“This is obvious; for the distinction of friend or enemy is a distinction in the object of love, but the object of love to your neighbor is always without distinction. Your neighbor is the absolutely unrecognizable distinction between one person and another; it is eternal equality before God – enemies, too, have this equality (100).”
“To love one’s neighbor, therefore, means essentially to will to exist equally for every human being without exception (100).”
Who is my neighbor? That seems like a good question. Jesus tells us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves(This is found in Leviticus as well). The golden rule plus the admonition to love is quite a profound idea. Extend love to your neighbor. I know of people who often complain about their neighbors. They are too loud, there are too many people there, they are reducing my house’s retail value. Any reason that we give about why we dislike our neighbors seems only to be the extension of what cannot be called and is not love. Love is demanding. Love is not flippant and love certainly is not cheap. Love will cost you your independence. Love will cost you your desires. Love will force you to care about other people more than yourself. Love is the transforming power of the gospel. Love is absolutely essential for those who follow the gospel.
Soren Kierkegaard will also tell us that the only action that is noticeably defined as love is love. That is a paradox, but insightful and true.
“True love is only recognizable by love (100).”
So I can I be a person filled with hate and rage and malice and bitterness towards people? Maybe, after all, love is complex. But if these feelings of rage and hate and malice and bitterness lack the grounding foundation of love what in the world does it matter to anyone. To love is the only practical part of Christianity.
Who is my neighbor? Everyone. All peoples, anyone who is alive. My neighbor is black, white, brown. My neighbor is short, tall, fat, skinny. My neighbor speaks Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, English, French, German, Swahili, Lingala, Kikongo, Kiluba… My neighbor is the world and my neighbor is clamoring for my love.
So I will love those who do not love me in return. I will love my enemy, because my enemy is my neighbor. I will love the my neighbor’s when they fight, and I will give myself to solve their conflicts. I will care about my neighbor’s life more than my own. I will be a person who loves. Love is the element of existence that transcends reality. When we love we are no longer fitting within the paradigms of this world. We no longer act as we should, we act better, smartter and in line with God’s kingdom.
If you follow Christ and you do not love are you really following him?
Friday, August 21, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
On the Nature of Scripture
I read an article by Robert Hull Jr. on the nature of Scripture here are some of my observations.
The Bible is the product of human understanding of the divine's interaction with the world. For Scripture to be inspired does not necessitate that Scripture must come from God via plenary inspiration. God does not have to dictate the Scriptures to peoples. Because the Scriptures seem to be the recordings of God's interaction with humanity, these are bound to have a degree of fallibility. All of this is to say that the Bible is not void of tradition. God did not dictate that these 66 (or however many if your normal and not protestant) books should be in and the rest out. The formation of the cannon of Scripture is the product of fallible people forming a useful collection of works.
From the article it is mentioned that the three areas in which the council's found criteria for the NT cannon.
1.) Apostolicity--agreeing with the tradition of the apostles. The rule of faith and the rule of truth, ideas coming from Iraneaus and Tertullian.
2.) Orthodoxy--that the book/work conformed to the rule of faith (teachings of the apostles), I guess this would be more in the area agreements in principle. Maybe taking an idea of the apostles and expanding it in a different area than the apostles had intended.
3.) Antiquity--closer to the time of the 1st century the better.
That being said, what of the OT? It is asserted in this article that a form of the OT/Hebrew Bible cannon was already in existence. This is strengthened by Josephus in Against Apion 1:8, where Josephus speaks of the three way division of the Hebrew Scriptures.
So where does this leave the Bible? It would seem that Scripture is formed neither completely apart from nor controlled by tradition. Instead tradition is a form of glue that holds the Scriptures together. A balsa wood model is not the model until the wood is glued together. Similarly, Scripture is not Scripture unless glued together by the tradition of the church.
In addition to tradition and the text, we also will at some point need to discuss how a person's experience affects the text. So that will be that for now.
The Bible is the product of human understanding of the divine's interaction with the world. For Scripture to be inspired does not necessitate that Scripture must come from God via plenary inspiration. God does not have to dictate the Scriptures to peoples. Because the Scriptures seem to be the recordings of God's interaction with humanity, these are bound to have a degree of fallibility. All of this is to say that the Bible is not void of tradition. God did not dictate that these 66 (or however many if your normal and not protestant) books should be in and the rest out. The formation of the cannon of Scripture is the product of fallible people forming a useful collection of works.
From the article it is mentioned that the three areas in which the council's found criteria for the NT cannon.
1.) Apostolicity--agreeing with the tradition of the apostles. The rule of faith and the rule of truth, ideas coming from Iraneaus and Tertullian.
2.) Orthodoxy--that the book/work conformed to the rule of faith (teachings of the apostles), I guess this would be more in the area agreements in principle. Maybe taking an idea of the apostles and expanding it in a different area than the apostles had intended.
3.) Antiquity--closer to the time of the 1st century the better.
That being said, what of the OT? It is asserted in this article that a form of the OT/Hebrew Bible cannon was already in existence. This is strengthened by Josephus in Against Apion 1:8, where Josephus speaks of the three way division of the Hebrew Scriptures.
So where does this leave the Bible? It would seem that Scripture is formed neither completely apart from nor controlled by tradition. Instead tradition is a form of glue that holds the Scriptures together. A balsa wood model is not the model until the wood is glued together. Similarly, Scripture is not Scripture unless glued together by the tradition of the church.
In addition to tradition and the text, we also will at some point need to discuss how a person's experience affects the text. So that will be that for now.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
I'm just sitting here being...Provocative
“if I apprehend God objectively, I do not have faith; but because I cannot do this, I must have faith (70).”
If it is possible to come to know God in an objective world, then faith is not possible. There is no need for faith when there is all you need to know, in a form of truth ‘out there.’
"Objectivity and faith are at complete odds with each other. What does objective faith mean? Doesn’t it amount to nothing more than a sum of tenets? (72)”
When one can know God through objective truth, then she can ascend to the gospel. She can mentally ascend, by agreeing with key, “objective,” tenets of Christianity. She can tell me the facts of the old, old story and therefore, she has made it to understanding the gospel. But isn’t there something in the gospel about descent? Isn’t the beauty of the gospel about God’s descent into humanity? God’s descent into humanity is beyond our objective reason precisely because it doesn’t make any sense.
“For an existing individual, therefore, there is no objective truth “out there.” An objective knowledge about the truth or the truths of Christianity is precisely untruth. To know a creed by rote is, quite simply, paganism. This is because Christianity is inwardness. Christianity is paradox, and paradox requires but one thing: the passion of faith (73).”
Faith is most definitely inward. It would seem that our existence is where we might begin. Inside of us, there is a yearning for faith.
If it is possible to come to know God in an objective world, then faith is not possible. There is no need for faith when there is all you need to know, in a form of truth ‘out there.’
"Objectivity and faith are at complete odds with each other. What does objective faith mean? Doesn’t it amount to nothing more than a sum of tenets? (72)”
When one can know God through objective truth, then she can ascend to the gospel. She can mentally ascend, by agreeing with key, “objective,” tenets of Christianity. She can tell me the facts of the old, old story and therefore, she has made it to understanding the gospel. But isn’t there something in the gospel about descent? Isn’t the beauty of the gospel about God’s descent into humanity? God’s descent into humanity is beyond our objective reason precisely because it doesn’t make any sense.
“For an existing individual, therefore, there is no objective truth “out there.” An objective knowledge about the truth or the truths of Christianity is precisely untruth. To know a creed by rote is, quite simply, paganism. This is because Christianity is inwardness. Christianity is paradox, and paradox requires but one thing: the passion of faith (73).”
Faith is most definitely inward. It would seem that our existence is where we might begin. Inside of us, there is a yearning for faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)