 |
| 
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 6/13/2003 5:38 AM (GMT -6) |   | Any chance we can get back to the point that POW highlighted, which was actually buried in my earlier posts? That is, the significance of life and death and how that differs from our time to a biblical world view? Perhaps this thread is hopelessly sabatogued.
Here's a hint: To live is Christ. To die is gain.
What do people take this to mean?
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 6/13/2003 6:14 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW: Let me say, you are working out the implications of what you perceive to be my view in ways that I have not ever imagined. In otherwords, you are a very poor mind reader. Let me illustrate:
quote:
Modes,
I really do not understand much of what you write. My ideal is not to claim to solve evil on this forum, we merely try to understand it better so as to inform how we confront it.
If we simply obey what God has instructed us to do in general, and then follow Gods more specific leading on our lives in particular, I think we'd get more done than if we all, on our own, try to figure out the sturtures of evil and use our finite minds to counter it. We have positive instructions to obey. When you get done with those, then use your spare time to figure out the world's problems. Unless, of course, God is leading you to do precisely what you are describing. In that case, go for it! And be blessed! But remember that whatever does not proceed from faith is indeed sin. (Romans 14:23)
quote:
My reaction to a good deal of what you say is it strikes me as God-speak. Ie., we need to have fear and trembling over any changes to our received institutions since we may end up making things worse, or tell God to move over to the driver seat.
If you don't start with fearing God, then nothing else you do will be of any kingdom value. If this is "God-speak" to you, perhaps the best thing to do is "listen." Again, don't get me wrong, there are certainly changes to sturctures that need to happen. But consider the fact that you are not in control of most of those. Those with the legitimate authority and responsibility are the ones who are going to be judged by what they do in those roles. We may well feel the need to speak into those situations, and that may be legitimate if we use the proper channels, but these things are all of relative importance. We must keep the main thing the main thing. Far too often I see Christians putting absolute emphasis on things of only relative importance. This is a very weak and poor witness to the world.
quote:
Because of the sordid history of Christianity and the even worse history of politics in general, I do not think we should identify our existing orders as from God. In terms of how we relate to each other and our planet, there is a significant amount of Kenosis by God, where God permitted us to set up a king, when we were doing just find with Judges.
The bible assumes that the basic structures are God's idea. But it surely sees not incongruity in overthrowing those who abuse legitimate structures of authority and responsibility. Paul goes to prison rather than obey, etc. God's accommodation to our sinfulness is not a good reason to suggest that our ideas are better than God's. given that we don't have a theocracy, much less a Christocracy, we should expect trouble in our political systems. I would say, don't distract yourself unduly with that unless you really feel called to do so. Yes, I am a good anabatist in this respect. Except an anabaptist would even ignore a call by God into redemptive work in the government. So I am considerably left of that...
But overall, your concerns are really not what this thread was about. So I am probably wrong to entertain so much of them. Try reading what I said on its own terms. It is not about your political ideas. It is about God.
quote:
So a pragmaticist view is rather experimental-oriented. It treats signficant aspects of our received traditions as subject to alterations.
Fine. But there is a real need for an idealist relation when it comes to God. There is no compromising with the Absolute. The tradition is not the Absolute either. Perhaps your conflating God and tradition and this is what is confusing?
quote:
So my basic reaction is that you are advocating a much more conservative view and painting otherwise as an affrontal against God. This is quite similar to Pow's disposition, but I am far more pessimistic regarding the existing direction Christianity in the US is going.
I am speaking about what it means to be a human being before God. Presumably, amidst your various ideas, you are still a human being before God, yes? I am saying that that reality (you as a human being before God) comes first. Not only first, but must be kept in mind as you do the rest of your thinking, etc. If, for example, God wants you, David, to be a superhero in American politics, you will best be able to do this if you first ground youself in being the human being God wants you to be. Then you can perhaps go out into the world and change it for the good of the Kingdom. God's resources are going to be the necessary prerequisite for your battles ahead. This is what it means to understand something Christianly. You are right about God's Kenosis, but the new thing is God's conversion of you into a part of the new Body of Christ in which your obedience will be the main thing. We are slaves of Christ, not advisors.
quote:
I think our theologies abstract from the reality of the political, like in how you set out what the Church should be doing in response to the problem of evil as pretty straight-forward stuff. I am more inclined to view the deliberation over the valuations of how we use our say-so as much less deterministic and necessarily continuously needing of criticism/rethinking/evaluating.
I am not an authority who can speak to "the church." I am an individual trying to follow Christ who can speak out occasionally and hope that other individuals might be interested in seeing that we often shoot FAR too low for our standards. Your comments on determinism and so forth have no meaning to me. It seems you forget who you are talking to. Remember, this is still Tyler, Greg Boyd's assistant, you and I talked extensively about the OV etc. But this does not remove God as God. Please stop assuming you know the implications of what you think I am saying. You are misunderstanding me quite thoroughly.
quote:
This may just be a difference of world-views. In adopting many aspects of the world-view of an outsider to Christianity, I see things and do not see God. I see us as abusing the name of God in justifying the tenacity with which we hold to our views/institutions, when what really is important may lie in the authority we give to the world-view of Yeshua of Nazareth and how we allow it to renew our received world-views and inspire us into using our creativity to glorify God by how we alter our received orders.
If you mean that we should agree that Jesus is God and that Jesus is right, then I agree. See, this can be made more simple.
quote:
The problem of order is pervasive, but it is not so vague. It is the need for us to work things out, deciding what is judgement and what is discernment, to balance the need for change and continuity, to balance the need for hierarchy and equality in how we govern ourselves. It makes the simple point that what we should be doing most, in advancing the Kingdom of God, is not clear. We may have answers on which there currently is a fair amount of agreement(the use of political say-so on Abortion comes to mind), but even those should be subject to questioning. It may just be unrealistic to expect for us all to agree on the specifics of what should be done regarding evangelization, political activism on a wide array of subjects(abortion, homosexuality, poverty), what criterions should exist for Church membership, in what circumstances should divorces be accepted and so on.
Maybe we should start a poll on whether the problem of order is vague or not. I vote "yes" vague. And I also vote "No", I am not going to be able to reorder the world. I have neither this authority nor this responsibility. I do have the authority and responsibility to obey God in the clear commands I have been referring to and to proclaim the forgiveness of sins. I also have the responsibility to do as the Spirit leads, and if the Spirit leads me to participate in a particular restructuring crusade, then so be it. I will obey. What is clear is that I am to imitate Christ, even to the point of death.
quote:
Scripture does bear on all of these concrete questions, but it doesn't provide a definitive answer. We must work out answers(trusting that the holy spirit will guide us), and be willing to rework them out, since the concrete decisions were not meant to stand for all times and places.
Please generate a list of concrete questions that you seem to be referring to here.
Thanks.
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 6/13/2003 6:20 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW:quote:
Avoiding dualities is good. Denying the reality of evil isn't.
Actually, affirming dualities is better. We are sinners, being transformed into saints. God is God, we are not. Christ is both God and human. The world is relative and God is Absolute. We are in the world, but not of the world. I think dualities are really underrated. Who do you perceive to be denying the reality of evil?
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/13/2003 7:22 AM (GMT -6) | | forgive me but I need to take a couple of weeks hiatus from this site for work and travel reasons.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/13/2003 9:52 AM (GMT -6) | | I just want to post the icon of a servant of God, who was in fact the first martyr: St. Stephen.
Troparion in tone 4
O Protomartyr Stephen,
your head was crowned with a kingly crown
Because of the struggles you endured
for Christ our God.
You beheld the vision of your Savior
Seated at the right hand of God.
Do not cease to intercede with Him
for the salvation of our souls!
Kontakion in tone 8
You are worthy of all praise, O blessed Stephen,
You are the first grain planted in the earth
by the Divine Gardener,
The first to shed your blood for Christ,
The first to be crowned by Him in heaven
with the crown of victory:
You are the first to have suffered for Christ
and to receive the Martyr's reward!
+ + +
Stephen the Archdeacon, Apostle of the Seventy
Stephen not only resembled Christ in his death, but he had a blessed vision of God, directly.
His icon shows him with the church (in the long example) and the deacon's censor (smells and bells thing) with which he served. His service was obviously beyond the worship setting too. (See acts.) But He was the spokesman for all before the danger of the enemies of God in faithfully preaching the Gospel. (The Gospel book is shown in the larger icon.)
STEPHEN SERVED GOD. (DIAKONA)
ORDINATION FOR DEACON LITURGY:
quote:
Give him the grace which you gave to Stephen the Protomartyr, whom you also called first to the work of your service. Count him worthy to administer in accordance with what is well pleasing to you the rank that has been given him by your loving kindness — for those who have served well, gain for themselves a fair rank — and show him to be your perfect servant. For yours is the Kingdom and the power and the glory, of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and for ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen
http://www.anastasis.org.uk/deacon.htm
God our Saviour, with your immortal voice you laid down for your Apostles the law of the Diaconate and declared the Protomartyr Stephen to be one, and proclaimed him the first to fulfil the work of the Deacon, as it is written in your Holy Gospel: Whoever wishes to be first among you, let him be your deacon. Master of all things, fill this servant of yours, whom you have counted worthy to enter upon the ministry of the Deacon, with all faith, love, power and sanctification by the indwelling of your holy and life-giving Spirit; for it is not by the laying on of my hands, but by the visitation of your rich acts of compassion that grace is given to your worthy ones, so that he, having become free of every sin, may take his stand before you without blame on the dread day of your judgement, and receive the unfailing reward of your promise. For you are our God, and to you we give glory, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and forever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 06/13/2003 2:59:32 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/14/2003 6:55 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
ModesofThought
Any chance we can get back to the point that POW highlighted, which was actually buried in my earlier posts? That is, the significance of life and death and how that differs from our time to a biblical world view? Perhaps this thread is hopelessly sabatogued.
Here's a hint: To live is Christ. To die is gain.
What do people take this to mean?
Here's an article:
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/15/2003 2:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Here is an example of what I call the ecclesiastical problem of order definitely looming large. How we govern ourselves ecclesiastically is not set out in a determinitive way in scripture, although it doesn't say nothing, but our traditions should not be held up as being of equal status as scriptures and when we interpret scriptures in light of a particular tradition, this should be openly acknowledged.
Head of Priest Abuse Panel to Resign
June 15, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, criticized for remarks
he made about church officials, has decided to resign as
head of a national panel examining sex abuse by Roman
Catholic priests, his spokesman confirmed Sunday.
In immediate reactions, church observers said the step
would be a serious setback, but not a fatal one, to the
National Review Board that Keating chairs.
Spokesman Dan Mahoney said Keating would send a resignation
letter to Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S.
Catholic hierarchy, and issue the text Monday or Tuesday.
The Los Angeles Times first reported on Keating's plan
Sunday.
Mahoney said Keating and Gregory spoke Saturday and that
Gregory did not ask Keating to leave but indicated
``whatever you decide, I'll respect.''
Mahoney said Keating is still undecided on when his
resignation will take effect. The board's next meeting is
July 28-29 in Chicago.
Public criticism by Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony and
fellow members of the National Review Board of remarks
Keating made ``hastened his decision,'' Keating's spokesman
said, but ``he has been talking for several months about
leaving.''
The resignation follows a Times interview where Keating
said of unnamed church officials: ``To act like La Cosa
Nostra and hide and suppress, I think, is very unhealthy.
Eventually it will all come out.''
Mahony, whom Keating accused of listening ``too much to his
lawyer and not enough to his heart'' in dealing with the
panel's investigation, called Keating's comments ``the last
straw.''
The cardinal said he would ask other bishops to consider
calling for Keating to step down during the full
hierarchy's meeting that opens Thursday in St. Louis.
The Rev. Thomas Reese of America magazine in New York said
Keating's departure is ``a setback for the bishops'' and
``another stumble on the way to cleaning up the bishops'
reputation.''
``The governor was obviously giving some of the bishops
ulcers in the short run, but in the long run, if he had
stayed around, any report he issued would have absolute
credibility,'' he said.
Keating's resignation ``basically sends the message that if
you're too much of a straight shooter you're going to get
pressure to resign,'' said Deal Hudson, editor of Crisis, a
conservative Catholic magazine in Washington, D.C.
Hudson said that he spoke with Keating on Friday about the
faceoff with Cardinal Mahony and that the former governor
gave no hint he would consider resigning.
Representatives of abuse victims expressed dismay.
``It's
very disturbing that a couple of candid remarks are
apparently so upsetting to the bishops,'' said David
Clohessy, national director of Survivors Network of those
Abused by Priests, which also meets in St. Louis this week.
``Here's a devout, conscientious Catholic lay person who
volunteered his time and essentially his reputation to get
the bishops out of trouble and he's suddenly forced out.''
Susan Archibald, president of The Linkup, another victims'
organization, said ``the problem is he's stepping down in
reaction to criticism from a bishop, and what he said was
the truth. If they hesitate to speak out against bishops,
then what good is the process?''
Voice of the Faithful, a 30,000-member lay reform group
based in Newton, Mass., regretted Keating's departure and
urged all bishops to ``cooperate completely and
unambiguously with the National Review Board in its search
for truth.''
Prominent Washington attorney Robert S. Bennett, the review
board member who is running its investigation of why the
abuse scandal happened, said Keating's resignation would
not slow the board's work.
``There are many very strong and outspoken members on this
board who are going to remain on the board and who are
going to see to it that the bishops honor their commitment
to protect children and the promises they made,'' Bennett
said.
Besides Bennett's investigation, the board is sponsoring a
survey of the extent and patterns of abuse cases based on
reports filed by all 195 U.S. dioceses. The verbal flare-up
with Keating stemmed from Cardinal Mahony's initial refusal
to participate in that survey unless procedures were
changed.
In a Sunday statement the cardinal's office said ``nothing
should distract us from our most urgent goal: the
protection of all our people, especially our children, from
the sin and crime of sexual abuse.''
Gregory appointed Keating as chairman as well as the review
board's other 12 members as part of the reform ``charter''
the hierarchy approved a year ago.
The charter doesn't specify what to do if the chairman
resigns. Reese assumes Gregory would choose the new
chairman and someone acceptable to continuing board
members, most likely one of those members.
Reese said ``the bishops are beginning to realize that
being more transparent and open about these issues is more
difficult than they anticipated.'' But he thinks Keating's
``intemperate'' quotes ``got in the way of doing the job
the review board is there to do.''
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 06/17/2003 4:30:39 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/15/2003 3:27 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
DLW
Here is an example of the ecclesiastical problem of order looming large. How we govern ourselves ecclesiastically is not set out deterministically in scripture and our traditions should not be held up as being of equal status as scriptures.
May I suggest (just this once) an edit?
1. SAY, "Here is an example of [what I call] "the ecclesiastical problem of order" [definitely] looming large."
2. I don't know what to do with the word "deterministically" here DLW. Its so tied to the Cal/Armin. debate. Would "in a determinitive way" work?.
3. Then I'd have to take a long look at what the Scripture DOES say--it doesn't say nothing!!!
4. And then you said "How we govern ourselves ecclesiastically". That presents problems right there. If guideance and oversight are completely left to the human initiative, wisdom and will then thats a source of problems right there.
5. Then you said, our traditions should not be held up as being of equal status as scriptures. That is based on the assumption that scripture and tradition are mutually exclusive. If that is assumed then all is lost already. WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SCRITPURE. LET ME HELP THERE!
6. A far better thing is to consider THIS statement about the relationship of scripture and tradition:
quote:
Here we see why all church theology, all tradition, grows precisely out of the "assembly as the Church," out of this sacrament of proclamation of the good news. Here we see why in it is comprehended the living, and not abstract, meaning of the classic Orthodox affirmation that only the Church is given custody of the scriptures and their interpretation. For tradition is not another source of the faith, "complementary" to the scriptures. It is the very same source: the living word of God, always heard and received by the Church. Tradition is the interpretation of the word of God as the source of life itself, and not of any "constructions" or "deductions." When St Athanasius the Great said that "the holy and God-inspired scriptures are sufficient for the exposition of truth,"(footnote 6: Against the Pagans, 1, PG 25:4A ) he was not rejecting tradition, and still less preaching any specifically "biblical" method of theology—as a formal, terminological faithfulness to the scriptural "text"—for, as everyone knows, in expounding the faith of the Church he himself daringly introduced the nonbiblical term homoousios. He was affirming precisely the living, and not formal or terminological, link between scripture and tradition, tradition as the reading and hearing of scripture in the Holy Spirit. The Church alone knows and keeps the meaning of scripture, because in the sacrament of the word, accomplished in the church assembly, the Holy Spirit eternally gives life to the "flesh" of scripture, transforming it into "spirit and life." Any genuine theology is rooted in this sacrament of the word, in the church assembly, in which the Spirit of God exhorts the Church herself—and not simply her individual members —into all truth. Thus, any "private" reading of scripture must be rooted in the Church: outside of the mind of the Church, outside of the divine-human life of the Church it can neither be heard nor truly interpreted. So, the sacrament of the word, accomplished in the church gathering in a twofold act—reading and proclamation—is the source of the growth of each and all together into the fullness of the mind of truth.
Finally, in the sacrament of the word is revealed the collaboration of the hierarchy and the laity in the preservation of truth, which, in accordance with the famous Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs (1869), is "entrusted to the whole people of the Church."(footnote 7: ''Encyclical Letter of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to the Orthodox Christians of All Lands (the response of the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem and the synods of Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem to Pius IX's encyclical of January 6, 1848 to the Christians of the East).) On the one hand, in preaching the gift of teaching is realized: it is a charism given to the celebrant as his service in the church assembly. On the other hand, and precisely because preaching is not a "personal gift" but a charism given by the Church and realized in her gathering, the teaching service of the hierarchy is not separate from the gathering but finds in it its grace-filled source. The Holy Spirit rests on the entire Church. The ministry of the celebrant is preaching and teaching. The ministry of the people of God is in accepting this teaching. But both these ministries are of the Holy Spirit, both are accomplished by him and in him. One can neither accept nor proclaim the truth without the gift of the Holy Spirit, and this gift is given to the entire assembly. For the entire Church—and not one "sector" in it—have "received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God." "No one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God," and therefore those who are teaching do so "in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit," and those who accept the teaching accept it by the Holy Spirit. "For the unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them" (1 Co 2:11-14). In the Church, the bishop and priests are given the gift of teaching, but they are given it because they are witnesses to the faith of the Church, because the teaching is not theirs but the Church's, her unity of faith and love. Only the entire Church, manifested and actualized in the "assembly as the Church," has the mind of Christ. Only in the church gathering are all gifts, all ministries revealed in their unity and indivisibility, as manifestations of the one Spirit, who fills the whole body. And therefore, finally, each member of the Church, whatever his "rank" in the Church, must be a witness before this world of the entire fulness of the Church, and not just his own understanding of it.
In antiquity, the assembly responded to the celebrant's sermon with a triumphal amen, testifying by this to the acceptance of the word, sealing their unity in the Spirit with the celebrant. Here, in this amen of the people of God, is the source and principle of that "reception" of teaching by church consciousness, of which Orthodox theologians speak so often, contraposing it to the Roman division of the Church into the learning Church and the teaching Church, and also to Protestant individualism. But if it is so difficult to explain in what this "reception" consists and in what manner it is realized, perhaps this is because in our own consciousness we have almost entirely forgotten that this act is rooted in the church assembly and in the sacrament of the word accomplished in it.
(Fr. Alexander Schmemann, from "The Sacrament of the Word", chapter gour of THE EUCHARIST)
I WAS READING AN ESSAY LAST NIGHT BY DR. CLARENCE BASS (BETHEL SEMINARY) IN WHICH HE WAS SAYING BASICALLY THE SAME THING!!!!!!
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 06/15/2003 8:35:47 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/18/2003 3:03 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
DLW "take one":
Here is an example of the ecclesiastical problem of order looming large. How we govern ourselves ecclesiastically is not set out deterministically in scripture and our traditions should not be held up as being of equal status as scriptures.
quote:
DLW "take two":
Here is an example of what I call the ecclesiastical problem of order definitely looming large. How we govern ourselves ecclesiastically is not set out in a determinitive way in scripture, although it doesn't say nothing, but our traditions should not be held up as being of equal status as scriptures and when we interpret scriptures in light of a particular tradition, this should be openly acknowledged.
Good point, DLW.
"Tradition"--captital T--is the right interpretation of the Bible as "Christ proclaimed by the scriptures. Even someone's life can be part of that. Problem is, as you imply, to discern what is just small-t tradition.
Fred | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/18/2003 7:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Alfred,
I also think that, as part of the focus on what I call the problem of order is that small t-tradition is inevitable and invaluable in us deciding the ways we are to let our light shine in this world.
Critiquing these traditions is part of what we as Christians should consider doing, even if they can be termed as playing God. As an example of this, I would point you to my latest post in the is it murder to politically compromise on abortion link.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/24/2003 5:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hey, I just had an interesting thought...
What if we were to consider possibly changing the title of this area of discussion? That might be useful for focusing what we are really doing. Maybe then we could do it more effectively...(why didn't anyone else think of this?)
My suggestion for this new title is found in the title of this thread.
What are your thoughts?
I couldn't fit this title:
How human beings become profoundly ungrateful, presumptuous and then decide they can (at least theoretically) run the world better than God can. But they don't stop there, they offer suggestions to God (after, perhaps consulting with other exceptionally wise and insightful human beings) on how to improve the structures of creation and then they attribute this presumption to their own credit as if God will surely appreciate the advice (this word "advice" is especially fitting, we are indeed adding a "vice" to our collections). One might even be able to make a career out of such a thing! They will arive in heaven (obviously!!! ) and God might say, "Well done my good and faithful advisor. I had never thought of some of the criticisms you have raised! Too bad you didn't spend half the time invested in speculation on actually obeying the clear commands I have given. That might have done a bit more for the problem of evil than your advice has done. Ah, but hindsight is 20/20!"
PLEASE REFUTE, but limit yourself to use of Scripture and rational arguments that respect the idea that God is God.
Come and get it....
afterthought: All this is predicated on the idea that God really does exist and our respect is due to God as we think through issues like the problem of evil. After all, God is in the room, let's pretend we care. A little fear and trembling might even be in order...Also implicit here is that there is an ethical engagement that is inherent in dealing with evil and injustices. My position is that talking about it without doing something about it eventially becomes ethical culpability. This is sometimes referred to as "whining." It is especially whining because those with the requisite leisure time for such talk are surely not among those who are most entrenched in radical evil. Those in the latter category are unable to speak about it for various reasons, often physically and psychologically, perhaps because they simply didn't survive.
Rather we might need to discuss the biblical, vs the contemporary view of the meaning of life and death....just a hint in a different direction...
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
I just wanted to say how MUCH that I appreciated Modes posting this thread.
- Fred | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/1/2003 9:38 AM (GMT -6) | | I appreciate Modes posting the thread too. He was helping me out with a paper a while back and was being too polite to tell me what he really thought about what I was writing. I guess a public forum like this is a more appropriate place to do so.
I am in Cape Cod, writing under a time-limit at the library...
I will be in the Twin Cities after this coming July 4th and plan to respond to Pow and Modes then...
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/3/2003 8:11 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I appreciate Modes posting the thread too. He was helping me out with a paper a while back and was being too polite to tell me what he really thought about what I was writing. I guess a public forum like this is a more appropriate place to do so.
DLW, I think you may recall that I actually did give you quite a bit if interaction on that paper. I realize you wanted more, but I did what I could. It was a long, sophisticated project and I could only offer a finite amount of feedback. Did you not feel that I had constructive feedback for you?
Here on this board the style is different, we are working on the fly and it is more conversational. When I was interacting with the paper, I assumed that the paper would stay largely on the track it was going, here there is more freedom to develop different tracks and simply go seperate ways when there is a disagreement.
Blessings,
Modes
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/8/2003 11:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
PoW: As to "ANTITHESIS" Calvinism is intrinsically anti-dualistic. There is no room for the sacred/profain duality. Every inch is Christ's. All is then done God-centeredly ("thetically") of "antithetically."
DLW: Avoiding dualities is good. Denying the reality of evil isn't.
Ooops. You missed it, DLW. Anti-thesis (when something is antithetical) IS EVIL. Look again at how God-centered/THETICAL (notice the root of "theo") and un-God-centered/ANTITHETICAL are contrasted.
So, I'm OBVIOUSLY NOT "denying the reality of evil!"
Well Pow, perhaps part of my confusion lies with my non-exhaustive knowledge of the form of reformed thought that you ascribe to. But, in general, if every inch is God's then even what seems evil to us is ultimately contributing to God's glory. But real evil is gratuitous, particular goods can sometimes come from it, but more often it tends to lead to further evil/hate/vicious circles of violence/poverty.
These are things that led Jesus to weep.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/8/2003 12:08 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Powsaid: Liberals ... just make it more palletable, watering it down. ...(Again, Ramm.)
Here's what Bernard Ramm has to say (BURIED IN A POST OF MINE FROM 11/06/2002):
quote:
Al: So, then. WHY have revelation at all? I've been wondering lately if the "Open View" is really Neo-liberalism. Bernard Ramm does a good sympathetic job of presenting the virtue of liberalism to a conservative Evangelical audience in a book I've been reading. He contrasts liberalism (which wanted to conserve things it felt worth keeping) with modernism (which wanted to pitch everything). I ask you. WHY have revelation at all? If you are just going to CONFINE yourself to the structures and experiences that you have humanly (where then is the mystery?) and try to construct everything out of that, then you have done in the contemporary venacular of today exactly what the liberal did in his modernist milieu.
The matchups of our love and God's love, and of our personhood and God's are real. But it is FAR, far, far more valuable to see what about God can help us understand ourselves; rather than the other way around, as you have mapped out. Question: Do we then let the temple teach us about God; or do we let worship of God teach us about how to use the temple. Of course, in that setting, both are true. In the case of the temple (and the law) the first is a tutor (milk) to help lead to the later maturity (meat).
So, liberalisms "virtue" is that it wants to conserve things it feals worth keeping; while modernism wants to pitch everything.
How many times, DLW, have you spoken of laying the Scripture aside and doing what you yourself prefer instead. (How many here know what I'm talking about? Hands?)
Well Pow, when have spoken of laying "the Scripture" aside? I have laid aside aspects of various traditions which have relied on interpretations of scripture, but this does not lay aside "the Scripture". My point is that little t-tradition plays an inexorable role in how we answer much of the pressing questions of today but that commonly in the US we conflate our traditions with the word of God or strive for emulating the early-christian church, an apolitical true form of Christianity. HOwever, we face numerous issues like, abortion, how we make use of the democracy of the US, which the early church didn't deal with in the way we do. As such we must exegete but this cannot be done in a determinitive way. So we must cry out "Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner!" and then consider the institutions whereby we in our congregations, our conferences/synods/bodies of ecclesiastical governance, make decisions about how we shine our lights to the world.
This does not lay aside Scripture, emphasize the universality of religious experience, insist on a "scientific" method for revealing the kernel amidst the husk. It does not conflate being religious or the seeking of spirituality(When I hear most people talking about spirituality, I reach for my Bible) with a particular (and very fallible) political agenda.
I do not affirm or set out my own metaphysical fortress apologeticia for "Orthodox" Christianity, which have commonly served to buttress an ecclesiastical institutions claims to authority. I view the concentration of religious authority in Rome as tragic and due to the rise of Islam, which reduced the centers of Christianity from four to one. Christianity has persisted in spite of its leadership and I am wary of whether shifting the locus of authority elsewhere will improve things. I.e., what separates the Eastern Orthodox Church from the RCChurch is that the latter has had a lot more temporal power than the former(due to it having for so long been in submission to hostile regimes such as under communism or the Turks) and both have blown it with what temporal influence they have.
So I am liberal in that, like Adam Smith, I view the rules or structures that influence how we manifest our religious lives as being subject to experimentation and alteration. They are not handed down from on high and to be held on the same level of veneration as scripture. If such experimentation is to be labelled as playing God, I suppose you can do that, but it seems wrong to identify what we receive in our traditions as from God, since so much of it sadly has not been from God.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/8/2003 12:20 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
HERE'S THE POST OF MINE:
quote:
[size=2]Al2Si2H4O9
10/28/2002 : 5:14:10 PM
---------------------------------------------------
I was reading today a book by Bernard Ramm -- an eminant Protestant theologian who passed on a few years ago. (He taught at Bethel College around 1950.) In it (the book "The Evangelical Hertage: A study in Historic Theology") he pointed out that Schleiermacher reversed the order of things by making subjective, personal experiential faith become superior to the thing believed. I can't say that it had to be a bad thing; but it was done, perhaps, in a bad way.
I know Ramm was at Bethel, one of my great uncles, Bob Franzen, studied under him prior to becoming a heavy in the BGC.
quote:
Ramm makes this remark: "The cultured German must be told that religion is not dogma, creed, or confession but a living experience with God." That looks good to me. But the following is the unpacking that Ramm offers on Schleiermacher's reversal: The essence of faith to Schleiermacher was feeling.
I think I understand the discussion Modes and honorman are having. I think. honorman may not understand Modes. But Modes seems to be making a valuable distinction between cold-Dogma and Truth to be believed. GIANT in the Christian faith is that Christ IS the Truth: Truth is a Person. Schleiermacher's division between faith (feeling, based on romantic connectivity between God, nature and man) and the God our faith rests in is a false choice. You betcha.
I think that we have to avoid any temptation to either turn our faith into a stand-alone object, or to reduce it to feelings. Either way seems prone to become a substitue for the "real thing."
Since when do I reduce faith to feelings? I do stress my normative preference for republicanism, the priesthood of the believers. The notion that, owing in large part to the non-obviousness of what is right conduct, the importance of incorporating many viewpoints in forging tentative working consensuses as to how we should proceed.
[quote]SCHLEIRMACHER IS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF LIBERAL, OF HIS ERA: "Schleiermacher reversed the order of things by making subjective, personal experiential faith become superior to the thing believed." BUT THE PATTERN SEEMS EVIDENT TODAY TO. I'M THINKING ESPECIALLY OF YOUR ENDORCEMENT OF ABORTION.
Well I do not endorse ABORTION. I believe I said my viewpoint was that human life begins somewhere in the 4th and 20th week of gestation but that we should be personally conservative and not abort during that period. So I allowed abortions in the first month of pregnancy, but then I qualified that by stressing the need for repentance and a time of mourning for the aborted fetus.
So unlike liberals, I affirm the need for rules, even fallible ones, to guide us. I do the same thing with homosexuality. Saying such things should be left to the individual and their conscience ignores how tightly we fall in sins grasp and the need for hierarchy as part of how we "Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner!" answer the ecclesiastical problem of order.
So please do not call me a liberal. It is inaccurate.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/8/2003 12:23 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Any chance we can get back to the point that POW highlighted, which was actually buried in my earlier posts? That is, the significance of life and death and how that differs from our time to a biblical world view? Perhaps this thread is hopelessly sabatogued.
You mean in the Old Testament or the New Testament? Why not share this on the abortion link as contributing to the debate?
quote:
Here's a hint: To live is Christ. To die is gain.
What do people take this to mean?
We give up our libertarian freedoms and accept the governance of others in the church over how we should live our lives.
What do you take this to mean?
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/8/2003 2:04 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/8/2003 2:24 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
DLW: Let me say, you are working out the implications of what you perceive to be my view in ways that I have not ever imagined. In otherwords, you are a very poor mind reader.
If I may say so the same often applies to you(playing God?).
quote:
quote:
Modes,
I really do not understand much of what you write. My ideal is not to claim to solve evil on this forum, we merely try to understand it better so as to inform how we confront it.
If we simply obey what God has instructed us to do in general, and then follow Gods more specific leading on our lives in particular, I think we'd get more done than if we all, on our own, try to figure out the sturtures of evil and use our finite minds to counter it. We have positive instructions to obey. When you get done with those, then use your spare time to figure out the world's problems. Unless, of course, God is leading you to do precisely what you are describing. In that case, go for it! And be blessed! But remember that whatever does not proceed from faith is indeed sin. (Romans 14:23)
reinterpretation:Focus on encountering and following God's leading for our lives is more important for following Jesus than understanding and confronting the structures of evil. Time spent understanding and confronting the structures of evil is time better spent reading Kierkegaard, unless your calling is to try to confront the structures of evil then its okay so long as you don't try to insist/manipulate others into doing the same.
Why would a confrontation of the reality of evil not proceed from faith? I suppose if it was a manipulation of others to provide one power for the sake of getting power. Alternatively, focusing attention away from the governance bodies of our world(both secular and sacred) serves to shelter their power from those who may confront it. This is also a leap of faith, but one worth questioning in my view.
quote:
quote:
My reaction to a good deal of what you say is it strikes me as God-speak. Ie., we need to have fear and trembling over any changes to our received institutions since we may end up making things worse, or tell God to move over to the driver seat.
If you don't start with fearing God, then nothing else you do will be of any kingdom value. If this is "God-speak" to you, perhaps the best thing to do is "listen." Again, don't get me wrong, there are certainly changes to sturctures that need to happen. But consider the fact that you are not in control of most of those. Those with the legitimate authority and responsibility are the ones who are going to be judged by what they do in those roles. We may well feel the need to speak into those situations, and that may be legitimate if we use the proper channels, but these things are all of relative importance.
We must keep the main thing the main thing. Far too often I see Christians putting absolute emphasis on things of only relative importance. This is a very weak and poor witness to the world.quote:
How should we start with fearing God? Perhaps an example would help? I do not share your faith that those with legitimate authority and responsibility will handle the things. The notion of priesthood of the believers allows that we all have a responsibility to point to what is good and, in doing so, what needs changing.
Consider how due to the lack of habits of political reflection "evangelical" Christians elected GWBush as president because they were certain he was not Bill Clinton and they weren't certain about the other guy. Its not so much the politics of dubya but their conflation with Christianity, with Billy Graham calling for his election. Much of the world identifies "Evangelical" Christianity now with the politics of dubya and this has not helped our witness.
Here is my difference, I don't think that what is the best way to use our spiritual and material say-so is apparent. Often times, as with how Jesus related to the woman at the well, to reach people in their absolute need, one must give attention to their relative perceived needs. If you would read "America's God", you would find that one of the things that emerged differently in the US with Christianity is its attunement with the problems of the working class and the poor historically. This historic consideration of relative needs may be why Christianity stayed strong in the US while it was dying away in Europe.
So de-mystification of the processes through which decisions about such things get made is an important goal. I know from personal experience that working on such things does open doors for sharing about faith, and yet I see that much of theology abstracts from or obfuscates the reality of the political in how we answer the problem of order. I.e., tend to your soul and strive for holiness, which tends to lead to the corollary don't get caught up in the messy sinful process of politics.
quote:
quote:
Because of the sordid history of Christianity and the even worse history of politics in general, I do not think we should identify our existing orders as from God. In terms of how we relate to each other and our planet, there is a significant amount of Kenosis by God, where God permitted us to set up a king, when we were doing just find with Judges.
The bible assumes that the basic structures are God's idea.
Where, and what do you mean by basic structures?
quote:
But it surely sees not incongruity in overthrowing those who abuse legitimate structures of authority and responsibility. Paul goes to prison rather than obey, etc. God's accommodation to our sinfulness is not a good reason to suggest that our ideas are better than God's.
Which ideas of God are we saying that our ideas are better than?
quote:
given that we don't have a theocracy, much less a Christocracy, we should expect trouble in our political systems. I would say, don't distract yourself unduly with that unless you really feel called to do so. Yes, I am a good anabatist in this respect. Except an anabaptist would even ignore a call by God into redemptive work in the government. So I am considerably left of that...
Doesn't the term distract here presume a knowledge of what God has called us to do? Jesus was not an anarchist and he didn't call for an overhaul of the existing structures of his time, but he did critique and call for changes in much of the rules that prevailed in his community, where he did have say-so. This isn't saying that rules, in and of themselves are wrong, but that we are to be critical of what we have received and how they can become warped beyond their original, well-intended purposes.
Anabaptists were violently persecuted by the state. Avoiding it and working hard at being extra-productive so as to buy protection from the state were its self-defense mechanism. It is anachronistic for you to claim your social circumstances are even remotely similar. You work for a church of mostly upper-middle-class people who work for corporations/businesses that currently do have considerable sway over the government. As such, you are indirectly a beneficiary of the powers that be not one that is always at risk of being persecuted by the powers that be.
quote:
But overall, your concerns are really not what this thread was about. So I am probably wrong to entertain so much of them. Try reading what I said on its own terms. It is not about your political ideas. It is about God.
But what in concrete specific terms are you saying about God? Typically when you discuss an issue, bringing up God can be subverted into claiming that one has the high-ground and that those that disagree are wrong/sinful to question God or to usurp the authority of God. Here, the implicit presumption has often been that we do not truly understand the issue, the relevant facts in their entirety and what are the competing values that may be at stake in the alternatives we have to choose from. Consider the homosexuality topic and how much heat rather than light arose from it. Instead of claiming that my views were from the center or the most loving thing to do, I have focused on trying to convince anti-gay posters that they need to take into consideration certain facts in how their churches answer the ecclesisatical problem of order regarding homosexualtiy. I also have done case-studies of gay-rights films to show that gay-rights activists are calling for more than just acceptance of constitutional homosexuals. I.e., there are additional facts and values in play that should complicate how we respond to the ecclesisatical problem of order regarding homosexuality.
quote:
quote:
So a pragmaticist view is rather experimental-oriented. It treats signficant aspects of our received traditions as subject to alterations.
Fine. But there is a real need for an idealist relation when it comes to God. There is no compromising with the Absolute. The tradition is not the Absolute either. Perhaps your conflating God and tradition and this is what is confusing?
Well the above is confusing. Time spent watching CNN or Lehrer newshour is time that could be spent praying or reading the Bible. Clearly, it is wrong to try and remove the splinter from someones eye when we have a plank in our own eye, but at what point do we satisfy our needs? I think this is part of the problem of order, it must be worked out.
I was with friends in Texas, who my family met when we attended a Bible Church there. I stressed the importance of studying the cultural context of the Bible and the difficulties involved in hermeneutics and exegesis. He told me that if I spent so much time doing that I would never have gotten my phd in Economics. But I did benefit immensely from taking introduction to the Bible with Michael Holmes when I was in College and he hadn't, and yet he still was a youth-pastor at my former church.
My point is that we develop habits about how we live our faith and do judge and change these habits, but how then we should live likely is not determinative. But I am not worried about cutting into someone's time with prayer and bible-study. I think this and following current events and reflecting on politics are both being crowded out by popular culture.
quote:
quote:
So my basic reaction is that you are advocating a much more conservative view and painting otherwise as an affrontal against God. This is quite similar to Pow's disposition, but I am far more pessimistic regarding the existing direction Christianity in the US is going.
I am speaking about what it means to be a human being before God. Presumably, amidst your various ideas, you are still a human being before God, yes? I am saying that that reality (you as a human being before God) comes first. Not only first, but must be kept in mind as you do the rest of your thinking, etc. If, for example, God wants you, David, to be a superhero in American politics, you will best be able to do this if you first ground youself in being the human being God wants you to be. Then you can perhaps go out into the world and change it for the good of the Kingdom. God's resources are going to be the necessary prerequisite for your battles ahead. This is what it means to understand something Christianly. You are right about God's Kenosis, but the new thing is God's conversion of you into a part of the new Body of Christ in which your obedience will be the main thing. We are slaves of Christ, not advisors.
If you are suggesting that I grapple with the sin of megalomania, you are right. I have since age 7, when I was hit by a car while crossing the street and would have been killed if I had been a half-step further. I reflected on this experience and came to believe that God had saved my life for a reason.
But I don't think I leave God out. With my evangelion, God is the only higher authority to which I owe my absolute allegiance to. God is my hope. All of my actions may turn out to have completely unforseen consequences that far out-weigh the supposed goods they were supposed to acheive. I don't think we are to bring on the millenium or what-not, but, in spite of that potential for failure, it still can be an act of devotion to God to deliberate on politics and be an activist on issues.
It also can be a good idea to not presume that this is the best of all discussion boards and speak out about how things could be different...
quote:
quote:
I think our theologies abstract from the reality of the political, like in how you set out what the Church should be doing in response to the problem of evil as pretty straight-forward stuff. I am more inclined to view the deliberation over the valuations of how we use our say-so as much less deterministic and necessarily continuously needing of criticism/rethinking/evaluating.
I am not an authority who can speak to "the church." I am an individual trying to follow Christ who can speak out occasionally and hope that other individuals might be interested in seeing that we often shoot FAR too low for our standards.
I think you do have the authority to voice alternatives in areas of your sphere of influence.
quote:
Your comments on determinism and so forth have no meaning to me. It seems you forget who you are talking to. Remember, this is still Tyler, Greg Boyd's assistant, you and I talked extensively about the OV etc. But this does not remove God as God. Please stop assuming you know the implications of what you think I am saying. You are misunderstanding me quite thoroughly.
You seem to be saying that your habits of how you relate to the ecclesiastical bodies of governance are currently aligned with what is God's will for you. I am agnostic on this...
quote:
quote:
This may just be a difference of world-views. In adopting many aspects of the world-view of an outsider to Christianity, I see things and do not see God. I see us as abusing the name of God in justifying the tenacity with which we hold to our views/institutions, when what really is important may lie in the authority we give to the world-view of Yeshua of Nazareth and how we allow it to renew our received world-views and inspire us into using our creativity to glorify God by how we alter our received orders.
If you mean that we should agree that Jesus is God and that Jesus is right, then I agree. See, this can be made more simple.
Yes, but we selectively perceive what it means for Jesus to be right. Would he describe the majority of the posts as playing God or as dealing with issues that need to be dealt with?
quote:
quote:
The problem of order is pervasive, but it is not so vague. It is the need for us to work things out, deciding what is judgement and what is discernment, to balance the need for change and continuity, to balance the need for hierarchy and equality in how we govern ourselves. It makes the simple point that what we should be doing most, in advancing the Kingdom of God, is not clear. We may have answers on which there currently is a fair amount of agreement(the use of political say-so on Abortion comes to mind), but even those should be subject to questioning. It may just be unrealistic to expect for us all to agree on the specifics of what should be done regarding evangelization, political activism on a wide array of subjects(abortion, homosexuality, poverty), what criterions should exist for Church membership, in what circumstances should divorces be accepted and so on.
Maybe we should start a poll on whether the problem of order is vague or not. I vote "yes" vague.
I'm sorry define vague? I can give you all sorts of examples of aspects of the problem of order. How about a poll for whether or not I misread you? Maybe others see what I saw or just didn't understand at all what you were talking about.
quote:
And I also vote "No", I am not going to be able to reorder the world. I have neither this authority nor this responsibility. I do have the authority and responsibility to obey God in the clear commands I have been referring to and to proclaim the forgiveness of sins.
How did you infer what authority and responsibilties you have? What clear commands were you referring to? What do you take as reordering the world? I helped reorder the world when I was in graduate school by being a reliable and charismatic organizer for the graduate employee union that was being formed then. I reordered the world by suggesting alternatives to my department that wouldn't have been suggested. I reordered the world of my students with the creativity that I taught my courses. Aren't you being somewhat fatalistic regarding what you can and cannot do? Is it from God or is it subject to alteration?
quote:
I also have the responsibility to do as the Spirit leads, and if the Spirit leads me to participate in a particular restructuring crusade, then so be it. I will obey. What is clear is that I am to imitate Christ, even to the point of death.
Yes, but don't you have volition that extends beyond what the Spirit leads you to do? Could you not also be under the sway of non-Godly forces? How can your view of what it means to imitate Christ be so clear?
[quote][quote]
Scripture does bear on all of these concrete questions, but it doesn't provide a definitive answer. We must work out answers(trusting that the holy spirit will guide us), and be willing to rework them out, since the concrete decisions were not meant to stand for all times and places.
Please generate a list of concrete questions that you seem to be referring to here.
Homosexuality, what is the most loving thing we should do regarding those inflicted, or experimenting, with it? Abortion, when does human life begin or how do we interpret thou shall not kill? Just War, what is a just war, can a definitive criteria for just war be worked out for all-time? The relationship of Church-State, what should we render unto Cesar? Stewardship, what does this entail in concrete specific terms(Thou shalt hug trees, what of the incidence of the costs of environmental regulations?)? What ethical criterion should we expect our leaders in gov't to live up to, given that we have separation of Church and State? How do we balance sharing the Gospel and sharing God's ideal for sexuality with trying to arrest the explosion of the AIDS virus in Africa caused by much sinful sexual lifestyles? How do we teach teenagers in public schools about condom-use? What potential regulations of the freedom-of-$peech should we have for our elections and advertising in general?
All of the above require understanding or sorting out of facts and a simultaneous delineation of the relevant values at stake. We, willy-nilly, have worked out answers to them, but are these answers to be presumed as from God or subject to reconsideration and reform?
We are all responsible for deliberating on this and all of our current habits as such can be subject to criticism and alteration.
peace brother,
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/8/2003 2:35 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
DLW:quote:
Avoiding dualities is good. Denying the reality of evil isn't.
Actually, affirming dualities is better. We are sinners, being transformed into saints. God is God, we are not. Christ is both God and human. The world is relative and God is Absolute. We are in the world, but not of the world. I think dualities are really underrated. Who do you perceive to be denying the reality of evil?
Yes, but because of the pervasiveness of sin in this world, even we those who are supposedly being transformed into saints can institutionalize evil, as occurred with the institutionalization of anti-semitism and racism in the Christian Church. If it happened in the past, what basis do we have for thinking the same cannot happen to us? Our notions of what is right or from God; what is to be kept or to be changed are fallible. As such, manicheistic dualisms that presume God is on our side are to be avoided. The reality of God and that we are not God is to be affirmed, but its practical consequences are subject to being worked out as part of the problem of order.
Calvinism denies the reality of evil since, ultimately, all is according to God's plan and working out for the ultimate good. I.e., there is a reason why war is interminable in the Middle East and the fish populations are being decimated and we shouldn't meddle in what God has ordained, unless God reveals to us it is foreordained that such is our responsibility. But even then what appears evil to us is meant to serve a higher purpose.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/10/2003 10:27 AM (GMT -6) | | After some additional thought, I think Modes view is far more Lutheran than Anabaptist. Lutherans tend to accept that the Church's duty is not to criticize the state and to trust that those with such responsibilities will carry them out.
This makes more sense given your background, Modes, doesn't it?
Of course the worse example of how this can go wrong is with how the Lutheran Church failed to stand up against Naziism.
I have the same problem with Greg Boyd when he claims his view is Anabaptist. I mean he could be just referring to the counter-culture category from Niebuhr, but that doesn't truly fit someone who gives sermons on The Matrix. Also, to stay true to the Niebuhrean spirit, one would offer their view of Christianity and Culture and then offer links to alternative views. I.e., here is what I believe but here are some alternatives.
But I still think this is deceptive since it obfuscates the way that GBoyd is currently an indirect beneficiary of the interests that dominate the state. Doc may be just keeping the peace at WHC, but he also is discouraging activism that would establish alternative interests that would possibly push out some of the interests that currently benefit him and his church.
There is fundamental choice in whose interests the state serves. Political Activism, of any sort, is fundamentally trying to alter the interests that control the gov't. A Christian perspective would admit the fact of this choice/conflict and strive to love one's enemies, not straining to keep or get as much power for oneself since, ultimately, it doesn't matter and it can be corrupting and it is important to enforce rules that offer the opportunity for others to get their interests served, as well, while ensuring overall stability and peace and order.
Invoking God in such debates tends to descend into claiming an absolute right to power or one's interests, which likely is either not the case, or is subject to critique in the particular form it manifests itself. That is why I do not invoke God in questioning what the consequences of the manipulation of the US public should be for the Bush Administration.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/10/2003 11:23 AM (GMT -6) | | With appologies.... I have no idea what DLW just said. But that is OK, because someone else maybe will.
I'll just come back to what I said at bottome of the last page!
quote:
(MODES)
Hey, I just had an interesting thought...
What if we were to consider possibly changing the title of this area of discussion? That might be useful for focusing what we are really doing. Maybe then we could do it more effectively...(why didn't anyone else think of this?)
My suggestion for this new title is found in the title of this thread.
What are your thoughts?
I couldn't fit this title:
How human beings become profoundly ungrateful, presumptuous and then decide they can (at least theoretically) run the world better than God can. But they don't stop there, they offer suggestions to God (after, perhaps consulting with other exceptionally wise and insightful human beings) on how to improve the structures of creation and then they attribute this presumption to their own credit as if God will surely appreciate the advice (this word "advice" is especially fitting, we are indeed adding a "vice" to our collections). One might even be able to make a career out of such a thing! They will arive in heaven (obviously!!!) and God might say, "Well done my good and faithful advisor. I had never thought of some of the criticisms you have raised! Too bad you didn't spend half the time invested in speculation on actually obeying the clear commands I have given. That might have done a bit more for the problem of evil than your advice has done. Ah, but hindsight is 20/20!"
PLEASE REFUTE, but limit yourself to use of Scripture and rational arguments that respect the idea that God is God.
Come and get it....
afterthought: All this is predicated on the idea that God really does exist and our respect is due to God as we think through issues like the problem of evil. After all, God is in the room, let's pretend we care. A little fear and trembling might even be in order...Also implicit here is that there is an ethical engagement that is inherent in dealing with evil and injustices. My position is that talking about it without doing something about it eventially becomes ethical culpability. This is sometimes referred to as "whining." It is especially whining because those with the requisite leisure time for such talk are surely not among those who are most entrenched in radical evil. Those in the latter category are unable to speak about it for various reasons, often physically and psychologically, perhaps because they simply didn't survive.
Rather we might need to discuss the biblical, vs the contemporary view of the meaning of life and death....just a hint in a different direction...
we might need to discuss the biblical, vs the contemporary view of the meaning of life and death....
That reminds me of the song I sing my Kids:
quote:
1. Children of the heav'nly Father
Safely in his bosom gather;
Nestling bird or star in heaven
Such a refuge ne'er was given.
2. God His own doth tend and nourish,
In His holy courts they flourish;
From all Evil things He spares them,
In His mighty arms He bears them
3. Neither life nor death shall ever
From the Lord His children sever;
Unto them His grace He showeth,
And their sorrows all He knoweth.
4. Though he giveth or he taketh,
God his children ne'er forsaketh;
His the loving purpose solely
To preserve them pure and holy.
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/c/o/cofthehf.htm
Interesting thing about that kind of "statement" -- it is as gutsy and up-close bone and bloody as anthing else will be in your entire life. It is a song for those who's newborn is struggling and almost not making it, and it is also for those last nights sitting and listening to the old breaths growing shallower and more labored. IT IS A SONG THAT ANSWERS LIFE'S STRONGEST QUESTION: SILENCE.
Another line, from the Orthodox liturgy this time, goes this way:
For Thou art a good god, who lovest mankind.
A third, "life and death" confession is this:
quote:
Question 1.
What is thy only comfort in life and death?
Answer.
That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.
So, whether you agree 100% or not about those three, here is the challenge:
WHAT CAN YOU POST THAT PLACES YOU BETTER IN YOUR PLACE -- BOTH FOR ACTIVE DEPENDENCY, FOR CONFIDENT HOPE?
Edited by - fred on 07/10/2003 4:27:15 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/10/2003 11:33 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm sorry Fred, what of my recent postings did you not understand and what are you responding to?
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/10/2003 5:16 PM (GMT -6) | | I didn't try to respond to yours, DLW. I'll leave that for someone else.
I was responding to Modes' initial post at the top of page one.
On another thread I had tried to use his observation to suggest a navigational standard for that wandering discussion. I came back to THIS thread because the connection I just posted came to mind. That's all.
Good luck. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/11/2003 5:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes:
quote:
I couldn't fit this title:
How human beings become profoundly ungrateful, presumptuous and then decide they can (at least theoretically) run the world better than God can. But they don't stop there, they offer suggestions to God (after, perhaps consulting with other exceptionally wise and insightful human beings) on how to improve the structures of creation and then they attribute this presumption to their own credit as if God will surely appreciate the advice (this word "advice" is especially fitting, we are indeed adding a "vice" to our collections). One might even be able to make a career out of such a thing! They will arive in heaven (obviously!!!) and God might say, "Well done my good and faithful advisor. I had never thought of some of the criticisms you have raised! Too bad you didn't spend half the time invested in speculation on actually obeying the clear commands I have given. That might have done a bit more for the problem of evil than your advice has done. Ah, but hindsight is 20/20!"
PLEASE REFUTE, but limit yourself to use of Scripture and rational arguments that respect the idea that God is God.
Do you honestly choose to think that the attempt to solve the very real problem of evil is NECESSARILY attached to some type of arrogant, presumputous lack of reverence and fear for God? What kind of Bible YOU been reading? Habakkuk?? The Psalms?? It is completely possible to ask God questions, voice frustrations, and deal with existential problems…all while ULTIMATELY saying “Lord, thou knowst..and thou knowst well.” To be sure, there are lots of arrogant people out there who actually presume to DEFINE what type of God they think is worthy of worship. That crud turns my stomach! But this is not always the case.
So, I say keep the title like it is. We just need to watch our attitude while we do it!
"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend. | | Back to Top | | |
| 77 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:17 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 |
|
|