But, like the oath you take before testifying in court says, it's not the whole truth.
Jesus said this when sending his disciples out:
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)
So what do we do with this? Honestly, I think that anyone who teaches is in a tough spot, and as you get in front of people who have less and less background information through which to filter and understand the message, the more difficult it gets. How do you include enough to fairly represent the truth without overwhelming them? The Bible is not a simple book, and almost any time that you teach one concept in a simple way you risk teaching against an equally valid one, as is the case here.As I see it, we are called to love and live in peace with all men, if possible. But that possibility does not come at the cost of compromising the truth. And here is the great divider in the traditional church and the emergent church today. The emergent church seeks to love, at any cost. The traditional church seeks to protect truth, at any cost. And when we have two opposites that we are called to live by, the answer is not going to be a simple one.
It will not be without tension, and it will not be a line we can draw and leave in the sand for the rest of time. What is the relationship between love and acceptance? God loves everyone, but will not leave any sin unpunished. He does not want anyone to live or die out of relationship with him, but he has allowed only one very infliexible and ultimately demanding way to be in that relationship. It's a tense place to be, and one that demands more wisdom and discretion than any of us has within us to truly understand which way to go. But that's where we are, and we can't pretend otherwise.
3 comments:
Ah, yes. The good stuff!
If your position is true, your stance is commendable. It is intensely difficult to reconcile a command to love extravagantly when also commanded to stone adulterers.
I have several reasons I take the side of the emergent church, which I'll try to briefly outline.
1. I believe that truth exists, but that truth has changed over time. Problems arise when we assume the truth as we understand it now is the same truth as they understood it then. I do not believe this is a defensible position.
As a small example. It's quite easy to point to an issue in the Bible that has changed. The Bible claims women should not talk in church. At the present time, people generally have no problem with women talking in church. This is a change. Possibly not very significant, but very relevant. But it is a change! Once it can be shown that at least one teaching of the Bible changes through time, how can one be sure that other teachings have not changed? One cannot be sure, so when an issue arises that, when carried to its logical extreme, may require me to kill another human, I chose to error on the side of love. If I'm wrong, I could always kill them later. :)
2. The Muslim world is currently practising what you are (admittedly, not preaching, but rather) implying. They believe that Allah commands them to kill the infidel in order to achieve a higher Islamic purpose. This is not love, but rather truth. If truth wins out over love, they are doing exactly the right thing.
They believe this is true with exactly as much passion (and evidence) as you believe Christianity. At some point, these two views will conflict, but fortunately most of us are protected from this conflict by a liberal western society (for which I am very grateful). You may claim they should become Christians because an ancient book tells you so, and because you have witnessed God in your own life and know Him to be true. Unfortunately, a Muslim also would claim you should submit to Allah because an ancient book tells him so, and because he has witnessed Allah in his own life and knows him to be true. Our world is witnessing what happens when these two views come into conflict, and the thousands of lives lost in Iraq are the fruit.
How can this dilemma be solved? In my opinion, it cannot. People hold tighter to their beliefs than they do to their lives. I refuse to kill someone to make them accept my beliefs. I would possibly kill them to keep them from enforcing their beliefs upon me. Again, I choose to err on the side of love whenever I can.
I know you're going to love this one, Darryl. It will be like old times.
Game on, my friend!
Commendable or not, what I say is what I believe is who I am, and you know that.
For point #1... well, that's bigger than I want to address here. For the sake of this discussion, let's see if we can agree on what the truth may be now, changed or unchanged. But I will say this... just because you or I or anyone else understands it differently doesn't mean it's changed. It means our understanding, for better or worse, has changed. Obviously this doesn't prove that what is underlying has not changed, but it will take more than that to convince me that truth is transient.
Now, to the meat! For the second point, it seems I'm at a disadvantage from the start... you've changed my theme a little without giving me much warning. I don't think we're talking any more about love and truth; I think it's somehow slipped over to mercy and justice.
Let's assume for a moment that that laws given in the old testament are the final word in what justice is, then and now (something that likely neither of us believes, but it will be useful here). In that case, stoning an adulterer would be justice. Forgiving him would be mercy.
Well, you're right... justice can be an ugly, ugly thing. So can being the victim of adultery, as it turns out. That doesn't make the justice unjust, but you are right - mercy is the better way.
But I'm not talking about to stone or not to stone... I'm talking about something that needs to come before that decision, and after it. Is adultery wrong? Is it possible to love someone who has done this yet not be willing to take their actions as acceptable? It is - I can tell you that.
So the tension I see here is not whether I should pick up the first stone; of course I shouldn't. But, at the same time as I love the people around me in the purest and best way that I know how, I will not abandon the truth that, when they sin, their actions are wrong,.
How those actions may be accounted for becomes another matter, but without the truth of whether they are right or wrong, the story stops there. If there is no wrong, there is no accounting and no justice to be done - you're right. But then, that makes mercy pretty cheap.
Oh, and you're right... I am going to love this, and it is just like old times except that I can't see the look on your face as you think about it AND THAT IS DRIVING ME CRAZY... lol. We need to blob via webcam!
Post a Comment