Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Abiding in Christ -- the Center

Forum Quick Jump

46 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

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

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 5/11/2003 5:09 AM (GMT -6)

Greg: "Cracking down on sin" by going after particular sins . . . we don't happen to commit, is a deflection mechanism . . . Judging others is parasitic and is the opposite of love . . .

Me: I like your last post. Although, that I might be living at another's expense when I point out each of our particular sins, I do not know. A parasite can also earn their welcome by flattery; Sycophanting and misnaming the work of a supposed adversary, (i.e. Sin naming) might possibly cause others to yield to the desires of sin

. And thanks in advance for floating some more thoughts out there for me, about what you might actually be saying, "About naming Sin, indeed Sinful"!

Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

God is Love,

Tim

2Ti 2:19…Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity...

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 5/11/2003 7:46 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

I challenged JE to test his "confrontation" "theory" to see if it works.

Hi Doc,

Obviously it is not my job personally to confront every professing Christian's sins. Can you be a bit more ridiculous? One's sphere of influence is clearly limited by time, space, and relationships. The way I approach this issue is primarily to teach and preach clearly the moral standard of the word of God. Obviously, I don't influence people I don't have contact with. The Pauline scriptures I quoted clearly refer to the *gathered body* disciplining some within their fold, not "pointing out all the sins of everybody in the world," or anything as absurd as that.

By attempting to reduce my position to a sheer absurdity, you by no means *honestly* can avoid the New Testament's clear commandments to "exhort, reprove, and rebuke with all patience and teaching."

It seems to me that our difference lies in this: I affirm that the New Testament still holds a disciplining authority upon all who call themselves Christians. Do you?

For example, do you affirm the following as an apostolic (and therefore binding) directive to Christians?

1 Cor. 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. (NRSV)

Addendum:

Doc said: Then, choose ONE person, whether they are Christian or not. Spend a year or two loving them, getting on the inside of their life, letting the relationship grow naturally, and confronting things as they naturally come up (but not until). Then ask yourself, did THIS help the person?

JE: This is precisely the discipleship model I generally practice. People are not interested in what you have to say unless they know you truly love them. But this by no means requires one to believe that preaching and teaching on how to live a holy life is by definition "judgmental," "legalistic," or necessarily confrontational. I think you're probably just perceiving my posts in this way, that somehow I go around looking to see if anybody is sinning so I can confront them about it. That would be truly ridiculous, and I don't do that. My friends, acquaintances, and coworkers usually ask ME (unsolicited) what I think about such and such an issue, and I answer as honestly as I am able to.

By saying one should not be confrontational, are you not admitting a standard by which one should live?

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 05/11/2003 1:58:06 PM

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 5/11/2003 10:43 AM (GMT -6)

DLW: However, I still think that selection of the terms Center and Mark is dangerous since they tend to connote the existence of a static point on which we should all be centered on. I think it is too easy for a clever theologian to manipulate theological language so as to portray their view on a given matter as the center. I.e., manipulating people to view a certain viewpoint as a-political, when it really is... .

Doc: It’s clear your VERY interested in public policies, politics and ecclesiastic order DLW. But I think framing THIS issue in these terms is hindering you from getting what I’m talking about. The "center" I’m referring to has nothing to do with acquiring an agreed upon consensus.

DLW:I am not talking about an agreed upon consensus, either. The contexts for the use of the term the center have been in areas of dispute among Christians. Hence, the relevance of the problem of ecclesiastical order. In the Bethel College Alumni magazine, you spoke of how your views had changed where you now focused on centering oneself on the center. This was seen as a development from your earlier days as a professor whereby you were outspoken on a number of issues of controversy, speaking in tongues, OVTheism, the spiritual warfare theodicy, all topics that were most definitely outside of the "center" of how Christians at Bethel College viewed their faith. My point in an earlier posting on this link was that the concept of a center would only be acceptable if it was viewed as dynamic, not static. I prefer the earlier Greg Boyd that was willing to not center himself on what was viewed as the center by the Christian groups he was affiliated with. The Greg Boyd that was willing to put up with some heat and controversy. Maybe, being outside of the center is to be in sin, but we don't know and don't agree about what that center ought to be. If one considers the historic compromise between Transcendence and Immanence in Theology in the Medieval Ages(wherein the future was not Open) or the consensus over pro-life political activism, many of the consensuses/centers that have developed among Christians have been wrong/misguided. That is the problem of ecclesiastical order. Us having to work out the focuses of our Christian walks/ministries without complete access to an infallible guide or a center.

My opinion is that the Center you lay out is a utopic ideal, which is useful for helping us sort out our problems of ecclesiastical order, since it focuses on the big picture and counters our tendencies to get very zealous and divisive over particular issues.

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

Edited by - DLW on 05/11/2003 3:47:26 PM

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 5/11/2003 11:11 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

JE:By saying one should not be confrontational, are you not admitting a standard by which one should live?

I want to chirp in here again. In the homosexuality link, I described how over the course of two years, I gave of my scarce time/energy as a graduate student to help form a graduate employee union. This is an example of I think showing one's love to people(One which none of my fellow Christian Graduate Students did because they viewed the union as "political". ). However, at the end I did have the discussion with my three fellow members, two of which were actively bisexual. In this discussion, I did not try to win the discussion, but focused, initially, on Humes dictum that an is does not imply an ought without an intermediary normative premise(In the case of homosexuality, if they are born that way naturally then it must be alright.). I then described my position as affirming that the fact people are born as homosexuals is part of the natural evil in this world. I, then, also took the position in direct opposition to them saying, "It shouldn't be wrong to love someone!" by affirming the need for ecclesiastical order in saying, "You don't have to sleep with someone to love them." I.e., ecclesiastical institutions have the right to interpret what we should and should not do with our sexualities and we should try to obey them, even if that includes some legalisms. So I think I was confrontational, my friends certainly were confrontational with all of the insinuations they brought about me because of how they disliked the fact I took a moral stand in opposition to their beliefs. They insisted that I was a homophobic, not because I had an irrational fear of homosexuals, but because anyone that had a different position from theirs must have something wrong with them. So if the center implies avoiding the fundamentalisms propagated by anti-gays and gay-rights advocates, then I am for it. However, it should openly take into account the problem of ecclesiastical order. For example, I think an important fact is that Churches will inevitably have some rules for how they conduct themselves and that when we talk about legalism we are considering some rules and not others. For example, WHC probably would exclude from membership those people that insist GBoyd is the Messiah. That just wouldn't be kosher. And yet, those people really, really do need Jesus and so most of the rules we apply are imperfect. They fail to take into account all of the possible contingencies and unintended consequences of their adoption.

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 5/11/2003 11:46 AM (GMT -6)

JE: Obviously it is not my job personally to confront every professing Christian's sins. Can you be a bit more ridiculous? One's sphere of influence is clearly limited by time, space, and relationships…. By attempting to reduce my position to a sheer absurdity, you by no means *honestly* can avoid the New Testament's clear commandments to "exhort, reprove, and rebuke with all patience and teaching."

Doc: I’m sorry John. I didn’t want to reduce your position to absurdity. I simply wanted to flesh out a standard of discernment (and who and when to challenge) that I assumed was there. And I wanted to show that your more restricted position was not "anything goes" because of this. We both agree that there is a time and place and people to exhort, reprove and rebuke. And – its turning out – we aren’t terribly far apart in how we see that time and place and people.

JE: The way I approach this issue is primarily to teach and preach clearly the moral standard of the word of God. Obviously, I don't influence people I don't have contact with. The Pauline scriptures I quoted clearly refer to the *gathered body* disciplining some within their fold, not "pointing out all the sins of everybody in the world," or anything as absurd as that.

Doc: Okay, so its not every person, or even every professing person, or even every person who attends any particular gathering. Its about a gathered body you have personal influence with. See, we’re not far apart at all. My only point is that this is not "isolating" or "anything goes" as you feared. It’s wise love.

JE: It seems to me that our difference lies in this: I affirm that the New Testament still holds a disciplining authority upon all who call themselves Christians. Do you?

Doc: If you grant that YOU and I aren’t called to apply this discipling authority except on those professing Christians you above limited it to, the answer is yes.

JE: For example, do you affirm the following as an apostolic (and therefore binding) directive to Christians?

1 Cor. 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. (NRSV)

Doc: Absolutely, if understood and applied in a New Testament kind of way. The church founder and pastor of this Corinthian flock had a house church that was condoning and even boasting about grotesque sexual immorality (a guy, apparently a leader, shacking up with his step mother). As their pastor, Paul is instructing them "put the man out" of their fellowship – excommunicate him – and turn him over to Satan in the hopes that his soul will be saved by the destruction of his flesh (death). I would give the same counsel if one of the house churches in covenant relation with the leadership of my church were thinking and acting like this. It’s simply Mt 18 put into practice, the final step is with "let them be as a heathen."

Now, its also important to understand that the "association" Paul is speaking of is Christian fellowship. Paul isn’t that Christians shouldn’t ever hang with drunkards, revilers, idolaters, etc…. Heck, Jesus did. It’s just that Christian fellowship can’t condone this thinking and behavior as okay when its not.

I don’t think we’re very far apart on this John. It’s likely that we say it in different ways such that it causes the other person to hear them saying things that scare them. I fear judgmentalism in you and you fear moral relativism in me. But I’m no relativist, and you’re certainly no pharisee!

JE: "Doc said: Then, choose ONE person, whether they are Christian or not. Spend a year or two loving them… Then ask yourself, did THIS help the person?" (JE responds) This is precisely the discipleship model I generally practice. People are not interested in what you have to say unless they know you truly love them.

Doc: My point exactly!

JE: But this by no means requires one to believe that preaching and teaching on how to live a holy life is by definition "judgmental," "legalistic," or necessarily confrontational.

Doc: Not when its practiced as you prescribe. Agreed.

JE: By saying one should not be confrontational, are you not admitting a standard by which one should live?

Doc: That’s the fear of moral relativism I was talking about earlier. OF COURSE there are standards by which one should live. And the chief one, the one that sums all the others, is LIVE IN LOVE.

DLW: In the Bethel College Alumni magazine, you spoke of how your views had changed where you now focused on centering oneself on the center. This was seen as a development from your earlier days as a professor whereby you were outspoken on a number of issues of controversy, speaking in tongues, OVTheism, the spiritual warfare theodicy, all topics that were most definitely outside of the "center" of how Christians at Bethel College viewed their faith.

Doc: I did speak about emphasizing the center – love. But because it wasn’t a "center" of "least common denominator," as you seem to suppose, I never CONTRASTED this stance with my supposed "earlier" proclivity to speak out on controversial issues. I’m afraid you read that into the interview.

DLW: I prefer the earlier Greg Boyd that was willing to not center himself on what was viewed as the center by the Christian groups he was affiliated with.

Doc: Again, you’re reading "center" here in terms of your concern for ecclesiastic order and politics. It has NOTHING to do with THAT.

DLW: I prefer…the Greg Boyd that was willing to put up with some heat and controversy.

Doc: You think this has DIED DOWN?!!!! Come live in my shoes for… ummm, 10 seconds should do it. I don’t think any who know me today would say I’ve grown more timid about controversial things. If anything, they worry that I am too "out there" on these things. But I’ve also become more aware, passionately aware, that all things must be done in love, or they are of no value. If we operate in love, believers can discuss, debate and disagree about many many many things and still, where appropriate, work together to get Kingdom work done. Indeed, if we CAN’T discuss such things – if we have to pretend that they don’t exist – something is SERIOUSLY wrong. We are placing artificial homogeneity above love.

DLW: Maybe, being outside of the center is to be in sin, but we don't know and don't agree about what that center ought to be. If one considers the historic compromise between Transcendence and Immanence in Theology in the Medieval Ages(wherein the future was not Open) or the consensus over pro-life political activism, many of the consensuses/centers that have developed among Christians have been wrong/misguided.

Doc: See, you ARE interpreting my talk about "the center" in consensus terms.

DLW: My opinion is that the Center you lay out is a utopic ideal, which is useful for helping us sort out our problems of ecclesiastical order, since it focuses on the big picture and counters our tendencies to get very zealous and divisive over particular issues.

Doc: Its a spiritual an existential ideal. Its not to make society better or to help Christians get along or to solve any other problem. It is an end in and of itself, and puts everything else in perspective. It is the reason why we were created. LIVE IN GOD'S LOVE. (I encourage you to test it with my earlier mentioned experiment.)

Blessings
Doc

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 5/11/2003 12:11 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

DLW: My opinion is that the Center you lay out is a utopic ideal, which is useful for helping us sort out our problems of ecclesiastical order, since it focuses on the big picture and counters our tendencies to get very zealous and divisive over particular issues.

Doc: Its a spiritual an existential ideal. Its not to make society better or to help Christians get along or to solve any other problem. It is an end in and of itself, and puts everything else in perspective. It is the reason why we were created. LIVE IN GOD'S LOVE. (I encourage you to test it with my earlier mentioned experiment.)

Thanks Doc for the Good answers!!

I think it is a mistake to set out our Christian ideals as spiritual and existential ideals without dealing with the problems associated with collectivities of individuals. Living in God's Love must help Christians get along and function better to solve the problems that arise in trying to walk the walk today.

My natural bias is to view with suspicion when anyone sets out some ideal as apolitical and what we as Christians must do. I have serious fears about the future of Christianity in the US and my understanding of history is that part of the problem lies with how the clear-cut views of what it means to be Christian are a little too clear-cut. That is why I focus on the problem of order, the need to work things out. So my valuation of what you are proposing depends on whether it will prove useful for helping us avoid "love-fests" like that which emerged on the homosexuality link.

I do disciple and mentor others. You should try building bridges to others through an endorsement of political activism as a long-run means to witnessing or encouraging your church-members to spend more time understanding politics and reflecting on how they spend their political capital.
dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 5/11/2003 3:55 PM (GMT -6)

To claim that a spiritual/existential ideal is "an" end that puts everything else in perspective, providing "the" reason why we were created is an attempt to influence(for the better) the consensual views on how we must LIVE IN GOD'S LOVE. I seem to recall Adam and Eve having some stuff to do about tending the garden or what-not.

So I don't believe this whole not being related to consensus-building/ecclesiastical governance stuff. If it is an existential ideal, then can't we just say its part of your calling? When we read a Doc posting that goes "blah-blah-blah-Center-blah-blah-blah-On the Mark-blah-blah-LIVE IN GOD'S LOVE", do we say well that's Doc doing his existentialist-Abiding in the Center thing, just like we say when DLW goes "blah-blah-blah-Problem of Order-blah-blah-blah-Ecclesiology-blah-blah-Reality of the Political", well that's DLW doing his Problem of Order thing(and then there's Pow going, "blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah", to which one goes "Huh"

)? Aren't you setting out certain ideas/ontotheologies as essential for how the Christian life is to be lived? Is this judgement or discernment? Can one make a distinction between these two in practice apart from a Christian Community? As such, we fall back on how do we reconcile our collectivities of individuals?

So, yeah, I'm skeptical. There is too much that seems to be historically important that is abtracted from in your Center-thing. How does it relate to Christian history? Does it stem from your Anabaptist Christianity and Culture world-view(How could it not stem from such? The very idea that you can deal with the above in a matter that doesn't relate to the problem of ecclesiastical order is indicative of your world-view.)? Shouldn't one be open about those sorts of things?

I got a lot of the views that lead me to write these sorts of postings from an agnostic Jew that I studied under in graduate school. In the process of trying to show him that his view of the world was compatible with Christian Theology, I came to adopt a number of his view-points, including a distrust of onto-theologies that claim to have "the" reason why we were created.
dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

Edited by - DLW on 05/12/2003 12:07:30 PM

selah
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210

Posted 5/11/2003 7:09 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

To claim that a spiritual/existential ideal is "an" end that puts everything else in perspective, providing "the" reason why we were created is an attempt to influence(for the better) the consensual views on how we must LIVE IN GOD'S LOVE.

...So, yeah, I'm skeptical. There is too much that seems to be historically important that is abtracted from in your Center-thing. How does it relate to Christian history?

...I came to adopt a number of his view-points, including a distrust of onto-theologies that claim to have "the" reason why we were created.
dlw

Hello DLW,

Just a quick note on "the" reason why we were created etc.

There are many many people in Christian history who (after studying different paths and ways to "do" life) end up realizing that Love is the singular most important thing to do. What's interesting to me is that we try various other things FIRST. Jesus was clear when He said that by loving Him and your neighbor you fulfill whole law. (I'm wondering...do we need to be hit over the head with this?) "Live in love" "Be clothed in love" "Walk in love" "Love covers a multitude of sins" "These three remain: faith, hope and Love...and the greatest of these is love."
etc etc.

It seems to me that to speak of love as the "center" is to simplify and focus on the most needful thing. Mother Teresa's philosophy of simplicity puts love smack dab in the center. She was known for saying that if you do love, the rest will naturally fall in place.

THE SIMPLE PATH

The fruit of silence is PRAYER
The fruit of prayer is FAITH.
The fruit of faith is LOVE.
The fruit of love is SERVICE.
The fruit of service is PEACE.

~ Mother Teresa of Calcutta

Blessings
and love,
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 05/12/2003 02:37:40 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 5/12/2003 1:10 AM (GMT -6)

Selah, the way you talk about Love sounds like a Mantra. After a while the CVM mantra begins to sound thin -- espeically when used to justify sin.

EVEN WHEN one holds Love at supreme, one STILL finds that one must take up one's cross daily. One must repent often. Nothing just "falls into place." That sounds so "eastern religion."

Make the Cross, the Grave, the Resurrection, the Ascension, and the Glorious Second Coming to the the "CENTER."

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 5/12/2003 5:51 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

There are many many people in Christian history who (after studying different paths and ways to "do" life) end up realizing that Love is the singular most important thing to do. What's interesting to me is that we try various other things FIRST. Jesus was clear when He said that by loving Him and your neighbor you fulfill whole law. (I'm wondering...do we need to be hit over the head with this?)

Yes, but who is my neighbor and what is the most loving thing I can do? Everyone, even my worse enemy should be my neighbor. Clearly, sharing about my relationship with Christ would be the best way I could love my neighbor. However, due to the fall-out from history there are cultural wedges between Christians and Non-Christians. You see huge differences in views on religion between Europe and the US. Much of these differences can be explained at the structural level. I.e., in Europe, after the 30 year war, Churches and States were very close and Churches became mouth-pieces for States. What this did was make the intellectual elites write off everything about Churches and the vast majority of the rest of the countries followed.
If you want to love your neighbor, you should take part in helping to reform our fallible answers to the problems of order, not insist they are not important, only shadows, and we should just center ourselves on Christ(who did more than his fair share of criticizing the rules religious leaders had in his day. Not to say we shouldn't have rules, but that we shouldn't claim infallibility for our traditions.)

quote:

"Live in love" "Be clothed in love" "Walk in love" "Love covers a multitude of sins" "These three remain: faith, hope and Love...and the greatest of these is love."
etc etc.

It seems to me that to speak of love as the "center" is to simplify and focus on the most needful thing. Mother Teresa's philosophy of simplicity puts love smack dab in the center. She was known for saying that if you do love, the rest will naturally fall in place.

Mother Teresa didn't have any qualms about taking money and providing testimony for some "bad" people. She refused to participate or bless the need to participate in the politics of India that was leading so many to starve(Didn't want to get herself unpure.) She also made certain very political views regarding how we spend our political capital in trying to reverse Roe-V-Wade seem a-political. As such, she helped to polarize our country around this issue and throw a monkey-wrench in our democracy.

I am not saying she didn't do much good, but her life shows the consequences when religious leadders choose to obfuscate the problem of order.

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 5/12/2003 8:22 AM (GMT -6)

I'm surprised y'all by-passed the Almighty MephEternal Meph Man's post. Must have gotten all caught up in the debating points or sum'n. The Almighty Eternal one said

quote:
Abiding in the center (Jesus) means to truly believe by faith that 1) one is ALREADY in union with the God of perfect love by God's grace and 2) this is all that really matters to being a full human being. Not being good. Not being right. Not even being Christ-like. (Has anyone noticed how some people's attempts to be "Christlike" turn into a legalism of it's own??) Just being unified with Christ.

Oh frigg'n yeah....couldn't have said it better myself. But if I could(!) I’d say sum'n like this--they become REALLY concerned with self in order to become Christlike. "Dying to self," becomes not only the "beating of your body," (self-abasement in an unbiblical way) but in reality can be a form of self-adulation. Jesus warned of such hypocrites. Matt 16:16-18.

Also, when I wrote, "Who can live as such?" I was speaking about the heart abiding in perfect love and not on works. I would like to add some thoughts as to what I was driving at. Maybe it will add to the conversation, or maybe it will show that I'm just blowing hot air.

As many of you know, most theologians elevate the foundational importance of love to the ethical life (this is what we are talking about here). And more specifically, out of the "four loves" (C.S. Lewis) "agape" (charity or self-giving love), by far, is ranked above "storge" (affection, especially within families), "philia" (friendship), and "eros" (love between sexes or” being in luuuuuve”).

And although theologians are against drawing too much of a distinction between say agape and philia or that there SHOULD be a disjunction (at least greater than the other ones) between agape and eros some theologians are questioning whether agape comprises the fullness of the meaning of Christian love and hence that agape determines completely the content of the biblical vision of the ethical life of love. That is, is there a comprehensive love ethic that encompasses more than may be ascribed solely through the equating of love with agape?

This gets into some serious stuff.

For an example, Lewis contrasted "Gift-love" (that which God can impart to humans and which in us becomes images of himself) with what he called the "Need-loves" which "have no resemblance to the Love which God is." For Tillich, the other loves (storge, philia, and eros) are ambiguous unless they are INFUSED by agape (agape elevates the other loves above their self-centeredness).

Lewis is more optimistic and said: "The Divine Love does not substitute itself for the natural--as if we had to throw away our sliver to make room for gold. The natural loves are summoned to become modes of Charity while also remaining the natural loves they were." Though Lewis provides an ingenious way through which the human experiences of affection, friendship and even sexual desire gain access to the transcendent realm of eternity, his suggestion (more than Tillich) denies that the natural loves enjoy any transcendent grounding or any foundation in the divine life.

As I say, this has been a cause of concern not only because of aforementioned reasons (grounded in transcendence), but because agape love "purchases universal love at the cost (at least in this life) of all particular attachments."

But all these other loves have a place within the Christian ethic. Philia, (from whence philadelphia comes) has Pauline injunctions toward the Christian community Rom 12:1, Heb 13:1. Paul even uses it to speak of our love for Christ 1 Cor 16:22. Philia, like agape, may find its way into the salvation narratives, Jn 15:13-15, Lk 12:4, Ex 33:11, 2 Chron 20:7.

Storge may speak, (though less directly), about the affectionate God Ex 34:6, Neh 9:17, Ps 86:15, 103:8. Jesus appeals to storge in the fellowship of disciples Matt 5:43-45.

Linking eros to God has been shaky because it undermines the truth that God is complete within the eternal community of triune life and hence, creation is unnecessary (most of Christian tradition views eros in terms of our longing and desire for God). But eros too, can form a powerful motif in the biblical narrative of God's love for his people. As we can see in the Old Testament there is a “three-fold” act.

Act One: the betrothal of Israel to God. God intends that Israel responds to his love Jer 2:2. More than just a connotation of a contract between a king and his vassals, this covenant by God with his people was to be a relationship of love.

Act Two: Israel’s unfaithfulness. Jer 3:8 Hos 2:2, 4-5. God is a faithful husband and this forms the basis for the hope of future restoration. Hos 2:23. Paul and Peter apply the same motif of marital love to God’s relationship with his new people Mk 2:18, Jn 3:29, Rev 21:9. Now this raises an interesting question.

How can we affirm the erotic aspect of the divine love it embodies without falling into the trap of making God dependent on creation? Well, believe it or not, this problem arises with storge and philia. The answer seems to lie, along with agape where we must lodge these concepts and bring them together in the divine Trinitarian life. That is, though the love dynamic within the trinitarian God is primarily an agape love, the eternal love is infused with the other dimensions as well, i.e. as a relationship between Father and Son, the divine love includes storge. As friendship (Eternal friends) philia. Eros? Yes. As understood in a deeper sense of a desire for communion with the beloved. That is, there is a holy desire of the eternal Persons for communion within the divine life. In Jn 17:24 Jesus indicates an intimacy of love that the Father showers upon the Son.

All that being said, what this suggests is that while we may retain the primacy of agape, our understanding of divine love must incorporate aspects of the other love. Stripping it of these other loves can degenerate agape into a distant, austere (that is stern and cold in appearance or manner) “Stoic” deity. The Stoic kind of a God is one who rescues humans for no reason other than it is his “job.” Those of us on the boards here realize that theologians have been guilty of putting forward a God who is dispassionate. One who is unmoved by the human situation. And one who is bound by duty to save. How tragic.

Yet, it is also tragic when all four dimensions are not present in our relationships (in a form appropriate to each) with agape at the center. As James Nelson says,

“If we define Christian love as agape or self-giving alone—without elements of desire, attraction, self—fulfillment, receiving—we are describing a love which is both impoverished and impoverishing. But the other elements of love without agape are ultimately self-destructive.

How does this translate into our relationships with others? Let me give an example. Take medical personnel or care-giving. If there are two principles that medical ethicists have discovered, it is respect for patient autonomy and justice. That is, they have been committed to the virtues of beneficence (“do good”) and non-maleficence (“do no harm”). Now, when these virtues have been practiced (which is repeatedly) they have been practiced AT GREAT PERSONAL COST,(away from family, friends, social life, physical stress i.e. no sleep, and economic price, wealth). We could say that medical professionals dare not lose this “agapaic ethic.” That is, it should remain the controlling understanding of love within an ethic of care. Yet, the elevation of the twin principles of beneficence and non-maleficence as the central virtues of health care ethics risks allowing the patient-care-giver relationship to degenerate into a type of austere paternalism. They can become mechanical and the caregiver “merely a professional.” That is, care-givers become devoid of caring when they fulfill their duties in an aloof or condescending manner. The problem it seems, though they are going through the motions, stems from a total lack of emotional connection to the patient. Compassion, which means “to suffer with,” is one emotion that is missing. And human compassion can only be measured against the compassionate God revealed in scripture. Our Lord was not moved by a sense of duty but by a genuine “suffering with” the needy people he ENCOUNTERED.

Now I said all that to say this (as a former pastor use to say), that this kind of compassion-filled medical care may not necessarily be triggered by a commitment to an agapaic ethic alone, especially if it is defined by beneficence and non-maleficence. That is, even acts of agape in which the caregiver gives of himself or herself for the sake of the other—can be understood in a narrow, duty bound uncompassionate manner. That is, care-giving MUST GO BEYOND what agape alone can muster. Agape must infuse the other elements represented by the other dimensions of love.

As you can see, one can easily be deceived by thinking (believing) they are truly loving, when in actuality they are not. Sum’n to think about in terms of “how” we love others.

Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com

selah
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210

Posted 5/12/2003 8:29 AM (GMT -6)

PoW

quote:

Selah, the way you talk about Love sounds like a Mantra. After a while the CVM mantra begins to sound thin -- espeically when used to justify sin.

selah
Maybe it sounds like a mantra because it has been so perverted and overused in our culture? Maybe it's not such a bad mantra to have?And, just maybe it's a good way to fill your mind when you are beginning to renew it?

PoW

quote:

EVEN WHEN one holds Love at supreme, one STILL finds that one must take up one's cross daily.

selah
I would say this IS our cross. Not to sound mantra-ish again, but I am talking about agape love with an element of cost to ones self.

PoW

quote:

One must repent often. Nothing just "falls into place." That sounds so "eastern religion."

selah
I'm sure I need to repent more--Yes!
About things falling into place...I disagree.

PoW

quote:

Make the Cross, the Grave, the Resurrection, the Ascension, and the Glorious Second Coming to the the "CENTER."

selah
Jesus on the Cross = Love
Jesus going into the grave = Love
Jesus resurrection = Love
Jesus ascension = Love
Second Coming = Love

Love is the motivation don't you think?

Blessings PoW
I love ya,
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 05/12/2003 1:32:07 PM

selah
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210

Posted 5/12/2003 8:42 AM (GMT -6)

Brandon,

Liked your post :) I must have posted at the same time...ha.

bless,
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

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 5/12/2003 8:59 AM (GMT -6)

Brandon,

I also liked your post. There is a lot of depth and breadth to what we can mean by love.

It seems to me that we do have a lot to work out regarding what it means to abide in God's love.

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 5/12/2003 11:09 AM (GMT -6)

Blessings, Selah!

Love = Jesus on the Cross
Love = Jesus going into the grave
Love = Jesus resurrection
Love = Jesus ascension
Love = Second Coming

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 05/14/2003 05:28:37 AM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 5/12/2003 2:42 PM (GMT -6)

The following is from "Mennonite Confession of Faith." According to this, the divorcing of spirituality from ethics us actually not a historically Anabaptist approach.

(Begin Quote)

2. Many religious traditions speak of spirituality, or experience of the divine. People sometimes claim that all such experiences are really the same. But at least two distinct streams can be identified in the history of Christian spirituality. In the stream influenced primarily by Greek philosophy, the goal is union with God, the individual's absorption into God. Loving the neighbor and following Christ are by-products of this union with God.

The second stream is influenced more by biblical thought. The goal of its action and contemplation is communion with God, or covenant relationship with God. It is more focused on Jesus Christ--his life, death, and resurrection--as the way for believers. The Anabaptists of the sixteenth century were not the first to recognize that knowing Christ and following Christ in life are interwoven; many earlier dissenters had also connected spiritual insight with ethics. This confession of faith identifies more strongly with the second stream by affirming that Christian spirituality is defined by Christ and his way, in accordance with the Scriptures.

http://www.mennolink.org/doc/cof/art.18.html

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 5/12/2003 5:32 PM (GMT -6)

I can't help think that love—in all it's greek, philosohpical and Biblical perspectives—is like fuel; the body being the car, and driving being the utility: to get somewhere, to complete a journey. Have I loved because I did a good deed? Have I loved because I was nice, or made love to my wife? Have I loved because I smiled at someone and cared about them? Have I loved because I cried over the pain another was in? Have I even loved . . . loved completely, perfectly and purely . . . when I lay my life down for another? Didn't Jesus say there was no great love than this? I think it's in what He didn't say about laying down one's life where we will find an even deeper understanding of love.

The fuel is love, and the act of love the expression. But for what? Merely to love for its own sake? And if love is transitive, is it then our goal when loving to pass love from one to another? Have I loved because someone else received my love? Maybe, but for what purpose? To be a loving person? Why? What is at the end of this rainbow besides loving being forced into end itself?

I think it's pretty well agreed here (isn't it?) that relationship is what life's all about. Imagine if there were no loving relationship with anyone here on earth. We'd interact among each other, but that'd be about it; and, sadly to say, that's what constitutes life for many.

But when I have heart-felt relationship with someone—when I love them, be it from philo or agape love—all my being is in it: my spiritual and physical man, but it is incomplete in so many ways. (For the Trinity, however, it is the unseen reality of completeness through love that satisfactorily addresses how the Trinity can find meaning in and of itself in regard to relationship: God needs no one else to be complete or to experience the completedness—the very destination—of love.)

When I love someone and they love me back, it is still not enough: eventually, we both walk away, even with a sense of "love in our hearts" for each other. There is an incompleteness. The walking away may be to our respective homes or countries. Either way, we have both walked away. Thus, questions still leave us humans hanging after we have given our all to love: "And what now? What has my loving completed? Why has one whom I loved left? Why must I have to leave?" Even in marriage between those who love each other most intimately, one of them may be wisked away; to ministry (as a means of loving others), to work, and ultimately to death. Love expressed here on earth is flagged with speed limits and prohibitions making it virtually impossible to find completeness when loving and being loved. It is as if someone or something has told us, "You may love only so much, and only so long." The incompleteness is stark.

Within the Trinity, and, I believe, within heaven (a concept to express where the essence and presence of God is), we shall find dwelling that allows for the expression of love that is free and complete; love finds its ultimate place in the journey: in unbroken brotherhood of the highest order. Love will never suffer one leaving the other, even for the most noble of purposes. No matter where one is, not only are they not alone, but they are so fully integrated into God's very own being and body (His Church) that there is no room for incompleteness. It is why there is no pain, no tears, no crying, because there is never a time when any one person is left alone to hurt or cry...ever! In Him there are no interruptions of love. It is this context that governs the real reason why we are to love, so that in Him we might reside in unbroken relationship.

May our expressions of love, however limited and prohibited we may find them to be, travel toward the destination of completeness of unbroken relationship, found first in Him and then His Body.

For loving,

Starkman

Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown

Edited by - Starkman on 05/12/2003 10:38:50 PM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 5/12/2003 8:44 PM (GMT -6)

DLW

I am not saying she didn't do much good, but her life shows the consequences when religious leadders choose to obfuscate the problem of order.

Iconoclast

What do you think of Ghandi? Now there is someone who went after the problem of order while being totally centered on love.

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

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 5/13/2003 2:46 AM (GMT -6)

When I was at work last night, I kept thinking about this over and over again:

quote:
(Has anyone noticed how some people's attempts to be "Christlike" turn into a legalism of it's own??)

I think the Meph Man has "proved" my point. How we can be sooo blind when we think we are loving someone and in reality we are actually being VERY legalistic. Matt 7:21-23

Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 5/13/2003 2:57 AM (GMT -6)

Brandon, you flatterer, you.

Darn good post, sir. I'm with that.

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 5/13/2003 11:25 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

DLW

I am not saying she didn't do much good, but her life shows the consequences when religious leadders choose to obfuscate the problem of order.

Iconoclast

What do you think of Ghandi? Now there is someone who went after the problem of order while being totally centered on love.

DLW:Most of what Gandhi strived for in life has not played out. Yes, the British do not control India, but the Muslims and Hindus still do not get along. Many of the reformers that took to power in India became corrupt. India has a class of very well educated and well-to-do people, but also many many very poor people. An Indian economist at my graduate school told me that the thing that hindered the development of India the most was its lack of public goods. I.e., there isn't trust/accountabity/absence of corruption in its government to provide for things which will benefit everybody.

So while much of that has relatively little to do with Gandi, it does point to the importance of the problem of order. I don't think his teachings convicted enough hearts to make them live differently. In my opinion, with Hinduism, it is too easy to rationalize one's own sinful nature and the status-quo; with Islam, much of the Koran is an encryption of the best ideas about what would be a moral way to live for its time, but that are too trusting of ecclesiastical officials for interpreting God's will. Gandhi's failure to speak prophetically against the existing religious beliefs, ecclesiastical institutions of his time and place permitted very flawed systems to continue in motion.

Like Max Weber, I do believe that our underlying belief-systems play an important role in how our polity, economy and society develop. Ideas are essential. How we conceive of what establishing the Kingdom of God entails is essential. My problem with Boyd's focus on the center is that it leaves out too many things that historically have been important as not important. If he wants to be embrace mysticism that is his choice. I think it obfuscates other issues of great importance and can be used to make one's views carry more weight than they should.

For example, take the homosexuality marriage question. Maybe life-long celibacy is right. This doesn't, in and of itself, address what sorts of sexual acts between homosexual couples are acceptable. Should they adopt? Should one of them be able to be a pastor? How about with bisexuals? Would a lifelong monogamous marriage with a person of the same sex be acceptable? After all, they do have a choice.

I think it is important that time and reflection be given to these questions. I don't claim to have the answers. But I think providing intelligent answers to these questions and questions about abortion, the death-penalty and other controversial issues are important. That is why I took so much time away from my graduate studies to think about these issues. Our failure to reflect and reconsider our past tradition-bound answers to the ecclesiastical problem of order have denigrated our witness to others. Protestants, in general, tend to conflate tradition with scripture and, in doing so, misinterpret a fallible interpretation as inerrant. However, it is only through fallible interpretations and exegesises that we provide the answers to the problem of ecclesiastical order. These answers provide institutions that hold us to the faith and encapsulate our meaningful religious experiences.

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

46 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:43 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