 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > An attempt at clarity and consensus | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/6/2002 5:46 PM (GMT -6) |   | Mephi
What would happen if traffic were not guided by speed limits, traffic signals, speeding tickets or benchmarks for people to see how fast they were going?
Iconoclast
Great question. Too much fun. Great to see ya posting again Mephi.
We have some evidence for what happens in an environment of no speed limits. It is called the Autobahn and as far as I am concerned it is a beautiful thing. 
In general I would answer this by saying that traffic would be more chaotic, less efficient and more dangerous.
When we do not have general principles (“generals”, “universals”) to guide our behavior – when we do not have any ability to predict what the patterns are or determine whether we are within a pattern or significantly outside a pattern (gain feedback and do impact assessment) then we are less effective at whatever we choose to do.
A simple rule of traffic is that traffic flows more smoothly – more efficiently and with less error – when people are travelling at the same or similar speeds.
To not be able to predict the speeds of those around us increases the risk of error.
Even on the autobahn people have self-sorted a set of patterns (I think these are even policed to some extent) that aid in their ability to predict other’s speeds.
Mephi
What if traffic speed were guided by people's GENUINE, loving concern about the safety of ALL drivers (including themselves)?
Iconoclast
It is! Out of our genuine loving concern for the safety of all drivers we voted in speed limits and feedback mechanisms.
Well, maybe not completely out of ONLY loving concern for the SAFETY of all drivers. If we did that then our speed limits would be around 10 miles an hour. We also of course factored in utility. As a group we democratically decided that the forces of safety and utility were best balanced by instituting speed limits and a whole host of other mechanisms designed to provide predictability (impact assessment) and feedback.
Mephi
What if everyone were to concern themselves with the reality of the road conditions, weather, and car health within the genuine concern above...and NOT just how fast the law allows them to go?
Iconoclast
We do. My experience is that when the roads are sheer ice here in Minnesota everyone slows WAY down – doesn’t matter what the speed limit is. This “law” has an enormous amount of power to take effect by itself.
And it is also my experience that out of loving concern a cop will institute a “stop action” on anyone that is driving 70 mph when the roads are sheer ice.
Mephi
What if everyone were merely concerned with being a LOVING driver?
Iconoclast
Then we would get together, analyze the data, and set up systems that allow impact assessment (predictability) and feedback. We would institute an authority to police the system that WE created - which means we would commission the authority to provide us loving feedback – even when it didn’t make us so happy in the moment.
LOVING to us would also not just mean pure safety as the only objective – it would also encompass the purpose or utility of travel – it would seek to balance this utility with the risk of harm – according to the value or worth that WE place on this utility.
We all voted with our feet about the 55 mph speed limit, and it exists no longer. THAT “law” also had enormous power to take effect by itself.
Notice also that WE instituted an authority to give us loving feedback. When a cop pulls us over and starts yelling at us (ranting and raving) about our speed how do we feel about that? When a cop pulls us over and says very respectfully, “Sir, is there an emergency? … I have evidence on my radar that I would like you to see that shows you were travelling 92 mph (in a 70). I know that speeding does not cause accidents but if you do get in an accident then the risk of death or serious injury is much higher”, and then proceeds to give us a ticket, how do we feel? At this point a part of me wishes this were the autobahn (my wife and kids are very thankful that it is not!) and a part of me chooses to be thankful that this cop just saved my life.
Great thought experiment Mephi. This example really gets at the difference between operating out of the knowledge of good and evil and using general principles (“law”) to benefit people. It also really shows why the separation of Church and State is so important. The Church (operating out of “religion”) so often wants to institute absolute law as an absolute judge – imagine the Taliban’s “rules of the road” and the sanctions they would carry – 2 speeding offenses and your right foot gets cut off.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 08/06/2002 10:47:28 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/6/2002 5:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi
PS: Note to Semeia and Icon. Check it. Think about the Enneagram and the One personality. If you think about it, doesn't the Basic Fear, ego defenses to stop it, AND it's perceived resolution (as detailed in the healthiest level of the One personality), in many ways, PARALLEL this entire conversation about the knowledge of good and evil?
Iconoclast
Good catch. Let’s look at it.
From “Personality Types” by Don Richard Riso with Russ Hudson
Personality Type One: The Reformer.
Basic Fear: Of being corrupt, evil, defective (imbalanced).
Self Actualization (resolution to Basic Fear): Let go of their identification with a particular self-image, that they are in a position to judge anything objectively.
Iconoclast: A key theory of this book is that when a person continues to give in to their Basic Fear it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy – a vicious circle – that results in the Basic Fear being realized. Each different type has a Basic Fear. So when the One fully gives in to their Basic Fear they will end up being corrupt, evil and defective. The antidote is to overcome the Basic Fear by letting go of the self-image that the Basic Fear entails. This leads to the type’s Highest Level of Health – Level I. The One’s Highest Level of Health looks like this (from “Personality Types”):
Highest Level of Health – Level I – The Wise Realist
Very healthy Ones allow the full range of their humanity to surface, discovering that their impulses are not as chaotic or threatening as they feared. They do not repress their needs and feelings, except to the degree necessary for healthy functioning, just as everyone must. Thus, the parts of themselves banished by their superegos as irrational or chaotic come into balance with the rest of their psyches and are integrated into their total personalities. Their subjective side comes into alignment with objective reality, and they become exceptionally realistic and accepting of life, even of themselves.
Because they are so realistic about themselves, very healthy Ones are unusually mature and well-balanced. Although they are still attracted to ideals, very healthy Ones do not see them as unilateral, stifling commands but as something which they personally find fulfilling. They do not feel the need either to make everything perfect or to become absolutely perfect themselves. Further, as Ones release the rigid rules and categories of their superegos, they see that they cannot come up with a single set of ideals and rules applicable to every situation. It is a hopeless enterprise, and therefore not a proper moral imperative. Becoming a full human being is sufficiently challenging. And, paradoxically, by becoming full human beings, Ones will come as close to perfection as is humanly possible. When they are this healthy, Ones are “a little less than the angels,” embodying great nobility of spirit.
Very healthy Ones are the wisest of the personality types because of their extraordinary discernment. Their judgement is superb because Ones are grounded in the real rather than the ideal. They go beyond logical reasoning to discern the best thing to do in whatever circumstance they are in. Just as very healthy Fives have the most penetrating vision and understanding of the world, very healthy Ones have the clearest sense of right and appropriate action in the world, prompting others to seek them out for guidance.
Just as they are tolerant and accepting of themselves, very healthy Ones are also accepting and tolerant of others. When most people use the word tolerance, they usually mean permissive, that people should be allowed to do whatever they like. However, tolerance and acceptance of others is not the same as permissiveness. True tolerance is the ability to respect the differences of opinion well-informed people of good will have arrived at. The tolerant One who is a Protestant allows the Jew and the Catholic, the Muslim and the Hindu, the same freedom to worship God which he himself enjoys. This does not necessarily mean that tolerant Ones think that all of the religious belifes of others are correct, or that religious differences do not matter, but that Ones allow others the freedom to discover the truth on their own, in their own way. They can see the deeper truths underlying opposing positions and views and communicate these truths without getting caught up in any particular way of expressing the truth. Further, very healthy Ones can speak the truth in a way that others can easily hear. Others are not threatened by the One’s ideals.
Very healthy Ones are able to be this tolerant because they keep ultimate values before their minds. By keeping the transcendental, spiritual realm in view, healthy Ones attain a larger perspective on reality, which endows them with the ability to see everything in its proper context. The depth of their discernment is such that healthy Ones are able to focus on what is truly most important in any situation. They know virtually at a glance what “the greater good” is. (And if they do not know, their ignorance does not cause healthy Ones alarm because they are able to wait until reality presents them with an answer.)
They are so convinced of the reality of truth and the objectivity of transcendent values that they recognize the right of others to be wrong. The faith which very healthy Ones have in the moral order is so deep that they allow others, in their view, to be wrong all of their lives because they believe that error will not ultimately prevail over truth. (Iconoclast: they know the law has the power to take effect by itself) They believe that what is true will always prevail because truth is of the nature of reality itself. This is why to be completely realistic is to be wise. Wisdom goes beyond reason, encompassing the irrational, taking it into account. It is to see the real order of things, and hence always to know what is right and good.
Thus, very healthy Ones are transcendental realists because they have transcended their own personal understanding of reality to see that, on some profound level which cannot be comprehended or expressed, all is well – “the universe is unfolding as it should.”
Iconoclast
“They can see the deeper truths underlying opposing positions and views and communicate these truths without getting caught up in any particular way of expressing the truth. Further, very healthy Ones can speak the truth in a way that others can easily hear. Others are not threatened by the One’s ideals.”
Mephi, I experience you as being especially good at this.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/7/2002 4:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Icon said:
quote:
"They can see the deeper truths underlying opposing positions and views and communicate these truths without getting caught up in any particular way of expressing the truth. Further, very healthy Ones can speak the truth in a way that others can easily hear. Others are not threatened by the One’s ideals."
Mephi, I experience you as being especially good at this.
Awwwww.  Thanks for the compliment. I love you, maaaaaan! You, too, BJS.
Cool stuff on both items, Icon. Thanks. I especially like the way that you brought out the formulation of general principles from the entire process. It is my experience that people prefer the knowledge of good and evil to what B. suggests because they fear that it would lead to complete anarchy. But as you have very reasonably indicated, that's just plain NOT the case. We would end up forming NON-DOGMATIC "laws" (whether explicitly stated or implicitly followed ie. self-sorted patterns) you mentioned for the very reasons of love...to help facilitate the process.
[Digression: Hasn't that been mentioned somewhere before? Kind of a "order from chaos" line of thought?  ]
Perhaps this is why Paul had such faith in living in the Spirit as opposed to living primarily in traditions and laws. Perhaps he understood this type of process more than we do. Maybe.
Great stuff, y'all.
Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/07/2002 09:46:39 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/7/2002 3:54 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Quick Thought for Bonhoeffer fans:
What would happen if traffic were not guided by speed limits, traffic signals, speeding tickets or benchmarks for people to see how fast they were going? What if traffic speed were guided by people's GENUINE, loving concern about the safety of ALL drivers (including themselves)? What if everyone were to concern themselves with the reality of the road conditions, weather, and car health withing the genuine concern above...and NOT just how fast the law allows them to go? What if everyone were merely concerned with being a LOVING driver?
What would happen if we really trusted ourselves to BE loving drivers, reality to help show us the way and, finally, the process of constantly becoming a more and more loving driver?
To those who have an ear, let them hear. 
and
Cool stuff on both items, Icon. Thanks. I especially like the way that you brought out the formulation of general principles from the entire process. It is my experience that people prefer the knowledge of good and evil to what B. suggests because they fear that it would lead to complete anarchy. But as you have very reasonably indicated, that's just plain NOT the case. We would end up forming NON-DOGMATIC "laws" (whether explicitly stated or implicitly followed ie. self-sorted patterns) you mentioned for the very reasons of love...to help facilitate the process.
[Digression: Hasn't that been mentioned somewhere before? Kind of a "order from chaos" line of thought? ]
Perhaps this is why Paul had such faith in living in the Spirit as opposed to living primarily in traditions and laws. Perhaps he understood this type of process more than we do. Maybe.
Ok. I printed off all of the Bonhoeffer's ethics today. I hate reading from the screen cause I get all headachy and nauseated and sssstuff if I sit for long periods of time...staring. So just to let you guys know, I haven't followed this ethics stuff as much as when I was posting for the first 6 pages. Also, I haven't thouroughly read through what Icon or others have wrote on this "clarity" thread. So just letting you know where I'm coming from. Thaaaaanks.
I put Meph Man's points together because, well, because they both go together. I will repsond to the second quote first though.
Here is my problem with what you are saying and more or less, what Icon would be saying. I can see this stuff on an individual scale? But if you throw it up on to a sociological scale, that is, as far as society is concerned? The masses? It doesn't work out that way. I do believe we end up with anarchy. Individually we may set up "Non-Dogmatic laws" for ourselves, but this doesn't seem to be true of the masses. And even in these instances of "non-dogmatic laws" on an individual scale, we have what some refer to as a "defining deviancy down."
For example, some scholars posit that there is a limit to the amount of deviant behavior any community can "afford to recognize." As behaviour worsens, the community adjusts its standards so that conduct once thought reprehensible is no longer deemed so. As behaviour improves, the diviancy boundary moves up to encompass conduct previously thought normal. So that what happens is a community of saints and a community felons would display very different behaviour but about the same amount of recognized deviancy.
What is happening in culture now is that while elites are "defining deviancy down" with respect to crime, illegitimacy, drug use, etc, they are growing intensely moralistic and disapproving of what has always been thought to be normal behaviour, thus, what is called, "defining deviancy up." This "redefining" of up and down is done both simultaneously.
One would suppose that as once normal behaviour became viewed as deviant, that would mean that there was less really bad conduct in the society. That isn't the case.
Society has redefined what we mean by such things as child abuse, rape and racial or sexual discrimination, so that behaviour thought quite normal, even benign, is now identified as blameworthy or even criminal. It is not enough for the deviant to be normalized. Normal must now be found to be deviant!
In my view, this is anarchy.
Of course, my approach to ethics is from a more principle, commandment type. So keep that in mind. Still, sociologically, we have many "illnesses."
Also, upon re-reading some of the Bon ethics thread, there was mention by Icon and I believe Modes, that going by principles, one would have to have a detailed rule of conduct.
I myself have emphatically rejected this. Hopefully this response will respond to Meph Man's first quote above. His analogy and the "detailed code of conduct."
Do I believe that God speaks his will only through the "Thou shalt's" and "Thou shalt not's?" No. The Bible has many styles and methods for telling us what God expects us to do. The Bible isn't even the only place that God speaks his will to us. There is the community of faith. And we, in that community, may hear his voice in the storms of life and through the needs of the world, such as hungry children, etc.
In speaking about "principles" or "commandments" as important, I do so because this is where we hear the voice of God most urgently and clearly. God may have spoke them to people long ago, but the fact remains that he did speak them and the biblical faith holds that in speaking to them to others, he somehow spoke to us.
Going back to the "detailed code of conduct" issue. This is just not true. Let me explain.
One of the ways the Bible speaks to the moral life is through a "panoramic vision of life as a whole." We "see" life through a new set of glasses. Now this vision is important to morality becuase the way we see life is usually the way we live it.
For an example, we have a vision of our origin, our fallenness, and our future. We also have interpretive keys. For i.e. the Exodus of the people of God has become the symbol for a theology of liberation from evil systems of oppression. Eschatology, which is about God's ultimate vindication of his justice on earth, may be a motif that interprets God's will in terms of what he is doing in history now to bring in fragments of justice that correspond to the perfect justice of his kingdom. We could go on with such things as the incarnation, the cross, both of which I have mentioned before as "visions" or "principles" or "commandments" for how we might approach politics.
In speaking this way, as some scholars of a more moderate reformed position do, I would use the analogy of a play. Is life open-ended with no plan, no pattern no pre-established ordering. A play without a plot? Are all human relationships such that they can be shaped and pushed into any direction? Are we like a quarterback who has no game plan but to score points? Is the price of freedom the burden of having to watch every instant for the right signal? Ugh...
I don't think we have to choose between total order and perpetual innovation. God would have it both ways. He sets up within broad channels, within which he expects us to develop our lives to fit the needs and visions of our time. We are to respect the boundaries, but we are free within them using our gifts, exercise the freedoms,
etc. We have to allow for unpredictable novelties and varieties. But if there are ancient "principles," "commmandments?" And they are for us? There must be a stable abiding order for life which they match. If there is a design, first in God's mind, then in ours, it may be what keeps humans from turning into predators.
Therefore, I believe one can hold to "principles," etc, without a detailed code of conduct.
Gotta fly...
Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War
Edited by - BBBCanada on 08/07/2002 8:57:14 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/8/2002 2:19 AM (GMT -6) | | [Mephi: What would happen if traffic were not guided by speed limits, traffic signals, speeding tickets or benchmarks for people to see how fast they were going?
Doc: I think Haiti is a far better example of this than the autobon. The traffic rule there is, "Whoever has the bigger vehicle and cares least about getting it dented has the right of way." Traffic signs are considered "recommendations" -- and even these are virtually ignored. In the cities, it is A COMPLETE ZOO!
And yet, in limited doses, I have to confess that its kind of fun.
Great to hear you again Meph!
Icon: And it is also my experience that out of loving concern a cop will institute a "stop action" on anyone that is driving 70 mph when the roads are sheer ice.
Doc: Out of "loving concern" – or they’re behind their quota of "stop actions" for that month! All I can say is that cops must really really love me.
Icon: Thus, very healthy Ones are transcendental realists because they have transcended their own personal understanding of reality to see that, on some profound level which cannot be comprehended or expressed, all is well – "the universe is unfolding as it should."
Doc: I was totally tracking with you till you said this. If this is true, I must be profoundly unhealthy because I don’t see "the universe…unfolding as it should." What do you mean by this Icon? As I read it, it sounded like Calvinists are healthier than Arminians or open theists . (I can hear all the Calvinists saying Amen even as I write this).
BBBCanada: There must be a stable abiding order for life which they match. If there is a design, first in God's mind, then in ours, it may be what keeps humans from turning into predators.
Doc: I think you’re making a good point BBB. Here is where I think its relevant to appeal to a "Two Kingdoms" theology. The two Kingdoms are the Kingdom of God (or kingdom of grace, love etc.) and the Kingdom of Society (or the state, the world, etc.).
In the former, motives matter as much as deeds. In the latter, only deeds matter. The former operates under the law of love. The latter operates out of fear of consequences. The former is transforming. The latter simply demands conformity. It does not concern itself with inner motives, but simply specifies consequences for certain actions. It specifies a minimum level of decency people need to live together and punishes people if they will not conform to it.
The laws of the Kingdom of society are necessary because the world is fallen and people are sick. It can’t change a "predators" heart, but it can motivate them to not act out their predatorial nature and can lock them up when they do.
Its important to keep these two kingdoms distinct. If they are not, then people in the Kingdom of God might confuse the modus operendi of the kingdom of society with his modus operendi within the Kingdom of God. They might loose the distinctive Spirit-focus of the Kingdom of God. At the same time, they can try to impose the distinctive Kingdom call on society, thus trying to force people to ACT "Christian" without BEING "Christian" – and delude themselves into thinking they’ve actually gain something in this process.
You agree with this BBB?
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/8/2002 8:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc
Icon: Thus, very healthy Ones are transcendental realists because they have transcended their own personal understanding of reality to see that, on some profound level which cannot be comprehended or expressed, all is well – "the universe is unfolding as it should."
Doc: I was totally tracking with you till you said this. If this is true, I must be profoundly unhealthy because I don’t see "the universe…unfolding as it should." What do you mean by this Icon? As I read it, it sounded like Calvinists are healthier than Arminians or open theists. (I can hear all the Calvinists saying Amen even as I write this).
Iconoclast
Just to be sure – what you quoted above is from the book “Personality Types”.
I believe that the author is meaning to say that this ULTIMATE view about the “universe … unfolding as it should” is the key antidote to a Personality Type One’s base fear that if they don’t fix everything themselves then ULTIMATELY all will be death and destruction.
This is NOT the key antidote for other personality types. So, if you don’t see this thought as potentially leading to a resolution of a paradox within yourself then you are probably not a personality type One.
On a theological level it is my understanding that all schools of thought (open theists, Arminians, and Calvinists) agree that ULTIMATELY God’s Will will be totally accomplished. Wouldn’t all schools of thought insist that we can indeed trust that God is in ultimate control and we can have assurance of an ULTIMATELY good outcome?
I understand the author to mean “unfolding as it should” in the sense that God wants creatures that Love, Love entails freedom, Freedom entails risk, Risk entails … and so on. Isn’t this how everyone understands it? I do not hear him saying “unfolding as it should” in the sense that each specific thing that happens is what God willed to happen.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/8/2002 11:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg, I had my response all ready to go and I pushed, "Post New Reply" WITHOUT LOGGING IN FIRST. And I lost my reply!!! AHHH!!! Oh the PAIN!
Will respond tmw.
Brandon mumbling: Frigg'n, prigg'n, chigg'n, brigg'n...(Yosemite Sam).
Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/9/2002 2:34 AM (GMT -6) | | thanks for the clarification Icono. In a most general sense, yes, all would agree that the universe is unfolding just as it should. God's over-all will is being worked out. Its just that, left uninterpreted, "the universe" encompasses everything. So saying the universe is unfolding just as it should suggests that everything is unfolding just as it should. If personality type One people need to believe this to be healthy, then I feel bad for these folks.
To BBB: I feel your pain bro. Remember to get re-saved for all your cursing when you cool off a bit.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/9/2002 1:27 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
To BBB: I feel your pain bro. Remember to get re-saved for all your cursing when you cool off a bit.
Doc
Greg. I got saved again! I asked God into my cursing little heart again. Cool. 
quote:
BBBCanada: There must be a stable abiding order for life which they match. If there is a design, first in God's mind, then in ours, it may be what keeps humans from turning into predators.
Doc: I think you’re making a good point BBB. Here is where I think its relevant to appeal to a "Two Kingdoms" theology. The two Kingdoms are the Kingdom of God (or kingdom of grace, love etc.) and the Kingdom of Society (or the state, the world, etc.).
In the former, motives matter as much as deeds. In the latter, only deeds matter. The former operates under the law of love. The latter operates out of fear of consequences. The former is transforming. The latter simply demands conformity. It does not concern itself with inner motives, but simply specifies consequences for certain actions. It specifies a minimum level of decency people need to live together and punishes people if they will not conform to it.
The laws of the Kingdom of society are necessary because the world is fallen and people are sick. It can’t change a "predators" heart, but it can motivate them to not act out their predatorial nature and can lock them up when they do.
Its important to keep these two kingdoms distinct. If they are not, then people in the Kingdom of God might confuse the modus operendi of the kingdom of society with his modus operendi within the Kingdom of God. They might loose the distinctive Spirit-focus of the Kingdom of God. At the same time, they can try to impose the distinctive Kingdom call on society, thus trying to force people to ACT "Christian" without BEING "Christian" – and delude themselves into thinking they’ve actually gain something in this process.
You agree with this BBB?
Doc
And from the, “Bon Three Thread”
quote:
Doc: That’s my point exactly. Now, in the kingdom of the world, they often DO act as ends in and of themselves, for some people are damaged and only do what they do because they fear the consequences of the law. (The "kingdom of the world" is not identical with "all outside the church," for many inside the church treat rules just this way). This is one function of the law. But it is not the healthiest function.
This is the post that is long “Lost in Cyber Space” that I was going to post yesterday. I hope it is like what I wanted it to be yesterday.
First, I just read something recently about the weak points of Calvin’s “Two Kingdoms.” I wish I could remember what it was…
Hmmmm….I think the best way to discuss this would be with an example.
The Bible says in Hebrews 12:14, “Pursue peace with everyone, and holiness--without it no one will see the Lord.”
Now, I’m gonna agree with ya here Greg. The "kingdom of the world" is not identical with "all outside the church," for many inside the church treat rules just this way. This is one function of the law. But it is not the healthiest function.
First, as a sidebar, you seem to place some sort of defining lines on this thing you call the church. Maybe the church is not so “invisible.” I say this in response to our previous discussion/questions about the church.
But when we start talking about motives? That is not so much a concern with me.
First, many in the church do exactly as you say above. They do the law as an end in itself, and because of consequences. So for example, as in the scripture above, many will pursue peace not out of love for God or their fellow human beings, but out of consequences. They just want to get along because it is the healthiest thing to do for themselves (which may or may not be pure motives) or because it is healthy for society. Their thinking may go something like, “This admonition is good, because without it, anarchy will prevail." Consequences.
Now, those on the outside of the church will pursue peace out of “purer motives”. For i.e. they truly love their brother. They do it out of their perception of God (which is usually deistic and liberal, “Let’s love everybody” brotherhood of all men kinda thing,). After all, Jesus said, that the children of this world are wiser than the children of light.
So, what does this mean? It seems to me that one of the assumptions of this passage is that even those in the world can align themselves with God’s will without even knowing it. The writer assumes that Christians should pursue peace or at least live at peace with others, therefore making it reasonable to assume that it is possible that those others (sinners) can do the same. Are they thinking about their motives? Well, maybe some are. Most are not. How ‘bout the Christians? Are they thinking about motives? Well, some probably are, but many are not. What about God? Is he concerned about motives? Well, I don’t know. I tend to think that God is pleased that the admonition is being heeded regardless of the motives. But why isn’t he concerned if he is not? I think the answer has to do with the “tablets of God’s law written on our hearts.”
Christian or not, but especially not, when we walk in accordance with God’s admonitions, laws, etc, we really are doing those out of “general revelation,” “common grace,” “tablets of God’s law written on our hearts,” or what have you. We don’t need to be concerned with “every move we make.” Could you imagine living like that? We would have to be concerned not merely with ethics, but all areas of life (which may overlap with ethics morality, etc) down to the smallest detail! What kind of life is that? Who even lives like that? It turns into legalism. Gotta watch this motive. Gotta watch that motive. Ooooo…Why can’t we live life (and enjoy it as God would have us do)? Do you think that would please God? What kind of God would want a relationship like that? That’s not freedom!? Ugh…
Think about it this way. Again, on a political/societal scale. There is much going on in our world that is in accordance or in alignment with God’s will and with his purposes for our lives. As a matter of fact, where this is happening, the Spirit is active. For i.e. as I mentioned before, think of an egalitarian based society. America, Canada. Are all these saints and sinners conscious of living out of an egalitarian based thinking? No. I don’t think they are conscious of that. I think it is grounded in their perceptions. They don’t think of it any other way. But this is ok with God. People are “living and moving and having their being” in accordance with his will.
And that is what I think it will be like when the consummation of the ages takes place. It will be such that people will be living according to God’s will without their thinking about it. It will be like breathing. A total sanctification if you will.
See what I’m saying? Egalitarianism is just one area. We could talk about justice, or righteousness which goes far deeper than justice. We could talk about racism and it’s absolution. We could talk about different cultural customs of the world. There’s no ending.
When I eat and take a shower, I am glorifying God. When I write a poem, I am glorifying God. When I paint a picture, I am glorifying God. When I sing, I am glorifying God. When I work, I am glorifying God. When I play with my kids, I am glorifying God. When I help someone in need, I am glorifying God. When I have awesome wonderful loving sex with my spouse, I am glorifying God. When I give an appropriate smile at the right time, I am glorifying God. And on and on it goes.
Am I worried about losing Spirit focus? If you are worried that every direction that we go we should be conscious of the Spirit’s direction? I would say that it would be exciting to experience God’s voice afresh or new every morning. Life would be studded with God’s surprises. We might prevent our private grids of prejudice from filtering out God’s will. But we may end up paying a higher price of trading in abiding moral law for an ethic of personal command.
Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War
Edited by - BBBCanada on 08/09/2002 6:43:23 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/10/2002 10:55 AM (GMT -6) | | [BBB: I tend to think that God is pleased that the admonition is being heeded regardless of the motives.
Doc: God is undoubtedly happy John didn’t kill Bill, even though the only reason he didn’t do it is because he thought he might get caught and sent to prison for life. But for those who have submitted to his Lordship, I think he is only pleased with motive. Only what is done in love is consistent with his character and will.
BBB: It turns into legalism. Gotta watch this motive. Gotta watch that motive. Ooooo…Why can’t we live life (and enjoy it as God would have us do)? Do you think that would please God? What kind of God would want a relationship like that? That’s not freedom!? Ugh…
Doc: I can see how that might happen. Good point. But I’m not suggesting a point by point personal assessment of motives for every deed. I just saying that we seek one thing and one thing only: to love God with all our heart, mind, body and soul and love our neigbhor as ourself (it IS one thing). This should permeate all we do, and in Kingdom of God terms (but NOT kingdom of world terms), this is all that matters. Fulfill this, and everything else follows. Fail in this, and nothing else counts (cf. I Cor 13:1-3).
BBB: When I have awesome wonderful loving sex with my spouse, I am glorifying God.
Doc: But I bet you’re not always doing it for this reason. Reprobate sinner!
BBB: Am I worried about losing Spirit focus? If you are worried that every direction that we go we should be conscious of the Spirit’s direction? I would say that it would be exciting to experience God’s voice afresh or new every morning. Life would be studded with God’s surprises. We might prevent our private grids of prejudice from filtering out God’s will. But we may end up paying a higher price of trading in abiding moral law for an ethic of personal command.
Doc: Again, I am sympathetic to the tendency of some to become hyper-vigilant in their own self-consciousness. People with compulsive tendencies may have this issue. But at the same time, I think we need to be concerned with the price that is paid when we loose the "person command" and live out of the "abiding moral law." Among other things, people can become hyper-vigilant on what exact the moral law requires in certain situations -- or worse, act in unloving ways in certain situation because they think it fufills the "abiding moral law." They may fail to hear what God is telling them to do, because they are trusting in "the abiding moral law" rather than God. They may end up separating themselves from sinners because they are living in the moral law rather than love. etc.
Blessings,
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/10/2002 11:24 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
BBB: When I have awesome wonderful loving sex with my spouse, I am glorifying God.
Doc: But I bet you’re not always doing it for this reason. Reprobate sinner!
I meant it in general, (speaking collectively), like the rest of the paragraph. You're such a dawg.
Gotta fly...
Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War
Edited by - BBBCanada on 08/10/2002 4:26:25 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 36 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:55 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|