"In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."
To deny the above is the entire job of the heathens and their consorts.
To believe it is the only job of the Christian.
The dignity of the body, as well as of the soul, separates us from Gnostics, and Buddhists, and Marxists, and all other faiths.
Each of us is made in the image of God. To think of some part -- whether skin color, or gender, as determinative, is a false idol. To separate people by class is itself a blasphemy. Any mark of distinction is not permanent. God is impartial, and we are to be impartial likewise. We accept each face as divine, even if it sees itself as an animal such as an armadillo or a caterpillar that does not know it will one day turn into a butterfly.
1st Cor 15:44: "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."
Walking on water, turning water into wine, making bread fall out of the sky: all of these are parlour tricks compared to the Resurrection, and the new body that shall result in our exaltation.
50 comments:
To believe it is the only job of the Christian.
No, Jesus tells us quite clearly to love each other and to change ourselves and follow Him.
GM, does he really say, "Change yourself and be like me?"
Could you quote him saying this?
Because he also says to his followers when they ask whether they should separate the weeds out from the wheat, that they are not capable of doing this, which implies a permanent difference between us and him.
At least, that is, on this side of the divide.
Stu says we have to be careful not to go Mormon in our understanding of the afterlife. Mormons apparently believe that after death each of us will get a universe even bigger and better than this one, and become our own God.
Most Christians however do not believe that to be so. We think there is only one God.
But after crossing, we will also be resurrected.
From there on the details are scanty. Aquinas says there will be new bodies, made entirely of light, but still recognizable. Midgets shall remain midgets, and Shaquille O'Neil will still be able to be dunk baskets.
But we will be made of a substance that is able to teleport itself, the way Christ could teleport himself.
I love that idea.
But it's a far cry from getting to be God yourself, in a bigger and better universe, as the Mormons apparently claim.
We're still going to be in God's universe, and there's still going to be only one God.
I don't know if we will have fingernails, or whether they will need to be clipped. Aquinas says we will have fingernails, but they won't need to be clipped.
He calls us to metanoeo--the word that gets translated as repent but really means change your mind and your purpose. And you're changing my quote--he says to follow him.
cf:
Luke 13:5: I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
Mark 8:34-38: If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels.
Played golf with a Chinese guy yesterday. Said he was from Shanghai. Wanted to know where I'm from, how long I've been here and what I do for a living. Told him I'd planned to be an English professor, but when I went to take holy orders I must have passed out or maybe the floor gave out beneath me. Woke up on a slow boat to China.
I know there is a huge discrepancy between GM's viewpoint and mine on this topic of how and whether we can be Christ-like, but I still say his viewpoint comes dangerously close to the Pelagian Heresy.
As for Craig, it sounds as if he'd been Shanghai'd.
I'll freely admit I am a Pelagian. We are capable of correct behavior. We do choose to sin. We are criminals, not victims.
Jesus is our example for behavior on this world and in the next.
I'm all about the life change, the metanoia (Greek), the turning around (Hebrew), the denying oneself, the growing into the fullness of Christ.
But Pelagianism is something altogether different. It suggests an actual ability to climb to heaven by our own effort, with no help from grace, save for perhaps the grace of being created a human being.
G.M, is that what you actually subscribe to?
Wow, that was a rather large number of typographic errors, at least one of which changed the meaning. PEBKAC, as they say. Let me try again...
Gee, Kirby, was it just last week that you were flogging the Ten Commandments as the epitome of Western Civilization, Christianity, and all that you think is good in the world?
So today, you believe that it's o.k. to rob, rape, and murder, just so long as we believe that everyone gets a replacement body after they die? The desecrations we do to our bodies, or to other people's bodies, don't really matter, because these are ephemeral forms, and the incorruptible body we'll all receive is not profaned by what we do in the here-and-now?
I don't buy it.
In my opinion, the "job" of a Christian is to believe in God, in Jesus as the Son of God, in the promises they offer, and then to live our lives as people who are saved.
The ten commandments are for the fallen, aren't they?
I mean, we are fallen, are we not?
Later on, we will be risen.
Right now, we are fallen.
All regulations apply this side of the great divide.
I suppose I think GM is confusing the two kingdoms again, or in his denomination, they don't even have that separation.
Are you not completely depraved, GM?
This side of paradise our job is to stay inside of the ten commandments. Our reward is that we can then experience perfection, and teleportation, and other ludicrous stuff, on the other side.
Jesus did have a ludic side. He was enjoying turning water into wine and walking on water, and liked how it amazed the others. I'm not saying this was all for laughs, exclusively, but that there was an element of sly humor in the dude.
The ten commandments are for the fallen, aren't they?
No. The Law retains purpose: to restrain, condemn, and instruct. They remain guidelines as to how God wants us to live our life.
The Gospel does not supersede the Law. It is just that we as Lutherans understand that justification is not one of the purposes of the Law. We are not righteous because we follow the law, we are righteous through faith by grace.
WB:
Perhaps I'm hobbled by Wikipedia but this is the opening paragraph about Pelagianism:
Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius (AD 354 – AD 420/440), although ironically he denied, at least at some point in his life, many of the doctrines associated with his name. It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example) as well as providing an atonement for our sins. In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for obeying the Gospel in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, because men are sinners by choice, they are therefore criminals who need the atonement of Jesus Christ. Sinners are not victims, they are criminals who need pardon.
I don't find much to argue with there.
And Kirby, yes, I'm a sinner--I'm the bad guy--because I give in to temptation--like we all do. But I give in. By choice.
I think that GM's profession of Pelagianism is somewhat misguided, so let me try to sort this out.
We as Christians take something of a head's God wins, tails we lose attitude w.r.t. sin. If we sin, it is entirely our fault, but if we don't, it is entirely to God's credit. This bends our sense of logic and justice, but there it is.
When GM says that he's a Pelagian, I don't think he's taking credit for being good (the specific hubris that Kirby rightly objects to), instead he is professing that whatever sins he's committed are his responsibility alone (a sentiment that I expect Kirby would agree with).
GM, Remember what St. Paul writes in Romans, when he asks (can't remember the precise passage, or exactly what he says) -- why do I do exactly what I don't want to do, and don't do exactly what I have said I will do? What the f. is the matter with me?
The answer is original sin.
The deck is stacked, so I think the thing is that that's the reason that we have to ask for forgiveness.
Stu has an extra wrinkle on this score where he thinks that through grace we can attain perfection.
This is the whole discrepancy or what Lyotard would call, the differend, between the Missouri and the ELCA.
ELCA thinks we can attain perfection this side of the grave, and that we are not totally demented almost all of the time, and they also to some degree believe that our reason can comprehend our state.
Missouri is more surrealistic and pessimistic -- that the ID -- the monstrous sin in the heart of the universe driven by satan is much more powerful than we think. Satan is always with us.
I think for whatever reason the ELCA thinks Satan was some kind of historical entity.
Missouri says we are 98% Satan, and every time we look in a mirror, we see this -- shadow figure.
At the same time we are made in God's image.
It's hard for me to reconcile these two images.
Somehow they have something to do with two kingdoms.
Kirby,
Stu has an extra wrinkle on this score where he thinks that through grace we can attain perfection.
No, I do not believe this. I believe that we are justified by faith through grace—the quintessential summary of the Lutheran theological position. Justified does not equal perfect. God knows, in both the literal and idiomatic senses, that we are not perfect, and that we will never be perfect.
ELCA thinks we can attain perfection this side of the grave
This is simply incorrect. Did you believe this when the church to which you now belong was a part of the ELCA? Of course not.
Kirby - you said it better than most contemporary theologians.
Almost every heresy involves a denigration of creation and a denial of the resurrection of the body - not only Jesus' but ours.
Kudos!
Original sin is about as useful as "devils"--lame excuses for our bad behavior.
Here's my input: (the song, not the accompanying slide show really...would have used a live version or just the sound if I coulda found it)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60-qspVM8eI
It's called the power of negative thinking. You see the water hazard next to the green and tell yourself don't pull it, don't hook it, because if you go left you're sure to have a (penalty) stroke. But when you think that thought you start visualizing the shot and it's got an emotional charge to it. You have to overcome that negative thought with a positive thought and consciously will yourself to visualize a high fade that will land on the green about halfway between the flag and the bunker on the right. And you have to will it intensely enough to dissipate the negative, involuntary, unconscious, fear inspired energy.
In case I wasn't specific:
When GM says that he's a Pelagian, I don't think he's taking credit for being good (the specific hubris that Kirby rightly objects to), instead he is professing that whatever sins he's committed are his responsibility alone (a sentiment that I expect Kirby would agree with).
This.
Missouri says we are 98% Satan, and every time we look in a mirror, we see this -- shadow figure.
At the same time we are made in God's image.
Please find in the Bible where it says the first conjecture.
Luke 23:34 is fairly clear, I think, when Jesus asks God to forgive the soldiers who are shooting dice to see who gets his clothes.
Luther has a long letter of preface to Romans where he talks about how we are spiritual morons, and yet we have to love each other nevertheless.
We cannot do the law by willing it. The only way is to believe entirely in Christ, and this in some sense opens the heart. But I don't think it ever does this permanently. It's a permanent struggle.
This letter of Luther's is rather long, but it's a fairly good intro to Lutheran thought. I think he says it quite clearly: if you are following the word of the lord to the letter, but your heart isn't in it, if you are still a thief and an adulterer and a killer, then vot's der use:
http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html
I ask for the Bible telling us we are 98% Satan and you give me Jesus forgiving the world for its ignorance and Luther.
Luther != the Bible.
Well, I don't think the Bible verses speak in terms of percentages.
Calvin and Luther used phrases like "total depravity" in reference to humanity.
How else do we explain the Roman soldiers gambling for the clothes of a man who is being crucified?
And I did give you Romans, as read by Luther. Luther is a genius. I'm a fumbler, and a bumbler, doing my best. Read Luther, please. It's only five pages or so, but the prose is lightning and thunder.
You don't have to, but if you want to understand the viewpoint, and you did read it, you would then understand.
Then of course you should roll out the best texts of your particular tradition, and share and share alike, dudeson.
I don't know if 98% is correct. Luther himself never talks percentages. He and Calvin seemed to agree that there was SOMETHING left from the fall, something that they called "common grace." This refers to the sprinkling of decency inside every human being.
One of the Roman soldiers who was impressed by Christ on the cross, really did believe that he was a great religious figure -- possibly God, right?
These inklings, or intuitions, are possible even for the likes of Ceausescu. Even for St. Paul, who had persecuted Christians.
Even for the likes of me.
You can't count on it, of course. People do have a worse than animal aspect. What other animal writes pornography?
What other mammal aborts its children?
What other animal is so perverse?
We're a weird bunch, a very dark and compact creature, fraught with sin. But there is nevertheless that ray of hope, that can sometimes open the hardest heart.
A song like "Amazing Grace" is about that strange moment.
It's as if a plant has grown up through cement.
What is the cement if not Satan? How do YOU explain it?
I explain it in terms of percentages partially because I find it funny. You get "total depravity" and yet "common grace."
Doesn't "total" mean 100%?
OK, then perhaps we should use the 2% figure for "common grace"?
At once we seem to be made in the image of God, and yet, to be completely lost and dark.
I think this is a paradox that can't be solved with a simple equation. We are always already both, for reasons that are beyond me, but which the Biblical stories are the best analogue, and Luther, to my mind, the clearest interpreter.
if you are following the word of the lord to the letter, but your heart isn't in it, if you are still a thief and an adulterer and a killer, then vot's der use:
Kirby, that's stupid.
If you are following the Word of Jesus to the letter 1) you won't be a thief, adulterer, or killer and moreover 2) you can't do it if your heart's not in it.
Kirby--do you not see the inherent danger in what Luther writes?
Let's look at two quotes:
This letter is truly the most important piece in the New Testament. It is purest Gospel.
Oh really? Why does he get to make that judgement?
One would think the most important piece of the New Testament would be the part that Jesus said was the most important: loving God and loving your neighbor.
Let's continue:
To begin with, we have to become familiar with the vocabulary of the letter and know what St. Paul means by the words law, sin, grace, faith, justice, flesh, spirit, etc. Otherwise there is no use in reading it.
You must not understand the word law here in human fashion, i.e., a regulation about what sort of works must be done or must not be done.
Oh? Does Paul use some other word?
Hm, perhaps it is the translation from the Greek that is the problem. That could certainly be true. Perhaps that's why the Greek Orthodox Church (you know, the ones who can actually read the oldest extant documents natively) don't truck with the silly notion of original sin.
Moreover, here we have Luther saying: Paul is Great! But let me tell you what Paul means. Luther is imposing his vision on Paul. No good, that.
And how can you miss this gem, Kirby?
Works are important, as Luther says:
Faith is a work of God in us, which changes us and brings us to birth anew from God (cf. John 1). It kills the old Adam, makes us completely different people in heart, mind, senses, and all our powers, and brings the Holy Spirit with it. What a living, creative, active powerful thing is faith! It is impossible that faith ever stop doing good. Faith doesn't ask whether good works are to be done, but, before it is asked, it has done them. It is always active. Whoever doesn't do such works is without faith
So if you have faith your faith will be shown in your good works. And look at that last sentence:
Whoever doesn't do such works is without faith.
!
Also,
What I say to the question regarding cement:
"Original sin" is not something related to being human--it is something related to being among fallen humans. If we were all raised by a family of Jesus Christs, living on a world of Jesus Christs, with nothing not created by a Jesus Christ we would never learn sinful behavior.
Perhaps we would still choose to be selfish. Perhaps not. But it is important to note that the notion of sin--that is, disobedience--comes from the clever serpent (NOT Satan, mind you--find me where it says that in the Bible): in other words, the notion to sin comes from an outward influence that appeals to our desires.
Were we God, our desires would be perfect--but since we are but a small fraction of God, we cannot see the entire picture--and therefore our desire is incomplete. When we align our desire with that of God (as instructed in teh Bible) we behave in a righteous manner. When we follow our own desire we sin.
'Original sin is about as useful as "devils"--lame excuses for our bad behavior.'
This strikes me as a bit of a broad brush stroke. By the person seeking to justify himself and avoid responsibility, they are certainly convenient excuses. But if being used by a sinner invalidates a concept, then we'd be living in a concept-poor world.
Rather, I'd say that original sin seeks to explain what "is." "Why is this world so broken?" When someone seeks to use this as an excuse for doing whatever they'd like, they're no longer interested in "why," but in "how," that is, "how can I get away with my behavior?" So long as that is your question, the answer is, "You can't. You are royally screwed, you selfish pig."
As for devils (demons), they get used as excuses too, but the N.T. certainly witnesses to their reality.
Uhhhh. Kirby.
Lots of other Mammals rape, murder, and kill their own (and others) young. Dolphins, dogs, apes, to name a few...
They prostitute themselves. If they had the artistic skills, I'm sure they would make porn.
The difference is that as humans we have knowledge of good and evil.
The difference is that as humans we have knowledge of good and evil.
Almost--the difference is that we have been given rules to follow.
When it comes to topics like these, I find myself torn...
On the one hand, these sorts of theoretical, high-faluten discussions remind me of the theory-centric humanities crowd that focuses on babbling about theory all the time instead of just creating good works of art.
So one person says original sin passes down throughout the generations in a tainted way that means you're born with sin and therefore you need to be cleansed with baptism right away in case you die so that you don't blahblahblah, another says original sin is just the idea of what happened to make us fallen and we are in a state in which we have the ability to make choices and personally are not born with the taint of original sin blahblahblah.
And then there are those people who just live good lives and feed the hungry and love their neighbor and say 'so what' about your theory-centric theological discussions, the way Dylan makes good art and eschews theory.
Wouldn't we rather be Dylan over any number of anonymous theory-minded profs who ain't done much a lick of making nothin' good?
But on the other hand, there may be a real link between our beliefs about such theoretical concepts as original sin and the way we choose to live our lives, eh? And it's also just plain fun to talk about sometimes, too...
But the purpose of art should be to create and communicate something more substantive and beautiful than adherence to a certain theory, right?
And the purpose of life is to create and do something more substantive and beautiful than the adherence to a certain abstract theory, right?
I know I'm being a bit unclear with the analogy...I'll try some more:
I've often found that theory can be useful when used to analyze and discuss literature, but can be counter-productive when used as a focus during the creation of literature.
Perhaps there's an analogy between this and life:
That 'theory' (the sorts of theological specifics about the nature of the body and original sin that this thread is about) can be useful when analyzing life,
but can be counter-productive as a focus during the process of living/choosing how to live...
Am I onto something/makin' sense? Or just hilting at swillmills...
GM -- if the rules are too strict they turn us all into outlaws. We cannot be saints.
It's not humanly possible to be a saint, at least not for 99.9% of us.
So Luther loosened the laws so that we could manage them, and stay reasonably inside of the laws, and inside of the notion of God's acceptance. If laws are so pinchy that no one can get into them (like Cinderella's shoes for her ugmo half-sisters), then we all feel bad.
We are entitled to feel that if we stay within the ten commendables and go to church, that it is enough. Then, if we do more, that's very very nice of us.
But we don't have to fly to Haiti and hand-feed other people's starving children. Anyone who does do that is entitled to feel quite good about themselves, as long as they continue to respect local laws, and all other rules and regulations that might apply.
Luther had a practical side. If the law is too pinchy and demands of us that we be saints, it turns 99.9% of us against the law, and turns us into de facto as well as de jure criminals.
Pinchy laws can make us into a nation of outlaws.
Luther rightly recognized that very few can act like Jesus.
In fact only one person can.
Jesus himself.
For the rest of us even to attempt that is probably Pelagian hubris.
You don't act perfectly around here, GM.
None of us do.
We all like to throw a sharp elbow, and are not exactly full of charity toward people we perceive as our political other. None of us are exactly love and light, right?
At least not 99.9% of the time.
If we are about 2% of the time, then that's pretty good, and that's why I say we are divided into approximately 2% decency, and about 98% total depravity.
And this is a good group of relatively good people (no Mansons, either Marilyn or Charlies, at least none that I know of).
As for Brett, his point was too theoretical.
Well played sir!
So Luther loosened the laws so that we could manage them, and stay reasonably inside of the laws, and inside of the notion of God's acceptance.
So you're saying Lutheranism is heresy. That's cool.
That's why we ought to go with Gower and his sins against Venus. Chaucer's all class warfare all the time, a Marxist conspiracy if ever I saw one.
Law comes out of Lutheranism to a very great extent. The lawless tendencies of both the far right and the far left seem to come out of a utopian Christian impulse -- which Luther had already seen in the senseless shattering of Marionite imagery in cathedrals.
Remember what Christ said, My kingdom is NOT of this world.
This is a kingdom of the fallen, and therefore, of law.
And the law has to be reasonable, and has to be capable of being kept.
Luther didn't loosen up the law. He noticed what the Bible actually says. People become enamored with the law and bring death on themselves because they think they can keep it. Paul does not argue that you can keep it. James does not argue that you can keep it. Rhetorically, Jesus talks about keeping it, but then he goes and breaks it (Sabbath) just to make a point.
I find myself agreeing with Stu who said some very sensible things earlier in the thread.
I'm not interested in keeping the law, which is, after all, just a bare minimum. I'm interested in following Christ.
If everyone could attain the bare minimum the world would be a lot better. If everyone were a saint we wouldn't even have a need for the law. But the existence of the law is proof to some extent that we need it.
Many people want to get rid of the law and insist that we can all be saints. This leads to saintly gunplay, along the lines of Clint Eastwood or Charles Bronson's vigilantes of the 70s.
It is curious to me how the 60s led into the 70s. The 60s were an anarchist phase in which the law was abrogated. The 70s showed a ruder edge as Woodstock became Altamont.
They decided to make Hell's Angels into the police.
I don't think we can count on angels. They didn't save the children in the Coliseum under Tiberius.
We now have laws protecting children.
But again, many people want us to get rid of those laws that protect children.
Somehow when people think that they can be saints they become a lot more like Charles Manson.
Or the Beats.
I am therefore interested in promulgating the law, and giving police officers their due. The closest thing to a saint is a good police officer who is capable of following the law and also administering it.
I would hope that a good police officer wouldn't say to a person who had just robbed a bank. "Go, and rob no more."
They would instead book the perp, and testify at the trial.
WB:
I'm not interested in keeping the law, which is, after all, just a bare minimum. I'm interested in following Christ.
Yes, thank you.
I think there's a separation here - we, Personally, should be focused on 'following Christ' (and doing so, we will obviously be within the bounds of legality unless there is a major moral problem with the laws of the country in which we live...)
What exactly it means to follow Christ within certain situations is a matter for debate/personal reflection...
But how this personal belief and mode of behavior affects our view of how the government, or society, should be structured, I think, is a different question, and the one that Kirby tends to focus on, and where our biggest disagreements on this blog actual exist?
Or is Kirby really just a self-centered, heretical prick and I'm tryin' to cover for him...
(while Kirby is rightly critical of the self-righteous, this does not change the fact that we are told to follow Christ toward righteousness - Being broken does not mean we shouldn't follow the Jesus.)
It gets scary. Let me offer you a hypothetical. You're driving with two of your small kids on a highway when you spot a tramp walking on the side of the road in a very desolate stretch, thumbing a lift?
Do you pick him up?
I say NO WAY.
Jesus would pick him up.
Would you?
The notion of following Christ too closely can get you killed. Follow the law, and stay within it, sure.
But don't pick up strangers with your kids in the car, people.
This doesn't mean you have to run the bum over.
It might mean you place a 911 call to have an OFFICER get the bum and slap him into jail where he could at least get a cup of soup and a pillow.
At any rate, that's my hypothetical. What say you?
There may be a difference between 'following Jesus' and 'doing exactly what Jesus would do.'
Right?
Another hypothetical: two bank robbers come busting out of a bank, machine gun flaring and blowing a 180 degree arc to clear a path of retreat. You're a police officer with a flak jacket and a sniper rifle, and are on top of an adjacent building. Do you take out the bank robbers before they injure other citizens, or do you bless them?
I can't believe that Jesus would fire the head shots required to stop the mayhem.
As a police officer, however, and as one who is charged with maintaining the peace, you finish the scum off, right?
A) I repeat:
"There may be a difference between 'following Jesus' and 'doing exactly what Jesus would do.'
Right?"
B)
And no, Jesus would not fire the shots...he would wave his magic I'm-the-son-of-God-and-can-do-crazy-stuff-(like create infinite booze)-wand, and he'd turn the guns into squeaky toys, or maybe fish.
But I think he'd want bystanders to protect themselves (unless they were trained/somehow had the capacity/angle to immobilize the attackers), bystanders with children to protect their kids, and those trained and with the means to immobilize the attackers in a humane a way as possible (which might mean death).
He wouldn't want us to throw kids at the attackers, or cower away from an opportunity to immobilize the attackers if possible and reasonable, and he wouldn't want us to cheer on the attackers. He also wouldn't want us to Be the attackers.
What would Jesus do if he died? He'd rise from the grave in about three days - I don't think that's what I'll be able to do.
Also, if Jesus were at a party, and they ran out of some good New Belgium beer, he'd just make a lot more of it (#1). The rest of us would either have to go buy more good beer, or switch to the crappy vodka that one sorority girl brought and mix it with tonic and lemon, or be tipsy enough to stomach some flat Keystone Ice (#2)...Others might rob a liquor store or steal some from the next door neighbor (#3).
So #1 is what Jesus would do.
#2 is what he would want us to do.
#3 is what someone who doesn't follow Jesus might do.
Reading the Bible is like sitting inside a gyroscope.
You're spinning in place, and the inertia of your reflexive meditation makes you feel like you're going somewhere, like you have your correct bearings. But you're just spinning. Reality is like another dimension for you.
Curtis, I assume you are speaking for yourself?
I think Brett, he would want the bystanders (especially the ones w/o kids) to go stop the attackers. Maybe they don't have a sniper rifle, but they can embrace them.
Most bank robbers don't have automatic weapons and the ones they might have are not terribly accurate. Three or five onrushing bystanders embracing the thugs would stop them in their tracks.
Perhaps this is what someone should have done with that Asian fellow at VT. Instead of running and cowering they should have embraced him.
How did Jesus apply the law? What were his expectations for people?
Well, for those who thought that they were righteous enough to follow it, he made the law even more burdensome than they had imagined (see rich young man.) For those who knew full well their weakness and need, he made the law surprisingly malleable and easy.
It seems as if there is a certain, "in the moment" quality to the law. Reacting to gunmen and hitchhikers is not a "one size all" situation, unless you want to make it one.
Post a Comment