 |
 | 
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 3/1/2004 5:32 AM (GMT -6) |   | Is this thought in harmony with your thread?
According to Open Theism and Meph's complicity theory, God would not be "complicit" because there is room for actions outside of God's will or power to change.
I realise I might not have all the factors here. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/1/2004 8:09 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
I want to discuss the complicity here more. But I think I'm seeing something here...but I need some info to be sure. What I'm going to do is post a proposal axiom about moral culpability.
A person is morally culpable for participation in some activity IF and ONLY IF two parameters are met...
1) The person has the genuine ability to gain sufficient AWARENESS or COGNIZANCE of the context, impacts, and ramifications of their participation
This means that person more or less has "counted the cost." Wrote down all the figures. Tallied them up. And said, "OK, this is what I have to work with and so, I will make this move" or "I will NOT make this move."
quote:
2) It is genuinely within their power to do (or to HAVE DONE) otherwise.
Looking at it from the opposite side, that is to say, that if they DIDN'T have the power to do otherwise (yet knew the ramifications) they would not be at fault or culpable for something immoral because they could NOT help it. Working within the framework that love requires freedom and indeterminacy and free will co-exist, it would seem that there may be times that it is NOT genuinely within God's power to have done otherwise.
quote:
If these two paramaters are NOT met, then a moral culpability is not possible.
So, say that a person has counted the cost factoring in ALL the variables (context, impacts, and ramifications of their participation) it may be that they HAVE the power to do something but THEY DON'T because it would not be worth it. Therefore, they would not be held culpable of any immoral activity.
Example. Say there is a train track. The train track veers into a fork. On the one track there are ten children tied to it. On the other there is one. But if you factor in that the one train track with the one child on it is the END of the track and that you have a thousand people on board your train who will most certainly die, you may not go down this track but take the other track within the ten children on it because it keeps going. Now it is WITHIN YOUR POWER to switch train tracks. But your ability to do something would not be in question in this incident i.e. Pt. #2. What would be in question is your your knowledge of all the facts and variables or as you say, context, impacts, and ramifications of their participation.
So, both parameters ARE NOT met and so the person is NOT morally culpable. So I would agree with your proposal.
Let me also ask this question. I was thinking of Schindler's List. Oscar used the deception of wine, women and song to INFLUENCE the Nazi guard and eventually he saves some lives. At the end of the movie you hear him crying while looking at a ring in his hand, "This could have bought one more person!" Now liken this to God. Is this not the same as you say, "But it would also include God actively being a part of event chains that use human systems to promote God's loving purposes." If this is what Iconoclast means by "influencing for the good" (which I doubt, because God cannot use sin, because if he did that would implicate God in sin in his view) then I would have no problem with it. I mean one wonders at the fall of man. How radical is it? If I think of the fall as "corruption," then man's good nature has been corrupted. This means that it is not bad in the sense that it should not exist, but something that is warped, twisted and mangled. And if this touches on a systemic scale. Does God have any other choice but to work in Schindler type ways? What say ye?
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/2/2004 4:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
I want to discuss the complicity here more. But I think I'm seeing something here...but I need some info to be sure. What I'm going to do is post a proposal axiom about moral culpability.
A person is morally culpable for participation in some activity IF and ONLY IF two parameters are met...
1) The person has the genuine ability to gain sufficient AWARENESS or COGNIZANCE of the context, impacts, and ramifications of their participation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This means that person more or less has "counted the cost." Wrote down all the figures. Tallied them up. And said, "OK, this is what I have to work with and so, I will make this move" or "I will NOT make this move."
Nope. Not quite. This merely means that a person has the GENUINE ABILITY to gain this information. What you are talking about is when a person not only aquires this information but actively "counts the costs" all the way. That's cool, but it's going beyond what I'm saying…even though it would be included in my statement.
Here's the thing. Ignorance CAN be chosen. Some people can, subtlely, REFUSE to see the truth even when they have adequate experiences and information on hand to know the truth. And they need to be held accountable for this. I believe Romans 1 testify to this type of thinking.
Romans 1:18-22
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
This has to be accounted for…and it's very important we do. Otherwise, ignorance truly IS bliss…whether or not one actively or passively refuses to see truth. This is why culpability only require GENUINE ABILITY to understand the context and ramifications.
***********************************************
Brandon (emphasis mine):
quote:
2) It is genuinely within their power to do (or to HAVE DONE) otherwise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking at it from the opposite side, that is to say, that if they DIDN'T have the power to do otherwise (yet knew the ramifications) they would not be at fault or culpable for something immoral because they could NOT help it. Working within the framework that love requires freedom and indeterminacy and free will co-exist, it would seem that there may be times that it is NOT genuinely within God's power to have done otherwise.
You are on point, as far as the principle. This is part of the ground of the whole "love requires freedom" idea. But I'm having issue with your application to God. The genuine power to do otherwise lies on various levels. In the largest sense, to the extent that one believes that Creation is a TOTALLY FREE event, a choice God could have NOT actualized, then that one has to say that this WHOLE THING could have been otherwise.
In other words, the FREE choice to actualize a state of affairs KNOWING that you will be participating in an evil system if you do is one for which a person would be culpable. This is because the person could have just "opted out" and NOT made that choice. With respect to God, God could have just chosen NOT to create.
See what I'm saying?
***************
Brandon:
quote:
If these two paramaters are NOT met, then a moral culpability is not possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, say that a person has counted the cost factoring in ALL the variables (context, impacts, and ramifications of their participation) it may be that they HAVE the power to do something but THEY DON'T because it would not be worth it. Therefore, they would not be held culpable of any immoral activity.
Again, some issues. With respect to participation, if someone knows all the variables involved with a free choice (including that "evil" is involved) and makes that choice to participate when they are ACTUALLY able not to participate, then they are culpable.
They would only not be culpable if they were NOT FREE to participate or not participate.
****************************
Ok. Here's the idea.
With respect to participation in an evil system, moral culpability would occur if 1) sufficient access to perceive the variables of participation was available and 2) genuine ability to do other than participate was the case.
Now, let's apply this.
God.
If we assume that God is INFINITELY INTELLIGENT, as part of God's omniscience, what this means is that God knew all variables concerning Creation. These variables INCLUDE the statistical inevitability and ramifications of sin's emergence and permeation of Creation…and knowledge of the way that God wanted to interact with the world (ie. Incarnation, etc) which would put God in significant contact and interaction with evil systems. So, #1 is met.
If we assume that Creation truly is a FREE EVENT meaning that God truly could have chosen NOT to create, then it would seem that #2 is met. Bottom line…if God didn't want evil (and God's interaction with evil) to exist, God had a sure fire way of making sure that it wouldn't.
Therefore, God would, at least, be morally culpable for the DECISION TO CREATE, which would lead to participation in evil systems.
Now, bring here all the stuff I said about Numbers 12. God USING aspects of the fallen Creation (Leprosy) in order to give a lesson to Miriam and Aaron. This is clear participation in the product of an evil system that God didn't want, but clearly anticipated, given infinite intelligence And I think that we will ALL grant that God was INDEED free to refrain from giving Miriam leprosy.
Therefore, God would be morally culpable for his PARTICIPATION in the evil system of sickness.
We have two clear cases where God is "complicit" with evil systems via God's participation.
I'm hoping all of this is quite clear.
Now this is where I have to thank Iconoclast. His "3 year old in racism" thing got me thinking about this whole thing. It got me to thinking that not only PARTICIPATION is a factor in culpability but some sense of available AWARENESS. When we think about babies , they can't have this. Babies don't have access to the ubiquitous understanding of fairness. There is no context to even provide babies with this type of awareness. So, that being the case, HOW could babies be "complicit"? They couldn't. Moreover, that are completely unable to do anything about where they were born…and they are completely unable to LEAVE where they were born. So, that criterion is not met. Now, can they participate in evil systems, in effect given the evil systems more power? Sure. Babies CAN exacerbate the problem just by being the focus of OTHER PEOPLE perpertuation of the evil structures. But they can't be held morally culpable for that.
But…
When we talk about MOST of us, even kids. We DO have access to basic understanding justice and fairness. Some would say that we have a core understanding of these things. We also DO have access to finding out about injustices and systemic forms of evil. We may have to SEEK THEM OUT, but nonetheless we do have access. (And access wouldn't be THAT dang hard…if we listened to people's testimonies about these things!) I would say that the vast majority of the time, our ignorance on these matters is chosen, either consciously or subconsciously. Repressing the truth, as Romans would say.
And here's a thought with the genuine ability to do otherwise. It it genuinely possible for MOST people to completely "opt out" of the American racialized, gender-biased system. Either by LEAVING this country (by whatever means) or by so ISOLATING themselves from American culture that, in their sphere of existence, no vestiges of American culture seeps in. We have to admit that if someone were REALLY INTENT on NOT being "complicit" in any way in this American racialized, gender-biased society, they could do these things.
It works out like this:
Even though it could be possible for White males to stay in America and cut off ALL access for American reality such that neither of the requirements for moral culpability in systemic evil, it's a VERY, VERY HIGH improbability! I seriously doubt that many White males would expend THAT much effort to completely extract themselves from American culture. But in staying, and receiving the unearned privileges that they do, they are PARTICIPATING in the evil structures in this country.
********************
The moral of the story:
I think that the radical sense of individualism with respect to moral culpability in sinful, evil structures appears to be misplaced based on an INADEQUATE understanding of tenets 1 and 2. With regard to #1, it has often been taken that ignorance IN AND OF ITSELF exonerates. But it doesn't. Self-allowed and self-promoted ignorance has moral ramificaitons. With regard to #2, it has been taken that if one can't do otherwise then they can't be held responsible. But, could it be the case that VERY LITTLE was thought about what it meant to be "able to do otherwise?" Could it be that people have so lowered the bar of what one can do that we actually fall into a victim mentality of sorts where we parceive our "ability to do otherwise" as being FAR MORE RESTRICTIVE than it really is? I think so.
So…
One can hold to a solid idea of moral culpability that is inextricably linked to freedom and choice…WHILE affirming the culpability that one has in participation with systemic evil.
Thoughts?
PS: Thanks for Iconoclast and all for helping me hone my thoughts on this.
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/2/2004 12:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: I tell you what: why don't you go and tell the BIG GUY that hes a sinner (if you've got the guts!).  (By that "hmmm" I would say no...) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 3/2/2004 5:06 PM (GMT -6) | | It sounds pretty close to me.
Meph: Therefore, God would, at least, be morally culpable for the DECISION TO CREATE, which would lead to participation in evil systems.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 3/2/2004 7:22 PM (GMT -6) | | [quote]Originally posted by Springs
It sounds pretty close to me.
Meph: Therefore, God would, at least, be morally culpable for the DECISION TO CREATE, which would lead to participation in evil systems.
(Jo-Anne) Meph, Springs and All
The only way that love is possible (real love which must be freely given and freely chosen) is for the opposite to be possible as well. He truly is the God who risks, but think of the alternative, a world in which real love (real worship, relationship, choices) would not have been possible. Was it worth the risk? I believe so. Obviously HE thought so!
In no way does this allow for complicity in my mind and in no way does it make God culpable. Is He involved? Definitely (up to His elbows!)
Love, Jo-Anne 
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 3/2/2004 9:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Jo-Annequote:
In no way does this allow for complicity in my mind and in no way does it make God culpable. Is He involved? Definitely (up to His elbows!)
I think this word is a great replacement word for complicit! On the other thread you and Mark have come up with a great new word to describe to what extent God is involved with the evil of this world. God is involved with us. God is involved in every area of our lives including the evil that happens. With the train tracks analogy, God is involved in working the best possible outcome and this is where the ambiguity lies because we do not know infinitely what God knows. What we can rest assured in is that in everything God is INVOLVED with us and is working for the good. Jesus said, "I will NEVER leave you nor forsake you."
Mephiquote:
Did the Son of God genuinely have the option to NOT be incarnated into the world?
Mephi, what do you think of the word INVOLVED? To answer your question God had the option to not be incarnated into the world but because of God's involvement with us he made the decision to be so. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/3/2004 1:04 AM (GMT -6) | | On the word "involvement"
I've looked at a bunch of definitions for this word…and all of the definitions contain this understanding:
To engage as a participant; to engage thoroughly.
Here's my question: Given the core idea of what we believe about moral culpability (one of the GROUNDS of 2 of Doc's 6 theses), can a being who fits #1 and 2 engage as a participant or engage thoroughly in an evil structure…and NOT be morally culpable?
I don't think so.
It appears to me like what we are trying to do here is make it such that God can be a thoroughly engaged participant in evil structures (even to the point of USING the power of evil structures for God's redemptive ends ala using LEPROSY against Miriam), but in no way morally culpable for said participation. This won't work. I think that Iconoclast and Semeia have hit the nail RIGHT on the head with respect to participation in evil being a BINARY affair: either you are "involved" with it or you are not. No middle ground. This is because of the PERMEATING effect it has.
[Digression: This is why I have an affinity to my analogy dealing with the white clothes and the chimney soot. The analogy tries to show the logic that one cannot be "involved" with the chimney soot without IN SOME WAY getting dirty.]
The only way out of this dilemma, it would seem, would be to EXEMPT God from this moral principle of moral responsibility. But that would not be wise because the free will argument is BASED on it! Supposedly the principle of moral responsibility is one of METAPHYSICAL IMPORT that grounds the "love requires freedom" idea. To exempt God Godself from that renders the "love requires freedom" idea null and void…and all the theodicy implications that flow from it!
I am trying to see why it is not a viable solution to say the following:
God, in his infinite intelligence, KNEW the inevitability and ramifications of sin's entrance into existence that would accompany a free-will Creation. God, in his omnibenevolence, was willing to PAY THE PRICE and deal with that in order to have sentient loving creations. In other words, the desire for loving relationships with non-God beings GROUNDS God's willingness to "get dirty" in involvment with a fallen Creation. And this makes the ChristWork all the more important to us as one of the modes of HOW God paid this price.
Is this not sufficient?
*********************************************
On Creation being "worth the risk"
Jo-Anne said (emphases mine):
quote:
The only way that love is possible (real love which must be freely given and freely chosen) is for the opposite to be possible as well. He truly is the God who risks, but think of the alternative, a world in which real love (real worship, relationship, choices) would not have been possible. Was it worth the risk? I believe so. Obviously HE thought so!
This is a very important concept in open view theology. John Sanders' work, The God Who Risks, says this very upfront. And Doc acknowledges this too. One of Doc's 6 theses from the Christus Victor Website (emphasis mine):
2. Freedom Implies Risk | The freedom to choose or reject love constitutes a risk for God. Creatures may make choices that oppose his will for their lives and the lives of others. This risk is illustrated throughout Scripture, beginning with the Garden of Eden. Many of us have experienced the painful consequences of misused freedom in our own lives. God considered love to be well worth the risk inherent in giving his creatures freedom.
This is said all the time, but have we REALLY given thought to what this actually means? I would submit to all that this is a form of the "greater good" argument! (Doc has FORMALLY admitted this on this board by the way) How so? Simple. God, in God's infinite intelligence, knew that sin, death, and hell would emerge, given the vast dimensions of what God was trying to accomplish. This is an implication of another of Doc's 6 theses. Again, from the Christus Victor website:
4. Moral Responsibility is Proportionate to the Potential to Influence | The potential a creature has for love is proportionate to the creature’s potential for evil. The greater the creature’s potential for love, the greater risk their freedom entails, for they make choose to use their potential for evil instead. Greater potential also entails greater responsibility for how the potential is used.
Now, given this information…as well as God's understanding of his OWN participation in the fallen Creation that would result, God still felt that having a Creation with freely loving beings was a better choice, all things considered, than having a evil free existence. If God really preferred an ALL loving, sin free existence, all God would have had to do is NOT create. God still would have have ever-increasing dimensions of love within God's truine self.
But God didn't do that. God decided to create. And the logic is forceful. If God decided to create FULLY AWARE of the ramifications, then God MUST have thought it was "worth it"
However…
there is something that I raised long ago that was NEVER truly dealt with. This whole "worth it" idea NECESSITATES a utilitarian perspective that says this in effect:
The emergence of sin, death, and hell is an ACCEPTABLE INEVITABILITY for the END RESULT of having a freely chosen love relationship with Creation.
Want an omelette, gotta break some eggs, right? This is SO utilitarian! If God were truly so averse to sin, death, and hell…
THEN GOD WOULD HAVE NEVER CREATED!
I really hope that this is understood! The whole "worth it" idea ASSUMES that the emergence of sin, sickness, death and all that were INEVITABLE EVILS of a proliferated freedom having universe.
So, WHY, then, all the balking about God using a "lesser evil" approach in regards to divine providence? This is why the suggestions on this board regarding God IN NO WAY being complicit in evil have made no sense to me! Not only do we have clear biblical cases where God PARTICIPATES in evil, fallen structures, using the power of those structures for God's own redemptive purposes…but open view theism itself is ANOTHER FORM of the "greater good" argument…WHICH assumes complicity on some level!
There's really no way to get away from this, people. And if I'm not mistaken, Brandon saw this too. Am I right about that, playa? 
***********************************
Why is All This Important?
Selah asks:
quote:
How about you tell us Mephi. What do you think, and why? What are the practical implications of believing the way you do regarding evil and God's role in it? And most of all, how does it help you do life? y'know stuff like that.
I'm one of those crazy people that believe that, to the degree that one is consistent, that one's belief about God (including God's working in and relationship to the world) NECESSARILY affects one's actions that relate TO God and others. So, I'm going to give 3 ways that this whole thing affects me personally. Ready?
1) An Understanding of God's Love for the World
I have an understanding of the profundity of God's love for the world due to the understanding of God's complicity with evil, structures. Let's really think about what it means for a perfectly holy and righteous Being to deal with sin and the profane. The two are like oil and water: they don't mix. It is NOTHING BUT PURE LOVE that would allow a perfectly HOLY and righteous being to be willing to not only just interact with evil human structures…but to also be INCARNATED as a human being UNDER those evil human structures.
Can we even IMAGINE this LOVE???
This is how I do it in my head. I imagine a being who is a complete neat freak. Doesn't like dirt or filth of any kind. It actually causes this being IMMENSE PAIN (emotional, psychological, etc) to be in contact with that stuff. Now, this being comes across another person who has FALLEN into a vat of RAW SEWAGE, is very hurt, naked and needs help. Not only does this being, despite the pain this rank filth causes her, runs over to help clean that person up…this being actually TAKES OFF her clean clothes, using them to bind his wounds, and TAKES the filth DIRECTLY onto herself!
Can we even IMAGINE the love of this woman willing to do this for the person who fell in the raw sewage????
Why would anyone FAULT the woman for getting a little dirty in order to CLEAN and RESTORE the fallen person???
The "complicity" idea tells me that God loves us more than God loves staying away from sin. It tells me that God loves us MORE than just trying to exonerate Godself in God's own eyes. It tells me that God loves us enough to be IN the world…and take on what that entails.
This is nothing short of "Amazing Grace" and "Amazing Love"!
[Digression: This is why "The Passion" just doesn't do it for me. Getting beat with a cat-of-nine-tails is terrible, to be sure. But is that ANYTHING compared to the Holy Son of God 1) being incarnated into a SIN-FILLED existence and then 2) having the sin of that existence laid UPON you? That makes Christ's physical beating look like a Swedish massage!]
2) An Understanding of God's Working in the World
Once I realize that God truly is IN the world working…and NOT ASHAMED to use evil, sinful structures against themselves for redemptive purposes, it forms a natural reframe of how God may work in the world. It brings a complexity to the world that is at times frustrating to deal with, but biblically viable. It makes sense of God's interaction with Pharoah and Egypt. It makes sense of God placing leprosy on Miriam. It makes sense of God using primative war cultures in God's plans. It makes sense of apostles rendering people blind. It makes sense of God using "lesser evils" to achieve "greater goods" It makes sense of God "sacrificing the rook for the queen" It just makes sense.
At least to me, it does. 
3) An Understanding of Complexity and Ambiguity in the World
This naturally follows #2. Though I have virtually irrefutable evidence of God's love for the world and God's willingness to work IN the world, I now have some serious AMBIGUITY as to how that may play out, with respect to particular evils. I am no longer at liberty to say, in effect:
Anywhere you see hatred, sickness, destruction, mistrust, deception, or anything else that is not loving…you can BE SURE that God is not using that AT ALL, but is working against that particular manifestation of evil.
How could I make sure a claim, while understanding the VAST complexity of the world and God's interaction in it?? Of course, I have the maxim of responding to all particular bouts of sickness, death, pain, and suffering with faith, hope and love in God and OF God. And this means that I can ACT IMMEDIATELY upon any situation like this I see. But without the Spirit of God telling me EXACTLY what the causes of any particular bout of evil are…I just wouldn't know where this came from or how God is providentially involved.
Could it be a divine test? Yes.
Could it be divine judgement on sin? Yes.
Could it be a negative turn on chance events? Yes.
Could it be Satanic or demonic influence? Yes.
Could it be human free will gone bad? Yes.
Could it be the effect of evil systems? Yes.
Could it be the interplay of all of these? YES!
Remember my analogy with the father and the kid cooking in the kitchen. There's TOO much ambiguity to say that we KNOW how God is acting in any given situation. We have certainty of God's INTENTION and God's LOVE. We know that God NEVER takes pleasure in evil. We know that God NEVER wants evil to occur for its own sake. We know that God loves EACH and EVERY individual as if they were the only person alive. But given all factors, we are walking pockets of ignorance with regard to this stuff.
And this means a whole LOT to me.
To the extent that we can admit this ambiguity, we can be THAT MUCH MORE open to and dependent on the Spirit of the Living God to lead us in situations of gross evil. In addition to always responding to these things with faith, hope, and love…we would have to ability to maybe do things that WE MAY NOT THINK OF had we just leaned unto our own understanding…because of what we "know" what God does and does not do.
Example. I remember one time that a friend of mine was walking down the street and she saw a disshelved, homeless type person. She strongly felt the urge from God to ask this man if she could buy him a beer. Now, this girl was HOLY. And she KNEW that God would NEVER ask her to buy another person a UNGODLY beer. So, what did she do? She acted on who she she THOUGHT God was…and just passed the dude by and "prayed for him" Right after that, she got MAD convicted…but it was too late. The guy was gone and she never saw him again. She learned from that.
Ask yourself how many times do WE, thinking that WE know what God can and cannot do, bypass opportunity to work with God in what God is doing in the world! Our need for security and stability causes us to TAME the UNTAMED God! We have to KNOW what God does and won't do so that WE won't feel so ambiguous in relating to the world. I wonder how this would have worked for Abraham, the father of faith. Or Peter…you know, the one who just KNEW that God wouldn't want him to associate with the "unclean"
Hmmm.
Now, I'm not saying that EVERYTHING is up for grabs and that we should question everything. Actually, I'm saying that we DON'T question everything and ALWAYS respond to particular bouts of evil with faith, hope, and love in God and of God. What I'm saying is that we must be open to the Spirit in the belief that God IS working in the world IN a fallen context….and THAT may mean that God would be doing something that WE would think unbecoming of God. But, we are NOT God and we should have enough faith in what God is doing IN this world to go BEYOND our need for security and stability.
What do you think, Selah?
**************************
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/3/2004 1:31 AM (GMT -6) | | I really think that "IN the world, but not OF the world" is an excellent motif to understand God's complicity with evil structure...
VERY interesting passage in 1 Cor 5:9-13
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons— not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. 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. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.”
Whoa, Nelly! What is the writer saying in the bolded and underlined passage? He's making a clear statement of fact: To BE "in the world" necessarily means to "associate" with the immorality of the world! It cannot be helped. The falleness is TOO permeating in the society. It was so important to make this clarification that he made it!
Now, think about what we've being saying about the PERMEATION of evil in fallen, human systems. The logic still applies, people. There's NO WAY that a person can be IN the world, and not IN SOME WAY be "associated" (or how about INVOLVED) in the world's evil systems. Just ain't happening. And guess what? GOD'S NOT IMMUNE…nor did he want to be.
Jesus associated with the TAX COLLECTORS. The people that collected taxes for the ROMAN GOVERNMENT. Think about what this means.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 3/3/2004 2:17 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
This is how I do it in my head. I imagine a being who is a complete neat freak. Doesn't like dirt or filth of any kind. It actually causes this being IMMENSE PAIN (emotional, psychological, etc) to be in contact with that stuff. Now, this being comes across another person who has FALLEN into a vat of RAW SEWAGE, is very hurt, naked and needs help. Not only does this being, despite the pain this rank filth causes her, runs over to help clean that person up…this being actually TAKES OFF her clean clothes, using them to bind his wounds, and TAKES the filth DIRECTLY onto herself!
Can we even IMAGINE the love of this woman willing to do this for the person who fell in the raw sewage????
Why would anyone FAULT the woman for getting a little dirty in order to CLEAN and RESTORE the fallen person???
The "complicity" idea tells me that God loves us more than God loves staying away from sin. It tells me that God loves us MORE than just trying to exonerate Godself in God's own eyes. It tells me that God loves us enough to be IN the world…and take on what that entails.
Mephi, I only have a sec so here's my first thoughts...
ok, this is good. I think its helpful to get into your head and see what you see. In your example above, God is the same God I see. The God who PULLS GOOD OUT OF EVIL (love-AT COST to Himself). My ques to you is this: Could you ever imagine GOD PUSHING that person into the sewage in the first place?
quote:
This is nothing short of "Amazing Grace" and "Amazing Love"!
Right. But it changes IF God pushes her in...then God is Amazing-ly confusing.
quote:
[Digression: This is why "The Passion" just doesn't do it for me. Getting beat with a cat-of-nine-tails is terrible, to be sure. But is that ANYTHING compared to the Holy Son of God 1) being incarnated into a SIN-FILLED existence and then 2) having the sin of that existence laid UPON you? That makes Christ's physical beating look like a Swedish massage!]
I hear you!
love
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/3/2004 3:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Biblical stuff. Some reposting…
Romans 13
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; 4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
God's participation in the Roman governmental authorities.
*****************************
Ok. We want to say that God NEVER WANTED the Fall, or ANY of it's aspects, right? Cool. So when we think of LEPROSY, we think of something that was an EFFECT of God's plans being contended against, right? LEPROSY wasn't part of God's original divine plan, right? Leprosy is a SYMPTOM of the SYSTEMIC permeation of evil and sin in Creation, right??
Cool!
Numbers 12
While they were at Hazeroth, Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married (for he had indeed married a Cushite woman); 2 and they said, “Has the LORD spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?” And the LORD heard it. 3 Now the man Moses was very humble, more so than anyone else on the face of the earth. 4 Suddenly the LORD said to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, “Come out, you three, to the tent of meeting.” So the three of them came out. 5 Then the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud, and stood at the entrance of the tent, and called Aaron and Miriam; and they both came forward. 6 And he said, “Hear my words:
When there are prophets among you,
I the LORD make myself known to them in visions;
I speak to them in dreams.
7 Not so with my servant Moses;
he is entrusted with all my house.
8 With him I speak face to face—
clearly, not in riddles;
and he beholds the form of the LORD.
Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” 9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and he departed.
Num. 12:10
When the cloud went away from over the tent, Miriam had become leprous, as white as snow. And Aaron turned towards Miriam and saw that she was leprous. 11 Then Aaron said to Moses, “Oh, my lord, do not punish us for a sin that we have so foolishly committed. 12 Do not let her be like one stillborn, whose flesh is half consumed when it comes out of its mother’s womb.” 13 And Moses cried to the LORD, “O God, please heal her.” 14 But the LORD said to Moses, “If her father had but spit in her face, would she not bear her shame for seven days? Let her be shut out of the camp for seven days, and after that she may be brought in again.” 15 So Miriam was shut out of the camp for seven days; and the people did not set out on the march until Miriam had been brought in again. 16 After that the people set out from Hazeroth, and camped in the wilderness of Paran.
OK. Here's the deal. God USED leprosy as a MEANS of showing a LESSON to Miriam and Aaron. Leprosy was a PRODUCT of an EVIL SYSTEM that God USED for God's own ends. God never wanted leprosy to exist, remember??
Point: To the extent that God USED a product of the evil system (leprosy) for God's own divine ends, God PARTICIPATED with the evil system…and is, in so doing, COMPLICIT in said evil system. God never WANTED leprosy to exist, but since it does God can use it to God's own ends!
*************************************************
From Brandon's quote:
quote:
Secondly, the incarnation means that Jesus’ social and economic identity was not an accident. We know that Jesus was a “tekton” a Greek word meaning, mason, carpenter, cartwright and joiner, all rolled into one. It is very probable that Jesus was involved in the massive construction that went on in nearby Sepphorus a city that was destroyed as a result of a rebellion occasioned by Herod’s death. This city, rebuilt by his son , Herod Antipas, was under Roman rule during Jesus lifetime. If this is correct, then Jesus would have worked and prospered here. This would have implicated him directly in the political workings of the Herodian dynasty! Even so, being from Nazareth meant that Jesus was located and therefore connected to towns that were “Greek-speaking and cosmopolitan, located on busy trade routes connected to Roman administrative centers.”
You see where I’m going with this don’t you?
If the incarnation tells us anything, it tells us that Jesus’ chosen place in his society as a tradesman reflects a certain goodness on property, on creative producing work and on the sort of person that goes with it. It also means that Jesus worked at a productive trade within the economic system of Israel in the Roman Empire. Whether one accepts Jesus’ involvement in the rebuilding of Sepphorus or not, what all this means is that Jesus identity was “deeply interwoven with the political and economic system of Rome.”
Now what I say here, will fly somewhat in the face of what Greg writes about concerning our “interconnectedness.”
Sider believes there is no distinguishing between “personal evil” and “structural evil.” We are morally responsible not only for our own actions but for our involvement in world systems and for the moral actions of countless others. So if we, for example, buy stock or buy Nike shoes made in sweatshops or China, etc, no matter how good your personal life may be one is implicated in the moral evil that benefits them. YOU ARE GUILTY BEFORE GOD!!
Think about it. One would not only be working in fallen systems but working within that system would be SINFUL. This would cast a guilty verdict over ‘bout…EVERYONE! Unless we live on some desert island somewhere in the middle of the Pacific, I think it is safe to assume that we all, to one degree or another benefit from sinful systems without trying to change them.
Digression: Think “Reparations” and our participation in “structures.”
The global system is highly vast and complex that we would have to be omniscient to know an ‘nth of the fallenness that we “profit” from. It would seem to me that to some extent, that the more we are involved in the world, the less our ability to know, much less change the “evil structures.”
Thank you Greg.
The greater our involvement, the greater the guilt. And you’ve got to know that once we start uncovering “structural evils,” that we “profit” from, there is then, no end in sight. Any attempt at participation in the world would makes futile any integrity we would begin with. Either we must be involved in the world without integrity and live in a state of perpetual guilt or we must escape from the fallen system itself as completely as we can. Thus, the principle given by Sider and others, (thinking Anabaptists here, Ahem…) as a means of transforming society is really a moral prohibition against working within the fallen world—separatism. It requires significant withdrawal from the very system it wishes to reform.
“Guilt by implication” is totally futile.
Now compare this to the life and identity of Jesus Christ. Christ was not only subjected to the disadvantages that come with being a Jew, but he clearly profited from the Roman economic system. He might have benefited from the stability of peace, legal order, good road systems, stimulated cash flows and building projects. But the “structural evil” also included totalitarian dictatorship, taxation, gratuitous military conquest, slave labor, expedient use of genocide, etc. Yet because Jesus worked within the system, it was simply impossible that he did not benefit (perhaps greatly) from structural evils. And as far as we know, he did nothing directly to change them (though his teaching and way of life threaten those structures far beyond what the Zealots could accomplish). As a matter of fact this outraged the “puritanicals” who thought Christ was careless ‘bout his contacts with Roman soldiers and tax-collectors—those who typfied cultural godlessness. What did Christ do? He condemned them for their lack of grace toward the human condition. This is why “guilt by implication” is so relentless, rigid and unforgiving. Jesus wouldn’t even pass the test. He too, is sinful and guilty of involvement in the world. We need to think twice about our work and protests in the world in ways that are far less limited in terms of what Christians may or may not engage in vocationally.
Yes there are vocations that are clearly wrong. I’m not talking about these. I’m talking ‘bout “guilty by implication” and our involvement and profit from fallen systems. This cannot be our sole criteria or condition for judging our noninvolvement.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 3/3/2004 3:08 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Selah:
quote:
My ques to you is this: Could you ever imagine GOD PUSHING that person into the sewage in the first place?
Just a thought. I don't think your usage of my analogy fits well. The first thing to understand is that we are ALL in sewage. That's very important to get! The sewage in the analogy is the representation of PERMEATING FALLENNESS and the sin linked to that. We are in a FALLEN world already. There is NO ONE on this planet who is untouched by sickness, death, and other aspects of this fallenness. So the idea of God pushing someone into the sewage doesn't really work here…because we are already there…and have been there since the Fall.
OH, duh. Ok, got cha...reading too fast again sorry.
quote:
Think about God striking Miriam with leprosy. How would you represent that? Does that look to you like God pushing a person into the sewage? Remember. It's biblical episodes like that one that needs explanation.
I need to think about this some more. Actually, I would have to study that account to really answer in a fair way. For the sake of chatting about ideas here's my initial thought: In so far as we DON'T see God acting like this, we go with the central theme of who God is (all places all times especially in the face of Jesus) and we RELATE to that...rather than the "blips" of hard to answer, had to be there, God-with full knowledge of good and evil-decisions He chose to actualize here and there kind of stuff...
love
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 3/3/2004 3:15 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Point: To the extent that God USED a product of the evil system (leprosy) for God's own divine ends, God PARTICIPATED with the evil system…and is, in so doing, COMPLICIT in said evil system. God never WANTED leprosy to exist, but since it does God can use it to God's own ends!
Again, I don't disagree that God pulls good out of evil. In fact, I really don't think (since many care about this) that Greg would disagree here either. Dr. Boyd, if I am wrong...please let me know now OK  It seems to me, if you really want to use the word complicit in this way Meph, so be it. God absolutely pulls good out of evil and in doing so He enters into it, gets dirty and feels pain. fine -I'm with you.
peace and love,
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/3/2004 3:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah:
quote:
Ok, I need to think about this some more.
While your thinking, ponder this.
Acts 13:1-12
Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a member of the court of Herod the ruler, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.
So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia; and from there they sailed to Cyprus. When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John also to assist them. When they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they met a certain magician, a Jewish false prophet, named Bar-jesus. He was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man, who summoned Barnabas and Saul and wanted to hear the word of God. But the magician Elymas (for that is the translation of his name) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul away from the faith. But Saul, also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him and said, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? And now listen—the hand of the Lord is against you, and you will be blind for a while, unable to see the sun.” Immediately mist and darkness came over him, and he went about groping for someone to lead him by the hand. 12 When the proconsul saw what had happened, he believed, for he was astonished at the teaching about the Lord.
Mark 11
12 On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 14 He said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard it.
15 Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves; 16 and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. 17 He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written,
‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’?
But you have made it a den of robbers.”
18 And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him; for they were afraid of him, because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching. 19 And when evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city.
20 In the morning as they passed by, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. 21 Then Peter remembered and said to him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered.” 22 Jesus answered them, “Have faith in God. 23 Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. 24 So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
25 “Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.”
Blips, eh?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
| 163 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:48 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 |
|
|