 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > "Knowledge of Good and Evil" and Christian Rebuke | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 6/11/2002 9:28 PM (GMT -6) |   | Harold,
My sister's panic attacks stopped as soon as she remembered.
You're absolutely right, long-buried memories can be unreliable, and in some cases unscrupulous or incompetent psychologists can inadvertently "plant" information. Tragically, this casts doubt on the stories of millions of men and women who were abused as children, were too afraid and ashamed to tell, and now are not believed.
In my sister's case, her memory was corroborated by everyone else's memories: my older siblings remembered the relative, who had been in and out of jail, living with us at that time; my mother remembered taking her to the doctor for soreness and bleeding (at that time people didn't automatically investigate possible sexual abuse - my mother and the doctor assumed that she fell on the bar of her bike, and she didn't tell them what happened); and my memory of her question about sex and her violent response to my laughter; and the visible change that could be seen in photographs from before and after. And one of my brothers and his wife are both PhD psychologists, who questioned her about the process she had gone through with her psychologist, as well as the cause of the remembering and the symptoms she experienced - and they both felt confident it was true.
My sister wasn't asking for anything - and she had no interest in tracking down this relative, because she knew in any case that it could never be proven after so many years. And she is in no way an "attention seeker" - she is introverted and a loner. It's not something she talks about or focuses on. But she called us together partly because she wanted to find out what we remembered - if our own memories corroborated the circumstances, and partly because she wanted us, her siblings, to know the truth about what had happened to her. Bringing it to light was an important part of letting go of the burden.
Her life improved in many ways after she remembered and dealt with it in therapy. My description of her lifetime of anger and fear was mostly referring to the time leading up to recovering the memory. But I still think she is a different person than she might have been if this didn't happen, although she does not dwell on it, and she became much happier after remembering than she had ever been. She is in no way, shape or form choosing to be a victim, and it is only the failure of my storytelling ability if that impression came across.
I'm sorry to hear about your panic attacks. Several people in my husband's family have suffered from periodic episodes of free-floating anxiety and full-fledged panic attacks. It can be very frightening and debilitating.
Harold, I know you've had a rough life. You've shared in earlier posts that you attempted suicide at one point, and that you have had several suicides in your family. I am sorry to hear about the abuse. If there were several suicides I can imagine things must have been very bad, before and after.
When I first read your post I felt upset. I sometimes feel attacked by your interactions. But I reread it several times looking for what you were really saying, and I started to hear that you were offering support, in your own way. Because the message you have gotten that has helped you survive is: be strong. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, because nobody else will. So I accept that in the spirit it was given.
I don't think you mean to come across the way you sometimes do.
But I will take what you have said in the best possible light, especially since you have gone through so much yourself - I think you can really understand the pain my sister has suffered. She, too, once attempted suicide, but fortunately did not succeed.
Thanks,
Semeia
Ps - Life is full of circumstances like this, where we can never be sure of the exact truth about others and about ourselves. Which is why assessing the sinfulness of others is such a futile and unproductive task. It's like the computer game minesweeper - just when you think you're pretty good at your deduction and guesswork - you lose.
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
 |
hand_carved
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111
| Posted 6/11/2002 9:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Semeia,
Out of all due respect, I think your mistaken on the crux of our disagreement and why we will never agree. The crux of our disagreement is that you don't want to look at the scripture as a whole, you (apparently, due to your lack of any acknowledgement of scriptures that point to something more than what you believe) want to pick and choose the scriptures that support your own opinions that you have developed.
I give you a passage that seems to be saying something other than what you believe, and instead of seeing how that scripture relates to your theology, you apparently just ignore it. How can you honestly do this, Semeia (and I'm asking this sincerely)? How can you just close your eyes and be indifferent to your precious Lord's ultimate will for your life? In my imperfect understanding it would seem that if you truly loved Jesus' words (and not your own opinion) you would not be afraid to look at them as a whole. But instead it seems that you ignore his words that don't fit into your agenda and cherish his words that do. Now, I'm seriously not judging you as a bad person for doing this, rather I am just dumbfounded how you can honestly do this and hold the words of Christ dear to your heart. Could you explain this to me, and I am not being sarcastic in the least.
Semeia said:
"The serpent in the Garden of Eden beckoned us toward the knowledge of good and evil, and our eating of that fruit brought about the Fall of Man."
Adam:
Was it the knowledge of good and evil that the serpent was truly beckoning us toward, or was it disobedient independence from God?
Consider this: Adam and Eve were in perfect knowledge of what was good and evil before the fall because God spoke it to them, "You may eat of any tree in the garden except this one." Their knowledge of good and evil was derived solely from the mouth of God. They were completely dependent upon Him (not themselves) for this knowledge, and thus He was glorified because He was the all in all. But when they ate of the fruit, no longer were they dependant upon the Lord. Rather, it was their own deed that brought them the knowledge of how to lead a good life. Not only did they disobey the Lord, they trusted the serpent more than He and believed something they could do on their own (apart from God's doing and his will) could bring them a more complete knowledge of the truth. God was no longer the All in All.
Their sin, I believe, was not seeking the knowledge of good and evil but rather "knowledge of good and evil" that is not from God (i.e., within God's will).
Of course there is more to it than that, but when it is looked at that way it is perfectly reconcilable (as far as I can see) with the other passages of the Bible that lead us toward a knowledge of God's will (i.e., what is good and evil).
Semeia:
"I believe that the bible, and Jesus Christ, beckon us toward love and mercy and eternal life –"
Adam:
I also. But also a knowledge of God's will. Sin is missing God's will. Once we have knowledge we can express faith that it is true and then trust in that knowledge…having a faith that is complete. Without knowledge of God's will, how can there be faith in God's will? Jesus derided the teachers of the law for taking away the keys to knowledge (Luke 11.52). Paul speaks directly that we should know the difference between good and evil and follow the good because evil leads to destruction: Rom 2
7 To those who by persistence in doing *good* seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.
8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow *evil*, there will be wrath and anger.
9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does *evil*: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;
10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does *good*: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
Semeia:
"and that the prohibition against eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil still stands."
Adam:
This is where I may possibly (though perhaps tentatively until I hear a better argument for it) depart from Dr. Boyd's understanding of this subject. I disbelieve that the prohibition still stands because I see it that it is too late: we, as collective humanity, have already eaten of the tree. This is obvious because we are fallen. The Lord kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden so that they could not eat of the Tree of Life. The other tree was in the same Garden. The Fall is past tense. I don't think that Humanity "falls" again.
Adam and Eve sought knowledge outside of God's will. Now, after the Fall, God is continually beckoning us not only to a better understanding of his will, but a better practice of His will. The whole Bible is chock full of this. Phil 1.9 is only one example of this.
JOHN 9:39
I hate to keep bringing this whole "context" thing up… but seriously, look at this passage in context. Pharisees just told the man that because he was born blind he was steeped in sin (thus, BLIND = SIN). Keep this in mind when you read this.
39 Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."
40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?"
41 Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."
"So that the blind will see" that is: so that the sinful may become sinless.
Pharisees thought they were without sin…big booboo. "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." (John 1.8).
"If you were blind" – that is if you recognized, in humility, that you were indeed a sinner in need of God's grace– "you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see" – that is since they claim to be sinless – "your guilt remains" they remain sinful…even though they think they aren't.
Semeia said;
"When we think "we see" good and evil, we bring the full weight of our judgments upon ourselves. But when in humility we leave it up to God, which is what it means to put ourselves "in Christ," we are washed clean."
Adam:
How do we "leave it up to God"? By seeking first His will His truth and His righteousness, or by fortifying our own will our own corrupted understanding of truth and our own self-righteousness? How can we be truly "humble" unless we empty ourselves of our own will and understanding and thus open ourselves to allow God's will to wholly dictate our lives?
Sincerely,
Adam
| | Back to Top | | |
|
lucia
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 6/12/2002 3:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Semia,
Thank you for your response to Writerdad! It blessed my heart :)
I think looking (seeking, searching) for good in people is wise. It helps prevent "knee jerk reactions" and proves that we are taking our thoughts captive--leading them to Christ.
lucia
| | Back to Top | | |
|
hand_carved
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111
| Posted 6/12/2002 4:41 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Ps - Life is full of circumstances like this, where we can never be sure of the exact truth about others and about ourselves. Which is why assessing the sinfulness of others is such a futile and unproductive task. It's like the computer game minesweeper - just when you think you're pretty good at your deduction and guesswork - you lose.
Your story is touching, Semeia, and it does prove a point. But, in my imperfect opinion, it may prove a different point than the one you are making.
As a waiter, every day I have to deal with people who judge me. People come in, and no matter how many tables I am waiting on, some people expect me to be there at the wake of their every desire. And when they tell me they need something, they expect for it to be done within 2 minutes or else I'm a bad server.
Just yesterday, this guy and a lady comes in. I'm already waiting on 4 tables (max you are suppose to unless there aren't enough servers is 3), and he is a fifth. I come introduce myself, and the man wants 3 fresh-squeezed lemonades. I tell him that we don't have fresh squeezed lemonade, but he insists that last time he came a server made it for him and he got a big tip (he kept emphasizing "big tip" in a very arrogant way, trying to brag on himself). I said that I'd try to see what I can do because I can tell that he is going to be a very difficult person to please. So, I leave all 5 tables for about 2-3 minutes while I make him his "fresh squeezed lemonades".
Throughout the entire meal, he was rude, continually assuming things should have been better. Their meal to a while to get out, and he acted like it was my fault somehow. He repeatedly asked me to do things that are not within the normal realm of service, and he would get upset with me for not dropping everything on all my other tables to do it.
After making the lemonades and seeing the obvious ungratefulness in his heart, I didn't try to go out of my way to take care of him first. It treated him (as much as I could with all the stuff he was asking me to do) just like any other guests. And because of that, he didn't even tip me 15%.
You see, they guy thought I should have done better than I should. But if he would have been able to know the circumstances, he would have known that what he thought I should have been able to do was actually impossible. There were more factors than what he considered, but he thought he could make a judgement on whether I was a good or bad server just by what he saw.
There are certain standards by which we are suppose to bring out the food and drinks to the table. For example, we are *suppose* to greet a table in less than a minute after they sit down. When I don't greet a table within 2 minutes, I fall short of the standard, whether I could have done it or not. But that doesn't mean I'm a bad server, but I have missed the "mark". I've done the best I could given the situation.
God is the only one who has all knowledge of the present and the past, and thus is the only one who can tell me to what degree of good or bad I am, and He will thus punish or reward me.
You see? We are not (I don't think) to judge a person whether they are a "bad" person, or to what degree they are bad. However, that doesn't mean that we should be ignorant of knowing what is sin (missing the standard, the mark). We should be continually striving for that goal of perfection, though we will never be perfect. If we don't know what to strive for...what goal are we striving for?
Although I may know that I have received imperfect service from a waiter (according to the standard they are suppose to operate by), I do not know why. The service may have been impefect, but the server did all that she could to make it perfect. No matter what happens (unless perhaps she is just purposefully rude) I will tip her the 15% she deserves. In the same way, though I may see (though, perhaps, tentatively) that homosexuality (by that in this case I mean the consummation of homosexual desires) is a sin, I will give my brother what he deserves and not make a judgement on him that he is a "bad" person (and by "bad" I mean "worse than myself". We are all "bad" people in need of grace and mercy).
Adam
"Distance does not decide who is your brother and who is not. The church is going to have to become the conscience of the free market if it's to have any meaning in this world--and stop being its apologist." - Bono | | Back to Top | | |
|
hand_carved
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111
| Posted 6/12/2002 4:54 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hi Adam. I had specifically addressed this because you said in your previous post that you knew of those that had "become heterosexual". I do not have any evidence that this happens. Of course homosexuals, like any of us with our sexuality, can deny themselves, and supress it, but everything that I have learned about homosexuality is that they do not "become heterosexual". As I try to look at it from your point of view, I think there are a lot of things in this world that we were not "created for" such as babies that are born without arms etc., but is it a sin for that child to not have arms? Should that child's whole goal in life be to try and grow arms? Or do we embrace this child for who she is? A child loved by God for who she is, and truly see the beauty that she can share because of who she is. I don't think that drug addiction and homosexuality are comparable. One is a choice(to start) the other is not.
Shell,
You're right, I do need to be more specific and descriptive in my terminology. For that I'm sorry.
I'm not sure that I agree that a person cannot change from homo to heterosexuality (I would not limit God like that). However, I agree that the inclination toward it may never completely go away, although the "convert" may take a sincere joy in sexuality with his wife.
Though people may be born with homosexual tendancies, I think this is due to the Fall of man (like a baby being born without an arm). Yes you love the baby for who it is, but you don't pretend like it is has an arm where it doesn't. You continue to see imperfection for what it is, but out of love you help the child where he/she is weak and needs it so that he/she can live the most whole life that is possible for it to lead.
Blessings...
Adam
"Distance does not decide who is your brother and who is not. The church is going to have to become the conscience of the free market if it's to have any meaning in this world--and stop being its apologist." - Bono | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 6/12/2002 10:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Adam,
Thank you for responding. I used the example of the child because I feel homosexuality is part of the person's makeup, it is part of every fiber of their being. I don't think it can be broken down into a "behavior" or a "tendency" because their homosexuality is as strong as my heterosexuality. I don't consider my being heterosexual as a behavior or a tendency, it is part of the essence of who I am. Also what we as humans view as that child's "weakness"(having no arms), may actually become her biggest strength. The gay individuals in my life that have finally accepted who they are, that God DOES love them, and that those who truly do love them will stick with them, are the most courageous and loving individuals I know, because they have come through a very dark place of not even accepting themselves. They have finally reached a place where they can embrace life, accept themselves, and love others.
I understand Adam that we will probably never agree on this issue, we are miles apart. But I can say that about 10 years ago I was as strong in my beliefs on your side that you are, so you never know. (: No matter what, these discussions help us really delve into our own beliefs and reason through them, and gain perspective and LEARN, even if we don't agree. I have learned a lot through this discussion, even if it did get my goat a few times(sorry to all  )
Thank you Semeia, Harold, Adam and Welcome Lucia.
I'm leaving for a long weekend away with my husband and close friends and I will be far from my computer(my husband will be soooo happy), so I'll leave on this note...but I will definitely check back in when I return. Thanks to you all.
Love,
Shell
Edited by - shell on 06/12/2002 3:10:32 PM
Edited by - shell on 06/12/2002 3:13:21 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 6/12/2002 11:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia: Actually, the longer I go, the less surprised I am about the sinfulness of others. It is quite easy to see, usually. See, regardless of the situation, there are things that are right and things that are wrong. Having a bad marriage does not make committing adultery right. Being abused does not give you the right to be an abuser. Therefore, a person's situation does not make them more or less holy, rather it is how they handle the situation. Sin is sin. Regardless of what has happened to you. Hurting others because you have been hurt is wrong.
If your sisters panic attacks stopped right after, she is most fortunate. As someone who works regularly with people who suffer such things, I have never seen such a thing. Panic attacks, by and large, are outgrowths of life long habits and (sometimes) distant chemical reactions and need constant care in one's life. In that sense, she is blessed.
(if you were) Please do not trivialize my advice. Those who suffer panic attacks, depression, etc., need to be strong and deal with life now because that is the only way to recover. To obsess on how one was treated by ones parent or ex-spouse, etc does nothing for now. It is not about "bootstraps," or other such nonsense, it is about survival. There are no cliches, no easy ways to get one out. There is only the hard work of day to day living. That is it. But no one has an excuse. We are responsible for the life we are dealt. It doesn't make us more or less holy, only what we do with it. The world needs more people who take responsibility for their lives and less "victims" who sit around bemourning their lives.
I do not consider my life rough, or easy. I only consider it my life. To consider it rough only gives me an excuse for not dealing with it, for not taking full responsibility for what I choose to do. In any event, what my life is is not part of the discussion, therefore it is irrelevant.
I have never attacked you personally. I have gave my opinions on what you have written. If you felt I did, the feelings are your responsibility, not mine. Perhaps you don't like the views I espouse, or they touch some nerve in you. I do not know. Regardless, that is not something of my doing. When one posts, when should be willing to accept what comes across the internet, both good and bad.
Finally, millions who have been abused? I seriously doubt it. While I would hope those who have been abused will seek help, I am more concerned with those who have been harmed (many times with the label "molester") by those who have "came out" with no proof. To be unjustly accused is to, many times, never get your reputation back. All of the scientic evidence about memory is that it is highly unreliable and not to be trusted. Regardless, what the world doesn't need is more victims.
Finally, confrontation is a part of life. It is the only way to grow. To be fully confronted is know the truth about one's self. Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 6/12/2002 11:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Adam: excellant point on Semeia's use of scripture. I'm glad I am not the only one to see it.
Shell: what does it prove that homosexuality is a part of their very fiber? Sin is a part of all of our fibers. Does that make it okay to sin? Why should we be so get to a place where we finally accept ourselves? Certainly God does not want us there. He wants to change us.
Finally, did you know that scientists think they have found a gene in serial murders that may make them kill. Isn't that part of their fiber? Shouldn't they be allowed to kill now? Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 6/12/2002 1:51 PM (GMT -6) | | I appreciate the thought and passion in this thread. Semeia and Shell, thanks for sharing the stories. It certainly helps "enflesh" the account so we remind ourselves that we're talking about REAL PEOPLE. Okay, I only have time for one response. it seems to me to be on a central issue. Hand Carved raised it.
Hand Carved: The point of Jesus parable of the plank is not that we should ignore sin in our brother but that we should not try to correct it while simultaneously ignoring our own sin. If you judge a person for A, you will be judged by whether or not you have A. If you have more A than your brother, don't hypocritically (as if you didn't have the sin yourself) condemn your brother for having A because he has less A than you; you condemn/judge yourself! Rather, make sure you don't have A. Then, if you don't have A, you can help to rid your brother of A. And on top of that, you don't have to worry about condemning yourself because you are not doing it.
Doc: Hand Carved, I’m not so sure it is Semeia who is "reading into" this passage. Here’s the passage.
Matt. 7:1-5 "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.
Several points worth noting.
a) The first two sentences set the theme, the next three specifies them. Note, Jesus just says "Do not judge… for with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure (proportion, extent, degree) you give will be the measure you get." Nothing here is said about "judge a person of a particular sin that you happen not to have." It’s a blanket principle. Do not judge. EVER. If you judge (period) you will be judged (period)
b) Jesus then goes on to say WHY we cannot judge. We, the ones judging, have logs, while others, the ones we judge, have specks. Nothing is said about our logs being the same kind of "wood" as it were, as the specks. On your reading, Hand Carved, we’d have to assume that Jesus just happens to be speaking to a bunch of extraordinary sinful judges who happen to be judging minor sinners. But the teaching , including the log/speck analogy, is spoken of as though it were UNIVERSAL. Its not audience-specific. ANY who would be inclined to judge must consider their own sin – whatever it is – as a log and anothers sin – whatever it is – as a speck.
c) Note the great contrast between a LOG (tree trunk) and a speck (dust particle). Do you really think that Jesus is referring to an extraordinary degree of sin this group of people have (whose he’s talking to? It’s either a crowd of ordinary people or his disciples… nothing indicates it’s the Pharisees) in relation to a much much lesser degree of sin the people they judge have? Isn’t it rather obvious that Jesus is here giving a principle ABOUT JUDGING? Whenever we are inclined to judge, we must regard our own sin as tree trunks and the sin of the people we are going to judge as dust particles.
d) Jesus says "first take out the log… then you’ll be able to take out the speck. As soon as we get every dust particle (the entire log) out of our eyes, then we can see the dust particle in our neighbor. Which is to say, as soon as we are sinless, we can judge sinners. Personally, I’m not there yet. I still think and speak idle words, have lustful thoughts, say "fool," and am not perfect "as my father in heaven is perfect."
IN any case, I see nothing here that warrants the idea that Jesus is talking about judging a particular sin we happen not to have. Picture it Adam. I can be a hard hearted self-righteous racist bigot, but I am justified (if not commanded, on your interpretation) to confront your (say) off color joke, or your swearing, or whatever, because at least I don’t have THAT sin? Boy, I hope you’re wrong. This interpretation sets in motion a people who LOOK for all the sins they don’t have and feel righteous in judging them because they don’t have it. This strikes me as the very think Jesus was arguing against.
A similar thing happens in Romans 2. Paul writes:
Rom. 2:1-3 Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. You say, "We know that God’s judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth." Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?
Do you think that Paul really meant that all the judgmental people he was speaking to were guilty of THE EXACT SAME things as the people they were judging – and that it is only for this reason that Paul confronts them? Do you think the people in Paul’s congregation were practicing
"wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice… envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness… gossips, were slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless" (Rom 1:29-31).? There is no evidence of this. Rather, the point Paul is making throughout the first three chapters of Romans is that ALL ARE SINNERS, so NONE CAN JUDGE.
Paul concludes: "There is no one who is righteous, not even one;
there is no one who has understanding,
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned aside, together they have become worthless;
there is no one who shows kindness,
there is not even one." (Rom. 3:10-12)
"Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For "no human being will be justified in his sight" by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. (Rom. 3: 19-22)
Apparently, we are all guilty of the same KIND of things – sin. NO ONE is righteous, not even ONE. The WHOLE WORLD stands condemned before God. Apparently, none of us has all the specks removed from our eyes yet. Apparently none of us can "cast the first stone." Apparently, none of us judge.
Fortunately, the one who CAN judge is on our side, however.
"But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus… (Rom. 3:23-24).
It seems to me, Hand Carved, that the point is exactly the opposite of your exegesis. Just because we don’t happen to have the kind of sin another has does NOT mean we can judge that person, ,for we are guilty of equally grave sin. Indeed, rather than judge, our sin should be TO US like a tree trunk, and THEIR sin like a dust particle. We must remember, at all times, that we stand before God only by God's grace.
Finally, I understand part of your puzzlement over Jesus’ words, since they seem to contradict Paul’s injunction to judge those inside the Church and to put out an unrepentant rebel. I can’t go into this in depth right now, but I’d like you to seriously consider the different circumstances of Jesus and Paul.
Jesus is speaking to crowds who don’t know each other. Paul is speaking as the founding pastor and apostle to house churches, groups of 20 or so people who are meeting every day in each others houses, in the midst of a hostile world, sharing life together (see Acts 2, for example). It wasn’t until the fourth century that Church buildings began to be constructed and the Church became primarily a "large group gathering." This is why Paul knows so many in these congregations by name, and assumes that they do as well. Indeed, the whole "church" in Corinth or Rome (viz. Collection of house churches) wouldn’t have been very large.
Paul’s teaching isn’t that we should now be scouting out the sins of anyone who says they are Christians . Rather, it is a teaching that is applicable to people who are living in community with one another, people who have invited each other in on their lives. In THIS context, where we are to be knit together in love, we can confidently confess sin to one another and lovingly hold each other accountable. In this context, if there is someone rebelliously living in grotesque sin, such as the man in Corinth, it means something to disfellowship them (so too Matt 18). Paul says don’t share intimate fellowship with such a person, thus enabling them and condoning their behavior. But to try to do this with strangers is as impossible and unhelpful as it is unbiblical. Now we end up doing the exact thing Paul, and Jesus, forbid.
So, as a general principle, I would advice that we can speak into peoples lives in a loving and helpful way when a) we have been invited to hold them accountable in a certain area b) we know their story and share life with them c) we know, and they know, that we understand that whatever we say is done in love, not judgement, for we know, and they know, that we are each alike sinners saved by God's outrageous grace alone.
Have to run.
In his love
under his grace
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6
Edited by - GregBoyd on 06/12/2002 6:54:14 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
hand_carved
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111
| Posted 6/12/2002 8:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc,
Thank you so much for your post. I really feel that the most objective measure by which we can find God's will for His people is not in our opinions or even (solitarily) our experiences, but in the scriptures. And although they are very confusing at times and interpreted in a myriad of different ways, the scriptures have so much to offer us. While I don't believe it is right to hold the scriptures in an idolatrous way equal to God, there is SOOO much to tap into.
I can't thank you enough for your insightful look into what the scriptures are saying. Thank you for your careful exegesis and for letting me drink from the well of your many years of study. It is truly a curse that we have, you know, only being able to see from our own perspectives on things. And when it comes to scripture and exegesis, I abhor only being able to see from my perspective, because over and over and over again I see how finite my knowledge and opinions are. That is the thing about message boards and the "Four Views" kind of books that is so alluring to me, being able to sneak inside of the minds of other people, and hopefully come out a better understanding of the truth. Thank you for broadening my horizons. I hate that I don't have a commentary of any kind on Romans or Matthew because there is so much about…everything in those books!
I will definitely search, meditate, and pray over these words.
Semeia,
I don't want to give you the impression that I find your opinion without value. You have said a lot that is valuable and given me meat to chew on. But I must admit that it's frustrated me that you haven't given me your perspective on how the passages I bring up can be reconciled with your opinion through some kind of exegesis. Therefore, many of your arguments have seemed flimsy to me although they may have more biblical support for them than what you have given me in the (I'm sure, if you're like me) precious little time that you've had to post. And after all, for heaven's sake, you haven't got a PhD and a number of books under your belt (that I know of, at least)! Nor do I, although I'm working on a theology degree.
I always try to use words like "seem" and "in my opinion" and "apparently" and "tentatively" etc., in order to place emphasis on my lack of absolute confidence in what I write. That is, I see myself as finite and therefore possibly (or, more than likely) incorrect, especially in my interpretations.
Because of this lack of absolute confidence in certain points of my theology (like "Christian Rebuke" and "homosexuality") that I've developed, I tend to "err" (if it is indeed erring) on the side of non-rebuke (that is, not saying, "Man, you need to stop doing that now."
Well, until tomorrow (or else, technically, later today)!
Grace and Peace…
Adam
"Distance does not decide who is your brother and who is not. The church is going to have to become the conscience of the free market if it's to have any meaning in this world--and stop being its apologist." - Bono | | Back to Top | | |
|
lucia
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 6/13/2002 2:46 AM (GMT -6) | | I have to wonder if we really DO judge when choosing friendships. If one person is a habitual liar...do we let him in on our life? Is HIS lying any better than OUR sin? Sure, we will call this "wisdom" but isn't it really judging that their sin should exclude them from intimate friendship with us because it is WORSE in some way?
Although I totally agree that we are not to judge, I can't help but wonder what we would do if we found out a pastor was taking money from the church funds? Being a gossip or glutton? Or for that matter, killing people on the side... Are these sins equal? Pastor or not pastor? What if the same pastor was sleeping with half the congregation? What if he was having only one affair? What about the verses on "leaders" in the church being of one wife etc... Do we draw the line? I mean who are we to draw the line???
Sometimes I feel that saying "I don't judge" or even "I try not to judge" is such a lie.
thoughts?
lucia
Edited by - lucia on 06/13/2002 09:14:54 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 6/13/2002 5:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Hand carved, I really appreciate your "epistemological humility." I believe one of the most important principles in life -- and certainly in academics -- is what Charles Pierce called "the principle [or doctrine] of fallibilism." The one thing we for SURE know is that we MAY be wrong. Given the remarkable myopic nature of all our perspectives, and given how strongly presuppositions play into all our thinking and how contextually determined these presuppositions are, our only hope of ever arriving at more truth, rather than just more security-giving confirmation of what we already believed, is to proceed with open minds and hearts. So I appreciate all your "seems to me," "perhaps" "in my opinion" etc... This doesn't contradict holding beliefs, or even holding them passionately. It just means we hold them humbly.
Lucia, welcome aboard to CVM. GREAT question. It seems obvious and natural -- at least in this fallen world -- that we have to make decisions on the basis of how trustworthy a person seems, whether we like their personalities or not, and whether actions are good or evil. In fact, the author of Hebrews depicts spiritual growth as a matter of learning how to more accurate distinguish between good and evil (Heb 5:14). Because of the fall, we are STUCK with the categories of good and evil.
But, as you seem to suggest, this doesn't seem to be what Jesus' and Paul's and Jame's teaching against judgment is ruling out. The judgment they seem to be talking about is of a CONDEMNING SORT. We DRAW CONCLUSIONS about THE PERSON. Its a "you ARE" sort of thought, sentiment or word.
Last night I was watching 60 minutes which was on (once again) the incredible way the Catholic church has covered up and protected its pedophile priests. It was positively appauling. I don't think its judgmental to say "this is appauling." I don't think its judgmental to say "this is evil." I don't think its judgmental to say "abusing children in the name of God is evil." What IS judgmental, I believe, is one I conclude in my mind that a particular pedophile priest is evil, or even that a bishop who covered it up is evil. They MAY BE, but that belongs to God. I don't know this. I don't know their stories. I can think of many mitigating circumstances which may have influenced them, or even virtually determined them, to be involved in this. For all I know, if I were in their exact same shoes, I may have done the same thing. I also know that, whatever their degree of moral responsibility is, I am not more righteous than they are. We both were on death row for crucifying the Savior, and it really is pointless to quibble about what particular nails we used to do it.
My response to this situation, then, should be to pray for justice for the victims, but also for forgiveness for the perpetrators. Of course, I would never ask a formerly pedophile priest to baby-sit my children. In fact, I think society should treat them as they do all pedophiles. They should serve time. I think the whole business of being "protected by the Church" is damaging to the Kingdom of God. But as a citizen of the kingdom, I can't ever confuse the demands of society or the expediency of good discernment with ULTIMATE TRUTH about the person.
I think we EAT off the tree of good and evil when we derive any sort of internal satisfaction, any "life," from our assessments of people. When we stand AS JUDGE over them -- as though we are not ourselves convicted criminals along side of them -- we are no longer loving them. We are eating from the forbidden tree.
Finally, to Hand Carved once again, I believe you are mistaken in thinking that the only point the Genesis narrative is making is that Adam and Eve disobeyed. If I understand you correctly, you hold that the knowledge of good and evil was a good thing, but that Adam and Eve were wrong to disobey God. But then, WHY WAS THE TREE CALLED THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL? Why not simply "the forbidden tree"? And why did the eating have THE EFFECT it had -- their eyes were OPENED and they SAW that they were naked?
What the story is showing, I believe, is the LOSS OF INNOCENCE. God intended us to walk in trusting love, simply obeying him. If we did this perfectly, we would not know "good and evil". We would only know "God wills" and "God does not will." And if we were walking in perfect union with God, this knowledge would be immediate. It would not be mediated by an ethical system that declares somethings "good" and some things "bad." Ethics is a result of the fall. It is a sign that we are no longer in union with God.
In our fallen condition, insofar as we live in "the flesh," we are like a husband who decides what to do and what not to do with his wife by asking, "Is this ethical or not" rather than simply, "How can I show love." Something is seriously wrong with a husband who has to "live out of" an ethical mode in relation to his wife. So too, something is seriously wrong with humans who live out of an ethical mode in relation to God and to each other. Even worse, we often think living out of the ethical mode IS living in relation to God. In this way of thinking, God turns into a behavioralist God who is impressed with people insofar as they engage in certain good or religious behaviors and distances himself from people insofar as they engage in bad behaviors. In other words, God LOVES BEHAVIOR more than PEOPLE.
If we love like God is love -- which is the purpose of creation -- we will DO "the right things." If you love, you fulfill ALL the law. But we don't do them BECAUSE they are "the right thing to do." We do them because they express love.
Make sense?
Blessings
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 6/13/2002 7:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Another Quick Word: Adam, I want you to notice that I didn't say much of anything in my posting on Matt 7 that Semeia didn't say in her essay on the Sermon on the Mount which she linked you to in her opening post on this thread.
As I've watched your interaction with her on this thread, it seems to me that Semeia was assuming you read this link when in fact you hadn't. If I'm wrong about this, I am puzzelled why a) you accuse her of picking and choosing from the Bible (and some other things) when she covered most of the questions you raised, and b) why you found my little essay compelling but not hers.
I don't think you meant it this way, Adam, but a few of your posts were pretty tough sounding, on a somewhat personal note, and, so far as I can see, quite unfounded. I appreciate your epistemological humility on issues, but I'd encourage you to extend it to peoplep/i] as you interact with them, especially when you disagree with them strongly.
Blessings
Doc
ps. check out her "link" on page 1.
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 6/13/2002 12:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Lucia: what you have articulated is, of course, completely true. I have brought this up before:
One cannot live life in a proper and truthful (and safe, both for yourself and those you love) without judging. We judge everyday and, frankly, those who do not admit it are simply deceiving themselves. We judge whether a neighbor's child is a right playmate for ours, we judge whether or not we should pick up a hitchhiker with our kids in the car, we judge if the mechanic overcharged us or not. A person simply cannot live a safe, productive and godly life without judging.
For instance, if your daughter wants to go out with a boy when she is 16, as a father (or mother), you will judge that boy's character based on the information available. If he has a record, is a known drug addict, you would be right not to allow your daughter to go out with him. Yet that is a judgment of his character, who he is. There are, of course, many other situations I could cite as well.
It is easy to pontificate about not judging, unconditional love, etc. but true love affectively judges another person to both find what they need and also how you can best love them. Besides, Matt. 7 must be taken within the whole spectrum of Jesus's life and not be the end all and be all of who he is. Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
hand_carved
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111
| Posted 6/13/2002 1:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc,
Yeah, I know I've been too terse with my words to Semeia at times. That is why I tried to clear the mud with my note to her in my last post. One of the frustrating things about posting like this is the time limitations. It's hard to know what to respond to and what not to respond to. Then (unless you've just written a book on it ;) ) you have a bit of studying to do on the subject before you can properly respond. Then, you write your response. After that (ideally) you want to edit the post to make it as clear as possible. However, I seldom have time to edit because I've spent hours writing the post. After you've spent 1-3 hours reading and responding (and you're about past the point of rationality because it is 2am!), you wonder if it would actually do any good to edit it because you've all the sudden become a mental invalid…but at the same time you wonder if it would really be of much value to wait a day to respond because by that time the subject will have evolved. So I usually go ahead and post it.
I think that is probably a mistake for me to go ahead and post it without checking it both for miscommunication and for cold language. As I look back through the posts I've made, I think to myself (after the fact) "That probably really came across the wrong way."
I mentioned in my last post I use words such as "possibly" and "I tentatively believe" etc. I think that the posts that come across the harshest are those in which I tried to cut down my writing time by leaving them out. I sacrifice quality for quantity:a "muchness" and "manyness" (in Richard Foster's words) that I tell myself (as I see the Bible telling me) to avoid.
Anyway, if my last posting of an apology wasn't clear enough (which I guess it wasn't since you, Doc, said something to me about it), I would like to apologize again for getting frustrated with you Semeia. I'm sure you've been equally frustrated with me. I've tried to make it clear that I don't think that you're absolutely wrong about your conclusions, I just really wanted to see how you biblically came to your conclusions, that's all. Personal blows are simply a waste of time. What I asked you to cease, I did not strive to avoid the same appearance of communication myself. So now it is I who ask you for the forgiveness.
Doc, I think I agree with you for the most part, and have agreed with you, only there is a difference in semantics perhaps. I guess I'm equating "knowledge of good and evil" with God's will. Now, I've only thought about this and not really researched it very much, so I hold to it loosely. But it looks to me that Adam had full true "knowledge of good and evil" (i.e., what the will of God was) even before eating of the tree. It was a gift from God. You might almost be able to say that he had true "knowledge of good and evil" before he ate, but afterwards he lost it. Paul's words in Rom 1 might hold truth here. "he exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature – serpent? – rather than the Creator. The only "evil" was to eat of that tree, everything else was "good." By eating of the tree, they were now evil, and in their fallen condition have to resort to an intrinsically imperfect "knowledge of good and evil." God's revelation to His people throughout salvation history is the process of restoring our knowledge back to the full truth ("now we know in part, then we shall know fully" 1 Cor 13).
It might be that before they were naked they felt no shame because they were sinless. But now, because they disobeyed and placed a lie above the truth, they feel shame when naked, and thus sought covering (note that an animal was sacrificed to cover their shameful nakedness). Nakedness is often mentioned along with shame throughout the OT (from what I've seen). That, I think, is possibly why they "knew that they were naked and were ashamed." But again, I hold to this very loosely because I've only been thinking about it and haven't done any formal research on it.
Semeia,
I do need to read that post of yours. You gave me the link to that thread, but I didn't have time to read it initially as well as read and respond to what you wrote to me. I didn't think that you had assumed I read it since you never referred to it again in our communication. Anyway, I'll try to as soon as I can.
Blessings…
Adam
"Distance does not decide who is your brother and who is not. The church is going to have to become the conscience of the free market if it's to have any meaning in this world--and stop being its apologist." - Bono
Edited by - hand_carved on 06/13/2002 8:37:37 PM
Edited by - hand_carved on 06/13/2002 10:45:36 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 6/13/2002 6:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Way to take the high road Hand carved. Thanks.
Now you say: I guess I'm equating "knowledge of good and evil" with God's will....it looks to me that Adam had full true "knowledge of good and evil" (i.e., what the will of God was) even before eating of the tree. It was a gift from God. You might almost be able to say that he had true "knowledge of good and evil" before he ate, but afterwards he lost it.
Doc: I encourage you to seriously relook at this. So far as I can see, the text says just the opposite of what your saying. You assume the knowledge of good and evil is God's will, but the text says GETTING this knowledge was AGAINST God's will. You say Adam and Eve had the real knowledge of good and evil, but then lost it. But the text says that Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil -- and it worked! Their "eyes were openned."
I suspect your difficulty in accepting the text, Adam, is very typical. It just doesn't fit OUR PRESUPPOSiTIONS about the goodness of our knowledge of good and evil. Christians hardly EVER take seriously the nature of this forbidden tree. Not coincidentally, we have on our hands a religion that has largely TRAINED people to divide up the world in terms of good and evil, TRAINED people to live out of ethics rather than love, and thus TRAINED people to get some of their self-worth, sense of being "right" with God, sense of being "distinct" (holy), but JUDGING.
Again, not coincidentally, the thing Jesus said his church was to be known for, and the thing he said would convince people HE is for real -- namely, OUR OUTRAGEOUS LOVE -- is largely missing. Oh, we insist that WE ARE loving (I just got done with a radio interview where the hosts was insisting on this), but THE WORLD certainly doesn't see it. WE Christians are known for alot of things, but very rarely is it for our LOVE. "Boy, those Christians really know how to accept the unacceptible, sacrifice themselves for the undeserving, humbly share their lives with sinners." ugh ugh. (To get even more depressed, think about church history-- the crusades, the martyrs we have made, often of other christians we deemed "heretics," the slaughtering of native Americans and the deceptive tactics we practiced in dealing with them, the two centuries of slavery we condoned back in the good old days when -- as many conservatives keep on singing -- America yet held to its Christian distincdtives.. etc.).
And it all goes back, I submit, to our remaining in the serpent's lie that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is A GOOD thing. We've to a large extent preached (at least with our lives) the FALL as though it were SALVATION!
chew on it Adam,
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
hand_carved
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111
| Posted 6/13/2002 7:23 PM (GMT -6) | | I just got my hands on Stott's commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. Interesting, though I'm not sure I agree with him entirely.
I think that there is a big difference in what we are all thinking about when we say or read the word "judge." Semeia says (if I'm not mistaken) that " judge" means discerning whether or not something is objectively against the will of the Lord (i.e., whether or not something is sin). I disagree with Semeia and I'm saying that " Judge" means to make a judgment on whether someone is a "good" or "bad" person, or to make a judgment on their salvation.
I think you are right that the parable doesn't have to be talking about the same sin. Indeed it looks like it might be talking about sin in general. Stott agrees with that. Stott argues that "'judge not' cannot be understood as a command to suspend our critical faculties in relation to other people…to refuse to discern between truth and error, goodness and evil." (Stott, Sermon on the Mount p. 175). He also argues that much of the Sermon is based upon our use of our critical powers. He points out that if we are not to make value judgments, how can we follow the subsequent command of Christ to "not give dogs what is holy" and later to "beware of false prophets"?
This is how Stott describes what "judging" is (p. 176): The follower of Jesus is still a 'critic' in the sense of using his powers of discernment, but not a 'judge' in the sense of being censorious. Censoriousness is a compound sin consisting of several unpleasant ingredients. It does not mean to assess people critically, but to judge them harshly. The censorious critic is a fault-finder who is negative and destructive towards other people and enjoys actively seeking out their failings. He puts the worst possible construction on their motives, pours cold water on their schemes and is ungenerous towards their mistakes."
He then sums it up with this: "The command to judge not is not a requirement to be blind, but rather a plea to be generous. Jesus does not tell us to cease to be men (by suspending our critical powers which help to distinguish us from animals) but to renounce the presumptuous ambition to be God (by setting ourselves up as judges)." (p. 176)
The heart of my argument against Semeia was not that the parable was speaking of the same sin (that was peripheral), but rather her belief that the plank parable teaches that we should be blind to their sin. She says that the plank parable teaches: "Our sin is so large we are blinded to even seeing our brother’s sin, and if we could see it, we would realize it is only a speck." The parable says nothing about being blind to the speck. Nor does it say "the speck is not really even a speck." Rather, it says that we should consider their sin a speck compared to our own sin.
Dr. Boyd, how do you define "judge"? You said, "Indeed, rather than judge, our sin should be TO US like a tree trunk, and THEIR sin like a dust particle." But if by "judge" you mean the same thing as Semeia means – that "judge" means "to say one is sinning" (though I could be reading her wrongly), are you not still "judging" by considering your brother to have even a speck of sawdust in his eye?
I like Stott's words: "The command to 'judge not' is not a requirement to be blind but rather a plea to be generous."
Grace and peace...
Adam
"Distance does not decide who is your brother and who is not. The church is going to have to become the conscience of the free market if it's to have any meaning in this world--and stop being its apologist." - Bono | | Back to Top | | |
|
hand_carved
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111
| Posted 6/13/2002 7:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc,
It is really interesting to read the account of the fall next to Paul's first chapter of Romans. I'm not really studied in this area, but it looks like there is an infrangible connection between the two (though I could be wrong).
God did not say that knowledge of good and evil was inherently wrong did He? He said that to eat of that fruit was wrong. Sin is not doing the will of God, is it not? Sin is evil. "Good" is to do the will of God. What was the will of God in the Garden? That they should not disobey by eating of that tree. Therefore Good was to eat of any tree but the tree of knowledge; Evil was to eat the tree. Adam and Eve weren't satisfied with this. They, evidently wanted something more tangible (perhaps the system of ethics you talked about), so they ate of the tree. Reminds me of Israel wanting a tangible king. It seems to echo beautifully with Paul's first chapter of Romans, "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie…"
Though I don't know what to do with the verse, "They have become like us knowing good and evil." Hmm… I'll have to chew on that some more. (Hee hee…)
Consider all of this "What ifs" because that is what they are…brainstormings.
Blessings…
Adam
P.S. – Dr. Boyd, with the assumption that we are not to have "knowledge of good and evil," how do you interpret Phil 1.9?
Adam
"Distance does not decide who is your brother and who is not. The church is going to have to become the conscience of the free market if it's to have any meaning in this world--and stop being its apologist." - Bono | | Back to Top | | |
|
lucia
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 6/14/2002 2:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg,
You're cool! I like what you said here:
"Because of the fall, we are STUCK with the categories of good and evil."
Exactly! We are stuck assessing SOME things!
But I love what you said here:
"But as a citizen of the kingdom, I can't ever confuse the demands of society or the expediency of good discernment with ULTIMATE TRUTH about the person. and I think we EAT off the tree of good and evil when we derive any sort of internal satisfaction, any "life," from our assessments of people.
also here:
"It seems obvious and natural -- at least in this fallen world -- that we have to make decisions on the basis of how trustworthy a person seems, whether we like their personalities or not, and whether actions are good or evil."
Thanks, that brings clarity!
And I really liked this:
"Last night I was watching 60 minutes which was on (once again) the incredible way the Catholic church has covered up and protected its pedophile priests. It was positively appauling. I don't think its judgmental to say "this is appauling." I don't think its judgmental to say "this is evil." I don't think its judgmental to say "abusing children in the name of God is evil." What IS judgmental, I believe, is one I conclude in my mind that a particular pedophile priest is evil, or even that a bishop who covered it up is evil. They MAY BE, but that belongs to God."
This is a helpful example.
Harold, isn't this great? We can clearly see the line between normal "decision making" judgement as opposed to "conclusion drawing" judgement.
This was good too...
"If we love like God is love -- which is the purpose of creation -- we will DO "the right things." If you love, you fulfill ALL the law. But we don't do them BECAUSE they are "the right thing to do." We do them because they express love."
This describes a beautiful "MOVE TOWARD ACTION" that reframes our whole thought life!! Our focus is no longer on "THOU SHALT NOT's" (move away), nor is it on assessing or judging all the variables! Instead we concentrate on just expressing love in the here and now, and everything get's done that need to be done.
Maybe this is what Jesus meant when He said "My yoke is easy, My burden is light?"
peace,
lucia
ps. Greg, I really appreciate your use of scripture throughout all of your recent posts and messages!! I dont think it will come back void :) Blessings.
Edited by - lucia on 06/14/2002 7:19:19 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 6/14/2002 2:56 AM (GMT -6) | | From my view, it matters little, in the practical realm whether the priest is evil. That is not my concern in evaluating the circumstances. He committed an evil act. He has identified himself with evil. For practical purposes he has aligned himself with evil. Therefore, until repentance comes, he is evil. Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 6/14/2002 4:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Lucia,
A couple more thoughts on your question:
The positive command we are given is "To love..."
In the situations you bring up, would it be loving to let those behaviors continue? We are not prohibited from giving clear feedback on behaviors that have a negative impact on us, and in some cases intervening.
But this is very different from evaluation of other people's "sin."
The first question is: are we in a deep, intimate relationship with a person who has invited us in to help them with a particular issue?
Or secondarily: is someone doing a behavior that causes harm to themselves or others, causing destruction all around, that we are in a position to lovingly intervene to stop?
When we look at it this way we see how it is possible to stop destructive behaviors without judging, because our criteria have to do with behavior and impact - not with the inherent "sinfulness" of the behavior, because we are all, after all, sinful to a degree that required Jesus to die on the cross for us. And because we don’t have a God’s eye view, and we can’t know a person’s motivation, or the factors influencing them – some of which are out of their control, or their intent, or their heart, we cannot from our limited position judge their sinfulness, even though we are sometimes called upon to stop them.
And when we look at it this way we see that we are concerned with action rather than judgment. The only question that concerns us is whether or not we are called to act.
And the only way we can fulfill the law is to do it ourselves. When we “apply” it to our brother, to measure how our brother is doing, we are no longer “doing” it ourselves.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Ethics speaks of the difference between JUDGMENT and ACTION. Although difficult to read out of context, it very much applies to the topic of this thread:
DOING from Bonhoeffer’s Ethics:
It is evident that the only appropriate conduct of men before God is the doing of His will. The Sermon on the Mount is there for the purpose of being done (Matt.7.24). Only in doing can there be submission to the will of God. In doing God’s will man renounces every right and every justification of his own; he delivers himself humbly into the hands of the merciful Judge. If the Holy Scripture insists with great urgency on doing, that is because it wishes to take away from man every possibility of self-justification before God on the basis of his own knowledge of good and evil. The Bible does not wish man’s own deed to be set side by side with the deed of God, even as a thank-offering or sacrifice, but it sets man entirely within the action of God and subordinates human action to God’s action. The error of the Pharisees, therefore, did not lie in their extremely strict insistence on the necessity for action, but rather in their failure to act. ‘They say, and do not do it.’
When the Bible calls for action, it does not refer a man to his own powers but to Jesus Christ himself. ‘Without me ye can do nothing’ (John 15.5). This sentence is to be taken in its strictest sense. There is really no action without Jesus Christ. All the innumerable different activities which in general assume the appearance of action are, in the judgment of Jesus, as though nothing had been done. This saying of Jesus demonstrates more clearly than any other saying in the Bible that all action is entirely bound up with Jesus Christ and no clearer distinction can be drawn than this between true action and all kinds of false action.
Our definitions are designed to ward off possible misunderstandings of the action of which the Bible speaks and to display the peculiar character of this action.
The irreconcilable opposite of action is judgment. ‘He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge’ (Jas.4.11). There are two possible attitudes to the law: judgment and action. The two are mutually exclusive. The man who judges envisages the law as a criterion which he applies to others, and he envisages himself as being responsible for the execution of the law. He forgets that there is only one lawgiver and judge ‘who is able to save and to destroy’ (Jas.4.12). If a man employs his knowledge of the law in accusing or condemning his brother, then in truth he accuses and condemns the law itself, for he mistrusts it and doubts that it possesses the power of the living word of God to establish itself and take effect by itself. In making himself the lawgiver and judge he invalidates the law of God. Hence there arises the irreparable cleavage between knowledge and action. If by his knowledge of the law a man has become the judge of his brother and so eventually of the law itself, then he can no longer perform the law, however much else he may appear to reform. The ‘doer of the law’, unlike the judge, submits to the law; the law never becomes a criterion for him such as he might apply to his brother; the law never confronts him otherwise than in summoning him personally to action. Even when he has to deal with a brother who is at fault, the ‘doer of the law’ has only one possible means of giving effect to the law, and that is by performing it himself. It is precisely in this way that the law is held in honor and is rendered effective, and is acknowledged to be the living word of God which takes effect by its own power and which has no need of human assistance. This does not mean, then, that the doer of the law is content with his own doing and that with a sidelong glance he calls upon God to be the judge of his sinful brother whom he himself is, unfortunately, not permitted to judge. There is really no such sidelong glance here, but there is only conduct which is appropriate to the law of God, namely the doing of the law, and it is only in this exclusive concentration upon one’s own doing of the law, without any other thought in mind, that the law is given its due and is allowed to exercise its power also upon one’s brother. There does not therefore remain, in addition to action or through action, some ultimate possibility of judgment; action is and must continue to be the only possible attitude towards the law of God; any residue of judgment would disrupt this action entirely, and transmute it into false action, into hypocrisy.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
hand_carved
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111
| Posted 6/14/2002 5:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Here's another "what if."
Christian faith, as I've mentioned before, is defined as a combination of knowledge, assent, and trust. In the Garden, Adam and Eve's faith was complete (having all three facets). When they ate of the fruit, they lost the "trust" aspect of faith and perhaps the "assent" facet, but they retained the "knowledge" facet (though now, they are under another "system" of good and evil). They now could "know" the truth without actually doing it. James 4.17 says "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins."
That is why Jesus was so hard on those who had much knowledge but little action. (This may be a jump in interpretation, but...) He didn't come to do "abolish" the law, but to "complete" it, (I.e., to bring the pro-active "trust" back into "faith"). That is why James warns "Let not many of you assume to be teachers my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly." (James 3.1). This is not saying that we should do away with the office of teachers but that only a few are teachers.
The "knowing," then, is not inherently evil; it's just incomplete.
Thoughts?
Adam
"Distance does not decide who is your brother and who is not. The church is going to have to become the conscience of the free market if it's to have any meaning in this world--and stop being its apologist." - Bono | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mute
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 6
| Posted 6/14/2002 5:40 AM (GMT -6) | | There is only one thing I have to say.
I rebuke all of you! I judge all of you guilty of trying to judge whether or not it is okay to judge or not!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 6/14/2002 7:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Mute: you cannot judge me guilty for something I have already freely confessed to. Not only do I judge, but I welcome the responsibility God has given me to do so. To judge (and discern) is to truly be human in the most godly way. Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 6/14/2002 8:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Adam, thanks for the apology.
Adam said:
Semeia says (if I'm not mistaken) that " judge" means discerning whether or not something is objectively against the will of the Lord (i.e., whether or not something is sin).
Semeia:
As far as I know, I never gave a definition of “judge.” I certainly don’t think it is “judging” in a negative sense to discern the will of God for ourselves, based on our own relationship with Jesus Christ. But as soon as we try to apply that to others we get in big trouble – because we don’t have a God’s eye view of the situation.
We are not in a position to know with absolute certainty if someone else is doing the will of God. However, that in no way prevents us from acting to stop the pedophile or the drunk driver.
But discernment can’t possibly mean discerning our brother’s sinfulness, because that is something we will never have enough information to assess. And it is also inappropriate to be pointing out other people’s sin – because we always choose certain things to focus on while ignoring the rest, especially the ones we ourselves suffer from. Only when we are in a long-term trusting relationship, and we are invited in, and asked, should we advise people on their “sin.” Or alternatively, when we see that a person’s behavior is causing destruction all around them, and we are called to do a stop-action.
So the question we should be asking ourselves constantly is: What is the most loving action I can take toward this person in this situation?
The question we should not be asking is: Is my brother sinning?
The first question leaves us with our own doing of the law. The second attempts to use the law to judge our brother. The Bonhoeffer quote in my response to Lucia deals with this distinction, this irreconcilable difference, between judgment and action.
And it allows us to deal with the impact of behavior, rather than putting us in a position of constantly trying to determine the intent – which we are not in a position to do.
Because assessing our brother’s sinfulness doesn’t bring us any closer to loving him, which is the highest commandment. In fact it puts a barrier between us. Assessing what action we need to take to help our brother, on the other hand, does bring us closer to love. And knowing whether or not the behavior is sinful or not becomes beside the point.
For example, if you came across a man raping a woman, would you intervene because of the "badness" of the man - because his "sin" needed "correction"? Or would you intervene in order to stop the harm to the woman? I think we would stop the behavior because it is "life-destroying" - not because of our analysis of its sinfulness. But we can’t merely equate “sinfulness” with “life-destroying,” because then we would have to prevent people from remarrying, which Jesus allows, even as he calls it adultery.
So clearly, some “sinful” behavior calls for action, and some doesn’t. Our determination of whether or not someone is sinning gives us no information whatsoever about whether or not we are called to action. So our concern is not with stopping sin per se in others, but only with stopping life-destroying behaviors, and acting out of love for people, in recognition of their unsurpassable worth before God. Our focus on someone else’s sin blocks us from doing exactly this. It’s next to impossible to see a person with love when we are looking at them through the lens of their sin.
In regards to ourselves, however, we are to be very aware of our sin, and be seeking the will of God.
When we look at this in terms of the example given at the top of this thread, it seems to me that in regard to homosexuality we are not called to act – unless our advice has been solicited, or unless there is an underlying problem like sex-addiction that calls for intervention. There is no compelling destruction happening that requires our help. And if you say that there is, explain how it is in any way different from remarriage after a non-sanctioned divorce?
Adam said:
I disagree with Semeia and I'm saying that " Judge" means to make a judgment on whether someone is a "good" or "bad" person, or to make a judgment on their salvation.
Semeia:
I agree that to “judge” means to make a judgment on whether someone is a good or a bad person, or to make a judgment on their salvation. But I also think that it is “judging” to go around selecting certain sins (like homosexuality or gluttony) to address in people, while ignoring other sins (like remarriage or working on the Sabbath). The process of selecting sins is a judgmental process that in effect weighs the seriousness of the sin (which usually has to do with whether or not the person has that particular sin themselves) as worse than the sins being ignored.
And the effect of this judging is to “call out” the sins of some people, while “covering up” the sins of others. When what we should be asking ourselves is: what is the best way to love this person? And even when we are called to intervene, it is never about assessing the sin, but rather it is about what is the most loving action.
Frequently when Christians “comment” on another person’s sin, they are unaware of the damage they do, and the profoundly unhelpful nature of their advice. It is almost impossible for me to conceive of how it could ever be “helpful” to tell an obese person that gluttony is a sin, or to discuss their struggle with weight in terms of its “sinfulness.” It seems to me like the opposite of love. Now if a friend shares their struggle with us, I can see helping them with their diet, or taking them to a doctor, etc. But I find it hard to imagine how it would ever be loving or helpful to discuss it in terms of sin.
When we are motivated to help people out of love, our action takes on a very different character than when we are motivated out of a need to stop them from sinning. God did not command us to stop other people from sinning. God commanded us to love.
Adam said:
The heart of my argument against Semeia was not that the parable was speaking of the same sin (that was peripheral), but rather her belief that the plank parable teaches that we should be blind to their sin. She says that the plank parable teaches: "Our sin is so large we are blinded to even seeing our brother’s sin, and if we could see it, we would realize it is only a speck." The parable says nothing about being blind to the speck. Nor does it say "the speck is not really even a speck." Rather, it says that we should consider their sin a speck compared to our own sin.
Semeia:
Adam, I don’t recognize those exact quotes. Are those paraphrases put in quotation marks? I don’t have any memory of saying, “The speck is not really even a speck.” I did a quick search of this thread and didn’t come across either of those quotes (although the first seems like a fairly accurate paraphrase). Can you point me to them? I would really appreciate it.
And if you agree that it says “that we should consider their sin a speck compared to our own sin,” and our sin is a log, what do you think Jesus is saying to us?
Here is what I said earlier on this thread about the log and speck:
quote:
What is the visual Jesus gives to show the ratio between our sin and our brother’s? In the Sermon on the Mount he suggests that our sin is a log, and our brother’s sin is a speck. What should be of more concern to us, the log in our own eye, or the speck in our brother’s? Can you ever get to a point where you have become sin-free, so that you are qualified to correct your brother on his sin? Do you believe that you have less sin than the homosexuals you work with?
And here is what I said about it in the Sermon on the Mount essay I linked:
quote:
Jesus continues. He asks, “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye?” This is so brilliant. Our mouths just have to drop open at the word of God. What is Jesus telling us here about the importance of our sin compared to the importance of someone else’s sin? He gives us a great visual: our sin is a log; the other person’s sin is a speck. This is the ratio. This is how our sin is measured. This is how we should perceive our sin in comparison to others. If you put two piles of sin next to each other, one is as big as a log, the other is as small as a speck, which one demands attention? Which needs to be addressed? Remember, Jesus has already answered our objections. He has already answered the question, “But what about the murderer? I only kicked the cat! How can my sin be bigger than his?” Jesus has dismissed that argument. He has said, lust in your heart is the same as adultery; the angry thought is the same as murder. Now it starts to dawn on us what he meant. We have to get the proportion right. If we “see” the murderer as worse than us, we will never “see” the true proportion of our own sin. We will never hear the urgency of God’s message, that any transformation that happens in the world happens ONLY as a result of the transformation that happens within. In our whole life, could we ever get rid of this “log” of sin, so that we could take the attention off of ourselves, and turn our attention to the sin of others? Is this a “project” that we can complete, and as we chip away at our sin, can we reduce it bit by bit, so that finally we could turn our attention to the next guy, the ax-murderer and the litterbug? Remember, the other guy’s sin is a speck. So that means our sin needs to be less than a speck before we shift our attention. Jesus says, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect.” It’s interesting that he says that shortly after saying we should love our enemies. So if we are perfect, then we can judge. The question is, if we were perfect, would we judge? Or would we love our enemies?
The last line is a sleeper. Jesus says, “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.” I am dumbstruck by the genius of this. Jesus has taken me step by step, and now he shakes me hard. I feel like Saul on the road to Damascus. I can see. He starts by addressing us as “hypocrite”, a nasty label if there ever was one. It would be nice to think he was referring to the Pharisees, but this is to the crowds, this is to humankind, this is the Sermon on the Mount, the core message of his whole ministry. So I cringe. “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.” And then it hits me. Our own sin blocks us from seeing our neighbor’s sin. We don’t even know what our neighbor’s sin is, because we are blocked by the obstacle of our own sin. Our own sin makes it impossible for us to judge what is good and evil in another. Our own sin makes us blind. What we see, when we look at others in judgment, is through the darkness of our own sin, which is opaque. We do not truly see others. Jesus says so, “take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.” When we take the log out of our own eye, what we will see is that our neighbor’s sin IS ONLY A SPECK. We judge the world through the veil of our own sin, and it makes us blind. Our judgment actually causes us to do evil, when we intend good. We judge the people around us as if their sin is in need of our help, and in so doing we create more sin. If we were to get rid of the sin that blinds us, we would see people with the eyes that God sees people with, the loving eyes of wisdom, understanding, and forgiveness, and as he tells us he loves each one of us, we too would see with love, and each person’s sin would be but a speck. How easy to love our enemies, if we could see them as God sees them, with their sin as just a speck.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard
Edited by - Semeia on 06/14/2002 1:19:17 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 160 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:44 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 |
|
|