quote:

---

What about all the bad things in the Bible such as David killing alot of people. Yet he was still called a man after Gods on heart. I am wondering if the situation with David is different because we know that he repented of one incident with Bathsheba and her Hub, and we dont know about Calvin, and other atrocious acts of Church History. Why should we hold Calvin and others up as great men of God when clearly without love they were nothing. Should we call them murderers. I think the question posed by Doc is a very thought provoking one.

---

quote:

---

SHENAYA: ...

We don't have a church that we attend regularly right now, so this is my "church" in a sense, and I read it whenever I can. We do not have many friends that even talk about God at all, let alone to this extent.

My family doesn't give a rip about a true relationship with God because they would be just as happy if I were dedicated to any "journey" I would choose, as long as I was having a nice "spiritual" experience of some sort.

I ended up here because a friend sent me Boyd's "Letters" book a couple of years ago and then she told me about the site and here I am today; raising a ruckus, I seem to do that everywhere I go. Thanks for the welcome on board.


PEACE AND LOVE

~Shenaya~

---

Shenaya,

Hello and Welcome!
I just want you to know that I, too, raise a ruckus--its just my
giftedness :) Please also know that not everyone has a negative view
of what you wrote. I would bet most don't. Feel free to be transparent.
To me,that's beautiful! Don't worry about crossing t's and dotting I's.
Who cares. Think of it this way: If you don't continue to
write we will never get to know you.
I am thankful that you joined the conversation and I value what
you have to say. There isn't one person here who hasn't made
"mistakes" in what they write from time to time. Promise.
So, be encouraged! If you really want to feel better, go into the
search and read some of my past posts


Lastly, if we are your church for now--consider yourself part of the
family!
1Pe 2:17
Honor everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God...
Ga 6:10
So then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us work for the
good of all, and especially for those of the family of faith.

love,
sister selah

Then He showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling like crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb. Rev. 22:1



Edited by - Selah on 10/07/2002 07:37:21 AM

quote:

---

Since love is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, without which everything else is worthless, why was no one, in the entire history of the church, ever tried for lacking love? Lacking kindness? Lacking patience – with heretics, for example? And why was love, patience and kindness absent when people were tried for far lesser heresies than the heresy of lacking love?

---

Of course, we all lack patience, at times and more or less. Same with kindness. We don't all practice some gnostic belief. If you're going to throw stones, the Sins of the Other are a much safer place to start.

4) One might be troubled by the last sentence quoted above. What is a heresy? Lacking love is certainly sinful, but it is really hard to offer the j'accuse to a sin of omission because we all have literally thousands of opportunities each day to be more loving or patient, or kind. Thus, you can't make any distinctions about anyone (so we should all become Bonhoefer non-judgementalists and call it a day ).

The notion of 'heresy' isn't real common in scripture, but one place is telling. (2 Peter 2)

1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned...

In this, I see a clear condemnation of denying the Master and maligning The Way that I don't see in the passages about love. Without love, we're worthless. With heresy ("got heresy?") we're ripe for destruction. There's a difference, no?

I can also see someone arguing that there's a biblical mandate for 'destroying' heretics that doesn't exist for non-lovers.

Love is the standard of excellence that Christians ought to strive for, not having arrived, but pressing on. Spreading lies about God and destroying the reputation His body in blasphemous teaching seems not to be--in the Bible--a matter of degree or a goal, but an absolute standard deserving of harsh retribution.


Someone might say any of these things, but I'm not sure I would.

Terry
"Be God's"




Edited by - Terry_Baxter on 10/07/2002 3:45:40 PM

Edited by - Terry_Baxter on 10/07/2002 3:51:20 PM

quote:

---

3) One might ask how a church hierarchy should judge lovingness. Ever notice how when murderers and rapists are caught and convicted their families are ready to note how they always loved their mother/wife/kids/dog?…

So your question is apt:

quote of doc:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since love is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, without which everything else is worthless, why was no one, in the entire history of the church, ever tried for lacking love? Lacking kindness? Lacking patience – with heretics, for example? And why was love, patience and kindness absent when people were tried for far lesser heresies than the heresy of lacking love?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, we all lack patience, at times and more or less. Same with kindness. We don't all practice some gnostic belief. If you're going to throw stones, the Sins of the Other are a much safer place to start.

---

Interesting and important dialogue, I hope this contributes to the conversation in the spirit in which it is intended: as a loving challenge to those with whom I do associate.

quote:

---

Modes said:

So far as I can tell, according to the love and judgment idea, we can only rightly stand in judgment "over" those whom we identify with.

Semeia:

This is a misunderstanding and a mischaracterization of Doc's sermons, Bonhoeffer's Ethics, and anything Iconoclast and I have said on this topic. Nowhere does Doc say that we can 'stand rightly in judgment "over" those whom we identify with" or anything like that. Confronting people in a loving way (ala intervention of an alcoholic, etc.) in a small group setting has nothing whatsoever to do with standing in "judgment." If this is the premise for your argument it is not an accurate one.

---

quote:

---

You said: "This is a misunderstanding and a mischaracterization of Doc's sermons, Bonhoeffer's Ethics, and anything Iconoclast and I have said on this topic."

Rather than take Modes observations and comments as an attack on Doc, Bonhoeffer, Iconoclast and yourself, and then contend with the supposed attack as the subject of your post... (That is, dealing with what he didn't say, didn't give you credit for, didn't appreciate.) Instead, deal with the specifics of what Modes DID say. Modes and Electra, and all, agree with much of what Y'all say. We are, however, seeking to bring BALANCE to what is presented in an imballanced and potentially progressively-teetering way. Examine what he said from within what he said. He was not just trying to be contentious.

---

Love, that makes us creatures new,
Only love can keep us true,
Perfect love that cast out sin,
Perfect love is God within.

quote:

---

First of all, Doc is reexamining the beliefs and traditions that have been handed down to us by people who burned their opposition at the stake. He is asking why should we believe the claims of people whose understanding of the bible led them to torture people? And why wouldn't they themselves be considered heretics if one applies the same strict biblical standard to them that they themselves professed to rely upon?

---

It's one thing to look at a person's acts as being fundamentally INCONSISTENT with a certain group's ideals and on that basis question the person's authority WITHIN said group. It's completely a different thing to attempt to make a BOUNDARY of this healthy action to distinguish between TRUE X's and FALSE X's. There are TOO MANY factors in a person's behavior to definitively establish this boundary. Even the most racist bigots in America can be highly patriotic and heroic in the face of adversity. How could I then say that the bigot is NOT a "true" American because he demonstrated a evil pattern IN ONE AREA that I see? See the issue?

Modes is bringing up a good point about context. (Actually what he gets into ties DIRECTLY into my INVOLVED post to Brandi!) Though we exist in subcultures, there are ALWAYS larger contexts in which those subcultures subsist. And often confusion happens in one of two ways:

1) the larger contexts are taken as being THE context, negating the particularity of subculture (Some pluralistic efforts make veritable laughingstocks of religious integrity this way)

or

2) the subculture is taken as being the end all-be all, negating that there is a common thread with the any Other such that DIALOGUE (not just OUTGOING MONOLOGUE) is possible. (example: Hardcore Evangelicalism. Nuff said)

This is what happens when these things get played against one another. The way to fix this is to understand that the subculture can NEVER really be separated from the larger context without doing serious damage to the subculture's INTEGRITY and IDENTITY. Example:

African-American Hip-hop/rap fan-->African-American-->American-->Westerner-->Human being

To the extent that I identify with the lowest level subgroup, I HAVE to identify with the larger group...or I negate the TOTALITY of that subgroup. Now notice something. Can I be a hip-hop fan and NOT be African-American? Yep. Heck, I can be a hip-hop fan and NOT BE WESTERN! So, in that respect, I may have more in common with an EASTERNER than with some people in my own ethnic group of Americans. HOWEVER, to the extent that I NEGATE my association with African-American society, I negate my own TRUE existence as a whole.

But what if I say this:

"Loving hip-hop with all one's being is the ESSENCE of being an African-American"

Well, now I'm faced with some choices. I either have to EXPAND the group "African-American" well beyond its currently understood bounds...OR I have to make loving rap music IDENTICAL with being African-American. Either way, I'm doing an injustice to myself, the group, and EVERYONE ELSE I'm trying to lump into a meta-group. I'd be much better off saying:

Loving hip-hop with all one's being is the ESSENCE of being an African-American who CHOOSES TO BE a Hip-hop fan who can be seen as being a GOOD STANDING INFLUENCE in the African-American Hip-hop community

Notice that I HAVEN'T said that people who only PARTIALLY love rap aren't "TRUE" A-A hip-hop fans. Nor have I had to come to any obtuse conclusions about what it REALLY MEANS to be one of the group. But what I have established is CRITERIA by which ACCOUNTABILITY can take place and even CORPORATE repentence.

[More example: On a personal note, hip-hop is going through a whoring period. It's all about money and stuff nowadays. It's getting harder and harder to find people with true heart. I don't like it. But I DON'T say that the people who purvey this are NOT true hip-hoppers. I DO say that their lack of artistic integrity demonstrates a LACK OF LOVE for the art form...and as such, they are NOT a good standing influence in the rap game!]

Now, let's bring this back. In this discussion, the subculture seems to be "those who live lovingly, showing the true NATURE of Christlikeness" and the larger context seems to be "the Body of Christ" Because LOVE is the central thing, it seems easy to say that "those who live lovingly" are the true Christians living the TRUE faith...whereas the more unloving "Christians" are not. But hopefully NOW we see that this doesn't need to be said.
We can critique others and even signficantly DOUBT a person's authority...in SOME areas based on SOME of their actions. But we never go into arbitrarily forming cliques beside the naturally forming boundaries...nor do we slip into judgment.

I applauded (and still do) Doc's willingness to do this critique and question the authority. I don't necessarily applaud the extent to which he took the idea.

Nuff said,


PS: Procrastinatin...DANG.

Edited by - Mephi2K on 10/08/2002 09:49:23 AM

John Wesleyan claimed that, "Christianity was not primarily a set of beliefs, it was an experimental way, a process, an inwardness based on orthodox doctrines and resulting in outward practice…"; which parallels Florovsky’s statement, that: "The Church is first of all a worshipping community. Worship comes first, doctrine and discipline second. The lex orandi has a privileged priority in the life of the Christian Church. The lex credendi depends on the devotional experience and vision of the Church…"

quote:

---

I could be wrong, but I sure don't hear Doc calling for a master list to be made up distinguishing TRUE CHRISTIANS from FALSE CHRISTIONS. His point is that we should not accept the authority of people who CLAIM to be TRUE CHRISTIANS when they BURN AT THE STAKE those people who they determine to be FALSE CHRISTIANS, when LOVE, according to Jesus and Paul, is supposed to be the defining feature of what it means to BE A CHRISTIAN.

---

His suggestions are STRONGLY IMPLYING this, Semeia. He is not just questioning their AUTHORITY. He seems to be questioning his IDENTIFICATION with them, too. This is why this whole thing started with Electra. I could see why it started. In Doc vehemently making his good point, his shift from granting authority to Christians who seem to betray the essence of Christiantiy to NOT HAVING IDENTIFICATION WITH THEM was the turning point. Ask Electra. I bet she'll agree. The point being made by many people, as I see it, is that IDENTIFICATION can be maintained WHILE questioning authority.



Edited by - Mephi2K on 10/08/2002 10:25:25 AM

quote:

---

Modes said:

So far as I can tell, according to the love and judgment idea, we can only rightly stand in judgment "over" those whom we identify with.

Semeia:

This is a misunderstanding and a mischaracterization of Doc's sermons, Bonhoeffer's Ethics, and anything Iconoclast and I have said on this topic. Nowhere does Doc say that we can 'stand rightly in judgment "over" those whom we identify with" or anything like that. Confronting people in a loving way (ala intervention of an alcoholic, etc.) in a small group setting has nothing whatsoever to do with standing in "judgment." If this is the premise for your argument it is not an accurate one.

---

quote:

---

Al said:

You certainly missed Modes' point(s), Semeia.

Semeia:

I addressed the underlying premise and logic of his point. If the premise and logic are not accurate, there IS no point to argue.

By the way, is there anything short of agreeing with this point of view that you would consider to be NOT "missing the point"?

Thanks,
Semeia


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

---

quote:

---

His suggestions are STRONGLY IMPLYING this, Semeia. He is not just questioning their AUTHORITY. He seems to be questioning his IDENTIFICATION with them, too. This is why this whole thing started with Electra. I could see why it started. In Doc vehemently making his good point, his shift from granting authority to Christians who seem to betray the essence of Christiantiy to NOT HAVING IDENTIFICATION WITH THEM was the turning point. Ask Electra. I bet she'll agree. The point being made by many people, as I see it, is that IDENTIFICATION can be maintained WHILE questioning authority.

---

quote:

---

Mephi said:

Remember what I said about my disagreement with Bonhoeffer? Whereas he said that ACTION is the opposite of JUDGEMENT, I disagreed. I felt that the POLAR opposite of judgement is ACCOUNTABILITY. Essentially the idea that integrates identification, solidarity, AND repentence (on many levels) I believe that this is the idea that Modes is talking about when he talks about "standing in judgement", not "judgement" qua Bonhoeffer's take. Am I right, Modes?

Semeia:

That's fine. But wouldn't that have to be discussed with Doc before applying that interpretation to what he is saying here?

Modes appears to be making assumptions and conclusions about the "love and judgment idea" that are very different from what Doc has said. It seems to me that that would have to be cleared up in order to have a fruitful discussion.

Thanks,
Semeia

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

---