Field Of Gold
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and decay destroy, and thieves break in and steal.
But store up treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor decay destroys, nor thieves break in and steal.
For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.
The lamp of the body is the eye. If your eye is sound, your whole body will be filled with light; but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be in darkness. And if the light in you is darkness, how great will the darkness be.
No one can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat (or drink), or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?
Look at the birds in the sky; they do not sow or reap, they gather nothing into barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are not you more important than they?
Can any of you by worrying add a single moment to your life-span?
Why are you anxious about clothes? Learn from the way the wild flowers grow. They do not work or spin.
But I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was clothed like one of them.
If God so clothes the grass of the field, which grows today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not much more provide for you, O you of little faith?
So do not worry and say, 'What are we to eat?' or 'What are we to drink?' or 'What are we to wear?'
All these things the pagans seek. Your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.
But seek first the kingdom (of God) and his righteousness, and all these things will be given you besides.
Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient for a day is its own evil.
=====
Matthew 6: 20 - 34
42 comments:
If I may offer the first response to this passage, it would be, wow.
What beauty of language and ideal.
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also...
Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these...
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
How wonderful! How challenging, yet life-affirming!
Amen.
Merry Christmas to you and your family Dan.
My son is home. Bring out the fatted calf!
Dan, I ask this out of genuine curiosity, how do you reconcile what you wrote in the last comment thread...
"Don't talk to me about pie in the sky by and by. Talk to me about here and now. This seems to me to be one disconnect between traditonal religiosity and biblical text."
...with Christ's command here to store up treasures in heaven?
An entirely fair question, bubba.
I balance what the Bible has to say about storing up treasures with what the Bible says to do with the least of these in thy kingdom come on earth and find some validity in both.
But it seems the majority of the holy writ falls on the side of here and now. Additionally, even when Jesus spoke these words (store up for yourselves treasures in heaven), he was talking about doing so by our actions here and now.
The message here is, Don't be greedy, don't overconsume, be satisfied with enough - not enough and then some (Eleutheros has an excellent post on this topic at his
site). These are actions of the here and now. Wouldn't you agree?
I can see the wisdom in not overconsuming -- gluttony being a deadly sin and all -- but I don't think that's the message here.
The message in that passage is, be considered primarily with God's will. It's not simply that our appetites should be moderated, but that they should be made subservient to God's plans.
I can agree that stewardship is part of God's plan, but it's only part of discipleship.
In the last thread, you were asked about your idea of God's kingdom on earth, and this is your reply:
As a starting point, I'd think that what "God's Kingdom Come on earth" would look like would be a home, community, tribe that looks to be perfect, as God is perfect, in the sense that we try to be the part of creation that God has made us to be, that we live within our means, societally-speaking as well as individually.
It is very difficult to see how a pantheist nature worshipper would write anything different, other than a vague reference to being perfect "as God is perfect."
It seems to me that you want to replace what is taught with what you would like to be taught.
Ok.
These passages are to essentially to teach moderation. Small surprise that I'd say that to any of you who've read my blog which much concerns living lightly.
The view that it is just another way of saying 'accept and conform to God's will' would be in order if we give precedence to Paul's use of Jewish symbolism over the plain meaning of the sermon rather than the other way around.
Here's the basis for my view:
The pivotal point in this section of the sermon is "No man can serve two masters ... You cannot serve God an mammon." I think it is appropriate to keep the Aramaic phrases in Aramaic in the NT. There aren't all that many of them. But one must keep in mind that in Aramaic the word simply means riches. In Phonecian, a very closely related language, it means benefits or privileges.
The next line in the sermon begins with "Therefore I tell you ..." Greek has a bewildering collection of connectives which can indicate anything from a strong to very weak association between what comes before and what comes ofter. Here the phrase is dia touto "through this". It connects what has just come before with what comes after very strongly.
So He is not saying "you can't serve God and also work for clothes and food and drink" but rather "you can't serve God and endeavor to have clothes, food, and drink as riches, as privilege, as excess."
When he says "do not worry about your life, what you will eat", it is not an exhortation to put God to the test and sit and starve to death to see if God will feed you. Notice he compares this with the birds and although God feeds them, they grub for the worms and seek out the berries. At best it is opportunity that God gives them.
But the telling thing here is that the word translated here as 'life' is psyche which almost every where else is translated as 'soul'. Most certainly then it isn't referring to biological life (the word bios was available for that had the writer so chosen).
All this points to a teaching against excess and that what God provides is the opportunity to meet those needs, but He does not provide a way for the person to have riches and excess.
Don't worry, says the sermon, that yourself or your life will needs be considered diminished if you don't, how shall we say, "go for the gusto." Once you have taken God up on the opportunities He is constantly providing as a matter of course to fill your actual needs, turn your attention to other thing.
But I must take a bit of umbrage here at the use of the word 'pagan' in this translation. The text says ethne (plural of 'ethnos') and means 'nations' or 'peoples'. To the first century Jew it mean anyone who was not a Jew. But it had no religious connotation, that is, it most certainly did not mean to say someone who was actively practicing a Pagan religion.
The problem I see with that interpretation, El, is that you're focusing on only one side of the equation. The passage teaches not only that we shouldn't lay up treasures here or seek material possessions, but also that we should store up treasure in Heaven and seek first God's kingdom.
"These passages are to essentially to teach moderation"? Nonsense, they are to teach us to serve God, to put His eternal goals before our temporal wants.
Marty, forgive me for not celebrating with you in the return of your son! How marvelous! Is he home to stay, I pray?
While we're pondering heaven and economics and the Wealth of "enough," let me pass on this Glen Stassen note on the Sermon. Stassen says, "In the first three centuries of the church, no other biblical passage was referred to as often as the Sermon on the Mount"
Which I had not heard before but comes as no surprise to me. It is central to anabaptist thought, as well.
And, as we ponder this treasure in heaven idea, I might ask, "why can't we serve two masters?"
Could it be because working for Mammon - "wealth-for-wealth's sake"? - is diametrically opposed to working for God? Is that why they love of money is the root of all evil? That there's something inherently anti-God in the accumulation of stuff and the needing of stuff?
Bubba:"The passage teaches not only that we shouldn't lay up treasures here or seek material possessions, but also that we should store up treasure in Heaven and seek first God's kingdom."
I can't account for what Jesus means by 'treasures in Heaven' (literally 'treasures in the skies',whatever that means). I'm somewhat of Dan's thinking that this must surely mean treasures as the result of works. After all, it it is all function of grace, how is it that anyone is laying up treasures at all?
But you see, I'm neither an adherent of Sola Scriptura nor am I a plenarist. So the need and compunction to account for it really isn't there as it is for you.
Here are some things that shape my view. As you might know, documentation by physical evidence for the Bible and the Christian story as we have it is very, very sparse before the beginning of the 4th century, 312 being the red letter date. Almost all the extant documentation for even the existence of the Christian religion and Christian writings we have before 312, over 90% deals almost exclusively with the Sermon on the Mount.
I know that's likely to mean very little to you, but I find it most instructive. Apparently the very early Christians considered these direct (more or less) words of Jesus to be of paramount importance and were not necessarily even aware of the existence of Paul's epistles.
Also when you examine the versions of the gospels and other Christian writings whose extant copies predate the extant copies of the cannon by as much as 150 years, they parallel the Sermon on the Mount very closely but are quite foreign to Pauline theology.
Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.
Split a piece of wood; I am there.
Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."
From the Gospel of Thomas
If somebody said that they focused on the negative side of the sermon (i.e., where not to store one's treasure) to the exclusion of the positive side, and that their focus lead them to practice moderation, that would be one thing.
It's another thing entirely to ignore the positive side and act as if the negative is all that is taught -- or, bizarrely, to act as if the positive only exists for those who have Paul's epistles.
(Did these ancient writings ignore 6:20 and 6:33?)
You can't account for what Jesus is talking about in referencing treasures in Heaven? Is it better then to ignore that part altogether rather than even attempt a speculation? Can ignoring that part lead to a trustworthy interpretation of what the entire passage teaches?
I'm willing at least to make a guess about what Jesus is talking about, based on the fact that He describes the permanence of that treasure -- its invincibility to decay and theft.
What lasts? What is eternal? It's not your pile of firewood, and it's not even the planet from which you gathered that firewood: it's oursevles, it's our souls.
What one cannot leave behind is his character, so he should build it; his faith and hope and love, so he should nurture them; and his relationship with God, so he should work so that the relationship matures.
Others' souls are eternal, too, and that leads us back to that evangelism that you so distrust and perhaps even hate.
Are these works? Sure, but as I wrote in the previous comment thread, I acknowledge that works are an almost inevitable consequence of genuine faith. Sola fide does not mean works are worthless, only that they lack salvific power.
And what about moderation? Lesser priorities and our concern for them ought to be moderated, but the Great Commandment is not, Love the Lord your God with all a moderate amount of your heart, and with a moderate amount of your soul, and with a moderate amount of your mind.
Bubba:"It's another thing entirely to ignore the positive side and act as if the negative is all that is taught"
Again, yet again, to have a different view than you have is not the same thing as ignoring.
You are so positive in your cut and dried, written in stone version of Christianity about what Jesus meant. There are other possibilities, other interpretations, and flinging a barrage of Bible verses doesn't much change things.
First, what is "lay up for yourselves treasures in the skies"? Most people's view of Heaven comes more from Dante's Paradisio and John Milton's Paradise Lost than it does from the Bible ... even if they've never read them. These images of Heaven and Hell (and Purgatory) crept into the modern culture and, as is human nature, beginning from the popular culture we can go back and find any evidence that remotely hints of the myth and it looks as though it is proof.
(As an aside, this is exactly what happens with most forms of modern Christianity, but that would be a long comment and not appropriate here)
Additionally, the book of Revelation was was not well received by many in the early church and many since. For example Martin Luther rejected it out of hand.
What if, as Martin Luther taught, the book of Revelation isn't part of the inspired Word of God? What do we have left to base our view of what Heaven is?
The OT does not describe an afterlife in any concrete terms only saying that when we die, all of us good a and bad, we go to Sheol (death, the grave). The OT is intently concerned with what is going on while someone is here.
As Dan has pointed out, Jesus overwhelmingly deals with the here and now and even the apostles' writings are vague about what Heaven is or is like.
So what did he mean by "treasures in the skies"? It is consistent with the rest of Jesus' teachings that he means the spiritual side of things without reference to when that takes place. He doesn't say, "treasures in the skies when you die", he simply says "treasures in the skies".
So his teaching here in the sermon on the mount is that excess and riches rob you of experiencing the spiritual side of your life, much as excesses rob you of your health. He is advocating that they go for having a spiritual experience RIGHT THEN, and not, as most interpret this, as putting off the benefits of riches so you can have them later with interest in Heaven.
If it's bad to wallow in riches here on Earth, why would it be a good thing to wallow in them forever in Heaven?
Bubba, I might ask, when you and others say: ""These passages are to essentially to teach moderation"? Nonsense, they are to teach us to serve God, to put His eternal goals before our temporal wants."
Do you understand that, to me and some others here, it seems this is an instance of the Religious spiritualizing what the passage directly says?
Do you understand that, when we read this, the straightforward message here seems (to me and others, anyway) to be one of not over-consuming? To be content with Enough? To not store up Goods on Goods, and that when one does, it is an indication that their treasure - their Trust - is in the Mammon, and not in God?
Do you see that as the straightforward message, too, but you "reach deeper" to find a message that says "what this REALLY means is we are to Serve God" or do you not even see the message that we are seeing?
Dan:"Do you understand that, to me and some others here, it seems this is an instance of the Religious spiritualizing what the passage directly says?"
It is akin to the old saw that if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail to you.
Of if Sade had been a Gospel singer, she might have crooned "You're so vain, you probably think this passage is about you(r particular religious hang up)."
Long ago, the time I alluded to on 'The Strip', when Don McLean was active and his Vincent's Song was popular, a fundamentalist in all his enthusiasm declared that the song was about Jesus.
What!? Oh, yes!
The 'Starry Night' is of course Heaven.
'Eyes that look into my soul'
'How you suffered ....'
'They would not listen ..'
'Weathered faces lined in pain are soothed ...'
(and the kicker)
'A silver thorn, a bloody rose...'
clearly a reference to the crucifixion.
Even when we gave the poor fellow a crash course in art history, showed him that there was a painter named Vincent who did a painting called Starry Night, and Grain Fields, Daffodils, Rose in the Snow, and a lot of old, worn people all referenced in the song. He also killed himself .... even with all this, he was adamant that the song was about Jesus. Everything is really about Jesus.
To the fundamentalist the Bible and the whole of religious history teaches nothing but "accept Jesus as your personal savior (TM)" and absolutely nothing else. No discussion, insight, experience, analysis is valid, it ALL means just that one thing and nothing more.
It's really not much different than those people who are constantly seeing a picture of Jesus or the Virgin Mary in a stain on the wall, the shadows underneath a streetlight, or the pattern of the raisins in their oatmeal.
The focus of "storing up treasures in heaven" is neither to deny the existence of heaven (Jesus clearly shared the common view of Jews in his day and most Christians ever since that a spiritual realm existed), nor to claim, as Plato would, that the spiritual realm is "real" and important while our world here is but shadow, mirage, or, at best, dress rehearsal for what is real.
The focus is clearly part of Jesus' proclamation that the Basilea tou Theou ("Kingdom of God" or "Rule of God") is breaking into our reality in Jesus' ministry. Jewish piety, then and now, was to be cautious about saying "God" for fear of breaking the commandment against taking God's name in vain. (Hence, many Jews today will write "G-d," rather than "God.") So Matthew almost always rendered Basilea tou Theou as Basilea tous Ouranous or "Kingdom of the Heavens."
To "store up treasures in heaven" is to invest our lives in the Rule of God, in the pattern of discipleship that Jesus is here describing. That includes not overconsuming, rejecting materialism, being satisfied with enough,etc., but also working against poverty, working for peace, loving enemies, practicing forgiveness, etc. In short, "storing up treasures in heaven" is not about getting some bank account of virtue with God, but about living the pattern of life Jesus is describing in the Sermon.
"Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" is just the most amazing wisdom. If you invest in oil stocks, you will clearly be opposed to the development of alternative, earth friendly energies or movements to bike, walk, and take public transportation. You will resist evidence of catastrophic climate change because action to reduce carbon emissions will threaten your investments.
If you invest in munitions, actions for peace are threatening.
If you invest your life and time and money into the values of God that Jesus describes, then your heart will be there instead of with trends, etc. that work against those values.
Byron, a theology blogger from Australia, has a beautiful series on heaven, specifically on how the central Christian hope is not "heaven when we die," but the Rule of God coming to earth. I highly recommend it. A link to all the major post in his series can be found here: http://nothing-new-under-the-sun.blogspot.com/2006/11/heaven-in-rear-view-mirror-links.html
Dan said:>Do you see that as the straightforward message, too, but you "reach deeper" to find a message that says "what this REALLY means is we are to Serve God" or do you not even see the message that we are seeing?
Dan, I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Jesus said in Matt 5:3 that those that realized their spiritual poverty would see Heaven. God is concerned about our spiritual condition for it effects all aspects of our life (see Proverbs 4:23 and also "but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be in darkness. And if the light in you is darkness, how great will the darkness be"). Our hearts are wicked above all things. Healing and contentment doesn't come from externals - but rather from a right spiritual relationship with our Creator.
Ok.
Roger:"Healing and contentment doesn't come from externals - but rather from a right spiritual relationship with our Creator."
The point that Dan and others have made about 'treasures in Heaven' is that a pursuit of riches blocks the spiritual side of one's life. Therefore externals have a great deal to do with it.
Further if "Heaven" is that rule of God in one's life here on earth, as is being opined, then whether it's by grace or by works becomes a distinction without a difference. That only has a meaning if Heaven is viewed as an extended retirement system and you have to wait until you die to cash in on it.
eleuthores, I didn't catch it if you expressed whether you believed in a resurrected Christ Jesus or not and it sounds as though you do not believe in a place called Heaven. If those two things are not a part of your beliefs, then I can understand the thinking that this life and this present time are all that matters. It would seem to me also that we have never believed in the same Jesus.
Yes, Dan, my son is home to stay. He should be out of the military in less than 90 days.
You know there's that old saying: "A person can be so heavenly minded they're no earthly good."
Yes, there is that old saying.
Give your boy a hug for us all. We'll be praying for y'all in the transition time.
Marty, what a Christmas present! I say that as a former soldier to you and your son. I give thanks that there were no wars 20 years ago before I wised up and became a conscientious objector! I thanks your son for his courageous service--not that I agree with it, but because it is SOOOO much better than the "chickenhawk syndrome" that prevails in D.C. I respectfully disagree with soldiers--but I have contempt for chickenhawks!
I pray that so many other mothers here, in Iraq, and in the dozens of wars and conflicts globally, will soon be able to join in your joy
Thanks Michael and Dan. I, too, pray that not one more mother's child will be taken in needless wars across the globe. I've been a pacifist since I lost my fiance in the Tet Offensive in Vietnam back in January 1968. It was really difficult for me to see my only son volunteer for combat duty after 9/11. He knew how I felt. He knew he was going against God. My Dad, a WWII combat vet, now 90 years young, couldn't understand why his grandson would willingly join up. But my son said it was something he had to do and we had to respect that. Now he has nothing but disdain for the military. He thought the military stood for honor and integrity. He saw neither. He should be getting a settlement because of his back injury. If, by chance, he should be re-called, I doubt very seriously if he will heed that call. He wants no part of this anymore.
Moma2:"It would seem to me also that we have never believed in the same Jesus."
You're a polytheist? You believe there is more than one God, the one I believe in vs the one you believe in?
eleutheros, No, I am not a polytheist. I believe in the triune God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You still did not answer my question as to whether you believe in the resurrected Jesus. Failure to believe in the resurrection of Jesus would lead to belief that Jesus was not divine and that would also explain the lack of faith in a savior. No one but a perfect one could pay the price.
Moma2:"eleutheros, No, I am not a polytheist. I believe in the triune God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."
Then I'm still dealing with the question you first bring up:
"It would seem to me also that we have never believed in the same Jesus."
If we don't believe in the same Jesus, then you must be allowing for there being more than one Jesus. Clarify that for us.
Moma2" You still did not answer my question as to whether you believe in the resurrected Jesus."
Because it has nothing whatever to do with what we are discussing on this particular part of the Sermon on the Mount.
Moma2:" No one but a perfect one could pay the price."
The posit before us is whether when Jesus is talking about 'treasures in Heaven' he is talking about a bigger condo in the Celestial City when we die, or else if he is talking about the spiritual part of our lives while we are here. If he is talking about the latter, evidence for which has been presented, then if you follow his instructions, he says you get the benefits of a spiritual life. This would be true whether he was resurrected or not. Keep in mind that the Sermon on the Mount contained promises to those hearing him then, and he had not risen from the dead yet.
More to the point, if Jesus is talking about embracing the spiritual life by following his instructions, then what price to pay are we talking about. Following our posit here, all the price paying business seems more and more like just Jewish symbolism and is not part of Jesus actual message to the world.
If we don't believe in the same Jesus, then you must be allowing for there being more than one Jesus. Clarify that for us.>
I can't determine by what you post whether you believe in the resurrected Jesus and if you would explain that to me, then I would know. If Jesus did not rise from the grave to life again, then He would not be God or any different than mere man. The mormons and jehovah witnesses talk about Jesus, but they don't know the same Jesus that we Christians do. If Jesus is not God, why would we even be concerned with His Sermon on the Mount? It would be on the par with something that some individual would speak or write and there is no human who is perfect and deserving of our worship.
Moma2:"I can't determine by what you post whether you believe in the resurrected Jesus and if you would explain that to me, then I would know."
Because it is not important.
Moma2:" If Jesus did not rise from the grave to life again, then He would not be God or any different than mere man."
Why couldn't he be God whether he rose from the dead or not? If he's God, can't he do pretty much as he sees fit?
Moma2:"The mormons and jehovah witnesses talk about Jesus, but they don't know the same Jesus that we Christians do."
Again the multiple Jesuses. I'm not familiar with this concept as a part of anyone's Christian belief system so I can't address it.
Moma2:" If Jesus is not God, why would we even be concerned with His Sermon on the Mount? It would be on the par with something that some individual would speak or write and there is no human who is perfect and deserving of our worship."
It's quite simple really. If Jesus pointed the way to a spiritual life, if following his instructions really led to a spiritual experience, and we, as the Fundies are so fond of saying "Took him up on it, took him at his word" and obeyed his instructions AND this resulted in s spiritual life, then who cares if He's perfect or not?
If the sum of one's Christian life is a lottery card they scratch off at the pearly gates and either get in or not, then all the perfectness and rising from the dead has a lot to do with it. But if what Jesus actually did was open a spiritual door for us and invite us to enter it HERE and NOW, then whether the instructions were from a soon-to-be-resurrected Son of God, a good teacher, or found written on the back of a chewing gum wrapper is little odds. Entering into the spiritual life is entering into the spiritual life. Results are results.
I think your idea of spiritualism sounds more like mysticism and that is nothing to fool around with, if you are concerned with your soul.
Moma2:"I think your idea of spiritualism sounds more like mysticism and that is nothing to fool around with, if you are concerned with your soul."
Something funny here I'd point out: When it comes to mysticism and spiritualism, it's always fooling around with. Why is that? Why isn't it 'fooling around with' fundamentalism, or 'fooling around with' faith only.
Jesus was the chief of mystics, you know. Or maybe He was just 'fooling around' with it.
Scoffing is not something I want to get involved with. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. I don't mean the kind of fear that means I am scared, but I place God in a position that is above me and He is Almighty and to be praised. I am old enough to not be amused by foolishness.
Moma2:"but I place God in a position that is above me"
I'm sure God appreciates the leg up.
On the other hand I have never felt it was in my power or prerogative to be placing God anywhere. Sounds a little blasphemous to me.
"I am old enough to not be amused by foolishness."
Therein lies the problem with many in religion-dom. We are, after all, nothing if not fools for Jesus, in our fallen humanity pretending to be wise.
Reading Jesus' words here and elsewhere (specially towards the religious), don't you just sometimes get the feeling that what he's really saying is, "geez, lighten up fellas!"
To answer my own question about, "Why is it that Jesus in the gospels seems to reserve his anger and hostility and harsh words nearly exclusively for the religious?"
I'd suspect that it may be because the religious are the ones who have the hardest time learning, hearing, heeding. We know what we believe and we further know what we believe is True and Holy, therefore why would we bother to learn from a heathen, a pagan, a child?
And so, Jesus (and the prophets before him) chose the metaphorical slap on the face, thinking to slap some humility in us.
Rarely worked, though.
And note, when speaking of the religious, I refered to "we," for when it comes to religiosity, I'm chief of sinners.
Dan said...>Reading Jesus' words here and elsewhere (specially towards the religious), don't you just sometimes get the feeling that what he's really saying is, "geez, lighten up fellas!"
To the contrary - it appears that Jesus is warning them of the condition of their hearts which are in need (see Matt 5:3)...
Matthew 23:27
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness."
He's saying they are spiritually dead ... no matter how they may look or come across to men.
"...but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be in darkness. And if the light in you is darkness, how great will the darkness be"
Bubba observed:
"And I notice that, for the second time, you've replied to someone's comment with nothing more than "Ok." Just what are we supposed to do with a comment so devoid of content?"
I find our discussions here and there interesting - a sort of sociological study, among other things. One of the things that I observe is that when folk from two divergent viewpoints are discussing a matter, it seems that neither fully understands the other.
As a result, it feels like I make a point, for instance, about "Apples are Good" only to be met with a point, "No. College basketball is Good..." It seems that the person missed my point altogether and is off talking about another topic.
I'm sure my responses feel the same for them, as well. Sometimes, in the midst of this sort of conversation, I have thrown my hands up and said, "OK" not knowing how else to respond.
Or sometimes, I might do it when I feel like we've both expressed our points and I've decided not to re-state my point again. So, when you say:
"It seems to me that you want to replace what is taught with what you would like to be taught."
I respond: "Okay, believe that way if you must. I never said that, don't think that. I'm following Right Teaching the best I know how. You are free to think what you wish."
OK?
That's fine: I just didn't know what you meant by it.
I believe that the written word is better than even the spoken word in allowing a person to express what he really believes in a concise and consistent manner; it's just that this series of comment threads, like many online bulletin boards, suggests that a relationship in the real world is probably necessary to really understand the point of view of someone who disagrees with you greatly, even if most of the later communication is in letter form.
This might not be the best way for our different believers and non-believers to exchange ideas, especially if the goal is to discover and communicate the truth rather than merely observe a sociological experiment.
Dan said...>I find our discussions here and there interesting - a sort of sociological study, among other things. One of the things that I observe is that when folk from two divergent viewpoints are discussing a matter, it seems that neither fully understands the other.
That's why it's beneficial to focus the discussion on what all believers have in common - an understanding of what salvation is, our sin problem, who Jesus is, and the meaning of the cross. If we don't know why Jesus came, died, and rose again - then we're still lost! Salvation is a matter of the heart and not something gained by externals or head knowledge.
"If we don't know why Jesus came, died, and rose again - then we're still lost!"
Okay.
"That's why it's beneficial to focus the discussion on what all believers have in common"
Why is that beneficial? Your "commonality" would be like talking to yourself over and over again. For me, that would be rather boring, and I'm not sure I'd learn anything I didn't already know.
Post a Comment