unity with his goal to heal - in short we hope that he is using “sound” judgment rather than judging out of his own knowledge of good and evil!

I really enjoyed Semeia's essay comparing Christopher Alexander with Bon's stuff. That is quite an impressive display of interdisciplinary knowledge. Very cool.

So you agree with me that B.'s thesis is a semantic endeavor. By this I assume you mean that Bon thinks judgment is okay as long as it means "proving the will of God." How is this revolutionary? How then is his thesis a "seminal reinterpretation of Christianity," as the publisher of Ethics claims on the back cover? Maybe I've been trying to read too much "revolution" into B.'s work? Perhaps he is pretty much saying what I've always felt Jesus meant by "judge not": we have no right to judge each other as God would, but we should always be discerning the difference between right and wrong (a.k.a., good and evil). Is this it? If so, then me and B. have been in agreement all along.

quote:
By the way, does a doctor ever pronounce a judgment with 100% certainty? Or does a doctor’s judgment always contain probabilities with associated risks?

On the other hand, when we make an attribution toward another person, say, “He is being offensive”, are we typically assigning probabilities to that statement or are we really just 100% sure that he is indeed being offensive? And if we “know” we are right (100% sure) is this a “sound” judgment?

Completely agree. In making any "discernment," we must acknowledge our fundamental uncertainty. But that uncertainty cannot paralyze us from actually attempting to distinguish between right and wrong (a.k.a., "loving" and "unloving").

Sorry my response has been so long in coming. Busy beavers here. As always, thanks for the dialogue, Icon. [Hey, I just realized something. . . by abbreviating Iconoclast to Icon, I am not only removing the message of your screen name, I am reversing it to represent the exact opposite message. . .so let me rephrase: Thank you, ICONOCLAST!]

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/26/2002 6:40 PM (GMT -6)

Brett

But B. seems to go much further. God "forbids the man who does good to know of this good. . .he is no longer obliged to be the judge of his own goodness; he must no longer desire to know of it at all. . ." (page 38). This is what led me to believe that B. intends to dispose of the Law. All that seems necessary with B. is that we "prove the will of God" in each moment with the primary purpose of demonstrating His love. Again, to B., categories of good and evil are, well, evil. The Law should be done away with.

Iconoclast

If you are equating “the Law” with “categories of good and evil that are the concrete basis for our action” then I agree that B. is trying to do away with this. This is seeking to use the law out of our own knowledge of good and evil. It is enthroning the Law as absolute which is really enthroning us as the absolute determiners of the Law.

However, now that we know that using the Law as categories of good and evil IS the problem then we can now see that the Law is really a knowledge base – it is given to us as an aid to our learning how to love. Which helps us see how terribly wrong it is to use it to judge another. It is like we have “Basic Rules of Poetry 101” - we learn the basic rules – rhyming, meter, alliteration and so on – and then try to apply these rules to judge one of Emily Dickinson’s poems. To the person who just learned the basic rules of poetry it looks like Dickinson is operating out of some sort of freedom from the rules that makes her work look like utter lawlessness. This is how the Pharisees saw Jesus. And if we don’t know what a good poem looks like we must conclude that Dickinson is a hack. In the same way, the Pharisees did not know what love looked like and so they concluded that Jesus was doing miracles by the power of Beelzebub.

At the same time we must first learn the basic rules and learn how to apply them toward the goal of learning how to love. Knowing what love looks like (Jesus) – knowing what the goal is - allows us to apply the basic rules and see how close we are to our goal. From there we learn – always keeping our eye and our heart on the goal.

Brett

I can understand that our fallibility does not allow us to know perfectly or even very well what "good" is. But how does B.'s position do any better? If we can't ever be sure what the "good" thing to do is, what exactly would allow us to know the "loving" thing to do?

Iconoclast

We cannot know for sure what the loving thing to do is. We can only learn over time through experience what actions are probably more loving and what actions are probably less loving. More importantly we can see when our action was unloving and we can apologize.

There are four aspects to B.’s thought that are radically different and that make all the difference:

One) We now realize that it is not about trying to do the “good” thing – whatever we thought that was. Refusing our own knowledge of good and evil allows us to realize that God’s command is that we Love one another. This is “doable”.

Two) We also realize that the Law is not an absolute criteria or guide for knowing how to love someone. Yes, there is a lot of wisdom there – killing someone is rarely a loving thing to do. Thus we are free to use ALL of our faculties in choosing our actions. This includes the very latest research in psychology (Neuro-Linguistic Programming for example) or the latest research in drug addiction intervention or what have you.

Three) Perhaps the most important tool that we now have access to which we didn’t before is that we are free to use impact assessment and feedback in determining whether our action was actually loving or not. We now have a very powerful mechanism for determining whether an action was helpful or not. This frees us up to learn how to love. When we live under the law and seek to do the “good” thing our reference for whether it was good or not is whether it conformed to the law. This is impossible to get accurate feedback on and leads us into rigidity and self-serving standards of interpretation.

Four) We also now realize that we do not live under the law but the grace of God. This means we are free to take action knowing that we are uncertain whether it will be helpful or not. We are free to give this action up to God in trust that He will use it to give effect to His will. And we are free to learn from our action without condemnation. It is simply not about us being good or doing the most loving action. It is OK for us to be human and it is OK for others to be human. It is OK to love others unconditionally.

Brett

I understand and completely agree that all categories of "good" (i.e., the law) can be summed up in the command to love. Absolutely. By giving us the greatest commandments, Christ revealed God's intent behind His laws. We are to apply the law in a manner that achieves the expression of God's love.

Iconoclast

Yes. God’s goal is that we love one another. And like you say, in order to do this we must apply the law in a manner that achieves this. This presupposes that we can apply the law in a manner that doesn’t achieve this. Therefore the law itself cannot possibly be a set of categories of good and evil. It is only a tool. It is like a hammer. When we use it to build a house for someone that is an appropriate use. When we use it to hit someone over the head that is not.

Brett

But how do we get here? How do we get from the idea that the law is meant to achieve love to "if the law doesn't work, scrap it?" It seems more consistent to say that if a God-given principle is being applied in a way that does not achieve a loving result, it is being misunderstood and applied wrongly. I.e., there is nothing wrong with the principles themselves; it is our misapplication of them that can be unloving.

Iconoclast

I very much agree and I really like the way you said this. There is nothing wrong with the principle: “Do not kill”. It is a very good principle and we shouldn’t scrap it. We should seek to learn how and when to apply it to give it its most powerful effect in service to the goal of love. Which in some circumstances may lead us to actually kill. But ONLY after giving this principle its FULL due in our FULL assessment of the situation. I presume that B. did this when he decided to kill Hitler.

Brett

So you agree with me that B.'s thesis is a semantic endeavor. By this I assume you mean that Bon thinks judgment is okay as long as it means "proving the will of God." How is this revolutionary? How then is his thesis a "seminal reinterpretation of Christianity," as the publisher of Ethics claims on the back cover? Maybe I've been trying to read too much "revolution" into B.'s work? Perhaps he is pretty much saying what I've always felt Jesus meant by "judge not": we have no right to judge each other as God would, but we should always be discerning the difference between right and wrong (a.k.a., good and evil). Is this it?

Iconoclast

“Is this it?” – I am not sure. The semantic problems make it very difficult to talk about. Again, the words we use can mean the exact opposite of what we intend to mean. For me B.’s work is very revolutionary. It totally changed my understanding of Christianity. Before understanding B.’s reinterpretation I did not understood “judge not” as such an absolute command. I saw it as somehow meaning that we should always be compassionate toward another person even when we see that this person is not obeying God’s law. As though it is even possible to determine whether someone else is obeying God’s law. And as though it is even possible to be compassionate (and not condescending) when we think we have determined this by the law as clearly given to us in the Bible. And as though it is not really ME judging them but the Bible.

I also use to understand the phrase: “discern the difference between right and wrong” as using the Biblical law as the ultimate reference to determine the “right” thing to do versus the “wrong” thing to do. I used to think that it was about trying to do the “right” or “good” thing. As though it is about me and as though there was such a “thing” to begin with.

I guess what is revolutionary to me is that there really is no “right” or “good” “thing” apart from a relationship with another person. It is like communication. There is no “right” “way” to communicate a particular intent that does not take into account the impact. The definition of “the right way” entails that the intent was actually communicated. And since each individual is unique there is no one “right way” to communicate. The “meaning” of our communication is inextricably bound up in the “relational” split between our intent and the impact that we actually have.

What I am trying to say is that what was revolutionary for me was a change from trying to feel OK by discerning and doing the right, good, loving thing to knowing that I am already OK and trying to have a loving impact on other people – as measured by those other people. It changed my primary filter from “sorting by self” to “sorting by other”. But not “sorting by other” in order to try and fix them – in order to make them perfect for ME – but rather “sorting by other” in order to determine whether my actions toward them are having a loving impact. And if you hear me saying that I don’t constantly slip back into “ME, ME, ME” mode all the time, then I am saying it wrong.

Does this way of saying it fit with your understanding?

Also, have you read Bonhoeffer’s chapter on telling the truth at the end of “Ethics”? I think he really does a good job in this essay on getting at the “relational” nature of things.

Brett

[Hey, I just realized something. . . by abbreviating Iconoclast to Icon, I am not only removing the message of your screen name, I am reversing it to represent the exact opposite message. . .so let me rephrase: Thank you, ICONOCLAST!]

Iconoclast

Good catch Brett! I wondered when someone would notice that.

thanks for the dialogue,
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

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 7/27/2002 3:10 AM (GMT -6)

Great discussion. I could say I wish I had time this week to jump into it, but honestly, I don't think there's anything I would say that Iconoclast

and Semeia haven't said better. I'd like to just assess in summary fashion where we are vis-a-vis the debate about FEEDBACK.

It seems to me we have here two different models of "hearing God." I don't know HOW different they are -- it may be more a matter of emphasis -- but for schematic purposes, let me treat them as different.

Model One we might call "Bonohoeffer's Wholistic View".
Model Two we call call "The Existential View"

Model One emphasizes that God is the Creator and Sustain of the world. Hence living in union with God, hearing God, and following God is always part and parcel of interacting with the total nexus of relationships one is part of at any given moment. The relationships here involve everything and everything one knows, experiences, etc. One attends to unique divine impulses given by the Spirit while also using all their faculties to assess a particular situation. The assessment is part of the "hearing" and directs HOW the impulse gets played out (and perhaps even qualifies whether the impulse is of God or not).

Model Two emphasizes the otherness of God, the fallenness of humans, and thus our fallibility in using our faculties to assess situations. It thus emphasizes at least the possibility that the divine impulse might NOT be incontinuity with the nexus of relations a person is part of at a given moment. Indeed, as with Abraham (read by Kierkegaard -- the "teleological suspension of the ethical"), the divine Word (impulse) might cause one to GO AGAINST the nexus of relationships (including ordinary moral principles).

Model One agrees that sometimes the divine impulse can lead us to go against some aspects of our ordinary way of assessing the nexus of relationship, but not against the nexus considered as a whole. Model Two, however, argues that sometimes the leading may cause us to go against the nexus altogether.

Is this a fair assessment? Have we resolved this issue? As I read the dialogue, it seems all were inclining toward a view that says that at least USUALLY we operate wholistically. But some, especially Modes, wanted to emphasize that SOMETIMES at least hearing God's Word in a particular fashion may swim against our assessment of the nexus, and thus, in these cases, getting feedback is not only helpful, but may constitute an act of disobedience.

If I've summarized the issues fairly, and if this is where we are at, is there anyway to resolve this last issue?

lovingly,

Doc

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

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 7/27/2002 7:41 AM (GMT -6)

Doc, thanks for proposing the two models. I hope that participants in this discussion don’t mind if I formulate my own contribution to this dialogue into a third model? I would like to call Model Three “Bonhoeffer’s costly grace view.” This model has a christocentric emphasis (e.g., the cross is God’s solution to our knowledge of good and evil; and our action is only real insofar as it is accomplished by Christ working in and through us). I will try to support it with excerpts from Bonhoeffer’s The Cost of Discipleship. I have also tried to show this in a chart and an analogy.

Summary

1. We do not recognize true love when we see it. We perceive it as foolish and weak (1 Cor. 3), and as a threat to both the political (thus the political leaders crucified Christ for insurrection) and religious (thus the religious leaders crucified Christ for blasphemy) established order. We either crucify it (via persecuting Christ—as Saul discovered on the road to Damascus), or are crucified with it (via baptism into Christ’s death).
2. There is not necessarily a humanly distinguishable difference between the actions of the Pharisees and the actions of disciples of Christ. It is true that “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). But Paul reminds us that “if I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing” (1 Cor. 13:3).
3. Successful love entails perfect fulfillment of the law (as summed up in the Greatest Commandment). In spite of whatever assurance we may receive to the contrary, our efforts to achieve this success may make us good, but not perfect. Therefore, strategies for achieving this success merely exacerbate knowledge of good and evil rather than freeing us from it.
4. The only way we can be free from the knowledge of good and evil is by knowing ourselves and the world through Christ crucified. All other strategies for assessing the intentions and actions of ourselves and others are relativized by this knowledge, which calls us to absolute obedience.
5. Christ’s works of love through us remain hidden from us until the day of judgment.

Support

Support for #2: There is not necessarily a humanly distinguishable difference between the actions of the Pharisees and the actions of disciples of Christ….

We must ask, how exactly does the righteousness of the Pharisees differ from that of the disciples? Certainly the Pharisees never imagined that the law must be taught but not obeyed: they knew their Bibles better than that! No, it was rather their ambition to be doers of the law. Their idea of righteousness was a direct, literal and practical fulfillment of the commandment, their ideal was to model their behavior exactly on the demands of the law. Of course they knew that they could never realize that ideal, there was bound to be an excess which needed forgiveness of sins to cover it. There obedience was never more than imperfect. With the disciple also righteousness could only take the form of obedience to the law. No one who failed to do the law could be accounted righteous. But the disciple had the advantage over the Pharisee in that his doing of the law is in fact perfect. How is such a thing possible? Because between the disciples and the law stands one who has perfectly fulfilled it, one with whom they live in communion. They are faced not with a law which has never yet been fulfilled, but with one whose demands have already been satisfied. The righteousness of Jesus which submits to the cross because that it what the law demands. This righteousness is therefore not a duty owed, but a perfect and truly personal communion with God, and Jesus not only possesses this righteousness, but is himself the personal embodiment of it. He is the righteousness of the disciples. By calling them he has admitted them to partnership with himself, and made them partakers of his righteousness in its fullness. That is what Jesus means when he prefaces his teaching on the “better righteousness” with reference to his own fulfillment of the law….This is where the righteousness of the disciple exceeds that of the Pharisees; it is grounded solely upon the call to fellowship with him who alone fulfils the law. (140–141)

Jesus reveals to his disciples the possibility of a demonic faith which produces wonderful works quite indistinguishable from the works of the true disciples, works of charity, miracles, perhaps even of personal sanctification, but which is nevertheless a denial of Jesus and of the life of discipleship. This is just what St. Paul means in 1 Cor. 13, when he says that it is possible to preach, to prophesy, to have all knowledge, and even faith so as to remove mountains, and all this without love, that is to say, without Christ, without the Holy Spirit. More than this, St. Paul must even reckon with the possibility that the very works of Christian charity, giving away one’s goods, and even martyrdom, may be done without love, without Christ, without the Holy Spirit. Without love: that is to say, in all this activity the activity of discipleship is absent, namely that activity the doer of which is in the last resort none other than Jesus Christ himself. (216–217)

Support for point #3: Successful love entails perfect fulfillment of the law (as summed up in the Greatest Commandment)….

The law of God is still in force, and still demands fulfillment (Rom. 3:31). And the only way to fulfill the law is by doing good works. But ultimately there is only one good work; the work of God in Christ Jesus….Good works then are ordained for the sake of salvation, but they are in the end those which God himself works within us….We cling in faith to Christ and his works alone….(335)

Support for point #4: The only way we can be free from the knowledge of good and evil is by knowing ourselves and the world through Christ crucified…..

[T]he disciple has no special privilege or power of his own in all his intercourse with others. The mainspring of his life and work is the strength which comes from fellowship with Jesus Christ….Henceforth the disciple will look upon other men as forgiven sinners who owe their lives to the love of God. (209)

We cannot establish direct contact outside ourselves except through him, through his word, and through our following him. To think otherwise is to deceive ourselves. But since we are bound to abhor any deception which hides the truth from our sight, we must of necessity repudiate any direct relationship with the things of this world—and that for the sake of Christ. Wherever a group, be it large or small, prevents us from standing alone before Christ, wherever such a group raises a claim of immediacy it must be hated for the sake of Christ. For every immediacy, whether we realize it or not, means hatred of Christ, and this is especially true where such relationships claim the sanction of Christian principles. It is a theological error of the first magnitude to exploit the doctrine of Christ the Mediator so as to justify direct relationships with the things of this world. It is sometimes argued that if Christ is the Mediator he has borne all the sin which underlies our direct relationships with the world and that he has justified us in them. Jesus has reconciled us to God; we can then, it is supposed, return to the world and enjoy our direct relation with it with a good conscience—although that world is the very world which crucified Christ! (108)

Jesus summons men to follow him not as a teacher or a pattern of the good life, but as the Christ, the Son of God….there is no road to faith or discipleship, no other road—only obedience to the call of Jesus….To follow in his steps is something which is void of all content. It gives no intelligible programme for a way of life, no goal or ideal to strive after. It is not a cause which human calculation might deem worthy of our devotion…. (62)

The forces which tried to interpose themselves between the word of Jesus and the response of obedience were as formidable then as they are to-day. Reason and conscience, responsibility and piety all stood in the way, and even the law and “scriptural authority” itself were obstacles which pretended to defend them from going to the extremes of antinomianism and “enthusiasms.” But the call of Jesus made short work of all these barriers, and created obedience. That call was the Word of God himself, and all that it required was a single-minded obedience. (87)

Support for point #5: Christ’s works of love through us remain hidden from us until the day of judgment….

If you do good, you must not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, you must be quite unconscious of it. Otherwise you are simply displaying your own virtue, and not that which has its source in Jesus Christ. Christ’s virtue, the virtue of discipleship, can only be accomplished so long as you are entirely unconscious of what you are doing. The genuine work of love is always a hidden work. Take heed therefore that you know it not, for only so is it the goodness of God. If we want to know our own goodness or love, it has already ceased to be love….This voluntary blindness in the Christian (which is really sight illuminated by Christ) is his certainty, and the fact that his life is hidden from his sight is the ground of his assurance. (177)

[W]e can never be conscious of our good works. Our sanctification is veiled from our eyes until the last day, when all secrets will be disclosed. If we want to see some results here and assess our own spiritual state, and have not the patience to wait, we have our reward. The moment we begin to feel satisfied that we are making some progress along the road of sanctification, it is all the more necessary to repent and confess that all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. Yet the Christian life is not one of gloom, but of ever increasing joy in the Lord. God alone knows our good works, all we know is his good work. (335)

The fruit of the Spirit is a gift of God, and only he can produce it. They who bear it know as little about it as the tree knows of its fruit. They know only the power of him on whom their life depends. There is no room for boasting here, but only for an ever more intimate union with him. The saints are unconscious of the fruit they bear. The left hand knows not what the right hand does. If the saints desired to know about it, if they wanted to become attached observers of themselves, they would have already severed themselves from the root, and the time of their fruition would be past. (320ff.)

Thanks,
Electra

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

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 7/27/2002 8:02 AM (GMT -6)

Doc: Model Two…emphasizes at least the possibility that the divine impulse might NOT be incontinuity with the nexus of relations a person is part of at a given moment. Indeed, as with Abraham (read by Kierkegaard -- the "teleological suspension of the ethical"), the divine Word (impulse) might cause one to GO AGAINST the nexus of relationships (including ordinary moral principles).

Electra: Bonhoeffer has a lengthy discussion of Abraham in Cost of Discipleship that parallels Kierkegaard’s reading in many ways (Kiekegaard in turn bases his reading of Abraham’s righteousness on Romans 4:3 and Hebrews 11:17–19). Bonhoeffer notes that, “Against every direct claim upon him, whether natural, ethical or religious, [Abraham] will be obedient to the Word of God” (110). So in this model, the divine impulse is absolute, and the whole nexus of relationship is relativized by it.

Doc: Model One agrees that sometimes the divine impulse can lead us to go against some aspects of our ordinary way of assessing the nexus of relationship, but not against the nexus considered as a whole.

Electra: In this model (as you have articulated it) the absolute is the nexus of relationship considered as a whole, and the divine impulse is relativized by it (along with every other particular relation within the nexus as a whole). How is Abraham’s action considered “faithful” in this model (or Job’s or Jesus’ for that matter)?

Thanks,
Electra

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

Edited by - Electra on 07/27/2002 1:05:39 PM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/27/2002 7:23 PM (GMT -6)

Electra

Bonhoeffer has a lengthy discussion of Abraham in Cost of Discipleship that parallels Kierkegaard’s reading in many ways (Kiekegaard in turn bases his reading of Abraham’s righteousness on Romans 4:3 and Hebrews 11:17–19). Bonhoeffer notes that, “Against every direct claim upon him, whether natural, ethical or religious, [Abraham] will be obedient to the Word of God” (110). So in this model, the divine impulse is absolute, and the whole nexus of relationship is relativized by it.

Iconoclast

This argument presupposes that the “divine impulse” can be known as such without reference to “the whole nexus of relationship”. But this is the issue in question.

The issue as Doc laid it out is a difference in the models for “hearing God” – a difference in how we can know that it is a “divine impulse”.

Presupposing that a “divine impulse” can only be known as such based on the “whole nexus of relationship” leads me to the same conclusion that “Against every direct claim upon him, whether natural, ethical or religious, [Abraham] will be obedient to the Word of God”.

A feature of Model One is that the “Word of God” can be understood not only as a “divine impulse” but also as everything else that God has revealed to us to be His “Word” – His Command. And over time and through maturity of having our mind renewed by Christ within us the “Word of God” can be discerned through how God built His creation and all the ways that He supports and sustains it.

Presupposing this model would lead us to an understanding that Abraham knew that he was indeed hearing God accurately based on all of his previous experiences – including of course his previous experiences with hearing God before. For example God telling him that Sarah was going to have a child when this was not possible and it coming to pass. Therefore there was no question in Abraham’s mind about whether it was indeed the word of God telling him to kill Isaac and thus it was truly a test of whether Abraham was going to trust God or trust his own knowledge of good and evil. The key question then is always – do we choose to put ourselves in the center of the “whole nexus of relationship” or do we choose to support God as the center of the “whole nexus of relationship”. And I purposely use the word “support” God rather than “obey” God because it implies an active positive energy on our part versus a reluctant “theistic bootlicker” interpretation.

Electra

In this model (as you have articulated it) the absolute is the nexus of relationship considered as a whole, and the divine impulse is relativized by it (along with every other particular relation within the nexus as a whole). How is Abraham’s action considered “faithful” in this model (or Job’s or Jesus’ for that matter)?

Iconoclast

Model One’s presupposition is that God is the center of the “whole nexus of relationship”. Therefore the divine impulse happens within this context and can only be known in this context. By definition of this model then a “divine impulse” that is “against” the whole nexus is a “divine impulse” where God is not the center of the nexus – which means then that it is really an impulse coming from us as we seek to be the center of this nexus.

When we choose to support God as the center of the whole nexus of relationship then we can hear His voice. When we put ourselves at the center (which is what living out of our own knowledge of good and evil is in this model) then we are closed to hearing His voice.

Acting “faithful” in this model means to support God as the center. When Erwin McManus says that obeying the voice of God allows us to hear His voice more clearly this model would say that this means that when we support God as the center in small ways we are opening ourselves up to seeing how God is indeed the center and therefore hearing His voice more clearly. It is a process of dying to ourselves as the center and allowing God to be the center. As God becomes the center of our life we can now see more clearly how He is really the center of the whole nexus.

Doc

Model Two emphasizes the otherness of God, the fallenness of humans, and thus our fallibility in using our faculties to assess situations. It thus emphasizes at least the possibility that the divine impulse might NOT be incontinuity with the nexus of relations a person is part of at a given moment. Indeed, as with Abraham (read by Kierkegaard -- the "teleological suspension of the ethical"), the divine Word (impulse) might cause one to GO AGAINST the nexus of relationships (including ordinary moral principles).

Iconoclast

From a Model One perspective, Model One would say that Model Two is really talking about the “nexus” from the perspective of man trying to be the center. And with this understanding Model One can agree with Model Two’s language.

From the “nexus” where man is the center then God is indeed the “other”, we are utterly fallen (by definition) and thus are totally fallible in our understanding and our ability to recognize love and ONLY the direct and powerful word of God can interrupt us. This is how I think of Saul on the road to Damascus. Saul was a Pharisees’ Pharisee and as such required a strong and direct intervention. Yet clearly there was a part of Saul that in this encounter recognized the voice of God – sure God had to shout and poke him in both eyes at once – but still there was a part of Saul where he was still connected enough to recognize love when he saw it – he was not “lukewarm”.

Model One would say that the “teleological suspension of the ethical” means that the “ethical” that is being spoken of is the understanding of good and evil by a man who is living out of his own knowledge of good and evil. And thus it is very true that the Word of God supercedes this. In fact, Model One would say it much stronger by saying something like “the teleological total invalidation of the stolen ethical”.

Model One would agree that the divine Word (impulse) will indeed cause one to GO AGAINST the nexus of relationships that are based on US as the center of the nexus. It would argue that the Pharisee is the embodiment of an individual who seeks to be the center of the nexus and that the divine Word often causes us to go against this.

Doc

But some, especially Modes, wanted to emphasize that SOMETIMES at least hearing God's Word in a particular fashion may swim against our assessment of the nexus, and thus, in these cases, getting feedback is not only not helpful, but may constitute an act of disobedience.

Iconoclast

Again, from a Model One perspective, Model Two is presupposing that the nexus is the nexus where man is at the center. Which then means that seeking feedback is to seek feedback IN ORDER to validate himself as the center which would indeed be an act of disobedience. This would mean that this man truly hears the voice of God and rather than just doing it, rather than throwing off his own knowledge of good and evil, he seeks to run from the Word of God by reestablishing himself as the center, by validating himself through feedback as being “good” within his own knowledge of good and evil – validating himself as the center and not God.

What would Model Two’s view of Model One’s language be?

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 7/27/2002 7:57 PM (GMT -6)

Electra said:

I would like to call Model Three “Bonhoeffer’s costly grace view.” This model has a christocentric emphasis (e.g., the cross is God’s solution to our knowledge of good and evil; and our action is only real insofar as it is accomplished by Christ working in and through us).

Semeia:

There is nothing in your brief description of Model Three above with which I would disagree. We all are in complete agreement on the “christocentric emphasis (e.g., the cross is God’s solution to our knowledge of good and evil; and our action is only real insofar as it is accomplished by Christ working in and through us).”

I am assuming that since you are presenting a third model that you think we disagree with what you are saying above. I am assuming that you think that the nature of getting feedback on our actions somehow goes against what you are saying.

Getting feedback on whether or not an action has had the loving impact that we intended in no way means that its “reality” or “righteousness” does not come from Christ working in and through us. It simply means that we are not perfect conduits of Christ; we make mistakes and therefore we need help from every aspect of cognition to know whether or not we are succeeding. (And by “succeeding” I don’t mean succeeding in “righteousness,” but rather succeeding to the best of our ability in having a loving impact on another person. Only God himself can judge righteousness.)

For example, let’s say that we feel led by God (we hear his voice telling us) to do a charitable food drop over a country in Africa experiencing a terrible famine. So we gather donations from various organizations and fill up our helicopter with food packages and fly over the stricken area to do our drop. So far, so good. We have been listening to God, and we feel all our actions have been given up to God and to his leading. Now we are putting his word into action – Christ working in and through us. At the moment of truth, as we fly over the area and drop the goods, (doing God’s will, as best as we can, as far as we know) do we care if:

One) We miss the mark and drop the packages into a ravine where they cannot be retrieved?
Two) We miss the mark and drop the packages on the heads of the villagers, killing them?
Three) We miss the mark and drop the packages in an area where they are immediately stolen by people planning on exploiting the charity, and using the packages as leverage in their war?

In all three cases our intent was good, and we were listening to God and attempting to fulfill God’s leading. Is that really all that matters? Does it matter if the starving get fed? Or does it only matter that we are listening to God?

The point of getting feedback on our impact is NOT so we can take the “credit” of a good deed, and somehow deny that all righteousness comes from God. The point of getting feedback on our impact is so that we can ACTUALLY do what we hear God asking us to do.

Electra said:

1. We do not recognize true love when we see it. We perceive it as foolish and weak (1 Cor. 3), and as a threat to both the political (thus the political leaders crucified Christ for insurrection) and religious (thus the religious leaders crucified Christ for blasphemy) established order. We either crucify it (via persecuting Christ—as Saul discovered on the road to Damascus), or are crucified with it (via baptism into Christ’s death).

Semeia:

I do not agree with this at all. I think it is absolutely possible (and in fact the whole point of creation) that we recognize true love when we see it. What blocks us from seeing what is written on our hearts are the ethical and moral and religious viewpoints which constitute the “knowledge of good and evil.” This is what Christ died to overcome. Our religious and moral views indeed block us from what is obvious to a child. Jesus shows us how to become “like children” not just through the “action” of the cross, but through an actual loving relationship. If we are indeed unable to “recognize true love when we see it” then we are not in a loving relationship with Jesus after all – but simply obedient servants who experience the grace of a kindly master, but no love.

I agree that the Pharisee does not recognize true love when he sees it. And to the extent that we are operating out of our Pharisaical parts we do not recognize true love. But I would argue that when we are NOT operating out of this part of us we can recognize true love. I think this is the meaning of Jesus encounter with the Pharisee. The “Pharisee” is that man who operates SOLELY out of his own knowledge of good and evil and denies that part of himself where God’s law is written on his heart.

If you really believe that you don’t recognize true love when you see it, what is your relationship with Jesus based upon? Duty and gratitude, but not love? What about your relationship with your spouse? Are you unable to say that you recognize love?

And if we are unable to recognize love, why would God command us to love, above all else? Is it really only Christ who loves, and not us? And does that mean that Christ really loves himself in us, because we ourselves are incapable of recognizing love?

Electra said:

2. There is not necessarily a humanly distinguishable difference between the actions of the Pharisees and the actions of disciples of Christ. It is true that “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). But Paul reminds us that “if I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing” (1 Cor. 13:3).

Semeia:

I do not agree that “There is not necessarily a humanly distinguishable difference between the actions of the Pharisees and the actions of disciples of Christ.” I also do not see how the Bonhoeffer quote you cite supports that conclusion.

Are you saying that it is impossible for us to tell when someone is being nice to us for their own gain versus someone being nice to us because they genuinely care about us? Don’t we know when someone is doing something for us with “strings attached”?

Electra said:

3. Successful love entails perfect fulfillment of the law (as summed up in the Greatest Commandment). In spite of whatever assurance we may receive to the contrary, our efforts to achieve this success may make us good, but not perfect. Therefore, strategies for achieving this success merely exacerbate knowledge of good and evil rather than freeing us from it.

Iconoclast (joining Semeia’s post):

Totally agree.

When you say, “whatever assurance we may receive”, this suggests to me a seeking of feedback on whether our actions are loving or not IN ORDER to determine how many “points” toward righteousness we should receive. Again, I agree that this presupposes that we are operating out of our own knowledge of good and evil and not out of unity with Christ.

Would you agree that successful loves entails BOTH operating out of Christ within us AND a focus on our impact – seeking feedback on whether our actions are having a loving impact?

Would you agree that if someone is NOT concerned at all with how they are impacting other people that they are NOT operating out of Christ as their center?

Thanks,
Semeia and Iconoclast

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

Edited by - Semeia on 07/28/2002 7:55:27 PM

RidingTheRapids
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2002
Total Posts : 6

Posted 7/28/2002 7:35 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
There is not necessarily a humanly distinguishable difference between the actions of the Pharisees and the actions of disciples of Christ.

May I inject something here? Have you ever experienced a time when you felt more love and compassion coming from a person who was clueless about Christ? For example, I have had the experince of playing ball on both a church league and a bar league and to be honest I experienced more "love" and encouragement from my drinking buddies than from my church brothers during a game.

My point or question is this, how can we say that the defining point of a Christian is the impact of love they have on others when many times unbelievers have more love than a believer in a given situation? I wonder if sometimes the Pharisees could have been seen as having more love than the disciples of Christ?

quote:
Would you agree that successful loves entails BOTH operating out of Christ within us AND a focus on our impact – seeking feedback on whether our actions are having a loving impact?

It entails both but I'm wondering if the measuring tool to use to assess a follower of Christ is more of obedience than impact? We would measure how obedient we are being in loving others even beyond the impact we are having? What makes Christian love different from any other love? Wouldn't the difference be obedience and sacrifice (acting with love even if we do not feel like it?)

RidingTheRapids (With Jesus)

Edited by - RidingTheRapids on 07/29/2002 07:23:21 AM

Edited by - RidingTheRapids on 07/29/2002 07:27:30 AM

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 7/28/2002 7:54 PM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast, Your discussion of supporting self vs. God as the nexus of relationships was difficult for me to understand, but well worth it! I think I’m tracking. Here are some areas of agreement I see:

As creator, sustainer, and redeemer, God is present and active in every aspect of creation.
In order to be intelligible, the divine impulse must have reference to the whole nexus of relationship; God must communicate to creatures in and through creation.
God should be supported (obeyed) as the center.

From a Model Two perspective, Model One does not sufficiently accounting for fallibility or finitude. Regarding fallibility: Although God is present and active in every aspect of creation, Jesus Christ is the only creature to have fully actualized the divine impulse perfectly. I think you would probably agree with this so far, but the implications of this for accurately assessing the “Word of God” based on the nexus of relations as a whole need to be taken seriously, even from a position that presupposes God-centeredness (which is true of both Models according to their self-understanding). The divine impulse is resisted to varying degrees by all other creatures within the whole nexus of relationship. Since the divine impulse is imperfectly actualized by each particular relation within the nexus, an assessment of the whole nexus of relations, would not yield an accurate understanding of the divine impulse (recall Doc’s analogy of the money he loaned his daughter in S&PE).

Regarding finitude: Even after our own fallibility (as in fallenness, not mistakenness) is redeemed, our finitude ensures us that an assessment of the whole nexus of relations is impossible. The potential to be surprised by the divine impulse (which is offered from the perspective of One who is able to assess the whole nexus) is as large as our perspective of the nexus is limited. From a Model Two perspective, a recognition of our finitude should yield a maximal openness to any possibility offered from any place (Kierkegaard calls this “agile willingness”). Given our finitude, our assessment of our slice of the nexus must be preceded by humility and openness. Even when we are as practiced at hearing the voice of God as Abraham was by the time God commanded him to sacrifice Isaac, the divine impulse can still be unexpected, inexplicable, and excruciatingly difficult to actualize. I would not fault a faithful, God-centered person for viewing the divine impulse this way, because it is an entirely appropriate response given our finitude. Even Jesus struggled so much with the divine impulse he received that he asked the Father why he had forsaken him. What if the divine impulse becomes more difficult to discern and implement rather than less as we become more faithful?

Our current way of interpreting the nexus of relations is based on the scientific method: it verifies conclusions via repeatability for the sake of establishing predictability. This information is very instrumentally useful. But Jesus compares the Spirit to the wind; no one knows where it comes from or where it is going. Implementing unprecedented and unverified hypotheses is scientifically very foolish and unlikely to yield successful results. But spiritually—when the hypothesis is not our own, but God’s—we trust it is worth risking implementation. Not because of the results (telos) it will yield (not that these are unimportant!), but rather because of the source of the hypothesis.

Speaking of finitude, I think my brain has just reached its limit.

Thanks very much for this stimulating discussion. I look forward to getting to Semeia’s questions about Model Three, which I think will help clarify things a lot.

Later,
Electra

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

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 7/29/2002 2:30 AM (GMT -6)

[Electra: 1. We do not recognize true love when we see it.
Doc: But we DO recognize the divine impulse when we feel it? Here is perhaps a fundamental difference between the two models. Model Two assumes that, if a person is open to love (open to God), they recognize it, and this is in fact at least in continuity with, if not identical with, recognizing the divine impulse.

Electra: 2. There is not necessarily a humanly distinguishable difference between the actions of the Pharisees and the actions of disciples of Christ.

Doc: It is true, as you say, that "Jesus reveals to his disciples the possibility of a demonic faith which produces wonderful works quite indistinguishable from the works of the true disciples, works of charity, miracles, perhaps even of personal sanctification, but which is nevertheless a denial of Jesus and of the life of discipleship." But I don’t think this entails that a person who love’s genuinely is indistinguishable from a person who acts or speaks lovingly for ulterior motives. At the very least, I certainly don’t think it entails that WE OURSELVES can’t tell when WE are loving genuinely verses loving for ulterior motives.

Electra: 3…Therefore, strategies for achieving this success (viz. Being more loving by assessing impact through feedback) merely exacerbate knowledge of good and evil rather than freeing us from it.

Doc: I can see how this danger exists. Being loving could become simply a surrogate way for "being good." Since the "pattern of this world" (Rom 12:2) is structured on the knowledge of good and evil, this is an ever-present danger that must be guarded against. But the crucial difference between being loving and being good is MOTIVATION. If I truly seek to love others, I am not trying to calculate my goodness, which is what the knowledge of good and evil is all about.

Electra: 4. The only way we can be free from the knowledge of good and evil is by knowing ourselves and the world through Christ crucified. All other strategies for assessing the intentions and actions of ourselves and others are relativized by this knowledge, which calls us to absolute obedience.

Doc: Agree, and I agree that this is Bonhoeffer’s main point. The difference between us, I believe, is that the obedience that is demanded of us is TO LOVE, which is RELATIONAL, hence entails COMMUNICATION which always involves FEEDBACK. At the same time, I have to concede that some of the Bonhoeffer quotes you supplied challenge the model one view (at least as an interpretation of B.) This quote, for example, seems to align better with your interpretation: "Reason and conscience, responsibility and piety all stood in the way, and even the law and "scriptural authority" itself were obstacles which pretended to defend them from going to the extremes of antinomianism and "enthusiasms." But the call of Jesus made short work of all these barriers, and created obedience. That call was the Word of God himself, and all that it required was a single-minded obedience (87). Thanks for pointing this out. You really did your homework!

Electra: #5. Christ’s works of love through us remain hidden from us until the day of judgment…. Quoting B. "If we want to know our own goodness or love, it has already ceased to be love…."

Doc: I can easily see how you derive from this the conclusion that we can only know obedience, not whether our actions are loving or not. But an alternative interpretation is simply that we can’t know the DEFINITIVE NATURE of our actions, just as we can’t know the definitive judgment of GOOD and EVIL, though we can "detect" whether any given state of affairs is good or evil.

Electra: In this model (model One) the absolute is the nexus of relationship considered as a whole, and the divine impulse is relativized by it (along with every other particular relation within the nexus as a whole). How is Abraham’s action considered "faithful" in this model (or Job’s or Jesus’ for that matter)?

Doc: The nexus of relationships isn’t the absolute. God is. What is relativized is our CONFIDENCE that we are hearing or sensing the divine impulse correctly. Also, even if we ARE hearing or sensing the divine impulse correctly, I’m suggesting that there is no reason to isolate this divine impulse from the total nexus of relationships. The impulse, rather, is TO INTERACT to the total nexus of relationships in a certain way: namely, with Christ-like love. I think the model of Abraham shows this. He followed the divine call, but it was not isolated from his over-all relationship with God (he trusted God would provide the sacrifice) and with Isaac (interacting with him on the basis of his wholistic relationship with God – viz. Telling him "God would supply the sacrifice").

Icon: A feature of Model One is that the "Word of God" can be understood not only as a "divine impulse" but also as everything else that God has revealed to us to be His "Word" – His Command.

Doc: Yes, I see this as a crucial difference between Model One and Model Two. Model two, I think, radically individualizes and isolates the "divine impulse," thus leveraging ones confidence in hearing the impulse correctly AGAINST their ability to get feedback from the total nexus of relationships. Model One understands the divine impulse IN RELATIONSHIP with the total nexus, trusting that the God who speaks to them in the divine impulse also speaks to them through the total nexus of relationships. Or rather, the divine impulse ENCOMPASSES both the subjective hearing and the objective feedback.

Icon: The key question then is always – do we choose to put ourselves in the center of the "whole nexus of relationship" or do we choose to support God as the center of the "whole nexus of relationship".

Doc: Model Two advocates certainly don’t INTEND to put themselves in the center, but rather want to emphasize that GOD is the center. Still, by interpreting the divine impulse as being OVER AND AGAINST the nexus, they are putting their ability to hear the divine impulse at the center. Whether aspects of B.’s thought can be used to support this or not (see Electra’s quotes above), I think this is dangerous in that it could make an idol of our subjective impressions. I also think it arbitrary, for the one who speaks to us through divine impulses is also the Creator and Sustainer of the world.

Icon: In fact, Model One would say it much stronger by saying something like "the teleological total invalidation of the stolen ethical".

Doc: That helps a lot. I have struggled with whether there could be any room for "the teleological suspension of the ethical" in model One. I think you nailed it.

Semeia: Getting feedback on whether or not an action has had the loving impact that we intended in no way means that its "reality" or "righteousness" does not come from Christ working in and through us. It simply means that we are not perfect conduits of Christ; we make mistakes and therefore we need help from every aspect of cognition to know whether or not we are succeeding.

Doc: Good point. But I would add that even if we were hearing God PERFECTLY (which I’m not sure we could ever know that we do), it would still entail getting feedback. In fact, as I read Scripture, GOD HIMSELF looks for "feedback." He acts, we respond, then he RESPONDS. He changes plans in response to changing situations. This is why I don’t at all think that hearing God perfectly in any way modifies our need to access our impact by getting feedback. You can hear God perfectly (let us suppose) and STILL modify your actions in response to the total nexus of relationships you are woven into. In my view, Model One is intrinsically NON-OPENNESS.

Riding Rapids (R&R): how can we say that the defining point of a Christian is the impact of love they have on others when many times unbelievers have more love than a believer in a given situation? I'm thinking the measuring tool to use to assess a follower of Christ is obedience rather than impact. Who are we obeying by loving others? What sacrifice is it causing? Stuff like that.

Doc: You raise a good point about non-Christians being more loving than Christians. I think, quite honestly, that this is because many non-Christians operate LESS out of the knowledge of good and evil than Christians. Christians (and other "religious" people) clog up their heart with all sorts of judgments, conditions, criterias etc.). But I don’t see how we remedy this situation by NOT paying attention to the impact our actions have.

Electra: Regarding finitude: Even after our own fallibility (as in fallenness, not mistakenness) is redeemed, our finitude ensures us that an assessment of the whole nexus of relations is impossible.

Doc: True, we cannot have anything like a complete assessment of the whole nexus of relations. This is why THE DEFINITIVE impact of our actions is beyond us. Christ alone will reveal it on the judgment day, as you point out with point #5. But this doesn’t entails that we can’t and shouldn’t assess impact in the immediate "pockets" of relationships we are directly impacting.

Enjoying the dialogue. It seems clearer than it was. The issues are being nicely laid out. Thanks especially to Electra for clear defense of her position.

Love
Doc

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

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 7/29/2002 6:27 AM (GMT -6)

Semeia:

There is nothing in your brief description of Model Three above with which I would disagree. We all are in complete agreement on the “christocentric emphasis (e.g., the cross is God’s solution to our knowledge of good and evil; and our action is only real insofar as it is accomplished by Christ working in and through us).”

I am assuming that since you are presenting a third model that you think we disagree with what you are saying above. I am assuming that you think that the nature of getting feedback on our actions somehow goes against what you are saying.

Electra:

I presented a third model for the sake of summarizing my own contribution to this discussion, which may or may not overlap with other contributions. I did not mean to imply that you disagree with any or all of this model, and I apologize for giving that impression.

Semeia:

Getting feedback on whether or not an action has had the loving impact that we intended in no way means that its “reality” or “righteousness” does not come from Christ working in and through us. It simply means that we are not perfect conduits of Christ; we make mistakes and therefore we need help from every aspect of cognition to know whether or not we are succeeding. (And by “succeeding” I don’t mean succeeding in “righteousness,” but rather succeeding to the best of our ability in having a loving impact on another person. Only God himself can judge righteousness.)

Electra:

Thanks for this clarification. I agree.

Semeia:

For example, let’s say that we feel led by God (we hear his voice telling us) to do a charitable food drop over a country in Africa experiencing a terrible famine. So we gather donations from various organizations and fill up our helicopter with food packages and fly over the stricken area to do our drop. So far, so good. We have been listening to God, and we feel all our actions have been given up to God and to his leading. Now we are putting his word into action – Christ working in and through us. At the moment of truth, as we fly over the area and drop the goods, (doing God’s will, as best as we can, as far as we know) do we care if:

One) We miss the mark and drop the packages into a ravine where they cannot be retrieved?
Two) We miss the mark and drop the packages on the heads of the villagers, killing them?
Three) We miss the mark and drop the packages in an area where they are immediately stolen by people planning on exploiting the charity, and using the packages as leverage in their war?

In all three cases our intent was good, and we were listening to God and attempting to fulfill God’s leading. Is that really all that matters? Does it matter if the starving get fed? Or does it only matter that we are listening to God?

Electra:

It matters whether or not the starving people get fed. If God tells us to feed starving people and the people don’t end up fed, then we have been disobedient.

Semeia:

The point of getting feedback on our impact is NOT so we can take the “credit” of a good deed, and somehow deny that all righteousness comes from God. The point of getting feedback on our impact is so that we can ACTUALLY do what we hear God asking us to do.

Electra:

I agree that it is important to use all of our skills, intelligence, resources, etc. to ACTUALLY do what we hear God asking us to do.

Semeia:

I think it is absolutely possible (and in fact the whole point of creation) that we recognize true love when we see it. What blocks us from seeing what is written on our hearts are the ethical and moral and religious viewpoints which constitute the “knowledge of good and evil.” This is what Christ died to overcome. Our religious and moral views indeed block us from what is obvious to a child. Jesus shows us how to become “like children” not just through the “action” of the cross, but through an actual loving relationship. If we are indeed unable to “recognize true love when we see it” then we are not in a loving relationship with Jesus after all – but simply obedient servants who experience the grace of a kindly master, but no love.

Electra:

If we are indeed able to recognize true love when we see it, then how did Jesus end up getting crucified? The Pharisees were not the only ones responsible for his death. The crucifixion itself was carried out by Romans, and it was celebrated by a crowd full of all kinds of people. Jesus’ own mother thought he was crazy and tried to take custody of him at one point. Judas, the disciple Jesus refered to as “Friend,” betrayed Jesus to the authorities. Peter, the disciple who swore he was willing to die for Jesus, ended up denying his Lord three times. Even after the resurrection, Thomas refused to believe that Jesus was the Lord, and many disciples failed to recognize him. Jesus does not fault people for failing to recognize him. Instead he prays, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” They didn’t know they were crucifying the Lord of Love. That’s why they needed to be forgiven. And it’s the same reason we need to be forgiven. We act on what we think we know.

Semeia:

I agree that the Pharisee does not recognize true love when he sees it. And to the extent that we are operating out of our Pharisaical parts we do not recognize true love. But I would argue that when we are NOT operating out of this part of us we can recognize true love. I think this is the meaning of Jesus encounter with the Pharisee. The “Pharisee” is that man who operates SOLELY out of his own knowledge of good and evil and denies that part of himself where God’s law is written on his heart.

If you really believe that you don’t recognize true love when you see it, what is your relationship with Jesus based upon? Duty and gratitude, but not love? What about your relationship with your spouse? Are you unable to say that you recognize love?

Electra:

Confessing our failure to know love does not preclude being in a loving relationship with Jesus. It simply means that the basis for this relationship is faith that Jesus really does have our best interest in mind, even when other voices or circumstances cast doubt on God’s loving intention toward us. I think you would say the same thing.

Semeia:

And if we are unable to recognize love, why would God command us to love, above all else?

Electra:

This is back to the catch-22. The law reveals that love is indeed the highest goal. But it also reveals how we fail to achieve that goal. It is only in infinitely resigning our ability to achieve love—sacrificing it once and for all—that we receive it. This is how I understand what Jesus means when he says “those who lose their life for my sake will find it” (Matt. 10:39).

Semeia:

Is it really only Christ who loves, and not us? And does that mean that Christ really loves himself in us, because we ourselves are incapable of recognizing love?

Electra:

This definitely seems to be what Bonhoeffer is saying, at least in The Cost of Discipleship. This is also how I understand what Doc and Mephi mean by the “glory of God.” I personally resist drawing this conclusion, but I am not prepared to offer an alternative.

Semeia:

I do not agree that “There is not necessarily a humanly distinguishable difference between the actions of the Pharisees and the actions of disciples of Christ.” I also do not see how the Bonhoeffer quote you cite supports that conclusion.

Are you saying that it is impossible for us to tell when someone is being nice to us for their own gain versus someone being nice to us because they genuinely care about us? Don’t we know when someone is doing something for us with “strings attached”?

Electra:

It is not “impossible for us to tell when someone is being nice to us for their own gain versus someone being nice to us because they genuinely care about us.” People confess self-interest or get caught in it all the time. But they also get away with it all the time. It is possible for someone to trick us into believing they really love us when in fact they really want to be righteous—it is even possible for someone to trick themselves into believing they are really loving, when in fact they are really trying to be righteous. Paul suggests that it is possible to die for someone else without love.

For example. Let’s say that a little girl is playing in the street. Rocky and Rambo both notice that there is a truck headed right toward her. They both rush into traffic in order to save the little girl, knowing that they will not survive the attempt. Rocky’s last thought was, “that little girl is going to die unless someone pushes her out of the way.” Rambo’s last thought was, “By sacrificing myself for that little girl I can prove once and for all that I’m a real action hero.” Rocky’s intent was self-sacrificial, but Rambo’s intent was self-serving. Their impact was the same. When Rocky gets to heaven, he is surprised to learn that the little girl he helped was actually Jesus. And when Rambo gets to heaven, he is surprised to learn that he isn’t Jesus.

Sometimes there are signs that reveal a person’s true motives. But this is simply not always the case. We can’t assess someone else’s intent with any degree of accuracy or certainty based on the impact of their actions—this is precisely the knowledge we all agree is reserved for God and God alone.

Iconoclast and Semeia:

Would you agree that successful loves entails BOTH operating out of Christ within us AND a focus on our impact – seeking feedback on whether our actions are having a loving impact?

Electra:

No. Successful love requires perfect fulfillment of the law (as summarized in the Great Commandment). This can only be accomplished by Christ. Having said that, I am persuaded by your model in which both Christ and the other serve as criteria for determining impact. However, at this point I would say that Christ is the decisive criteria. Forgive the jargon, but I would say that Christ alone is necessary for the event of justification, but the criteria of neighbor is also necessary for the on-going process of sanctification.

Iconoclast and Semeia:

Would you agree that if someone is NOT concerned at all with how they are impacting other people that they are NOT operating out of Christ as their center?

Electra:

I would say that concern for feedback regarding the impact of our actions naturally flows out of union with Christ. But feedback is also sought by those who are interested in justifying themselves apart from Christ (I do NOT think this is what YOU are suggesting). So I think that whether or not someone seeks others’ feedback regarding the impact of their actions is not a helpful way to discern what center they are operating out of.

Thanks to your patience in answering my questions, I think I am starting to understand where you’re coming from. But I remain open to correction.

Enjoying the conversation,
Electra

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

Edited by - Electra on 07/29/2002 12:20:48 PM

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 7/29/2002 11:26 AM (GMT -6)

Doc, when you said:

[Electra: 1. We do not recognize true love when we see it.
Doc: But we DO recognize the divine impulse when we feel it? Here is perhaps a fundamental difference between the two models. Model Two assumes that, if a person is open to love (open to God), they recognize it, and this is in fact at least in continuity with, if not identical with, recognizing the divine impulse.

Did you mean Model One "assumes that, if a person is open to love (open to God), they recognize it..."?

And when you said:

You can hear God perfectly (let us suppose) and STILL modify your actions in response to the total nexus of relationships you are woven into. In my view, Model One is intrinsically NON-OPENNESS.

Did you mean Model Two is "intrinsically NON-OPENNESS"?

I promise I'm not trying to be persnickety... but just trying to reduce the confusion, and stop my head from spinning!

Here are the descriptions you gave for the two models:

quote:
Model One we might call "Bonohoeffer's Holistic View".
Model Two we call call "The Existential View"

Model One emphasizes that God is the Creator and Sustain of the world. Hence living in union with God, hearing God, and following God is always part and parcel of interacting with the total nexus of relationships one is part of at any given moment. The relationships here involve everything and everything one knows, experiences, etc. One attends to unique divine impulses given by the Spirit while also using all their faculties to assess a particular situation. The assessment is part of the "hearing" and directs HOW the impulse gets played out (and perhaps even qualifies whether the impulse is of God or not).

Model Two emphasizes the otherness of God, the fallenness of humans, and thus our fallibility in using our faculties to assess situations. It thus emphasizes at least the possibility that the divine impulse might NOT be incontinuity with the nexus of relations a person is part of at a given moment. Indeed, as with Abraham (read by Kierkegaard -- the "teleological suspension of the ethical"), the divine Word (impulse) might cause one to GO AGAINST the nexus of relationships (including ordinary moral principles).

Model One agrees that sometimes the divine impulse can lead us to go against some aspects of our ordinary way of assessing the nexus of relationship, but not against the nexus considered as a whole. Model Two, however, argues that sometimes the leading may cause us to go against the nexus altogether.

Thanks,
Semeia

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

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 7/29/2002 5:54 PM (GMT -6)

GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

I'm off by one --ONE -- little digit, and Semeia has a freaking breakdown. Model One, Model Two... ONE number. Like anything hangs on THAT. Talk about picky. I am so offended at this hyper-critical detailed find-a-fault-at-all-costs attitude that I... well, I think I'll just quit. Do you hear me? QUIT. Heh sister, I was following God's will, okay, being obedient and all that... and so I don't need your anal feedback. Alright?

love ya

and thanks.

and no one better be offended at my little humor on the feedback debate... just bored tonight listening to silly piano music, so I thought I'd goof around.

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

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 7/29/2002 6:12 PM (GMT -6)

Doc,

Thanks for taking that so well. And to think I was afraid that you would shoot the messenger...

Thanks,
Semeia

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

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 7/29/2002 6:25 PM (GMT -6)

I would just like to note Model Three’s important advantage. It is #3. Not One or Two. THREE. I really don’t think it matters if you mix up Model One or Model Two. Why? Because neither one of them are Three. I realize some of you may struggle with threeness envy. There is an easy solution. Agree with Model Three. Like me.

Electra

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

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 7/29/2002 6:44 PM (GMT -6)

All right. Herr Bonhoeffer has been giving me fits for a couple weeks, but I think I have resolved something. Of course, all of you are well beyond this point in understanding B., so this will perhaps come across as elementary, but for me it is a substantial step. I am finished with Ch. 3 finally, and have processed enough of what has been said here to get a more cohesive idea of what B. is trying to say.

As I have tried to articulate with Iconoclast, I was having difficulty understanding what B. would have us do with the categories of good and evil. He seemed to speak so negatively about the knowledge of good and evil that I couldn't tell if he wanted to do away with the categories altogether or what. If so, that wouldn't make sense to me. I think the distinction between what is good and what is evil is a necessary one. We cannot live in a world with evil, and refuse to attempt to distinguish it from good. So, after my good fortune to talk this over with Greg on Sunday over my pancakes and his club sandwich (good brainfood), I think it is as simple (and not so simple) as this:

Yes, we are forced to categorize choices into good and evil, right and wrong, loving and unloving (call it what you like). What B. is saying is essentially that we are not to use that process on anyone but ourselves. Our interaction with others should not involve a labeling of their choices into good and evil, because we are assuming authority and ability that is only God's. All we can do is love them by identifying and appreciating the infinite worth that God has ascribed to each of us.

And this is more profound than it first seemed to me. Initially, I didn't think this was all that revolutionary. Hate the sin, not the sinner, right? Heard that before. But B. offers us a reason WHY. One, we are unable to judge effectively because we lack God's omniscient understanding. Two, our actions, good or bad, are IRRELEVANT to our worth in God's eyes. We are worthy because the Giver of worth is worthy.

Okay, my stream of late-night consciousness is over for now. My next question is how B. justified his plot to assassinate Hitler. To do so, he would be required to judge him, right? I think Iconoclast has written something about this recently, so I will go hunt for it and be back later. . .

Thanks for letting me write this out for myself . . . helps me process.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

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