I am posting the bulk of my pastor's sermon from yesterday. I usually post these church-y types of things on our church blog, but it is so fitting in light of recent conversations around here that I wanted to post it here.
Our services tend to have two types of sermons/services:
1. Those that are powerful, gripping and dripping with God's grace and challenging us to walk by grace in the steps of Jesus, and
2. Those that are even MORE powerful, gripping and dripping with God's grace.
This is one of the latter sort... at least it was for me.
======
On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
~John 20
It’s interesting to me that out of all the things that the Risen Christ might have said, maybe did say to his cowering in fear disciples, that out of all the blessings, out of all the charges that he could have given, that the one that the author of John reports is about forgiving and retaining sins.
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.
I’ve always wondered what he meant by that. And I’ve shied away from ever really preaching about it because on the surface it kind of sounds like the Risen Christ was giving the church the power to forgive or to not forgive sin, to decide who is in and who is out, who is clean and who is unclean, etc. And I, for one, have not been very happy with the church’s record in that regard.
I grew up believing that God didn’t forgive you until you said a special little “please forgive me of all my sins, Jesus” prayer, which meant that the large majority of the non-Southern Baptist world, having not said that particular prayer, was left unforgiven. I’m exaggerating about that a little bit, but not much.
But what I’ve realized along the way is that this statement isn’t about the church’s power to forgive sin or to not forgive sin. It’s about Christ’s power to forgive sin, and about the church’s power through Christ to proclaim the forgiving love of God, and to live as forgiving and forgiven people.
Martin Niemoeller talks about Easter as the “unexpected act of the living God, which interrupts and runs counter to the uniform rise and fall of the world’s rhythm.” Talk about running counter to the uniform rise and fall of the world’s rhythm — some of us experienced that this week, didn’t we, when our world was cheering over the death of Bin Ladan, and we were saddened, or if not saddened, concerned, or if not concerned, at least ambivalent over the violent death of, yes, we can say it, one of God’s children.
I attended part of a conference at Louisville Presbyterian Seminary on Monday morning, and there was a part of the worship service where people were voicing prayers aloud, and as I was struggling to find words to express a prayer about our response to the death of Bin Laden, someone else simply prayed, “God, give us the courage to forgive our enemies.” It was perfect, and I was grateful to be in a setting where people were seeking to love, seeking to not gloat, to not rejoice in the demise of another, however dastardly that other was. I was grateful to be in a community where the uniform rise and fall of the world’s rhythm was interrupted by a great jolt of forgiveness.
Of course, it’s easier to gloat, to not forgive. But thankfully, Craig Barnes reminds us that “we are not on our own for this. Jesus gave us the Holy Spirit before he called us to forgive. The work of the Spirit is to bind us into the work of Jesus Christ. What this means is that we disciples are not called to produce forgiveness. We’re called to be the priest pronouncing that which has been produced on the cross...”
Jesus’ charge to the disciples was to carry on the work that he had started. I am thinking of the woman caught in adultery. The crowd was ready to stone her, but Jesus said, “Let the one among you who has never sinned cast the first stone.” I am thinking of the story of when Martha came out of the kitchen madder than a wet hen because Mary hadn’t been lifting a finger to help cook, and Jesus defended Mary. “Mary has chosen that right thing,” he said. And later, when Judas jumped all over Mary for wasting an expensive bottle of perfume to annoint Jesus, and once again Jesus defended her.
It seems to me that one of the things that Jesus did consistently through the Gospel of John was to give people the benefit of the doubt, to take what others saw as “sin,” as “shortcoming,” as “uncleanliness,” and to reinterpret it.
In the story of the woman caught in adultery, he didn’t downplay the seriousness of the woman’s sin, but he did put it into context for everyone there: “Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.” Yeah, okay, she sinned, but really who hasn’t? And in the stories of Mary, with Martha, and with Judas, he reinterpreted Mary’s actions, which were seen as negative by others in both cases, Mary should have been working in the kitchen, fulfilling her role as a woman, right, and Mary shouldn’t have wasted so much money on one lavish act of love, right, he reinterpreted her actions, and pronounced them good, pronounced her good. “Wherever the gospel is preached, she will be remembered.”
And it strikes me that while the forgiveness that we usually talk about is, I will forgive you for what you have specifically done to me, that it’s broader than that. It’s an approach to the world, it’s a lavishness, a liberality, an automatic giving of the benefit of the doubt. It’s a willingness and not just a willingness, but a habit of going deeper, of looking beyond and beneath, of seeing people, not just in light of what they’ve done, of how they’ve screwed up, but through the eyes of someone who truly loves them...
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.
If we look at people through a stingy, judgmental lens, we are retaining their sins, accentuating their failures, perpetuating their sense of shortcoming. But if we look at people through a lens of grace and tenderness and love, then, poof, it’s no longer their shortcomings that are foremost in our minds, and maybe, just maybe not in their minds, at least for awhile, either.
What is that verse in 1st Peter? “Love covers a multitude of sins.”
Of course, we can proclaim forgiveness, live in a spirit of forgiveness and grace and still not seem to make much a difference in the lives of those around us. But we can be assured that the one place that it will make a difference is in our lives.
In his book about South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Process, Bishop Desmond Tutu tells the following story: A recent issue of the journal ‘Spirituality and Health’ had on its front cover a picture of three U.S. ex-servicemen standing in front of the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C. One asks, “Have you forgiven those who held you prisoner of war?” “I will never forgive them,” replies the other. His mate says: “Then it seem they still have you in prison, don’t they?”
Bishop Tutu says that forgiving does not mean forgetting and it does not mean condoning. It does not mean minimizing what happened or not taking it seriously. And I would add that it does not mean going back to an abusive partner or putting yourself in a situation where you will be used or taken advantage of. What it does mean is, says Tutu, is “drawing out the sting in the memory that threatens to poison our entire existence.”
Eugene Peterson, in his paraphrase of scripture, The Message, interprets it like this:
"If you forgive someone's sins, they're gone for good. If you don't forgive sins, what are you going to do with them?"
Craig Barnes, again, says, “If we do not forgive those who hurt us, the only alternative is to retain the sins. To retain means to hold, and to hold onto hurt is to lock ourselves into the identity of victim. In the words of Lewis Smedes, ‘When you forgive you set a prisoner free. And then you discover that the prisoner was you.’"
On Easter, Karen mentioned the movie that some of us had gone to see the day before, “Of Gods and Men,” about nine Catholic priests who chose to remain at their monastery in Algeria even though they knew that their lives were in danger due to a rebel-led insurrection against the government. In one of the most on the edge of your seat scenes, the rebels, who had previously executed a number of foreigners in the same town, force their way into the monastery to demand medical care and supplies.
Brother Christian, the leader of the priests, refuses to send the elderly doctor with them, saying that he is too feeble to make the journey and that they can come to the clinic instead. He also refuses to give them medicine, saying that their supplies are low, and that the villagers need them. The rebel leader says, “You have no choice.” And Brother Christian, knowing that he could be shot to death any minute, replies, “Yes. I do.”
The people of the Risen Christ know that we always have a choice. Not in what happens to us, but in how we respond. We can choose to love, we can choose to walk the second mile, we can choose to turn the other cheek, we can choose to forgive, we can choose to live powerfully as the people of the Risen Christ, defined only by love, controlled only by love.
We have a choice. We are free.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Grace in the Benefit of the Doubt
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
109 comments:
Amen. Awesome stuff. And the best part - succinct, to the point, without a lot of fluff and filler.
It's not so hard to forgive, even really nasty dudes like bin Laden. The difficult part is forgiving without setting one's self up for further harm. Dan alludes to this with his reference to abused spouses.
This is especially important with regards to those who have no intention of repentence. Bin Laden is the perfect example. Based on what we know, conversion wasn't imminent. Thus, celebration of his demise is appropriate as well as natural. More than imprisonment, his death means, as I said elsewhere, "Justice served and evil stopped. Fear alleviated and a message sent." Celebrations are an acknowledgement of the fact that there is no possible way for this guy to do any more harm.
Personally, I would celebrate even harder to be certain that he repented and converted to Christianity, willing to subject himself to justice. But such certainty, even had he claimed such a change, would be far more difficult than forgiveness.
Forgiving benefits me, not the forgiven, because I cannot wash away his sin. If my forgiveness, or the apostles' forgiveness relieves the sinner, what happens to the sinner if another person won't forgive him? Two parties at the same time, one forgiving, the other not. And what if the sinner is an unrepentant sinner with no belief in God? Forgiveness is for the forgiver so that, as we pray in the Lord's Prayer, our own sins will be forgiven.
That said...
Just to stop you before you go too much further down the rejoicing road (which is not the point of this post, but a bit of a sidetrack)...
Do not rejoice when your enemy falls and do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles; or the Lord will see and be displeased and turn His anger away from him.
Proverbs 24
“As surely as I live,” declares the Lord God, “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live."
Ezekiel 18
God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, and neither do we, if you take these passages fairly seriously.
...I turn now to a problem or two with the sermon.
Jesus wasn't reinterpreting, unless by that the preacher means, explaining the truth. It almost sounds like Jesus is giving an alternate view as opposed to the correct view. A minor thing, but not unimportant.
More troubling is this:
"It seems to me that one of the things that Jesus did consistently through the Gospel of John was to give people the benefit of the doubt, to take what others saw as “sin,” as “shortcoming,” as “uncleanliness,” and to reinterpret it."
Never. Jesus only intended to alter those who observed the sin and their attitudes toward the person doing the sinning. He did not in any way "reinterpret" the behavior of the sinner. He would routinely say, "Go and sin no more." That shows he maintained the "interpretation" of the sinners actions as sinful. He gave no benefit of the doubt as there was no doubt present as regards the sin of the sinner in question.
This distinction is extremely important in light of recent discussions and the unforgiving attitudes of your camp toward mine for our refusing to give ground on the clearly revealed prohibition on all homosexual behavior. What you fail to accept is that we focus totally on the behavior, not the people engaging in it, except as necessary to make a specific point, particularly regarding those who seek to mitigate the sinfulness of the behavior and worse, work toward state recognition and encouragement of it.
Proverbs 24 is exactly the attitude I'm promoting, Dan. But celebrating a person's death is not the point of the celebration for me. It's celebrating what that death means for those no longer threatened by the existence of an evil person. The fact of the matter is that sometimes the only way for justice to be served and people to be protected is by the death of those who threatened the lives and safety of others. There's no way to escape this fact. And since that death lifts the burden of fear from defenseless people, I will continue to celebrate that liberation. Once again, there is a distinction here that is extremely important. Check out my post and see if you can pick up on it.
You're right, Art. Jesus never once did anything that upended the accepted understanding of sin and the social attitudes toward it. Since he never did that, all those people in Jerusalem calling for his death must have been lied to, right?
Let's just take one instance in the Fourth Gospel. Jesus encounters the Samaritan woman at the well. First, as a Jew, Jesus never should have been anywhere in Samaria. Second, should he have been so unlucky as to do so, he would have kept his eyes either up or down, and never gazed upon such unclean creatures, let alone spoken to them, let alone asked one to give him a drink from one of their religious shrines, which would have rendered him ritually unclean.
This woman was what you would call a whore, Art. How does Jesus talk to her? Like she's a human being. Jesus does indeed recount her sin to her, refuses to gild that particular lily. Yet, what does he do? Does he say, you know, first, renounce your wicked Samaritan ways, become a Jew, then we'll talk about the next step?
No. He does something incredible. He says he'll offer her living water. She seems to understand what he's talking about because she says she does indeed want some of that, and he reveals himself to her, and off she goes, telling the village about this Jew who came around and, in a short conversation, turned her life around.
Now, what lesson can we get from this? Is it possible that we focus solely on her sinfulness? Well, if we were either nosy-nellies, like her neighbors (or some folks on the internet) we most certainly could. That's fun, right? We can make sure we highlight all the passages that talk about Jesus telling her he knows her life, etc., etc.
OR, we can focus on the actual subject of the story - Jesus. What does Jesus do in this story? Why, pretty much everything a good Jewish Messiah would NEVER do. When you write that Jesus "never" reinterpreted stuff, um, his entire life was a reinterpretation of the messianic expectation. This story from John's Gospel encapsulates all that, and, as Dan's preacher makes clear, does so by reinterpreting pretty much everything in the light of Jesus' own life, by being grace for those who might otherwise never know it.
"You're right, Art. Jesus never once did anything that upended the accepted understanding of sin and the social attitudes toward it."
OOH! I do believe Geoff's being facetious. That's too bad. It would work so much better if you didn't once again MISS THE POINT!
Look again at the quote to which I was responding:
""It seems to me that one of the things that Jesus did consistently through the Gospel of John was to give people the benefit of the doubt..."
Where does this come from? Not the stories the preacher chose, which by the way, were totally interpreted stupidly. (I'll get to that later.) As I said, there was no doubt to give, given Jesus' ability to know the heart. He did not mitigate at all the sins of the Samaritan woman. Not in the least. He did not give the woman about to be stoned "the benefit of the doubt". She sinned. There was absolutely NO doubt about it. He certainly didn't give the Pharisees or the money changers in the temple the benefit of the doubt.
"Jesus never once did anything that upended the accepted understanding of sin and the social attitudes toward it." you say. He did indeed and in fact, it's nice to hear you admit that. As we know from the Gospels, He not only reiterated that it was adultery was a sin, He said to lust after another woman was a sin. He most certainly upended the understanding of sin and the social attitudes toward it.
But you obviously believe that since he reminded us that we are all sinners that somehow that means we cannot or must not point out to others that they are sinning when they aresinning. This is NOT what He was preaching by turning away those who were ready to stone the adulteress. But Geoffrey would let others wallow in their sin than risk being considered a "nosey-nellie". What courage!
"First, as a Jew, Jesus never should have been anywhere in Samaria."
He was not in Samaria proper, but outside a town in the area called Sychar. Kinda like being in a town in the greater Chicagoland area, like Oak Park, but not in Chicago itself.
"Second, should he have been so unlucky as to do so, he would have kept his eyes either up or down, and never gazed upon such unclean creatures, let alone spoken to them, let alone asked one to give him a drink from one of their religious shrines, which would have rendered him ritually unclean."
You do realize (probably not) that Jesus was no ordinary Jew, and did what the Jews of the time were supposed to be doing since God handed down the Law. You know. This same Jesus who said that nothing that goes in us can make us unclean but only what comes from our hearts.
"Jesus does indeed recount her sin to her, refuses to gild that particular lily."
Exposing her sinfulness was all the gilding that was necessary. Notice how she changes the subject. Notice also that he does not in any way "upend the accepted understanding of her sin and the social attitudes toward it".
continuing...
"He says he'll offer her living water. She seems to understand what he's talking about because she says she does indeed want some of that..."
She understood about as well as Nicodemus, which was, not so well.
"...and he reveals himself to her, and off she goes, telling the village about this Jew who came around and, in a short conversation, turned her life around."
Just a bit of an overstatement there. She was impressed with the Dude, for sure, but after He told her He was the Messiah, her words to her friends didn't suggest any certainty..."Could this be the Christ?" However, later, many Samaritans from that town converted. I'm betting she did, too.
"When you write that Jesus "never" reinterpreted stuff, um, his entire life was a reinterpretation of the messianic expectation."
I never quite said that, did I Geoffrey, who is so keen on finding fault? Not surprising since you are so afflicted with point aversion.
Read again what I was disputing:
""It seems to me that one of the things that Jesus did consistently through the Gospel of John was to give people the benefit of the doubt, to take what others saw as “sin,” as “shortcoming,” as “uncleanliness,” and to reinterpret it.""
He did NOT give sinners "the benefit of the doubt". Where was there ever any question in His mind regarding the sin of a person? No Gospel story comes within a light year of such a stupid notion. "Well, that dude in Capernaum might have been an adulterer, but I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he wasn't." He redefined sin as being more than what people at the time thought, i.e. not just adultery, but lust alone is sin. Not merely beating the crap out of someone, but hating them was enough to be as a murderer. He was clearly MORE strict about sin, not less.
Jesus, by His words and His actions demonstrated what God's Will was supposed to look like. This would include recognizing sin as something more than merely our actions. It also includes not bullshitting around when a sin has been committed and acknowledging it as the sin it is. This is very important. We ARE to correct each other, and those being corrected fail when they accuse the correctors of being like those wishing to stone the woman merely because the correctors courageously dared to broach the subject. (A very wimpy defense mechanism that compounds the sinner's sinfulness.)
(As it turns out, the lesson of the woman about to be stoned was more of a slick move on Jesus' part to elude the trap being set for him. I really dig how he got himself out of a jam and gave a lesson at the same time.)
One more thing, Mary was not sinning by listening to Christ's teachings while her sister worked or by annointing Him with expensive perfume. He didn't "give her the benefit of the doubt" because there was no doubt she wasn't sinning. He didn't "pronounce" her actions as good. He corrected the perceptions of the others because what she did WAS good. The problem here is the pastor's combining the three stories, one of the adulteress who did sin, and the two of Mary who did not, as if all were instances of sins that Jesus "reinterpreted".
In fact, the more I re-read the sermon, the more I find it does indeed drip, but not with God's grace. I am indeed gripped, however, by how poorly the person understands the Scripture he uses to make his points.
Marshall, it's like you're striving to be the poster boy for totally missing the point - an object lesson in reverse of this sermon ("See this behavior? THAT is how not to give the benefit of the doubt and live lives of grace...").
The point of the sermon is not sin, Marshall. It's grace.
Sorta like the Gospel.
She tied these three stories together so well because in each of them, people had chosen harsh judgmentalism and picky fault-finding over grace, over giving someone the benefit of the doubt.
In the story of Mary/Martha, Mary had tried listening to Jesus' teaching with a heart of love - there WAS no fault there. BUT, by the standards of the day, she was not "where she should have been." She was wrong BY THE CULTURAL MORES of the day, and was criticized for it. Jesus did not condemn her based upon the cultural mores, but based upon her heart of devotion.
In the story of Mary and the perfume, she WAS sort of "wasting" money that could have gone to help the poor, a value obviously dear to Jesus. But her heart was one of love, and Jesus chose grace over criticism.
In the story of the Samaritan woman mentioned by Geoffrey, Jesus SHOULDN'T have been talking to her based upon Jewish understanding of The Law. Nonetheless, he flouted convention and chose grace.
In the story of the adulterous woman, the LAW was quite clear: KILL HER. Jesus set aside the law and chose grace - not hiding the sin of what had happened, but demonstrated by his actions the way we are to deal with sin - not with harsh judgmentalism, but with loving grace.
That's sorta the point of the sermon. Sorta the point of the gospel.
As I have said over and over and over again, the understanding of grace is the flip side of the coin that has our understanding of our sinful nature on it. St. Paul said it, St. Augustine said it, St. Thomas said it, St. Bonaventure said it, Martin Luther said it . . . Dan Trabue and his preacher have said it.
This isn't about "ignoring" sin. Rather it is about highlighting it precisely because it is no longer counted against us. This is the gospel message. This is the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is the story we have to tell to the nations, as the hymn says. This is the blesses assurance that Jesus is mine, a foretaste of glory divine.
It isn't complicated, it isn't some odd notion that some modern liberals came up with so a bunch of immoral people could continue to live their lives of immorality. It is nothing more or less than the promise that God's love incarnate in Jesus Christ, flowing out in the grace that is the incarnation, is greater than our sin.
You want the emphasis to be on "sin", or perhaps "sins". Again, do you understand, at all, the doctrine of original sin? Do you understand the idea of simul iustus et peccator? At what point is the distinction between being sinful creatures, and understanding that we will and do sin, all the time, yet live and love not because of anything we do but because of what God has done for us, at what point is this distinction going to be clear to you?
I get the point just fine, Dan. That's the difference between my side and yours. We get the point even when it is poorly presented or explained. We get the point even when the point is goofy or ridiculous.
What's more, there is no indication in the stories that there is "picky fault finding" at issue. In the Mary stories, there is certainly no indication that those who point out what they think are Mary's poor decisions are trying to be butt-inskies, but merely concerned for her (just as possible as picking nits---if not more so). It's also quite likely that had Jesus been just any rabbi, Mary would indeed have been in the wrong (though not such a terrible wrong). There is the strong implication that because it was HE to whom she was listening and HE she was annointing, that THAT distinction made what otherwise would have been wrong right. In other words, in these stories, Jesus is saying, "Hey! She's not just annointing anyone, she's annointing the Son of God."
"In the story of the Samaritan woman mentioned by Geoffrey, Jesus SHOULDN'T have been talking to her based upon Jewish understanding of The Law. Nonetheless, he flouted convention and chose grace."
As I said, Jesus' ministry included correcting the corruptions of Mosaic Law, demonstrating what God's Will obeyed should look like. And of course, as mentioned a billion times over the years, that intention is equal to action in matters of sin (lust equals adultery).
"In the story of the adulterous woman, the LAW was quite clear: KILL HER. Jesus set aside the law and chose grace..."
Talk about missing the point! He absolutely did NOT set aside the law and stated that it was not His purpose to ever do so. Rather, he was totally compliant with the law by inviting anyone who had not himself sinned to cast the first stone! That is NOT setting the law aside. Even here, the people were not "nit-picking" about the woman's sin. Their intention (the ringleaders, that is) was to entrap Jesus and He outsmarted them.
So my point, which though stated clearly was missed by you AND Geoffrey, Lord of the Missed Point, was that despite what your pastor hoped to teach, she used incorrectly these stories to make her point. Perhaps that's where you learned your excellent eisegesis techniques. (I LOVE that word "eisegesis"! It is so perfect a description of your Biblical understandings! It's like it was MADE for you.)
"Sorta the point of the gospel."
Eisegesis anyone? The point of the Gospels is the Good News of God in the flesh come to sacrifice Himself to save us from our sin.
Geoffrey,
"It isn't complicated, it isn't some odd notion that some modern liberals came up with so a bunch of immoral people could continue to live their lives of immorality."
Yet this is exactly how you play it. From Scripture to civil policy you lefties ignore the underlying sin and enable it with your "grace". Even worse, you accuse those who express concern for the very same sinners you enable by reminding them of what God's Will is on the subject. Talk about Pharisees! Except in YOUR case, you profit by how the sinners see you as a champion for not holding them to higher, better more holy expectations for their own sake and His. Put another way, you will never suffer as the apostles did because you don't have the same spine they did when it comes to holding fast to the teachings of God. The grace you guys pretend to possess, the benefit of the doubt you insist on showning does not encourage rebirth in others, but a continuation of their current sinfulness because you barely regard sinful behavior as sinful (unless it is conservative policy or a conservative who's human nature allows them to occasionally fall victim to that nature---THEN, you're all right there!) if at all.
Yeah, I get grace. I get salvation by grace (to a better understanding than your words would suggest). But this discussion is yet another based on those involving the willful engagement of some in clearly sinful behaviors and is used to enable that behavior. You do such people no good.
In all honesty, Art, your "interpretation" of "grace" and "sin" is really, really bad. Almost a parody of what the Gospel message is all about.
S'okay, though. See, where you and I differ is this - being wrong, kind of like sinning, is an occupational hazard of being alive. You and I may both be wrong, but at the very least I have a certain amount of faith that there is a very long history of the Church, and churches, understanding the sin/grace, wrath/love, judgment/forgiveness dichotomy as I presented it here.
Since the only "sin" you seem to think we are aiding and abetting is support for legalizing gay marriage - which, I would think, really isn't a sin, because it just isn't in my Bible - I really want to hear an example of a somewhat liberal, mainline denomination supporting, say, theft, or adultery, or murder even. You know, a sin the Bible really sinks its teeth into. Shoot, I'd settle for gluttony.
Marshall...
I get the point just fine, Dan. That's the difference between my side and yours. We get the point even when it is poorly presented or explained. We get the point even when the point is goofy or ridiculous.
Dan...
The point of the sermon is not sin, Marshall. It's grace.
Grace. Giving the benefit of the doubt. THAT was the point of the sermon.
NOT nitpicking. NOT biting and devouring one another over little petty nothings.
You are calling this sermon on the beauty of NOT being nitpicky and instead being gracious, you're calling it "goofy," "ridiculous" and "stupid."
What part of NOT being nitpicky is "goofy," "ridiculous" and "stupid," Marshall?
What part of embracing grace over judgmentalism is "goofy," "ridiculous" and "stupid," Marshall?
I really don't think you're getting the concept, or else, why would you denigrate a perfectly beautiful and extremely powerful, Godly sermon with such venom? Or are you being purposefully ironic, to point out the bad behavior in question by modeling it?
As to this...
It's also quite likely that had Jesus been just any rabbi, Mary would indeed have been in the wrong (though not such a terrible wrong).
I have no idea what you're suggesting and am afraid to ask. Mary WOULD have been wrong for listening to rabbis, seeking to hear God's teachings, is THAT what you're saying?
Never mind, I withdraw the question.
Marshall...
The point of the Gospels is the Good News of God in the flesh come to sacrifice Himself to save us from our sin.
And grace is, what? Excrement to be ignored? We AREN'T saved by Grace through faith in Jesus, but by Jesus' capital punishment, instead?
Do you think that grace is an allegory and that perfect human sacrifice is the point of the gospels, Marshall, or do you think that we are SAVED BY GRACE as demonstrated/lived out on the cross?
It sounds like you're trusting in salvation by other means than grace, Marshall, but I'm striving to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's just that you're expressing yourself in ways that I'm not understanding.
Finally...
that despite what your pastor hoped to teach, she used incorrectly these stories to make her point.
"Used incorrectly?"
1. She preached an excellent sermon on living lives of graciousness, rather than lives of harsh judgmentalism.
Do you AGREE with us that living lives of graciousness is the Right Way rather than living lives of harsh judgmentalism?
2. I fully "got" the challenge and glory of this sermon - that living lives of harsh judgmentalism only entraps us, whereas living lives of grace frees us.
Do you not get that point?
3. If I/we "got" the point, HOW is she using the stories incorrectly, if she correctly and adequately conveyed the point she was preaching?
continuing...
Your problem with the sermon, as you expressed it is...
Read again what I was disputing:
""It seems to me that one of the things that Jesus did consistently through the Gospel of John was to give people the benefit of the doubt, to take what others saw as “sin,” as “shortcoming,” as “uncleanliness,” and to reinterpret it.""
He did NOT give sinners "the benefit of the doubt".
4. The POINT she made was that Jesus consistently gave PEOPLE the benefit of the doubt and took WHAT OTHERS saw as "sin," "shortcomings" and "uncleanness" and reinterpreted it.
Mary did NOT sin in listening to the teachings of Jesus, BUT OTHERS thought she was wrong.
Jesus reinterpreted their hunches about Mary's "sin" or wrongdoing, saying "She's chosen a good thing, back off."
Mary did NOT sin in pouring the perfume on his feet, but OTHERS THOUGHT she was wrong.
Jesus reinterpreted their harsh rebukes by saying, "she's chosen a good thing, back off."
The adulterous woman DID commit a sin, but Jesus rebuked the harsh judgmentalism of living to a strict reading of the law in favor of a reminder of grace - "we ALL sin, pals, back off."
Jesus consistently sided on the side of gracious understanding, even of wrong - a life-giving grace, quite literally - over harsh, critical judgmentalism of the sort that kills.
cont'd...
Finally, in reference to the COMMAND to kill adulterers, you said...
He absolutely did NOT set aside the law and stated that it was not His purpose to ever do so. Rather, he was totally compliant with the law by inviting anyone who had not himself sinned to cast the first stone!
The law does not require folk to be without sin to do the killing. SINNERS were commanded to kill other sinners when the sin was of a certain sort.
Jesus REINTERPRETED the OLD command in favor of a new one, saying, in effect, "Sure, sinners might deserve death, but wait a second, pals, we're ALL sinners! Do we REALLY want to go around and have a stoning party until we're ALL dead?
What does that lead to but a bunch of dead sinners? YOU included?
How about this, we recognize that we're all sinners and treat one another with a bit of life-giving, understanding grace, instead of choosing the death that comes from heeding that law literally?"
Jesus was teaching what Cindy is teaching: That we are called to lives of grace, AWAY from lives of harsh judgmentalism. To lives of love and live, AWAY from lives of death and criticism.
Where does retaining sins leave us but with a bunch of sins that we're holding on to? Where is the grace and life in that?
And you suggest, Marshall...
the benefit of the doubt you insist on showning does not encourage rebirth in others, but a continuation of their current sinfulness because you barely regard sinful behavior as sinful
But on this front, you don't have a way of even possibly knowing if you have a point or not. You don't KNOW that our ways "encourages" a continuation of sinning.
Let me give you one example in my life. I've heard liberal types preach against the evil of cars, how dirty and dangerous they were. And I sorta agreed, yeah, I guess they are. But still, I maintained my driving habits.
Til one day I met a fella who biked most places he went, who didn't own a car - he wasn't preachy about it, just living his life the way he thought was right.
When I talked to him about it, expressed a wish that I could do that, but saying I don't see how I could, what with little kids and work, etc. Did he rebuke my "lack of faith"? Did he demean and condemn me? No. He expressed understanding and encouragement. "Yeah, it can be hard, not everyone can do it or maybe not do it right away. maybe you have to take baby steps, first, but you gotta do what works for you..."
Words to that effect.
Guess which approach worked in my life, which approach made me change my ways? The latter one, precisely because it was full of grace and understanding.
I stand by grace over harsh judgmentalism every time and believe in the efficacy and sufficiency of grace. It is, indeed, the heart of the gospel.
It'll be futile no doubt, but I just can't wait to get to these goofy responses, some of which have already been answered. I'm damn near salivating.
Yes, the sermon is focusing on grace.
But MA is focusing on obsession.
Dan and Geoffrey are talking past MA not because of a fundamental disagreement over grace and sin (don't get me wrong, there *is* a fundamental disagreement there), but because Dan can't post anything that MA doesn't have to stop by and sh*t on.
Argue all you want with the trolls, Dan, but just be clear about what their *real* issue is in the first place.
You could write a post about the beautiful blue sky and they'd troll here to argue about it.
"Since the only "sin" you seem to think we are aiding and abetting is support for legalizing gay marriage..."
Hardly. But it is the one around which many of our discussions revolve. Within those discussions we find just how poorly YOU guys understand the concepts of sin and grace.
Case in point:
"...which, I would think, really isn't a sin, because it just isn't in my Bible..."
To take a behavior which is so clearly prohibited and then support a sinful union in which that sinful behavior would most definitely take place is a blatant and willful disregard for God's Will. It is rebellion as a text book example.
"...I really want to hear an example of a somewhat liberal, mainline denomination supporting, say, theft, or adultery, or murder even,"
Good for you. I hope you get to do that. In the meantime, I'll focus on those sins people like you DO support. (Though we've talked about theft ala progressive taxation. I'd expect that some of your lib churches support that.)
"The point of the sermon is not sin, Marshall. It's grace."
That's nice, Dan. It's also not related to the point I was making.
"You are calling this sermon on the beauty of NOT being nitpicky and instead being gracious, you're calling it "goofy," "ridiculous" and "stupid.""
Not quite. I'm saying none of the Bible stories to which she refers are examples of the charge she is leveling against the characters, nor is Jesus' actions and/or words refuffing such behavior. She is, like you do so often, injecting her own notions of what is happening in the stories to make her point. Put another way, she wants so badly to expound on a behavior that is really not commonplace and pretends that behavior is being perpetrated by characters in the stories. As if that wasn't enough, she, as well as you, misses the point of Jesus' actions. THAT'S what is "goofy," "ridiculous" and "stupid".
"I really don't think you're getting the concept, or else, why would you denigrate a perfectly beautiful and extremely powerful, Godly sermon with such venom?"
"Venom"? Overstating things just a tad, aren't you, oh demonizer of those with whom you disagree? Note the venom of your own as you go to lengths to describe the sermon in such grand terms before accusing me of nefarious intent. A transparently common liberal ploy.
"As to this...
It's also quite likely that had Jesus been just any rabbi, Mary would indeed have been in the wrong (though not such a terrible wrong).
I have no idea what you're suggesting and am afraid to ask."
I'd be afraid, too, if I was wrong as often as you. And of course you're wrong here as well. Mary wasn't "right" because she chose to leave the work to others in order to listen to the teachings of God. She was right because she understood to Whom she was listening. It's the same with the other story of Mary annointing Jesus with expensive perfume. What made Mary "right" to "waste" the perfume was the fact that she was annointing the Son of God. Indeed, with your going on and on all the time about Jesus and the poor, it would hardly be "harsh judgementalism" or "nit-picking" to suggest that blowing a wad on pricey perfumes to splash on someone who didn't need it rather than providing for the poor is cause for concern.
"And grace is, what? Excrement to be ignored? We AREN'T saved by Grace through faith in Jesus, but by Jesus' capital punishment, instead?"
We've been through this before. Your misunderstanding of and disregard for the necessity of Christ's death as payment for our sins has been expertly handled by Bubba in a most thorough manner. As has been pointed out in those discussions, you have to seek out the one or two times that "saved by grace" is mentioned without immediate reference to Christ's death being the means of getting there.
To go any further is to move to another topic not related to this one.
moving on...
"that despite what your pastor hoped to teach, she used incorrectly these stories to make her point.
"Used incorrectly?"
1. She preached an excellent sermon on living lives of graciousness, rather than lives of harsh judgmentalism."
And incorrectly used the stories in making her point. These stories are not examples of the harsh judgementalism that isn't in commonplace in the first place. Thus, she used the stories incorrectly. She could have used the story of the Tower of Babel to make her point as it had no more relevance to "harsh judgementalism" as any of the stories she used. (To be fair, because I am, the Martha pitching a bitch for busting ass alone comes closest to "harsh judgementalism", though I'd describe it as weary frustration provoking a whine.)
"2. I fully "got" the challenge and glory of this sermon - that living lives of harsh judgmentalism only entraps us, whereas living lives of grace frees us.
Do you not get that point?"
She could have saved time and merely said, "don't be harshly judgemental" and gotten the point across without totally misrepresenting the points of these stories. What's more, I have no doubt that you can get a point poorly made.
Gotta go. More later.
BTW, totally off topic, but it's very exciting, so I thought I'd share:
The PCUSA has finally (after 30 years) changed its constitution to allow the ordination of LGBT people. 88 Presbyteries have now ratified the change, which will go into effect July 11. This change now returns our constitution to our historical standard of local option on ordination.
The Episcopal Church, the UCC, the ELCA... Geoffrey, you Methodists need to get in on the act :)
And, well...the Baptists too, though that may take a bit longer, eh Dan?
Woo hoo!
Marshall suggested this sermon...
incorrectly used the stories in making her point. These stories are not examples of the harsh judgementalism that isn't in commonplace in the first place.
So, it is your contention (ie, your hunch) that these stories are NOT about harsh judgmentalism - that they in NO WAY could even be POSSIBLY about this and that NO ONE can read these stories and find a condemnation of harsh or inappropriate judgmentalism in them, is that what you're saying, Marshall?
Let's look at just one of these stories, shall we?
there came to him [Jesus] a woman having an alabaster box of precious ointment and poured it on his head as he was at table.
And the disciples seeing it had indignation, saying: To what purpose is this waste? For this might have been sold for much and given to the poor.
And Jesus knowing it, said to them: Why do you trouble this woman? For she hath wrought a good work upon me.
For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always. For she in pouring this ointment on my body hath done it for my burial. Amen I say to you, wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which she hath done shall be told for a memory of her.
Mary (or "the woman") used expensive perfume to anoint Jesus. The disciples were "indignant!"
“Leave her alone,” Jesus says in John's version of the story.
You are saying that the disciples' (or Judas') indignation could not be seen in any reasonable manner by reasonable people as a harsh judgmentalism?
You see, this is the difference between judgmentalism and grace - at our best moments, we can see that our brothers and sisters have reached a conclusion/found some meaning in a verse, a poem, a sunset, whatever and that it has had a positive effect/outcome. At our worst moments, we insist that there is only ONE possible meaning to be found in a verse, a poem, a sunset, and that ONE possible meaning is the one we have reached.
The life of grace rejoices that someone has found some positive meaning in a verse, etc. The life of harsh judgmentalism condemns any and all interpretations but the one he/she finds.
The life of grace remains free and freeing. The life of judgmentalism remains harsh, imprisoned and under judgment.
"Judge not, lest you be judged, for by the SAME MEASURE you judge others, will you be judged..."
Words to live by, those.
So, praytell, Marshall, what in these verses PRECLUDES anyone from POSSIBLY finding it reasonable that it is a condemnation of harsh judgmentalism? What exegetical bar are you employing that definitively rules out such an interpretation?
Make your case for us, if you please, on this passage.
Alan, I saw that and congratulate the PCUSA for moving in to the modern era. There was a letter signed by a group of retired Bishops earlier this year that called for ending the ban on ordaining LGBT folks, and the active Bishops responded with a deafening silence.
Next year is General Conference. Should the retired bishops and others continue to agitate, it is at least possible the change could come. The Discipline allows for petitions from pretty much anyone at least to get a hearing at the committee stage, and very often similar petitions are consolidated, although little weight is given in consideration to the number of people who support any given petition.
The change will come. The right in our denomination has been threatening to bolt over the issue for a generation; I wish they would leave so we could make the change and be rid of them. Actually making the change would call their bluff.
Yes, Good News, indeed, Alan!
The Baptists are planning on making the change shortly after hell freezes over...
In fact, I expect 25 years on the outside, when this generation passes on, that for most congregations the current prejudice against marriage equity will go the way of miscegenation laws, even for the harshest groups. By then, the "old timers" will have some influence on some few of the youngsters, but they'll be the exception rather than the rule.
Even in Baptist churches.
SOUTHERN Baptist churches, on the other hand...
"So, praytell, Marshall, what in these verses PRECLUDES anyone from POSSIBLY finding it reasonable that it is a condemnation of harsh judgmentalism?"
Oh, heavens, Dan! I have no doubt that one can infer anything they want from any set of words arranged in a sentence. That doesn't mean that what they infer was intended, or that what they infer is reasonable.
But the story itself does not describe a condemnation of harsh judgementalism. The indignation of the others was provoked by the apparent waste of expensive perfume on someone they did not fully know was the Son of God (not yet, anyway). He was merely a teacher to most people. What's more, it's doubtful most of them understood what the heck He was saying, with all the talk about Mary preparing Him for burial. The point Jesus was making to them was that He was not just any old rabbi or dude on the street, in which case her actions would indeed have been wasteful (except it is not for another to decide what anyone does with their own cash). So considering who He was, and their lack of total understanding of what was to come, the full weight of the matter, Jesus, at best, was rebuking their lack of understanding, not their tone. But you go ahead. You pretend it means whatever you want it to mean.
OH! I didn't actually answer your question. My bad.
What would preclude someone from inferring what your pastor (and you apparently) see in the passage is honesty and reason and average to better comprehension skills.
"Alan, I saw that and congratulate the PCUSA for moving in to the modern era."
More commonly known as being "of the world" as well as in it.
"The right in our denomination has been threatening to bolt over the issue for a generation; "
Yeah, we've heard the same thing. Here and there a few have left, but the majority won't go anywhere.
I would assume that would be the case for the Methodists, only more so, given the more centralized polity.
We've found that most pastors are unlikely to move and lose their pensions.
And the Baptists...well, yeah, it'll be a while. As Max Plank noted, changes like this advance one funeral at a time.
"More commonly known as being "of the world" as well as in it."
Heh. From a member of the UCC, which has been ordainin LGBT folks since Jesus wore diapers.
Marshall, I've prepared a parable, see what you think...
There once was a fella who found himself trapped in a room, staring at the wall in front of him.
He ran into the wall to try to free himself but he only ended up hurting his head. Over and over he ran into that wall that lay in front of him, and over and over he could not get through.
"Huh!" he finally said to himself, "when you have a rectangular surface in front of you, it is TWO DIMENSIONAL. There just IS NO POSSIBLE WAY to get through a two dimensional surface like that. Well, lesson learned!"
And he sat down, imprisoned in his room.
About that time, from behind him, someone walked into the room through the open doorway on the opposite wall.
"What's going on, friend?" the new arriver asked, "I heard some banging and shouts of pain... are you okay?"
"Ah, alas, another prisoner," the first fella said.
"Prisoner?" the second fella asked, confused.
"Yes, we're trapped here. Don't try going through that two dimensional wall in front of us, there is only height and width to it, you can't go through it... Oh, woe is us!"
"Umm, yes, you can't go through that wall, but THIS wall over here has an open doorway in it. You can just leave any time you want." he said, pointing to the door.
"No! Of course you can't. I've learned that when you have a two dimensional wall in front of you, there is ONLY ONE WAY to understand that wall, and that is that there is NO passing through it. Believe me, friend, I know. We're just trapped."
"Umm, no, really, we can just walk out and in through that door way. Watch..."
And the second fella left the room.
"Nope, nope, nope! You can't do it. There is ONLY ONE WAY to understand walls and that is the way I UNDERSTAND them!"
The second fella poked his head back in and said, "But look, there is a door way here. There are more ways to understand walls than just one, you know. There are walls with doors, walls with windows, walls that can be moved..."
"Nope, nope, nope! There is only one way to understand walls - MY WAY. We're stuck here behind this two dimensional wall with no hope of moving forward through it. That's just a stupid understanding you have of walls, ridiculous! You'll only hurt yerself..."
And the first fella kept yelling as the second fella walked away, free from the room because he understood that there are more ways than ONE AND ONLY ONE to understand things.
Hope that helps.
Returning to your conclusion, Marshall said...
So considering who He was, and their lack of total understanding of what was to come, the full weight of the matter, Jesus, at best, was rebuking their lack of understanding, not their tone.
Uh huh. And your EVIDENCE that yours and yours alone is the ONE REASONABLE CONCLUSION one can reach, and that any other conclusion is NOT reasonable?
That is to say, sure, your hunch is INDEED one point that can be gleaned from the story. But what is your evidence that YOURS is the one and only reasonable conclusion that one can reach and that all others are "stupid," "ridiculous," and wrong?
Your answer to that question...
What would preclude someone from inferring what your pastor (and you apparently) see in the passage is honesty and reason and average to better comprehension skills.
And yet, in the real world, we are an exceptionally honest and at least reasonably reasonable group of people with at least average comprehension skills, I'd suggest. And so, your "proof" is just your hunch, which turns out to be wrong in this case.
So do you have any other evidence/proof/support that IS meaningful that supports your hunch that yours is the ONE TRUE ANSWER?
Art, Alan's got a huge point. The UCC decided to ordain LGBT folk with little to no muss and fuss. So, um, we in the UMC, at the very least, are far less "in the world" by your thinking than the very denomination of which you are a part.
It's like standing inside a barn with no windows, the door closed, and seeing if I could possibly hit a wall if I threw a ball. For some reason it happens every. Single. Time.
"And yet, in the real world, we are an exceptionally honest and at least reasonably reasonable group of people with at least average comprehension skills, I'd suggest."
You suggest all sorts of things, Dan. Few of them support the claim that you and yours are honest, reasonable or in possession of decent comprehension skills.
As to your "parable", if the "two dimensional" room represents God's Will, then I have no desire to break free of it. That door is not to freedom Christ gives us, but the freedom to abandon God's Will in favor of whatever we find pleasing, regardless of God's position on the matter.
As it pertains to the understanding of the stories your pastor offered, it is a door of the eisegesis room (DAMN! I love that word! Thanks so much, you guys for providing the exact word that describes your positions!).
But as I said, you are free to infer whatever you want regardless of the message intended (and you take full advantage of that freedom). Indeed, you need to do that to support your positions. You create God in your own image and give to Scripture meaning you prefer.
"eisegesis room "
Well, now MA has a favorite word. It reminds me of the time years ago that I taught a certain other blogger who must not be named about the logical fallacies of the straw man argument.
*face palm*
MA creates God in his own image, and then accuses us if eisegesis.
Truly these guys are irony challenged. But then, what would we expect from folks who probably learned the term from an Alanis Morrisette song?
"The UCC decided to ordain LGBT folk with little to no muss and fuss."
The UCC lost over 200 congregations over their resolution regarding homosexual marriages in (I believe it was...) the Synod of 2004. How many they lost at the time they first egregiously ordained a proud and openly unrepentant sinner I have no idea.
You wouldn't hit the wall of the barn if the ball was resting up against it. Maybe you could find yourself an adult T-ball league.
I'm well aware of the UCC's sordid history and unChristian positions on issues of the day. It is why I work to encourage my congregation to join those other 200+ churches who seceded from the union. In the meantime, my wife and I have found an alternative place of worship that adheres to Scripture and teaches it's plainly revealed message. Try again.
On the other hand, given MA's total lack of knowledge about the Bible and complete unfamiliarity with anything resembling traditional Christian theology, I'm not too surprised he's found a home in the UCC. I'm only mildly surprised he doesn't find the Unitarians more to his liking.
;)
... Or perhaps a local atheist group.
Since as far as I can tell, he isn't really a Christian anyway. Just some nominal believer in American Civil Religion and the random syncretism of vaguely Bible-y sounding weirdness.
According to the 2009 Annual Report of the United Church of Christ, there were 5,287 affiliated congregations. Taking that number as a standard (which is deceiving; a 2005 story related the acceptance of 35 new congregations in to fellowship just that year, and assuming the number of new congregations rose at roughly the same pace in the intervening years, the 200 lost congregations have already been replaced, and then some) that is a grand total of . . . 3.7% of the total number of congregations. The denomination still counts nearly 1.1 million members, not too shabby.
So, as I say, should folks in the UMC decide to bolt at the eventual decision to ordain gays, I think a denomination of roughly seven million people, and tens of thousands of congregations nation-wide can handle the lost of less than four percent of them because they are troglodytes. Furthermore, since it is no easy thing to leave the UMC, my guess is after some noise, a few might but most will grumble and carry on.
Dan,
Your example is lame. You no doubt had thoughts in that direction, plus, you approached the guy to talk about it. Where in that example does he demonstrate giving you the benefit of any doubt? Did you inquire of him his opinion on the sinfulness of your driving vs biking? If so, did he respond by saying he fought the inclination to regard you as hellspawn in favor of a merely misguided commuter? Could you possibly provide me with better proof that you can use any story in support of a point whether the story itself actually can or not?
Moving on, I said,
"He absolutely did NOT set aside the law and stated that it was not His purpose to ever do so. Rather, he was totally compliant with the law by inviting anyone who had not himself sinned to cast the first stone!"
To which you resonded,
"The law does not require folk to be without sin to do the killing. SINNERS were commanded to kill other sinners when the sin was of a certain sort."
The requirement of the law is irrelevant. Stating such does not counter my point. He did NOT set aside the law. He invited them to go ahead and carry it out, beginning with those who were themselves sinless. But as the ringleaders were less concerned with the sin of the woman than they were with entrapping Jesus, they could not risk their own reputations by posing as sinless people. The others who first dropped their stones understood the ramifications of making the first pitch and bowed out. The point here is that no one was "judging harshly" as much as seeking to put Jesus on the spot.
What's more, none or your arguments about harsh judgement, nor your pastor's "powerful, gripping" sermon on the subject, "dripping with God's grace", is necessary any more than Jesus commenting on homsexual behavior. "Judging harshly" is not a common problem. It is a false accusation leveled against those who comment on behavior that is not mere backsliding, but willful disregard for God's Will. There is no harsh judgementalism in holding each other accountable to His Will, correcting bad behavior, reminding each other of what God's Will expects of us.
And how does one give another the benefit of the doubt except for those times when it only appears wrongdoing is afoot rather than knowing without question? If it looked to me like you were engaging in sinfulness, but at the same time what I thought I saw was clearly out of character for you (to the extent that I knew you), then of course, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt until such time as your words or actions confirmed my worst fears. EVERYONE does this as a natural first option. (Generalization alert) Few assume the worst of others and insist the worst is the only possibility.
Marshall...
Your example is lame.
[rolls eyes]
Of course it is, Marshall. Nothing much I do ISN'T lame. I'm a lame, stupid man in the midst of lame, stupid people.
Thanks be to God that I'm saved by grace, and not by my own supercoolness and intelligence, eh?
So, to just nip most of your complaints in the bud, you don't really have a problem with the point of this sermon, is that right, Marshall?
That is, you AGREE that being harshly judgmental and lacking in grace towards others is not a healthy way to live? And that living a life of love, grace and respect IS a good way to live?
You agree with the point, you just think the examples offered by the pastor, by myself, by Geoffrey are "stupid," "ridiculous," "lame," and "wrong," and that no one can reasonably have that interpretation on those points, but nonetheless, the POINT of the sermons is valid and good?
And it was just your desire to point out the "stupidity" and "lameness" of our examples that brought you here to make comments, to crap upon this sermon which you AGREE WITH, in general, is that the case?
Just seeking to clarify that we agree on the point that it is a GOOD THING to live lives of grace and a BAD THING to be harshly judgmental.
Marshall...
Not the stories the preacher chose, which by the way, were totally interpreted stupidly...
such a stupid notion...
the more I re-read the sermon, the more I find it does indeed drip, but not with God's grace. I am indeed gripped, however, by how poorly the person understands the Scripture...
We get the point even when it is poorly presented or explained. We get the point even when the point is goofy or ridiculous...
Talk about missing the point!...
you lefties ignore the underlying sin...
Talk about Pharisees!...
this discussion is yet another based on those involving the willful engagement of some in clearly sinful behaviors and is used to enable that behavior...
these goofy responses...
Your example is lame...
And then... (wait for it)...
"Judging harshly" is not a common problem.
Da Dahhhh!!!!
The Wholly Unrealized Irony of the Day!
Thanks everyone for playing, you've been a great audience...
AHH! I see! Judging at all is to judge harshly! OF COURSE! We must never, ever dare point out the obvious sinfulness of the behaviors of others because merely having done so is to guilty of harsh judgmentalism!
So pretty much, the feelings of the one being spoken to determine whether or not the speaker is judging harsly?
It seems pretty obvious that ANY judgement is harsh by nature. It's all a matter of degrees and the thickness of the subject's skin. If your sensitive feelings are hurt by the slightest correction, BAM! you've been judged harshly. Poor baby!
What's more, you fail to be moved by a first or second comment, writing off what you don't like to hear as "hunch" or some such. Simply said, if you don't get it right between the eyes, you aren't moved at all, thereby proving my point regarding "giving the benefit of the doubt" having no effect on the one engaging in bad behavior, or who is wrong in their thinking or definitely one who willfully ignores righteous behavior in favor of satisfying personal desires.
As I'm being called away, I'll get to this:
"Just seeking to clarify that we agree on the point that it is a GOOD THING to live lives of grace and a BAD THING to be harshly judgmental."
Well, duh! But no sermon on the topic is necessary unless stating the obvious qualifies a sermon as powerful, gripping and dripping with God's grace.
Let's back up a bit. I would like you to explain what is meant by "judging harshly". If someone steals for a living, is it too harsh a judgement to call him a thief? If someone never speaks truthfully, is it too harsh to call him a liar? If one lies, then one must be a liar, right? Is it the use of the word "liar" as opposed to some less harsh term that makes the difference? What of the harsh judgements made of political leaders? Anyone you know spoken harshly of GW Bush, or perhaps judged his actions, words and/or policies harshly?
The more I think of it, the more I see this "harsh judgement" issue as---how can I put it without sounding harshly judgemental---completely stupid and useless.
You've offered what you think are examples of harsh judgements hoping to expose some imagined irony. They are my honest opinions, so apparently honest opinion is too harsh by your standards. But I'm not sure they are good examples to fully illustrate your meaning.
In the meantime, keep in mind that Geoffrey has taught me that Galatians 5 absolves me of any obligation to abstain from harsh judgementalism. I'm totally free to act as I choose.
Marshall...
Let's back up a bit. I would like you to explain what is meant by "judging harshly".
Now, in a rational, respectful, NOT harshly judgmental conversation between adults, I think this would have been a reasonable question to begin with before attacks upon people's intelligence and Christianity.
Still, better later than never...
1. By "harsh judgmentalism," I am not saying that making judgments is bad. I'm not saying "Bad behavior X is bad" is a wrong thing to do, or at least, I believe there is a time for that.
2. Jesus, after all, condemned some bad behavior and did so fairly harshly.
3. I think, however, it is very instructive to look at WHO and HOW and WHY Jesus chose to condemn folk. How many times did Jesus harshly condemn the adulterers, the harlots, "the gays," drinkers, gamblers, those who cursed...?
Zero.
Who DID Jesus harshly condemn? The religious hypocrites, those who, themselves, chose to harshly condemn and not live lives of grace; those who burdened people with rule after rule, making faith an exercise in living according to the law; those who made Sabbath for Sabbath, not for humanity; the greedy who took advantage of the poor and the religious who allowed it/made it happen.
Jesus' ONLY harsh criticisms were for a certain segment of the religious - the proud and self-confident ones who condemned others, primarily the Pharisees, as far as I can recall.
With me so far?
So, why did Jesus NEVER harshly condemn "ordinary sinners," that routinely get rebuked by the religious today? Why did Jesus, in fact, DISCOURAGE at least a type of judgmentalism?
Let's look at that...
4. On the Sermons on the Mount and Plain, Jesus says, pretty plainly - commands, even -
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
Do NOT judge. Seems pretty clear and straightforward. And yet, we see Jesus and the early church and other prophets making judgments at times, so it doesn't seem like he's saying we can never speak out against a wrong, by this teaching.
So, what IS he saying?
From Matthew Henry's commentary...
We must judge ourselves, and judge of our own acts, but not make our word a law to everybody. We must not judge rashly, nor pass judgment upon our brother without any ground. We must not make the worst of people. Here is a just reproof to those who quarrel with their brethren for small faults
From Wesley's...
Awful words! So we may, as it were, choose for ourselves, whether God shall be severe or merciful to us. God and man will favour the candid and benevolent: but they must expect judgment without mercy, who have showed no mercy.
Interestingly, Coffman has this to say...
The word "judge" in this place is translated from a Greek word, [krino]... indicating that the type of judging forbidden in this place is that of presuming to determine salvation, or the lack of it, in others... [sound familiar??]
...some insist on their right to judge others and defend it on the basis of Jesus' words, "By their fruits ye shall know them" Discerning and judging, however, are two different things.
The Greek term for accounting, or thinking, with reference to another is [hegeomai]. Making a private, personal, and tentative appraisal of others is not forbidden; but "judging" is prohibited.
One must deplore the conduct of self-appointed "fruit inspectors" whose flagrant violations of this commandment have worked untold damage in the church.
Amen.
Barnes says...
what he refers to is a habit of forming a judgment hastily, harshly, and without an allowance for every palliating circumstance, and a habit of "expressing" such an opinion harshly and unnecessarily when formed.
Clarke says...
These exhortations are pointed against rash, harsh, and uncharitable judgments, the thinking evil, where no evil seems, and speaking of it accordingly.
Gill's commentary warns...
of rash judgment, interpreting men's words and deeds to the worst sense, and censuring them in a very severe manner; even passing sentence on them, with respect to their eternal state and condition.
And on it goes...
Out of time for now. I'll come back to this later. But clearly, there IS a consensus that harsh judgmentalism is to be avoided and will be judged harshly itself.
Fair enough?
Perhaps this is a case of "I can't tell you what it means, but I know it when I see it?" We'll see...
Well, that last line certainly gives you license to "harshly judge" whether or not someone else is judging harshly, doesn't it?
"Now, in a rational, respectful, NOT harshly judgmental conversation between adults, I think this would have been a reasonable question to begin with before attacks upon people's intelligence and Christianity."
Rational and respectful is what you always get until such is dismissed such as Geoffrey did in his comment on 5/9/11 4:29 PM.
"How many times did Jesus harshly condemn the adulterers, the harlots, "the gays," drinkers, gamblers, those who cursed...?"
Why would He? If he rebuked every person for every sin they've ever committed, He'd have few followers and we'd have Gospels with nothing but rebukes. You make a poor assumption about what the lack of such rebuke means.
But that isn't even what the sermon implies. And Jesus' rebuke of the hypocritical Pharisees isn't the same thing, either. One needn't have been a Pharisee to have received the kind of rebuke the Pharisees got from Jesus. One need only be hypocrites like them. There should be no doubt that there existed amongst those following Christ people who saw in themselves the same sin as well as those who should have.
But aside from that, as you've stated, it was their hypocrisy that was the target of Christ's rebuke, not "harsh judgementalism". One does not need to be "harsh" in their hypocritical attitude and one does not need to be judgemental in their hypocritical admonitions.
Who is passing judgement in the first place? To call a sinful behavior sinful is not judgement. It is complete honesty and truthfulness. The behavior has already been determined as sinful by God. No judgement is required. If God forbids a behavior, engaging in that behavior is sin. What's harsh is being told the truth. Boo-hoo.
Perhaps judgement is determing the possibility of salvation in light of the engaging in the sinful behavior in question. That is certainly no being done. It is always up to God Himself to determine the eternal fate of an individual. But what are the consequences of one's failure to repent? To remind the sinner of this is not to assume the authority to condemn, but merely to warn the perpetrator of the distinct possibility as expressed by Christ Himself.
And what response to we get from "gracious" Christians? We are judged harshly as being God Himself, standing in for Him, suspected of assuming ourselves to be perfect and/or examples of those with massive planks in our eyes. OR, we're given quotes from commentaries that in no way describe what is being done, as you have provided in your last.
"We are judged harshly as being God Himself, standing in for Him, suspected of assuming ourselves to be perfect and/or examples of those with massive planks in our eyes."
Funny. MA apparently doesn't like being "judged harshly."
So your complaints about being judged harshly are, -how can I put it without sounding harshly judgemental [sic]---completely stupid and useless, MA.
It never ceases to amaze me how many times I can get away with this gag and MA still doesn't get it. (Hint, MA It's been going on for a looooong time.)
1) MA or his cronies say(s) something stupid.
2) I backhand their stupidity back at them exactly,
3) They cry and whine,
4) They totally don't get their own hypocrisy.
Either all this stuff about harsh judgement is stupid and useless, as you claim MA .... which means YOU CAN'T COMPLAIN when I judge you "harshly". Or it isn't stupid and my judgements that you think you are God are unfair and inaccurate .... in which case, this harsh judgement stuff is neither useless nor stupid.
But either way, you would think after all this time that you'd realize I don't even believe half the stuff I say to you, I just dish out your own medicine back at you and watch you choke on it.
For example: You and your cronies say we're all not Christians. You say that isn't harsh judgement. But I say you think you're God, and you start wetting your diaper and crying.
Seriously, when will you learn that I simply treat you as you treat everyone else and laugh while you spit and sputter about your "mistreatment"?
Or to put that more succinctly:
"What's harsh is being told the truth. Boo-hoo. "
;)
I really intend not to respond to Alan's childish remarks (and I'm being harshly judgemental here). But when he lobs such floating softballs over the plate, it's hard not to just smash them out of the park (Comerica--they're that easy).
"1) MA or his cronies say(s) something stupid."
Only stupid people could ever think this (sorry if that sounds too harshly judgemental---as I said, the truth often feels harsh)
"2) I backhand their stupidity back at them exactly,"
Exactly as you are capable of understanding it, which isn't well as evidenced by how poorly you restate it.
"3) They cry and whine,"
You wish.
"4) They totally don't get their own hypocrisy."
We can't get what doesn't exist.
""We are judged harshly as being God Himself, standing in for Him, suspected of assuming ourselves to be perfect and/or examples of those with massive planks in our eyes."
Funny. MA apparently doesn't like being "judged harshly."
Merely stated the facts, child. And here's another: I can handle being corrected in a harsh manner, whether it's necessary to be harsh in doing so or not. But the above "judgements" to which you referred are, in fact, merely baseless accusations made in response to honest, truthful and accurate conclusions of arguments and opinions presented by you and yours.
"Either all this stuff about harsh judgement is stupid and useless, as you claim MA .... which means YOU CAN'T COMPLAIN when I judge you "harshly"."
What I referred to as stupid, child, was the Biblical stories used to make the pastor's point about harsh judging. There was no harsh judging in the stories, much less any admonishment or moral against it.
What I referred to as useless is a sermon on something that is not commonplace: harsh judgement.
Judgement by nature is harsh, if the judgement is that an action or behavior is wrong or sinful. And it's not that the judgement is harsh in and of itself, but that the impact of one's actions being rightly judged as wrong or sinful is taken as harsh by the wrong-doer or sinner, particularly if that wrong-doer/sinner would prefer to engage in that behavior and be regarded as a non-sinner at the same time. You should know this.
"For example: You and your cronies say we're all not Christians. You say that isn't harsh judgement. But I say you think you're God, and you start wetting your diaper and crying."
The difference here is stark. When you're accused of not being Christians, it is backed up with support, usually Scripturally, showing why your beliefs and actions conflict with what is clearly revealed therein.
When you say something stupid, like, "You guys think you're God", there is neither a wetting of the pants nor crying over such childish responses and there is no support for such statement. To show why we're merely restating God's Will as it is clearly revealed in Scripture rather than pretending to be God Himself as your whiney accusation insists is hardly "crying or wetting diapers". But you go ahead and think we're that thin-skinned if it helps you through the night.
"What I referred to as useless is a sermon on something that is not commonplace: harsh judgement. "
Bwah! Ha! Ha! Ha! Says the guy who trolls blogs looking for anything to crap on. Hilarious.
"The difference here is stark. When you're accused of not being Christians, it is backed up with support, usually Scripturally, showing why your beliefs and actions conflict with what is clearly revealed therein. "
Actually Geoffrey has done a pretty good job of showing in a different thread how our Biblically supported, orthodox, and traditional views on salvation by grace alone differ considerably from your views. (BTW, have you noticed all your buddies have abandoned you in that thread? Perhaps it is because in spite of their heterodoxy, even they know you're wrong on that one too.)
Also, as we have all stated many, many times: that you're not clever enough to read the evidence presented doesn't mean it hasn't been presented. There's a difference there, but I wouldn't expect you to see that either. So keep lying, MA. I wouldn't expect anything different from you.
Oops. I said you're a liar. Going to whine about that "harsh judgement", MA?
"There was no harsh judging in the stories, much less any admonishment or moral against it. "
Um.... In the story about the woman caught in adultery, if you'd actually ever read the Bible, you might remember that the crowd was ready to stone her to death. Stone. Her. To. Death. Are you actually suggesting that stoning someone to death isn't "harsh"??
MA, serious question: Do you even OWN a Bible?
"Bwah! Ha! Ha! Ha! Says the guy who trolls blogs looking for anything to crap on. Hilarious."
No. That is what YOU'RE doing to my every comment. What I do is visit just a few lefty blogs (those on my blogroll) and correct blatant misinterpretations of clearly revealed Scripture. Whether I'm the best for this task I wouldn't dare to suggest. But as the misinterpretations are so obvious, a scholar is not necessary.
"Actually Geoffrey has done a pretty good job of showing in a different thread how our Biblically supported, orthodox, and traditional views on salvation by grace alone differ considerably from your views."
What Geoffrey has done is what you and Dan do as well: you repeat things from Scripture and insist you agree or abide. But that is never what I dispute. I dispute application and practice, which is not aligned with what you claim to believe.
"(BTW, have you noticed all your buddies have abandoned you in that thread? Perhaps it is because in spite of their heterodoxy, even they know you're wrong on that one too.)"
BTW, has it ever occurred to you that not everyone who posts has the ability or time to post or follow posts in exactly the same manner as anyone else? Has it ever occurred to you that they may think I'm doing a fine job of it and there's little they could add that would make a difference? Has it ever occurred to you, BTW, that not everyone has the level of patience I do to engage with fools like YOU, you sad boy?
"Also, as we have all stated many, many times: that you're not clever enough to read the evidence presented doesn't mean it hasn't been presented."
I know that you've stated such things, but then, you don't offer anything but ad homs. Certainly no evidence. But more to the point, just because you ACCUSE me of not being clever enough to read evidence doesn't mean what you offered as evidence proves your points or disproves mine. But then, if pretending I'm not clever is the best you can do, that doesn't say a whole lot for your "evidence".
"Oops. I said you're a liar. Going to whine about that "harsh judgement", MA?"
Nope. I'm just going to continue to wonder why you choose that particular accusation to routinely level when I haven't been lying.
"Um.... In the story about the woman caught in adultery, if you'd actually ever read the Bible, you might remember that the crowd was ready to stone her to death. Stone. Her. To. Death. Are you actually suggesting that stoning someone to death isn't "harsh"??"
Um...stoning is a punishment, and indeed it is rather harsh. But it is not a judgement. The judgement was that she was an adulterous because supposedly she was caught in the act (yet the partner was not caught...curious). If she was indeed caught in the act, the judgement is not in the least bit harsh, but totally accurate. Got any other stupid things to say, seminarian?
"MA, serious question: Do you even OWN a Bible?"
If that constitutes a serious question in your corrupt mind, then I've really been wasting my time.
Dan,
I'm more than willing to get back on the topic if you are.
So once again MA can't actually respond to any points and thinks that stoning someone isn't a harsh judgement.
Nor does he provide any evidence for his other assertions.
I was tempted, when Dan posted this, to note that he'll just have the usual trolls coming over to disagree with him, but I figured I'd give the trolls the benefit of the doubt once again. But, in the end, I was right.
And no, MA, I am not in seminary. Wrong again. Truth, 100000000. MA, zero.
BTW, pretty lame attempt at covering the fact that you didn't even know that the stoning of the adulterous woman was one of the stories referenced. Or did you not know that was in the Bible either? :)
Y'all are commenting faster than I can keep up with.
I'll remind you all to please refrain from the name-calling.
Of course, Alan, I get that you're holding them to their own standards, responding as they respond and they're just not getting the irony - they're missing the joke.
Still, the sniping is over the top and just tiring...
Point taken, please let it rest.
Marshall, you and your tribe would do well to take some courses in irony so that you might recognize it better.
Now, where was I...?
I'll come back to this later. But clearly, there IS a consensus that harsh judgmentalism is to be avoided and will be judged harshly itself.
Again, Dan, you seem to have a strange idea of what constitutes judgement of any kind, much less the harsher variety. Merely pointing out one's sins is not harsh in the least, nor is it judgement. A behavior is sinful or it isn't. Most behaviors can be so defined if one has even a passing knowledge of the Bible. If one steals, it is not judgement to say one has sinned by stealing. If one engages in debauchery, it is not judgement to point out that such will not gain one entrance to heaven.
In the context of these here blog discussions, those in my "tribe", you know, the Christians, are merely commenting on behaviors supported by those who also claim to be Christian, behaviors that are sinful. It's no more than calling them as we see them, and we only call them according to what Scripture says about the behaviors. There's nothing judgemental involved. It is what it is. Take it up with He who called it sinful and forbidden.
You can continue to hide behind your poorly supported arguments, the goofy proposition that one might not know it is sinful, etc, etc, etc. But to call sin by its name is not judgemental, though to the one engaging in the sin no doubt it seems harsh. As I said, Boo-freakin-hoo.
Thus, it is true that I fail to see whatever irony you feel is present, but that's only because there is nothing about which can be said to be ironic. I'm not, nor have I, been doing what you claim I'm doing. You only wish it so.
What's more, Alan is not even coming close to holding us to any standards that WE have ever claimed, because we haven't committed any errors to which we can be held accountable. Alan is only being Alan, trying to be clever, failing, and trying to find fault, and failing again. The poor boy.
"So once again MA can't actually respond to any points and thinks that stoning someone isn't a harsh judgement."
I've responded to every salient point made, of which there is so pitifully few. None have come from YOU, Alan. Furthermore, stoning is the punishment for one "judged" to have broken a particular law. That is, the judgement has been made for which stoning is the punishment. One could say that stoning is a harsh punishment, but then, the sermon wasn't about punishment, was it?
"Nor does he provide any evidence for his other assertions."
Pick an assertion for which you feel I've failed in this regard. I'll be more than happy to provide one if one is truly necessary, or explain why it isn't. I only ask that you actually pay attention.
"And no, MA, I am not in seminary."
I didn't say you were IN seminary. I called you a seminarian. It was sarcasm. It would be similar to calling you Einstein.
"BTW, pretty lame attempt at covering the fact that you didn't even know that the stoning of the adulterous woman was one of the stories referenced."
What makes you think that I didn't even know that the stoning of the adulerous woman was one of the stories referenced? Kind of a harsh judgement there, child, especially in light my referencing the story as early as my comment of 5/10/11 4:03 AM. And of course, it's right there in the sermon to which I constantly referred early on when we were actually discussing it.
That would be irony, wouldn't it, with you harshly judging me in this way. Or would it be rank stupidity, since, as I said, I spoke in regards to the pastor's interpretation of this story from the beginning? Or did you throw on that little smiley face (after asking if I knew it was in the Bible) in order to later say you were kidding?
If there's any harsh judgement in play, it isn't by me.
" Kind of a harsh judgement there, "
Boo-freakin-hoo.
Again, MA revels in harsh judgement, but cries when they are directed at him, and he can't even see the irony.
"If there's any harsh judgement"
Not just once, but twice.
Let me repeat this for you, MA. Either judging harshly is not wrong, as you claim, in which case you can stop wetting yourself every time I judge you harshly. Or, judging harshly is wrong, in which case you can shut up now, and stop arguing because you agree with Dan.
To do otherwise is simply to be a hypocrite. See, MA, being a hypocrite is saying one thing (that harsh judgements are not wrong) and then doing another (whining like a baby when harsh judgements are used against you.)
Sorry to have to explain that to you like you're three years old, but given how you act online, I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and add a couple years to your mental age.
Speaking as someone who grew up around the MAs of this world, I find these conversations both entertaining and fascinating.
I grew up in a church where everyone touted "infinite Grace" and not one of us ever tried to show it. Each time I, like Dan, ever took the time to practice it (imperfectly, I admit),it was twisted into being weak, or condescending, or self-serving. The church wants to use powerful rhetoric, but they want to create a limited definition, so as not to have to get off our asses and actually do the dirty work.
A few minor gripes with MA and Alan:
MA: In your first comment you said
>>This is especially important with regards to those who have no intention of repentence. Bin Laden is the perfect example. Based on what we know, conversion wasn't imminent. Thus, celebration of his demise is appropriate as well as natural.
I was under the impression that as Christians, people ought never to rejoice in the death of someone who has not converted. If God's plan and hope is to bring all men to Him, then death before conversion would seem like the worst possible result. In fact, I would argue that we should celebrate when a believer dies and mourn when a non-believer does. That seems to be the logic of the Gospel...
Later MA, you said:
>>"1) MA or his cronies say(s) something stupid."
Only stupid people could ever think this (sorry if that sounds too harshly judgemental---as I said, the truth often feels harsh)
I wonder, are you implying that you never say anything stupid? I do. I say stupid stuff all the time. I don't mind saying it, and I don't mind being called on it. That to me, is what becoming a better person is about. If you cannot admit to being wrong, or misspeaking, how can you expect to be forgiven in the ultimate sense? I really think that humility is the greatest challenge to all of us.
To Alan, you said:
>>To do otherwise is simply to be a hypocrite. See, MA, being a hypocrite is saying one thing (that harsh judgements are not wrong) and then doing another (whining like a baby when harsh judgements are used against you.)
I don't think MA is being hypocritical here, unless we presuppose that every criticism is fair. MA might logically believe that harsh judgements are not wrong, if fairly grounded and honest, and at the same time feel that your particular harsh judgement is unfair and dishonest. That involves absolutely zero hypocrisy.
As always Dan, this is a really great post, and I love reading your words.
"I don't think MA is being hypocritical here, unless we presuppose that every criticism is fair. "
True enough, when dealing with normal people.
But, if you've dealt with the MA's of the world, then you probably know that, to them, every criticism they level is fair and every one they receive is unfair.
I'm simply dishing back a taste of MA's own medicine to test the limits of his hypocrisy (which, as we've seen, don't exist.)
So, if we throw around random, unfair, unsubstantiated harsh judgements of people, jump to conclusions, and in generally every other way be an ass to people, that's OK if and only if we're MA. But if someone dishes that back at MA to prove the point, he howls and whines.
So, while in general I'd completely agree with you, George, in this specific case, I think the charge of hypocrisy is dead on.
Dan wrote:
I'll remind you all to please refrain from the name-calling.
Yeah? Well, double dumb ass on you!
Alan, you poor misguided child,
"Again, MA revels in harsh judgement, but cries when they are directed at him, and he can't even see the irony."
You keep insisting I'm "crying" over your harsh judgements. But in fact, I'm pointing out YOUR hypocrisy every time I describe your comments as harsh judgement. Equally factual is how little regard I have for you opinions about me personally, so crying about them is beyond possibility. But you go ahead and keep believing that I'm hypocritically crying over them if that helps you through the night. You seem to really need that.
As to whether or not harsh judgement is wrong, I would have to say that it hasn't been clearly defined here. I believe I've tried to explain that if by that term one means to judge someone as in to assume the worst without full knowledge of all the facts, I absolutely agree that is wrong, even when the subject has a history that would suggest a strong possibility the assumption is likely true.
But if by that term one means that it is harsh judgement to call a known sinful behavior by its name, then no, I disagree that it is wrong, except to call it "judgement". As I said, we know what a sin is because each of them is plainly listed in Scripture. No judgement is required. Either someone is committing a sin or one isn't.
So keep trying, Alan. Perhaps someday you'll catch me in some misstep. It'll be easy to know when it actually happened because I'll admit to it if it's true. Unlike you, I don't try to pretend that wrong is right.
Almost this this gem:
"So, if we throw around random, unfair, unsubstantiated harsh judgements of people, jump to conclusions, and in generally every other way be an ass to people, that's OK if and only if we're MA."
Said the pot to the kettle. More acurately, you have yet to show how any of my comments have been unfair, that I've jumped to any conclusions or made any unsubstantiated statements. I back up everything I say, as any honest person reading can attest. What's equally easy to see is that I've done more to maintain a civil tone than you have, as you have run with Dan's recent invitation to rip on me as much as you like. Dan has chosen to delete portions of my comments that cross his strange line of acting with grace and civility, so I have worked to avoid such censorship of my words. Thus, I have a lot of catching up to do in order to match you insult for insult. But frankly, I have no desire to do so anyway. I get just as much enjoyment rebuffing your false statements.
GeorgeW,
I ignore the implications of your initial statement, as you don't know me and thus can't say that you've known anyone like me.
As to your first gripe, I believe you missed the point of why I found rejoicing at bin Laden's demise to be acceptable. I made a distinction between the death of the man and the death of what he represented. He represented death and misery to thousands and the very real likelihood of more death and misery. This fear died when he did, at least as far as his initiation of it. That is cause to rejoice and perfectly acceptable. I also stated that I felt it would be far better that he repented of his evil and became a Christian. Feel free to check out my blog post on the subject to get a more detailed look at my opinion on the subject.
"I wonder, are you implying that you never say anything stupid?"
Not at all. But Alan chooses to believe that what "my cronies" and me say stupid things simply because he disagrees with what we say. If I indicate what Alan says is stupid, which I do routinely, I give a damn good reason. But when Alan and HIS cronies do it, it is generally because they've run out of legitimate counter arguments. It's similar to the "Hitler" charge. When Alan questions an opponent's intelligence, it's a sign that he's losing the argument. I'm continually amazed that these supposedly more intelligent people cannot find a way to convince us morons of their wisdom. Indeed, I have absolutely no problem with being enlightened. I look forward to it. I maintain that my purpose in blogging (beyond the mere fun of it) is to persuade or be persuaded. I give ample opportunity for the latter, but it seems no more likely than the former based on the quality of arguments from my opponents. I'm more than aware, as evidenced by Alan and "his cronies" that I am lacking in my persuasive abilities.
As to your last bit, I appreciate both your graciousness and your ability to get the point. Alan and "his cronies" have a really hard time with getting points. But you've described exactly the difference between what is happening and what Alan wishes was happening.
John...
Well, double dumb ass on you!
Careful, John: I won't invite you to my big Final Judgment party this Saturday if you're not nice...
Unless, perhaps, you happen to know, "It's the End of the World As We Know It?" on accordion?
George...
As always Dan, this is a really great post, and I love reading your words.
You're too kind. Gracious, even. Careful with that...
+10 Points to John for the Star Trek reference (I didn't even need the video).
One of the more interesting things said in this thread. :)
"cannot find a way to convince us morons of their wisdom. "
First, I, for one, have no interest in convincing you of anything.
Second, you've clearly stated in that sentence why we can't convince you even if we were trying to do so.
Okay, finally jumping back to the question: What does "harshly judgmental" mean/look like?
1. It does not mean "making ANY judgments." We make judgments in all things and are correct to do so.
2. It does not mean never saying, "I think you're mistaken, I think that's wrong." Clearly, that was done in the Bible and we rightly do so today.
3. But WHEN is that done in the Bible? Generally, aren't pronouncements of wrong-doing directed at those who engage in harmful, oppressive behavior?
The Pharisees and their "adding of many rules upon the shoulders of people," creating a situation that drives people from faith because they can't live up to those many rules? That would be one frequent example.
The Pharisees and their judging of Jesus as a person of evil? That would be another example.
Busybodies who, in Coffman's words, appoint themselves as "fruit inspectors," whose "job" it is to say, "you're not living up to Christian standards?" That would seem to be another example.
4. Generally speaking then, for me, "harshly judgmental" is largely in tone and approach and topic. Do you think I'm mistaken on the interpretation of a passage in the Bible? Then say so, and it would look something like, "Dan, I don't really think that is the point being made here. Because..., I think it makes more sense to see this passage as ..." Like that.
It does NOT look like, "I agree with the overall point being made by this sermon, but those passages were interepreted STUPIDLY. That's a RIDICULOUS conclusion to reach..." One is disagreeing with respect and grace. The other is harshly judgmental. Clearly so. ESPECIALLY given that it is an unprovable point.
...
5. Which would be another criteria for being harshly judgmental: When one is spending time and energy harshly denouncing someone's take on an unprovable point. I think that it does not make much sense to read the Genesis story as literal scientific history and that the world was created 6,000 years ago in six days. Reading it as a mythic telling of a story to convey real truth makes more sense. But, you don't see me going around condemning the literalists as "stupid," or of holding a "ridiculous" interpretation of the story. I can't prove the world wasn't created 6,000 years ago and then magically altered to make it LOOK like it's actually billions of years old (well, I can't prove it unless you accept scientific evidence of the world as it exists). But, if you want to believe that the world is 6,000 years old, go for it. I'm not condemning you for it. There is no harsh judgmentalism there. Just disagreement. And one reason I do not engage in harsh judgmentalism is because I can't prove it to such folk in a way that they'll accept, so what's the point in being harshly judgmental about it?
6. And that would be another sign of harsh judgmentalism: When there is no great harm in what the person believes, even if I think it's wrong. I can't prove Jonah was actually swallowed by an actual whale and I don't need to. I don't need to be harshly judgmental about those who have an opinion on this unprovable tenet either way? Why don't I need to harshly judge someone with a "wrong" hunch on Jonah? Because, what does it matter?? Okay, this person thinks that Jonah was actually swallowed by an actual great fish. That person doesn't think so. Where's the harm in either unprovable hunch? Are they rejecting Jesus and his ways by their position on Jonah? No. No harm, no foul. No need for me to go in and blast someone as "stupid" for holding their position. Live and let live.
In the case in this post, you AGREE with the overall point being made, you just don't find our interpretation of a few passages in support of the point we AGREE upon to be sound. Okay, live and let live? Why go in and blast (stupid, ridiculous, etc) when there's no real harm being done in that interpretation? Disagree with it? Fine, then do so politely. But butting in ON A POINT YOU AGREE WITH and denouncing in harsh words some unprovable and inconsequential point, THAT is harsh judgmentalism.
Hopefully, you can set aside your pride, consider these words and see what I'm saying.
You touch on this a bit, Dan, but I would take say there's a big difference between someone's Mom telling them that they're doing X wrong, or that thinking X is wrong, and having some random strange blowhard on the internet try to chastise another grown adult.
It's like those busybodies I've seen in the grocery store who come up to unsuspecting mothers (kids in tow) and scold them in the cereal aisle for buying Captain Crunch for their kids. Exactly how is that any of their damn business?
And unfortunately, the internet is like that every day.
Such busybodies, fusspots, tattletales and scolds may well believe they're right (and maybe buying your kids Captain Crunch is indeed going to kill them) but they're welcome to keep their opinions to themselves.
The notion that absolutely everyone on the planet absolutely must have the unparalleled opportunity to hear some busybodies' brilliant opinions on everything is, I think, wildly overestimating the importance of one random stranger's opinions.
Or to put it less delicately, when it comes to the busybodies, fusspots, tattletales and scolds, opinions are like ***holes, everyone has one and no one wants to hear theirs.
Which reminds me of one of my favorite blog-toons...
Someone is WRONG on the internet
Heh. Exactly. I *love* xkcd.
I'm going to skip right to point four because the first three are really irrelevant. I hope that's not too harsh, but to give examples of what something isn't when the request was for examples of what something is is a waste of time. (too harsh there?)
4. Tone? Approach? Where's your grace? Where's your tolerance? My tone and approach is different than yours, it is honest and seeks to get to the point (though few here have the ability to get the point---too harsh?). "Stupid" and "ridiculous" are perfectly good descriptive terms but I don't use them without explanation. To do so would make me more like Alan. Would it sound more gracious to say "lacks intelligence or reason"? Would you prefer I say that her sermon "invites ridicule or mockery"?
5. My points were not unprovable. They were all based on the actual verses in question and the meaning clearly intended by the arrangement of words into the sentences used therein. Nothing in them suggests what your pastor pretends to infer. My "judgement", based on her inferences, is that she latched onto this "benefit of the doubt" notion and sought out verses that she could use to preach on it. Failing that, she used those presented and forced onto them meaning that the verses themselves do not imply. Now THAT I can't prove, but nothing seems more rational and reasonable.
But there's nothing "harsh" about what I've done except that you don't like the implications. It's that which troubles you, not the tone.
6. Who can measure the harm being done by poor interpretations of Scripture? It's certainly harmed you as you seem to believe one can say a verse means whatever one wants it to mean. That crap spreads, not only in giving others the same license, but in potentially distorting the understanding of others. Is there not a Biblical admonition against adding or subtracting from Scripture?
You say "live and let live". You also expect that all should agree to disagree. But you forget that you are not expounding on your notions in a vacuum. Unless you adjust your settings to allow only those who subscribe to read your words, you are making public pronouncements and inviting comments. It's quite obvious that whether you would express it in this manner or not, that what you really want is that others let you pretend that what you'd prefer to believe is true without contradiction.
"But butting in ON A POINT YOU AGREE WITH and denouncing in harsh words some unprovable and inconsequential point, THAT is harsh judgmentalism."
It's easy to dismiss my points in using those terms. Defending your position is harder.
I do NOT agree with your explanation of "harsh judgement" or that what I do is accurately descibed as such. Now what? I do agree with giving someone the benefit of the doubt in many cases, as I've stated, but that there is nothing in the sermon that suggests any of the stories are examples of that or that they are teaching that. So the pastor could have simply said, "Give folks the benefit of the doubt if you have no proof of what you suspect.", left it there, and been far better off as a teacher of God's Will then she was by the sermon she gave. There's no grace in saying verses teach what they don't just to make a point. THAT is worthy of rebuke and that's what I did. You simply view any critique of this woman you worship as harsh.
I surrender, Marshall. Go in God's grace, brother.
"You touch on this a bit, Dan, but I would take say there's a big difference between someone's Mom telling them that they're doing X wrong, or that thinking X is wrong, and having some random strange blowhard on the internet try to chastise another grown adult."
You're right, Alan. You really should stop doing that.
Do what I do, instead. I visit blogs to which I link at my own and engage in discussions by invitation, giving my opinion on the topics highlighted. It would be like those mothers you describe actually soliciting opinion on their child raising methods. You'll notice that I haven't visited your blog to tell you you're full of crap over there. But I'd bet you have the same open invitation to do so. But you, like "busybodies, fusspots, tattletales and scolds", can't help but butt in simply to give me crap, and then whine about busybodies. Hey! That's irony, isn't it? Or maybe "hypocrite" is more accurate. Oh, geez! That might be harsh!
"You simply view any critique of this woman you worship as harsh."
Heh. MA has distilled his irony down to one sentence. Usually it takes at least a paragraph for him to contradict himself.
Bravo, MA. Bravo.
"can't help but butt in simply to give me crap, and then whine about busybodies."
LOL. Still. Doesn't. Get. It.
I mean, seriously? After having it explained to him 100 Bazillion times, he *still* doesn't get it? Is that even humanly possible?
" You'll notice that I haven't visited your blog to tell you you're full of crap over there. But I'd bet you have the same open invitation to do so."
Well, I'm not sure what that random collection of words in the second sentence is supposed to mean, but if it is supposed to mean that if you trolled my blog in your typical constipated old biddy fashion that I would delete your comments in a nanosecond regardless of content, then yes, you are correct, I would.
"Heh. MA has distilled his irony down to one sentence. Usually it takes at least a paragraph for him to contradict himself."
OK. I admit it. You've got me here, child. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about or how I've contradicted myself by the statement to which you refer.
"LOL. Still. Doesn't. Get. It."
Try explaining without the snark. You're such a bright child, it should be easy to make a poor, thick-headed guy like me understand. All I know is that I haven't been spending a lot of time responding to you, but you continually post about my comments. That kinda makes you the busybody. What's more, you constantly scold in doing so AND directly at me. I haven't been doing that in the general course of my commentaries. I speak on behaviors discussed on public forums, like this blog. That's hardly being a busybody, fussbudget or any of the other fool things you like to call those with whom you disagree.
"Well, I'm not sure what that random collection of words in the second sentence is supposed to mean..."
And here I thought your were a bright child.
"...but if it is supposed to mean that if you trolled my blog in your typical constipated old biddy fashion that I would delete your comments in a nanosecond regardless of content, then yes, you are correct, I would."
"constipated old biddy fashion" is not at all "typical" of my commentating style, demonizer, but deleting my comments in a nanosecond regardless of content certainly makes you one helluva hypocrite, since Neil doesn't do that in the least. Nor has any other conservative blogger I've ever seen. It does however, make you the very type of coward of which Geoffrey speaks, so you've got THAT going for you. Not surprising to me.
"deleting my comments in a nanosecond regardless of content certainly makes you one helluva hypocrite, since [redacted] doesn't do that in the least."
Hypocrite? Why? I haven't criticized anyone for deleting comments for any reason. As I've stated many times: their blogs, their rules.
It is pretty clear from your hypocritical behavior that you do not understand the meaning of the word.
Perhaps you could try using that dictionary of yours for something other than propping up the broken leg of your barco-lounger.
"You've got me here, child. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about"
Anyone surprised he doesn't understand?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Nope, guess not.
MA wrote, " It does however, make you the very type of coward of which Geoffrey speaks,"
MA wrote, "That's not cowardice or dishonesty, that's weariness and being fed up. "
...
MA: Inconsistency, Hypocrisy, Contradiction, and full of crap.
Game. Set. Match.
"Anyone surprised he doesn't understand?"
Why would anyone be surprised? You don't show any connection between what I say and what you say about it. You just drool. Case in point: Your very last comment. You present no evidence of "Inconsistency, Hypocrisy, Contradiction, and full of crap". You just say it and pretend it exists. Very childish but just what I've come to expect.
"You just say it and pretend it exists."
Shorter MA with his fingers in his ears: LA! LA! LA! I'm not listening!!!"
You apparently missed the two completely contradictory statements that I quoted above my conclusion.
That would be evidence. That you disagree with it, don't like your obvious hypocrisy being aired, or simply cannot understand it (or all three) doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Pretty lame and pathetic response, MA, even from you.
MA wrote, "I've done more to maintain a civil tone..."
then MA wrote, "You just drool."
Oh yes, so civil. Let's sit him next to Grandma.
"You apparently missed the two completely contradictory statements that I quoted above my conclusion."
The statements are NOT contradictory. They are disparate.
The first was said to suggest that your actions would be the very cowardice of which Geoffrey spoke. The second was in reference to the decision to delete comments that were repititions of the same nonsense presented in the previous hundreds of comments. YOU suggested that you'd delete my comments right from the first posting, simply because they'd come from me. THAT'S the cowardice of which Geoffrey spoke. Neil deleted comments only after having put up with people like you for a quite sufficient period of time to know that not much is gained by putting up with more. Hence, no cowardice and no contradiction on my part.
Indeed, your statements suggest you don't possess the grace to give someone like me the benefit of the doubt if you'd delete me so quickly. Neil has shown that grace by the volume of comments allowed before he chooses to delete or ban. He HAD given far more than the mere benefit of any doubt. He gave rope enough with which one could hang one's self if one so chose.
"Oh yes, so civil."
You even cut and pasted my comment and still got it wrong. I didn't say I was perfectly civil. I said "I've done more to maintain a civil tone..."
Apparently that stark distinction was lost on you. So, a few shots here and there by me still makes my statement perfectly true.
" Hence, no cowardice..."
Thank you. I accept your apology.
Ah, ah, ah, Marshall...
Answer the other questions first, please.
Now that I've answered your question, Dan, you can halt the hypocrisy and let me defend myself against Alan's childish accusations.
So, Alan...
I did not apologize, I corrected. Indeed, I corrected a blatant falsehood leveled on purpose.
"Indeed, I corrected a blatant falsehood leveled on purpose."
Well, in any event, I'm glad you corrected the blatant falsehood you leveled on purpose.
There you go lying again, Alan. And shamelessly, too!
LOL!
Is there a "shamefully lying"?
The way you torture the English language, MA, ought to be against the Geneva Convention.
All lying is shameful (save that which thwarts the intentions of an evil person), but not everyone lies with a hint of shame. Some actually feel remorse when they sin. You lie without shame.
You two. Out of the pool!
Hit the showers and calm down.
And embrace a bit more grace, which is the topic of the post.
Oh, I'm perfectly calm. :)
What you don't see is my laughing as I keep egging poor MA on just to see how long I can keep getting him to jump on command. Apparently the answer is: forever.
And my second goal, as always...to get the 100th comment.
w00t!
MA wrote, " It does however, make you the very type of coward of which Geoffrey speaks,"
MA wrote, "That's not cowardice or dishonesty, that's weariness and being fed up. "
One of your multiple personalities is lying, MA. I'm not sure which of your multiple personalities you want to contradict now, but accusing me of lying when I simply copied and posted your own words is a new low in reasoning even for you! (And *that's* saying something!)
Care to try again?
First off, child, neither of those two comments highlighted in your last has any relation to my accusing you of lying.
Secondly, if your goal is to simply egg me on, I don't see how you can do that without being completely stupid in your understanding of my comments, or purposely distorting my meaning simply to provoke a response, which makes you a liar. Pick one. There is no other possibility.
Stop it, Marshall. Alan is playing you and you're going along with it.
Alan, no need to continue with it. Everyone else gets it, even if Marshall doesn't. It's just painful now.
Dan,
You're telling me to "stop it", yet in the post entitled "Irony", you whine about being denied the opportunity to defend yourself. How ironic. Soon, you'll be deleting my comments as you have in the past.
You've "defended" yourself, Marshall. Now you two are just being school children. Alan, to his credit, is doing it for the purpose of an object lesson to show you what it looks like (by the measure you judge others, shall you be judged), but you're not getting it. Let it go, both of you.
Your dishonesty knows no bounds. Nothing Alan is doing is "to his credit" since it doesn't in the least reflect or compare to what I'm doing. Sure, I have no doubt you believe it does, but as it is based on falsehood and mine is based on truth, it fails miserably. But YOU, Dan, are oh so willing to defend your lapdog no matter what he says, against anything someone like me says, no matter what THAT is.
What's more, for every comment I make, Al will say something else that requires my correction and defense. So I will do so as I see fit.
"Did too, drooler!"
"Did not, dummyhead!"
Does not need to be repeated, infinitum.
Yet in a hypocritically ironic twist, this is exactly what your whine is in your "Irony" post. How many times have you repeated YOURself regarding what you call slander and false witness bearing? The answer: constantly.
Post a Comment