Archived Posts For Emerging Questions
the love conversation - pope Benny weighs in
Posted on October 11, 2007 by Geoff Matheson
Filed Under Emerging Questions | 1 Comment
Thanks to Gerry, I’ve had a read of Pope Benedict’s “Encyclical letter Deus Caritas Est of the supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI to the bishops, priests and deacons, men and women religious and all the lay faithful on Christian Love” (which was going to be the post title, but it might be a touch wordy). It’s a very worthwhile read - you won’t agree with everything but it’s worth wading through (as Gerry said). But I thought this quote might be worth highlighting, in relation to recent conversation:
” Yet eros and agape—ascending love and descending love—can never be completely separated. The more the two, in their different aspects, find a proper unity in the one reality of love, the more the true nature of love in general is realized. Even if eros is at first mainly covetous and ascending, a fascination for the great promise of happiness, in drawing near to the other, it is less and less concerned with itself, increasingly seeks the happiness of the other, is concerned more and more with the beloved, bestows itself and wants to “be there for” the other. The element of agape thus enters into this love, for otherwise eros is impoverished and even loses its own nature. On the other hand, man cannot live by oblative, descending love alone. He cannot always give, he must also receive. Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift.”
Your thoughts are sought.
can love be defined purely by motive?
Posted on October 9, 2007 by Geoff Matheson
Filed Under Emerging Questions | 4 Comments
Conversations I’ve had with people both online and off in response to the “God is love. But what is love?” post have caused a few different people to ask the very pertinent question: “Is love more about motive than it is the specific action?” It’s a question that has an obvious pat answer, but that pat answer has some pretty significant implications. I want to say “yes, of course”. In fact, some of the opinion I’ve heard is that a loving action is only about motive, rather than what the action itself is.
It’s a “feel-good” opinion. It makes lots of nice sense. But then when you think about it, it can get really scary. Because suddenly, a whole bunch of things that we’ve decided are bad things to do, must be considered “loving acts“. Euthanasia - if committed out of genuine concern and love for someone would therefore be a loving thing. You can figure out for yourself, specific actions that you’d consider to be bad things, that with this understanding of love, must be considered to be loving acts.
So, is love just about motive, or are some actions inherently unloving? Keep in mind, we’re not tackling the issue of whether or not these actions still qualify as sins - that’s a bigger one that we might approach later.
God is love, but what is love?
Posted on October 3, 2007 by Geoff Matheson
Filed Under Emerging Questions | 14 Comments
Had big discussions on Monday evening in our small group when we were planning on discussing Bec’s “Pick and Mix” post. The conversation was hijacked and diverted to the point that we were talking about one of the big ugly questions: dealing with God killing people in the Old Testament. Lots of people. Entire tribes. Which is a big deal.
I suggested that my baseline for any theology revolves around the very simple statement that “God is love”. Just about anything else I believe about God has to go through this filter. Thus, my problem with God wiping out tribes, etc. But the “God is love” thing is more central to me than having to have a great explanation for everything that I don’t understand in the Old Testament. So my very learned and wise friend Brian (Bri-Bri for those who know him well) who also believes that God is love, suggested that perhaps the issue is with my human limitations of what love means.
He suggested that my understanding as a 21st century western pseudo-post-modern white man of what “love” is must surely look differently to that of a first century Jew or Roman. Which must be accurate. So where I see violence and killings as bad things, it’s possible, under a different understanding of what is loving and good, to see those actions as being loving and true. But it leaves me in a nasty spot.
Because without that reference point: huge chunks of my assumptions about what it means to be following the heart of God are gone, or at least clouded. The assumption that it’s not God’s will for people to die from preventable diseases could just be wrong - it could well just be my faulty understanding of what death is all about, and my modernist assumption of a right to life. But my gut tells me that’s not quite right either.
Does the fact that my understanding of what “God is love” means would be vastly different to a first century believer change how I should act? I realise I’m getting over-theoretical about something that’s ultimately worked out best in “just doing it”, but I guess I’m hoping that there’s value in wrestling with this stuff. Do we need to be more holistic or broad in our understanding of what is love and loving?
failing sunday school
Posted on October 1, 2007 by Laura Beimers
Filed Under Bible Study, Emerging Questions | 5 Comments
Sam is a pranic healer, studying to be a naturopath, and has some church background. Whenever I take a casual shift at work with Sam, conversations tend to run down wildly complex and thought provoking paths. Amidst my questions about pranic healing, chakras, auras and enery, and his about church, Jesus, how I view God and the spiritual encounters I’ve had; we often end up taking a lot longer to get our work done.
In talking about Jesus a few weeks ago he said something I’ve been pondering over, “I believe Jesus has so many good teachings to help us live.”
In thinking on it further that evening I realized how much emphasis my church experience has placed on what Jesus does for me, an individual. We accept grace so easily, so much more easily than we accept the teaching of Jesus about how to live out the Kingdom of God practically. The phrase “the teachings of Jesus” sat with me for a long time. I don’t think I’ve ever come across something that sounded so strange in the light of what I’ve seen Christianity made out to be…. and that scares me.
The Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7, leaves me wondering if the eternal life we are given by Jesus actually eventuates with us practicing the life Jesus taught (and lived).
Quite disturbingly at the end of the Sermon on the Mount I came across a seemingly familiar story I thought I knew, the story about the man who built his house on the rock and the man who built his house on the sand (Matthew 7:24-27). I can still recall the Sunday school song we use to sing and to be honest I think I could pull out all the actions to it as well. But it seems Sunday school taught the wrong story. I never knew it came at the end of the Sermon on the Mount.
So what is it about? It’s about choosing God (building on the rock) or not choosing God (building on the sand), right? Right? Actually, it’s not. Verse 24 says it all, “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.” Go read the story (four verses… it won’t take long).
The story becomes even more challenging when linked with the words Jesus brings to the crowd just before it:
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”
legalism or legitimacy?
Posted on September 27, 2007 by Geoff Matheson
Filed Under Emerging Questions | 9 Comments
Newsweek has reported on the story of A. J. Jacobs (previously famous for reading the entire Encyclopedia Britannica in one year), who has spent the past year trying to follow every rule written in the Bible. So as well as the nice obvious ones like not lying or coveting, he was growing a beard, observing the sabbath and not blending his clothing fibres. From the article:
“The Bible project was a lot more difficult than the encyclopedia project. The Bible affected every single part of my life, it affected the way I walked, the way I dressed, the way I hugged my wife, the way I ate. The year was the most extreme makeover of my life.”
It’s a fun read. But the following quote triggered something in me:
“One of the lessons of the book is, there is some picking and choosing in following the Bible, and I think that’s OK. Some people call that cafeteria religion, which is supposed to be a disparaging term, but I think there’s nothing wrong with cafeterias, I’ve had some delicious meals in cafeterias. I’ve also had some terrible meals in cafeterias. It’s all about picking the right parts. You want to take a heaping serving of the parts about compassion, mercy and gratefulness—instead of the parts about hatred and intolerance.”
Everything in me cringes at that. It’s the stuff that makes it easy to take pot-shots at post-moderns. And yet, looking at the list of rules this guy has followed in the year: I struggle to be able to tell you which of those should be part of living as a Christian under the new covenant, and which are just part of the religious Jewish law. It feels a lot like I’m doing the same thing? Because at times that line can seem pretty arbritrary. How do we decide what parts of the old testament law are still valuable today, and which are a religious absurdity.
But then maybe I’m just looking for an excuse to grow a beard…
