Back to work, I am. Fun. Fun. Fun.
Seriously, though, five days on vacation with the family was a lot of fun. Took some cool video of the children, somewhat enjoyed a trip to Lincoln, slept, worked on a moonlighting project, etc. The list goes on. I had several long stretches away from a computer. I had a half day to write. All in all, I feel quite refreshed. It’s true that once back on a computer, I could have done with out reading this or this or a lot of goofy emails. The first link parses the difference between an ideal and a vision. Basically, an ideal is not readily quantifiable, therefore it is useless. The second link is just disturbing (but it’s subtle). Ugh.
I plan on finishing the Next Awakening series of posts. They are on paper at this point. Transcription is not my strong point. (Not much really is, come to think of it.) I also spent some time developing material for Sycarion and Prairiecomber, but more drafting than anything. We’ll see. Lots of links to post that I may never get around to. Not much else.
I’ve been encouraged about recent events, especially those pertaining to unity. I look forward to more fellowship and dialogue as the days move on. I had decided at the beginning of the year to speak more to unity and to what can be done. I admit, it’s been difficult.
On that topic, something to think about. Why do the one-another passages have to be implemented? A friend pointed out to me how peculiar that phrase is. It’s like trying to implement Acts 2:40
. Do we implement saving ourselves from this corrupt generation? A better example might be Ephesians 4:2, how do you implement complete humility, gentleness, patience, and forbearance? It is possible to put into practice a methodology to fulfill this passage? This isn’t saying that discipleship is wrong, teaching younger men as counseled in Titus should be implemented. When it comes to some one-another passages, it seems like we are trying to implement the Holy Spirit into the lives of Christians by human means. (Galatians 3:3)
More on the way.
Comments
6 Responses to “Return to the Semicube”
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- pinakidion: what rock said
- Rock: “Is Pinakidion ever going to post again?”
- salguod: Is that an answer to a question that I missed?
- xray342: How’s this for cryptic? $ echo ‘pinakidion’ | md5 16da6556b9ba8a411a6f4251591eae2b
- Velocio: “Despite my best efforts, you have learned about evil from me, in part, because you have seen it in me.” Wow, tears....
Hi pk,
Welcome back.
By far most of the teachings on relationships can only be implemented by the individual Christian with the power of the Holy Spirit. All the church can do is teach and encourage those virtues.
On another topic, we need to encourage some mainline coC folks to submit profiles to connect4change.
In regards to C4C,
Yes, we do need to have more non-ICoC profiles. Maybe if we could get Tom and Gregg to publish good stories about others. So far, the articles are pretty much ICoC = Good, others = issues. I think one of the ‘Churches that Work’ from the Christian Chronicle would be a good inclusion.
Asked the few folks I know. We shall see.
In regards to one-another relationships,
I understand that only the Spirit can keep us together. Personally, I do not believe that can be ‘implemented’ at all. Implementation by definition requires a structured program. It’s like trying to implement love. Love can be facilitated (maybe), but not implemented. Suppose that love could be implemented; the degree and depth of love relies on the program used to implement it.
2 Timothy 2
can be implemented. It is a specific directive to pass on the teachings of the church (or at least of Paul) to its members. There is no one-another connection here, especially as the qualifying material is that which was spoken by Paul in the presence of many witnesses.
In regards to one-another relationships, 1 John 2
says, “We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.” Ultimately, the love of God motivates us to even sacrifice our own lives for each other.
What about a program? Don’t we need structure? Don’t we need some principles and guidelines to make sure that these things happen? I don’t think you can, otherwise you are making a law. Wasn’t it the Pharisees that sought to create laws in order to implement the Sabbath rest? I don’t see how this is any different. We can equivocate and call it a principle, but it’s the same thing.
In our theology we struggle so much with grace we seek to compromise it with just a little law and regulation. We are so afraid of abusing grace, we even coined the phrase ‘cheap grace’ to chastise our own laziness. Laziness is sinful, but I can’t repent of laziness by committing a different sin (calling the grace of God cheap)!
For me, I’ve had to learn that I can be free from the law, but still not be under grace. When I do not feel like I have any direction, or I am feeling like I have no purpose, it is not because of a lack of someone providing a vision or purpose for me. It’s not a lack of structure in my life. It’s a lack of understanding grace.
It’s true I escaped from the law and regulations of dating, one-over-another discipling, advice, a culture of permission, etc. Just stopping these things, though, is not enough. I may be free from them, but still dead (to use James’ word for it). The answer is not a nicer form of these things, or a dab here and there of the principles involved in their creation. The answer is transformation by the renewing of my mind, specifically a fundamental understanding of grace.
Well, I remember seeing “cheap grace” first in Bonhoeffer’s Cost of Discipleship. Of course, “we” didn’t talk about “turning the grace of God into a license for immorality” (Jude) first.
Believe me, I know exactly what you’re talking about. Our inability to talk about grace without throwing in our “no cheap grace” qualifiers really gets under my skin. But the *occasional* qualifier is not only legitimate, but Not Our Idea anyway.
To me, since grace == charis == gift, a lack of response to grace, then is a lack of gratitude. It may be caused by not realizing the value of the gifts or by somehow thinking we deserved the gift, which means it’s no gift at all. *I* think that we Up By Our Own Bootstraps Westerners fall into the latter category and it shows not just in my lack of a positive response in demeanor, but in our arrogance and lack of grace towards those less advantaged.
Oh, I think structure has it’s place (Paul had to instruct the Corinthians how to not have a free for all during their worship service) but we come from a long history of trying to legislate righteousness.
When we decided that ‘discipling’ was no longer PC, we inserted ‘one another relationships’(tm). It’s the same thing, only different. It’s probably a move in the right direction but a baby step.
We don’t appreciate grace - it’s way too foreign a concept for us. I think Mark’s right - it’s partly our Western POV. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, remember? If it’s too good to be true….it isn’t. We aren’t desperate people. We’re Americans (shoot - it’s even better for me - I’m a Texan!). Grace is for those poor, starving children in China.
I suspect one day the tide will change and we will be a desperate people and will better see our need.
I think we’ve taught (and still teach) statutes and not spirituality. We could measure the one and not the other. We taught formulas (disciple=Christian=saved) more than freedom from sin and freedom to accept God’s gift.
Ok, I’ll stop….this is beginning to look like a rant.
ttk
I agree with you Mark. It’s hard to see grace as a gift, instead of a license.
TTK: I don’t think we ever started teaching anything that couldn’t be measured.
Pink - I think you’re ‘100%’ correct on that one!