Tags
Because, nowadays, the relationship between Church and State in the West can be fraught, I often read comments to the effect that Christ said it would be so, which, whilst true, seems to ignore the long period when Church and State worked in close partnership. Whatever the pros and cons of that cooperation, its existence suggests there is no inevitability about the current state of tension. Indeed, it may well be that some of that tension comes from the way in which the Churches behaved when they did have a major say in the laws passed and in the moral ordering of our society. That may be why the hot button issues tend to focus around the areas where the churches and secular behaviour disagree over sexual behaviour.
It’s interesting that the posts recently which focus on God and love seem to evoke a certain level of puzzlement – define love seems to be a theme – as though at some point we can reach a definition with which people who feel uncomfortable with it will not be uncomfortable. Or maybe they are not uncomfortable? The emphasis on love is the natural result of St John telling us that God is love, bit it is also plea to ask us to reflect more on the God we find in the parable of the Prodigal Son, that God who, though we are sinners, came out to meet us, far off as we are. Herein is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. That, for me, is the mystery at the heart of my Faith. God knows me as I am – and He loves me. He loves me so much that Christ died for me, and rose again so that I should have life eternal; and not just me, but every sinner who turns again to Him.
That is why I am a Christian. It has nothing to do with fear or hell-fire. I have no doubt that if justice, as men understand it were done, I should be somewhere hot in the after-life, and that I should deserve it. But God’s justice is mercy. It is beyond any merit of mine; it is beyond anything I could demand; it is given me free – what amazing Grace! I am with St. John in loving God because He loved me first.
The alliance with the State, which brought the Church first safety and then power, has allowed our critics to say that Christianity is all about power. Those who say that know so little about Christ. He emptied Himself to assume the form of a slave for us. The road to redemption leads through Calvary. Comfortable though the chief seats of the powerful are, it is not in them that we see Christ, but rather in each other, and in service. It is for this Grace I pray.
All Along the Watchtower 
Perhaps then, all this cultural angst we see being aimed at the church can simply be seen as the church emptying itself of all power unto crucifixion that the resurrection power of God may eventually be released through us as we endure a season? On some level that does make sense.
LikeLike
Oh let me spell it out:
2 John v 6 And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands.
2 John v 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 11 Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.
This is John’s perspective (the same John who wrote 1 John). I wonder if John’s definition of ‘love’ is close to your own, whether 2 John v11 about welcoming people who haven’t accepted Christian teaching really is so useful for evangelism and whether it corresponds to your own perspective – both in the work you are doing at your church and also with the refugees (many of whom, I take it from your description of their behaviour are positively antagonistic towards Christian decency.
You’re using John and not Paul here. You need a working definition of ‘love’ which corresponds to Johannine teaching.
LikeLike
I did wonder if you were going down that tack? To do so involves separating John from Paul and both from Jesus. Reading in the context of Jesus’ teaching and sacrifice it is clear we are to,love our neighbour as ourselves and not define them as those who walk with us. John’s letter needs reading in the context f what was happening in the Johannine church – something which, incidentally, shows the limitations of thinking you can rely on the Spirit unmediated by any authority. He is, of course, talking about those who have broken from his church – not the pagans. So nice try, but no cocoanut or cigar.
LikeLike
Jessica – you’re the one missing out on the coconut and cigar. I’ve read quite a lot of rubbish by Raymond Brown on what modern commentators perceive to have been happening in the ‘Johannine’ church – and it’s basically a circular argument; I don’t buy it. Unfortunately, it seems to have infected most thinking on the topic.
I simply want some proper definitions from you. You chose to base your post on 1 John, which I think is a pretty bold move, because anybody who reads 1 John carefully understands that they do not meet the Johannine standard of love; they do not love in the way that John requires. That includes you.
I should perhaps have left it at 2 John v6. I thought it worth seeing how you responded to 2 John v10,11 – and I’m left with the impression that you simply haven’t understood it.
LikeLike
Jock, explain your thoughts in accordance to 2 John 9-11 vs. James 4:12 ?
12 There is one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you that you judge your neighbor?
I had seen a Protestant quote it the other day, I was intrigued, I thought quoting James, how unusually interesting.
Anyway…
LikeLiked by 2 people
And how does that square with 1 Cor. 6:1-9? Puzzling.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think folks have a skewed idea of what judgment entails. One can point out what is sinful behavior and still love their neighbor without judgment.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very well said. And to further that thought, it seems that they are capable of rendering judgments, fairly and with mercy to those that they have been given the task to apply the law in a judicious manner. Every judgment cannot be, for instance, that the lawbreaker is not at fault and is not deserving of penalty or fair recompense for their actions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Philip – I think you’ve answered your own question.
James is, in my opinion, a great letter, well worth studying .
I’m more intrigued, though, in how Jessica takes 2 John v 9-11. I find John’s take on ‘love’ confusing and not as clear-cut as Jessica suggests. The attitude towards people who had issues with John’s teaching doesn’t seem very, well, loving.
The earlier verse that I quote 2 John v 6 indicates to me that we all fall short of John’s love ‘And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands’ because we all know that, ultimately, in this life none of us are walking in obedience to the commandments. John’s ‘love’ seems something that is eschatolgical, something that we strive for, but only the extremely deluded would consider that they had gone any way towards achieving it.
LikeLike
It isn’t just Raymond Brown, its men like Richard Bauckham. You’re welcome to reject the insights of men who have studied this in depth, but need a better counter-argument to reject their conclusions than ‘I don’t buy it’. Why do you not buy it?
I don’t buy this attempt to separate our John’s epistles from his gospel and the rest of the Bible on the question of God being love. Jesus is God, Jesus shows us what God being love is. What part of that does John contradict in his letter?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jessica – I’m not criticising Baukham et. al. ; I’m criticising your use of it.
Of course there was a community and of course the immediate purpose of that letter was for the community. But it’s clear and plain – at least to me – that John intended this letter to be canonical; expressing fundamental truths and that he was intentionally writing beyond the community, to people who knew nothing about the ‘Johanine community’.
Where this is important is when difficult passages that contain difficult universal truths are explained away in a trivial manner through the trite statement by people who can’t be bothered thinking these things through, ‘John’s letter needs reading in the context f what was happening in the Johannine church’ and then having the arrogance to imagine that those of us looking for the universal truths are ‘limited’ in their understanding.
When studying 1 John, I first looked at the modern commentaries with all this Johannine community stuff. It was so delightfully refreshing to read the commentary by Robert Candlish (it’s in print – banner of truth – and you can probably get it from the Free Church book shop inside the Free Church college on The Mound) written long before this ‘community’ stuff came on the go, and simply commenting on the universal truths contained within the letter.
Note – I’m not criticising the general message you draw out; I’m criticising the trivial and trivialising use of 1 John – and the ‘touchy feely’ reference to 1 John 4v8, wrested out of the context of the rest of the letter.
LikeLike
I’m sorry you find being ‘touchy feely’ trivialising – most of us find being touched and felt by loved ones quite the opposite. We see, time and again in Scripture, touch healing and being part of loving someone; do you find that trivial too?
I agree it has universal truths, it’s why the church canonised it. I’m not sure anyone who wrote anything thought it would enter a canon, and I think it useful to be able to deploy the insights of modern scholarship to help us understand the context in which what we read was written.
LikeLike
Jessica – as I indicated, I don’t find any of Scripture trivial; I find your take on it trivial and trivialising.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah well, there’s not a deal I can do about that, alas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the disagreements here on love and state etc. are only an indication that others feel that you have made of the Prodigal Son Parable the whole of the understanding of God’s temperment and tenderness toward all. Yet even the interpretation is not so clear as you have imagined. For instance, the father did not go looking for him in the world and try to minister to him where he was (meeting people where they are). He awaits the sons turning around and his return of his own free will.
Likewise you do not look at the parable of the fig tree that does not bear fruit or in the case of the state (Israel at the time) and the Parable of the Vineyard and winepress. When the son is sent he is slain and so it was not denied that those who did this would lose their lives.
The same can be said of the man who was not dressed for the wedding in the Parable of the Wedding Feast.
God is more dynamic and more complex in His being than simply the Prodigal Son version. Not to mention that historically we see those early Christians who were to sell their belonging and give it all to the Church got struck down by God and died when they lied as to how much they sold their property and goods for.
It seems that we have tried to make of God a fluffy Teddy bear to snuggle with. He is far more than that. And in reality His biggest act of love happened to be not in forgiving those (in heart and mind) but in actually giving Himeself as sacrifice to be tortured and killed for our sins; this love being the very manly sacrificial love of a father or a soldier protecting His own. Agape is the pinnacle of Christian love which Christ showed the world by His Agony and Crucifixion..
So perhaps it is simply that we each take the whole of what we learn of God’s love and have differences in our understanding of the very true statement that God is love; for He most certainly is. We just have a disparity of the totality of what that encompasses. And even His sentences and justice seems to flow from His love.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree, but then the PS parable is not about evangelism, and we have to read it in the context of other exhortations in the Bible to preach the word. I’m not sure if your comment meant to imply that we should sit and wait like the father for people to come to us, but I can’t think that was what you meant, as that is not what we see in Acts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course not, Jess, for that is the great commission to go out and make disciples of all nations. I would only add that after teaching the Gospel to people it takes a ‘yes’ from the hearer which allows the Holy Spirit to do His work on the soul and bring them to Christ. We really do nothing more than do our best to preach the Gospel and live the Gospel to our best ability.
The Acts reference was just a reminder that sometimes even in the NT the penalty seems a bit severe for lying . . . and yet, as Peter stated, in doing so you lied to God. So we do need understand that although any sin can be forgiven, sinning against the majesty of God is deadly serious and cannot be excused out of hand as a simple mess-up. So there is that aspect as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed, and I agree.
The central problem we encounter here is twofold and hard to overcome. Most people know precisely nothing about the Church, but they ‘read somewhere’ that it has done ‘nasty stuff’ and is ‘bigoted’. They then hear some loud voice in the public square sounding just that way and their prejudice is confirmed. So before the hearer can offer any opinion, she or he is put off by these things. It is getting over that where the problem lies – at least for us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think it is truly a problem. If they listened they will either become more set against the Christ and the Church or they will perhaps read the Gospels themselves to see if they can find ways to argue against the teachings or they will soften their hearts and the Holy Spirit will lead them into the Church. We can’t do that . . . all we can do is speak the Truth as best we know it and live according to those Truths the best we know how. At least that is what I see. I think it is useless to wring one’s hands over how to reach these people. After you’ve done your duty, then it is time to pray, hope and don’t worry as St. Padre Pio reminds us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If they listened to who and what? I don’t think you realise how secular we really are here. There are no religious programmes on the TV, there is nothing on the radio, and where would they come across the Gospels to read them? There is, literally, nowhere in the public sphere where most people in this country would even encounter Christianity. So when you say we can only speak the truth, I don’t understand what you mean? To whom? In this country there is no way the vast majority of people would hear anything we said – it would simply be talking to ourselves.
Our duty is to do as Peter and the Apostles did, go out into the market place and other public places and meet people. Padre Pio lived in a highly Catholic civilization in a catholic country – if we followed his advice on evangelisation that would not be doing our duty.
LikeLike
Many do become more set against Christ, and church. That is not good stewardship on our part when we can act to dispel that mis- (or maybe mal-) apprehension. We need to take them and kindly teach them the truth of Christianity, as we have seen Jess do, in real life, several times. In my experience, very few will take the trouble to check out something that it is easier for them to simply ignore and continue their prejudice. Almost all of us are lazy like that. 🙂
It’s one of those things that if we don’t act, we lose. For me, it is an act of omission, if not commission which is what some of those blowhards she mentioned commit. And do note, neither of us is condemning all street preaching, many are the best of us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus – there’s a lot to be said for considering the parable of the prodigal son to be in some sense central – and if she had taken this parable as the starting point and built on it, then it may have been OK.
My point of concern was (and is) that one has to be rather careful about using John in this context. (i.e. not so much what she was saying, but rather using John rather than other passages, such as the parable of the prodigal son to back it up).
This parable seems to be Jesus comment on the Cain and Abel story, contrasting the despair of the Old Testament with the incomparable riches of his grace. The mark of Cain was a mark of love; people were not permitted to touch Cain – he was given his chance to return, but he didn’t. The story culminates in Lamech, boasting about how he dealt with someone who had done something utterly trivial to him – and mocking the mark of Cain.
In the NT, it seems to me to be implied by the story that there was a wall of prayer and these prayers were answered; the prodigal son was led into a situation where he came to his senses and returned.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve always taken the Prodigal Son parable as a testimony of Jesus that however you screw up, if you realize what you have done and feel shame for your misdeeds, you may return to God like you might to a loving father and He will welcome you. It is a comfort to us who continually run afoul in life to know that it is never too late until the moment of death removes any further hope of turning our eyes to God.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes – but furthermore, events also conspired to bring the fellow to his senses – so God also helps you to realise what you have done and turn to a better way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is true, of course, Jock. God often brings misery and desolation to unrepentant sinners. Though in the parable the vices the young man has already have a built-in destructive aspect that is almost expected by anybody who has lived for a while; i.e. gambling and whoring can bring one to a state of being destitute and usually does.
LikeLiked by 2 people
For the first time, the State is cracking down on the Catholic Cover Up .
In a first-of-its-kind case, prosecutors in Pennsylvania announced charges on Tuesday against three Franciscan friars who they say facilitated the abuse of dozens of children.
Prosecutors say that all three men knew about sexual abuse allegations against Brother Stephen Baker dating back to the 1980s but that the three friars continued to place Baker in jobs that gave him access to children, up until 2010.
“These men knew there was a child predator in their organization. Yet they continued to put him in positions where he had countless opportunities to prey upon children,”
D’Aversa found an accusation of sexual abuse credible in 2000. He removed Baker from the school, then put him in charge of overnight youth retreats around the country.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/03/15/in-groundbreaking-case-franciscan-friars-charged-with-allowing-abuse-of-at-least-80-kids/?tid=a_inl
Its nothing but a pedophile ring, pure and simple. InBaltimore the dioses has published a list of about 80 priest predators.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/05/11/the-archdiocese-of-baltimore-has-posted-a-list-of-71-priests-accused-of-sexually-abusing-children/
It cant be, there is only one bad priest.
What, you don’t buy that excuse?
How about…the more wicked the priestcraft, the more it shows how godly it is.
Take your pick.
LikeLike