Posted by Helen on: 04.24.2008 /
I guest posted Christians, Compassion and Interfaith Meetings on Bill’s blog Friendly Christian today. It’s about the Seattle Seeds of Compassion Dalai Lama meetings which I’ve already posted about here.
I’ve been intrigued seeing some Christian bloggers criticize Rob Bell and Doug Pagitt for participating in the Interfaith panel discussions. The focus of this event was compassion. It seems to me that anyone who agrees to participate is saying “Yes, I agree that compassion is important” and anyone who declines is saying “No, I do not share the rest of the panel’s belief that compassion is important”.
I assume Christians value compassion since Jesus was a man of compassion (according to the Bible). I would have thought they’d welcome the opportunity to participate in an event like this so they could demonstrate Christians care about compassion as much as all the people present who aren’t Christians.
Or, is it so obvious Christians care about compassion that they don’t need to do that? :-)
I wonder why they aren’t criticizing Desmond Tutu for his involvement. Maybe I just didn’t read far enough or maybe they only care about what Christians who self-identify as Evangelical do.
Comment by: Compassionate Christian
1 04/24/08 10:20 AM | Comment Link |First of all, I agree that compassion is critical. Jesus often had compassion on others and that is stated clearly in the Bible. My issue is that Rob Bell and Doug Pagitt are supposed to be representing Christianity.
Why does this bother me? Just go to youtube and type in Doug Pagitt and listed to the interview on Way of the Master radio where he states that all people interact with God after death the same way, regardless of their belief in the cross and Jesus, and that heaven in not a place - very odd.
Then Rob Bell in one of his Nooma vids states that when Peter was walking on the water and started to sink, it was because he lost faith in himself - not Jesus. Well, if he had faith in himself in the first place why did he have to have Jesus tell him to come out in the water in the first place? Then he states that Jesus has faith in us and that’s why he gave the disciples the mission to make disciples - But didn’t they have to wait for the power of the Holy Spirit before they could do that? I mean, these are the same guys that ran away when Jesus was being captured.
These two guys are preaching a false gospel. I would have been happy if an actual Christian who was unashamed of the true Gospel was invited and showed up.
Oh - and don’t think I am one of the traditionalists who doesn’t agree with reaching people with different methods…I just don’t believe in compromise.
Comment by: Helen
2 04/24/08 10:42 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for your comment, Compassionate Christian.
Since there wasn’t an opportunity to talk about the gospel in the panel discussions anyway, what difference would it have made if someone whose Christian beliefs line up with yours was there instead of Rob Bell and Doug Pagitt?
I’m just curious.
Comment by: benjamin ady
3 04/24/08 1:31 PM | Comment Link |Helen
I think it has to do with danger/fear.
The Christianity in which I grew up very much had a culture of fostering the idea that our specific truth was … safe, in some grand sense, and that all those other ideas about life the universe and everything were … dangeroug—and the *level* of danger was very much related to how far from our specific truth they deviated.
So as long as you *believe* (and thus, secondarily, act) correctly, and hang out with people who do, you are safe, in some grand sense. But as long, or as soon, as you *believe* (and then, secondarily, act) incorrectly (that is, differently than us), you are in *danger*, in some grand sense.
And if you are *spreading* those dangerous beliefs, then you are *part* of the danger.
So to show up at a conference with *really* dangerous people like the Dalai Lama, or a Muslim leader, or a Sikh leader, or a rabbi …. etc., and sit on the stage with those people as if you weren’t in terrible danger–you become part of the danger. Like the man or woman who sits on the stage with a bunch of ravenous tigers and lions, and pretends everything’s kewl.
So I got sent out from that church for two years all over the world and worked with lots of different Christians, and when I came home (it turned out not to be home anymore, but that’s a long story), I asked my Pastor “Is there a pastors’ meeting here in Monroe–do all the Christian pastors get together and pray and envision for Monroe? And can I come? I promise to be very quiet and just listen, if you like.” And he said “Well, there is such a meeting, but I don’t go, because there are two Roman Catholic priests and one woman pastor who attend that meeting, and for me to show up would be for me to tacitly opine that …….” Here the “….” was actually “that was okay”, but we wouldn’t change the meaning very much if we filled it up with “there was safety where there was actually terrible danger.”
Comment by: Ken Silva
4 04/24/08 1:33 PM | Comment Link |You said: “Jesus was a man of compassion (according to the Bible.” But then you said: “there wasn’t an opportunity to talk about the gospel in the panel discussions anyway.”
Which is it? If Bell and Pagitt are Christians, and Jesus was a man of compassion, then shouldn’t they have mentioned this?
And, what could have more compassion than the Gospel? I’m just curious.
Comment by: Helen
5 04/24/08 2:10 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin, I recognize what you’re talking about.
It’s hard for me to see how ‘living life to the full’ is compatible with what you described.
Comment by: Helen
6 04/24/08 2:33 PM | Comment Link |Ken thanks for your comment and for stopping by.
If it was relevant to the questions they were answering yes they should have mentioned it.
If it wasn’t, no, they shouldn’t have forced it in anyway.
Ken, consider this passage:
However you define the Gospel, if it doesn’t include meeting someone’s daily needs then according to this passage ‘what good is it’?
Whatever words you use to define the Gospel as, being compassionate involves more than simply saying those words to other people - according to this Bible passage. (Unless it’s ok to ignore this passage)
Comment by: karen
7 04/24/08 2:33 PM | Comment Link |CC:
You’re calling them fake Christians? What kind of compassion is that? And how do you know their hearts? Doesn’t Jesus say not to judge, and to leave the state of someone’s salvation between them and god? You can’t know about someone else’s relationship with god, because you’re not them.
You may disagree with some of these guys’ metaphors or how they present Christianity, but to say they are false and ashamed just because they don’t agree with all your doctrinal points is pretty harsh, and seems unjustifiable.
A lot of non-Christians look at this kind of in-fighting and “I’m right and nobody else gets an opinion” within Christianity and want nothing to do with it, that’s for sure.
Benjy:
Yes, I can relate to this also. My former church is in an area with a very liberal, very community-action minded church. They have done some wonderful work in alleviating poverty and homelessness in conjunction with a lot of other religious organizations, Christians and Jewish and others.
However, our pastor would not participate in that effort because the liberal church was involved. So, we wound up being much less effective because we didn’t want to be “tainted” by Christians doing good in the world (go figure).
Comment by: benjamin ady
8 04/24/08 4:22 PM | Comment Link |Ken,
I’m stoked that you’ve jumped into the conversation.
If by the gospel you mean “God and his son got together and decided that his son should die a horrifying painful death to somehow satisfy his dad’s wrath against sin”, then that doesn’t strike me as compassionate at all.
I’m not saying you said that. I’m just saying if.
Comment by: Ken Silva
9 04/24/08 7:48 PM | Comment Link |benjamin,
If, “God and his son got together and decided that his son should die a horrifying painful death to somehow satisfy his dad’s wrath against sin”, because this was the only way sinners could be saved from an eternity away from God in Hell, then this would be the most compassionate act ever.
It kind of depends on how you look at it… I’m just saying if. :-)
Comment by: pamhogeweide
10 04/24/08 9:57 PM | Comment Link |whoo-hoo, ken is in the room!
Comment by: Jim Henderson
11 04/24/08 10:43 PM | Comment Link |have fun
Comment by: benjamin ady
12 04/24/08 11:22 PM | Comment Link |Ken
I just don’t see how that works at the sort of cosmic level we seem to be discussing. I mean why doesn’t God just unexist the box such a situation describes? I mean even human judges have more leeway than that–which is to say they have some “unexist” power.
By which I mean to say that from my perspective, any god who given choice and foreknowledge creates a universe where billions of people will, after their deaths “live in conscious torment, forever shut out from the presence of God, with no second chance to change this certain destiny” doesn’t remotely approach *any* ideal of compassion. And this time you *did* say it. (okay, you didn’t say the billions part. So how many people *do* you think this is going to be happening to?)
I rather think God would be fully within his rights to have mercy on everybody (and she *wants* to!), if she wanted to. And here’s a bit of Scripture for you: please note the use of the world “all”. I like my take on Scripture better than yours =p
“Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all”
Hooray! Note the “As this, so that” here. Rock on. If you are going to argue everyone in utter depravity, you have to argue … everyone in utter delightful brilliant goodness too.
QED
(good *grief*. I’ve allowed myself to be sucked into a “use scripture to prove your point” ridiculousness. Ken, how do you do this to me? I mean I’m not even a Christian most days.)
Comment by: Jason Horton
13 04/25/08 9:43 AM | Comment Link |Helen, in all my years of discussing and arguing with Christians I have never known them to point out James 2:15-16. Not once. It may be that we’ve always argued on other subjects but surely a passage like this has more strength and compassion behind it than a dozen others.
I still think that the whole idea of heaven and hell mess up the idea of living a compassionate life of service to others. Does it really matter who is right about a part of scripture when our neighbours are starving or dying of Aids?
Comment by: cipher
14 04/25/08 10:59 AM | Comment Link |Helen,
I thought you might like to see these photos of HHDL with Rabbi Rosen and the Israeli Chief Rabbis taken two years ago in Israel.
http://rabbidavidrosen.net/gallery%20images/dalai%20lama%20kotel.html
http://rabbidavidrosen.net/gallery%20images/dalai%20lama2.html
http://www.dalailama.com/news.32.htm
http://pictopia.com/perl/get_image?provider_id=51&size=550×550_mb&ptp_photo_id=2481987
Comment by: Compassionate Christian
15 04/25/08 11:37 AM | Comment Link |Karen,
Your response to me was:
I will first say this: I love these guys as people - I am not uncompassionate (if that’s a word) toward them. I am merely stating that these guys are coming up with their own isogetical view of the Bible, Jesus and Heaven. If I had no compassion and didn’t care about them or the people who believe that you can live how you want and still interact with God the same way as those who go through the cross of Christ, I wouldn’t mention it. Here is where I go back to scripture:
Let me ask you this: Should we just say that it’s okay for anyone to preach any gospel they want as long as they say Jesus somewhere in it? Does God approve of that? Do Muslims and Hindus get the same thing as those who have entered through Jesus? Do we not stand against those falsehoods by using the Bible as the measuring rod? If so, then why are we lacking in compassion and being judgmental if we hold all who claim to preach to the same standard?
Yes, their salvation is between them and God. But if someone says they are a Christian but preach a different gospel…we need to discern the truth.
Comment by: Helen
16 04/25/08 2:21 PM | Comment Link |Jason, yes, I don’t see how anyone who claims to live by the Bible can miss the implication of that passage: words are not enough!
Well, like you said, heaven and hell changes things because if whether someone goes to heaven or hell depends on a part of Scripture, then it’s essential to understand it correctly. Also, ensuring people go to heaven not hell becomes more important than alleviating their suffering in this life since heaven and hell last longer (being eternal).
Although, to be fair, many Christians who believe in heaven and hell are also involved alleviating suffering in this life.
Although I don’t understand why it’s an either/or because surely if you alleviate someone’s suffering he/she is more likely to pay attention to what you believe about heaven and hell.
Comment by: benjamin ady
17 04/25/08 2:24 PM | Comment Link |(”Well, I said to myself …) Why not? Sure. They can have whatever they get. Sounds good to me. All the good stuff for all the people. Hooray.”
Comment by: Helen
18 04/25/08 2:26 PM | Comment Link |Compassionate Christian, I read all the way through one of Rob Bell’s books and it seemed to me he was talking about the Jesus in the Bible.
Comment by: karen
19 04/25/08 2:56 PM | Comment Link |It doesn’t seem compassionate to say someone is false and ashamed. That just doesn’t compute with me.
And … you’re not? You are aware, I assume, that there are thousands of different sects of Christianity and everyone of them claims to have the “proper” view of doctrine? Also, each of them claim to have a pipeline to the almighty and direct confirmation from him that their hermeneutics and interpretations are correct.
Barring more definitive proof than “this is what my group believes and we’re right, neener-neener-neener,” it would seem that the most prudent response is to be less judgmental about who does and who doesn’t have the correct gospel.
Comment by: Helen
20 04/25/08 3:22 PM | Comment Link |Karen have you run across this yet in the blogosphere?
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
21 04/25/08 3:50 PM | Comment Link |Well … this one doesn’t. I absolutely insist that I don’t have the “proper” view of doctrine. (God doesn’t “the ‘proper’ view of doctrine” sound tedious? Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhwn. Wow. That was a jaw cracker.)
Nor, for that matter, a pipeline to the almighty (thank God).
But my nephew Zach has a name that embodies the tetragrammatron. Which is … *sort* of like having a pipleine to the almighty. Kinda. In way. if you see what I mean. And he’s my nephew. Therefore I rock.
=p
Comment by: Helen
22 04/25/08 3:56 PM | Comment Link |Thanks for the photos, Cipher!
Benjamin you’d still rock even if your nephew had a different name :)
Comment by: Elaine
23 04/26/08 9:52 AM | Comment Link |After reading through this discussion - here is where I have landed…sort of :)
Doesn’t the Christian bible tell us that God’s ways are not our ways and that we can not understand the mind of God?
Do you believe that is true? Do I believe that is true?
If so, then what? How do I reconcil my brothers and sisters in Christ attacking each other about differences in experiences and interpretations? Why is being right more important than being kind?
How can I “know” I am right?
If I do my best to “love God and love my neighbor (neighbor being everyone)” - then will I not be doing what is most important?
I envy the Jewish tradition of debating the scriptures - we Christians would do well to learn from that model…we seem to forget Jesus was raised in that tradition.
It is the questions that stimulate thinking and discussion that are important NOT the answers.
Why is the Christian church so threatened by debate and discussion?
Comment by: Compassionate Christian
24 04/26/08 10:00 AM | Comment Link |I am very aware of that. I have differences of view in many aspects that many other Christians have in terms of security of salvation, calvinism vs. arminianism, etc., but there are certain foundational teachings that you must hold. Additionally, if you and I both claim to know someone by the name of “Mark” and you claim the one you know is the same one I know but your description of him and his attributes are different that the one I know, then he is a different “Mark.” I am also open to any discussions people have regarding God, Doctrine and Theology and when they can prove their view through scripture alone, I will accept it. But when you deny that Jesus is the only way to spend eternity with God, as stated in the Bible, I still have enough compassion to tell you the truth - even if it hurts. How compassionate would it be to allow people to think they are right and spend eternity in Hell?
I don’t share what I do to say “ooooh - look at me - I am right - I get the ticket and you don’t” I share it with the hopes that others would find the truth and spend eternity in heaven with the ONLY savior of the world, Jesus.
When it comes to interpretation of scripture we need to start at the meaning when it was written, where it was written and why it was written instead of coming up with our own meaning. For example, if you read a letter that says, “There are 2 monkeys I love…take care of them. Remember that the bananas are fresh at 1600 degrees,” but you did not understand that he was a POW writing a message to someone that there are 2 guards that watch him and change shift at 4pm, you could easily get the wrong interpretation. Understanding the original meaning is very important and although there is often debate over some of the original meanings…some people never even go there and they come up with their own meanings…which are worthless. We must understand context or we misinterpret completely.
I know blogs are tough to often read in someone’s actual emotion, but I really do have compassion and I am not trying to says these guys are not compassionate.
Additionally, I do believe that you also cannot truly have the truth and not be involved in feeding the homeless, caring for widows and orphans, etc. Those who truly have Jesus will also truly have His love and be compelled by that love to do as He would do - and did while He was on earth.
I really don’t want to argue…just wanted to share my thoughts. And I respect your beliefs and thoughts, as well. Thank you for the dialogue and discussion.
Comment by: cipher
25 04/26/08 10:09 AM | Comment Link |If you were truly compassionate, you wouldn’t believe it in the first place. Adopting a belief involving the abandonment of the vast majority of humanity for all of eternity requires one to give up the most fundamental aspect of compassion.
Comment by: benjamin ady
26 04/26/08 11:56 AM | Comment Link |So you are open to the idea that there is more than one Mark?
Very kewl.
And if no one can actually *see* Mark, or go to where he physically resides and touch and talk to him, then we are *all* going to have our own private version of Mark, to some extent, aren’t we?
I’m down with that. My Mark is almost definitely different from your Mark.
Comment by: karen
27 04/26/08 1:53 PM | Comment Link |No, I haven’t.
But shouldn’t that be Truth, with a Capital T? ;-)
Comment by: karen
28 04/26/08 2:01 PM | Comment Link |I know what you’re saying, but my original point still stands. There is no one definitive, provable proper context or interpretation of the bible. There simply is not. There are only many very different interpretations, some of which reach vastly different conclusions about large issues of importance. Such differing conclusions, of course, are the stuff over which many religious wars have been fought.
The Catholic church has its interpretations, based on thousands of years of scholarship and history. So, likewise, do the various branches of the Orthodox churches, the Protestant churches and even today’s postmodern, Emergent churches.
Events that happened thousands of years ago in a primitive society (whose stories we have only through translations and copies and oral traditions) just aren’t easily interpreted. So to say your interpretation, or that of the particular church or denomination to which you belong, is The Truth - and other Jesus followers must be corrected and chastised and called “false” if their interpretation differs, just seems wrong to me, and rather arrogant.
YMMV, of course.
Comment by: Compassionate Christian
29 04/26/08 5:47 PM | Comment Link |No - the compassion of God was as the cross for those who would accept and believe. To tell others of the escape is compassionate. To deny the facts of the Bible and let them continue on a path in eternal Hell is not compassionate. Denying truth does note make one compassionate.
I’ll bet that’s what the Pharisees thought when Jesus told them they were wrong when they believed they were serving the same God as Him and the disciples and thought they were doing it the right way.
Comment by: benjamin ady
30 04/26/08 7:46 PM | Comment Link |Compassionate christian.
so you don’t see any indication of lack of compassion in the ability to accept as “truth” the idea that some enormous number of people are going to suffer “eternal conscious torment”?
That’s interesting. Because I am a lot more compassionate in a very day-to-day sense than I was back when I believed that. And I can see a clear connection between my choice to stop accepting that horror as “truth” and my growing ability for compassion.
Comment by: Compassionate Christian
31 04/26/08 8:26 PM | Comment Link |Good thought. Let me ask this though, “does denying the truth make it no longer the truth?”
Here is what I mean, let’s say you have a friend - or a group of 30 friends walking blindfolded toward a cliff that drops off into the Grand Canyon. You can stop believing that they will die when they hit that ledge and call that compassionate, or you can try to tell them the truth and hope they listen.
If everyone is going to heaven or gets the same thing when they die, then why did Jesus come to die on the cross? If there was some other way then don’t you think God would have done that? I grow in compassion daily, as well. Just because I believe that people will suffer eternal conscious torment for their sin (The wages of sin is death) and denying Jesus (But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord) does not mean I don’t have compassion. Whether or not someone is a believer I still believe it is right to feed them if they are hungry, help them financially if they need it and I can do so and help all sorts of other needs when possible. My belief in heaven and hell according to scripture does not negate my ability for compassion. Rather, my belief in scripture motivates me to be more compassionate.
Thanks for the response.
Comment by: Compassionate Christian
32 04/26/08 8:49 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin,
(I added the following after briefly checking out your blog)
By the way, I too am disturbed by poverty in our world and on a recent trip to the Dominican Republic saw it first hand - and the group of us who went are doing something about it. Please don’t misunderstand me because in no way do I think I am better than anyone. I believe in following the example of Jesus and serving those around me regardless of their faith. While there are some who lock themselves away and do not serve as Christ did, I want to be like Him in as many aspects as I can be so people will see more of Him and less of me. Thanks again for the dialogue and please know that the tone is a peaceful one - not an argumentative one. Thanks.
Comment by: Charlotte Wyncoop
33 04/26/08 9:26 PM | Comment Link |It’s easy in our tech crazy society to take a public figure and scrutinize every word, every analogy and every action. However, I couldn’t live up to that kind of scrutiny. I misphrase things all the time - and analogies I think work great in my head fall flat before others… Why should I judge someone else harsher than I judge myself? James warns me ‘for judgement will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgement.’
And since when does compassion stop or even start with an intellectual conveyance of information? It certainly isn’t the stuff you read about in James (yes, I know, he’s just sooo popular compared to everybody else). ‘If a brother or a sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is neccessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.’ (James 2:15-17)
Actions speak louder than words.
Hell, if I had friends about to walk off a cliff, I’d be doing a lot more than just yelling, because anybody dumb enough to blindfold themselves near a cliff probably put ear protection on to keep the their screams from damaging their ears!
Thanks for the good thoughts…
Comment by: benjamin ady
34 04/26/08 9:36 PM | Comment Link |that is an interesting question. I think it’s worth more exploration.
I think there are different kinds of truth. For instance, there have been quite a number of people over the last few years who, having spent years (even decades) on death row in prison awaiting their eventual execution, were then released based on DNA evidence. Some of these people were convicted on eyewitness testimony–testimony that in many cases was from eyewitnesses who had absolutely no reason to be biased one way or another in the case, but who were doing their best to recount what they saw, and who pointed at the convicted killer and said “That’s the man I saw commit the crime.”
So where’s the truth here? The witness wasn’t lying, they were mistaken. They thought that they were being compassionate, even, in pointing out the killer, in the sense that they were preventing other innocents from dying at the hands of the killer later on. Instead, their best apprehension of the truth later turned out to be wrong, and an innocent spent years and years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit while the real killer went free.
What if you in your best understanding of the truth are just wrong? There’s no objective way for you to know this.
Having come that far, why not reject a truth that’s hideous on it’s face? Billions of people suffering eternal conscious torment *is* hideous on it’s face.
I posit this possibility: that the idea of billions of people suffering eternal conscious torment is more hideous to me than it is to you. Because I have decided not to believe it, unable to cope with its hideousness, whereas you haven’t. Of course this might be a function of the difference in our pain tolerances, but even so on a relative scale I hate it worse than you do.
From one perspective one could argue that this makes me more compassionate than you do. It sort of depends on what you mean by compassion. But … would it be reasonable to say that you choose to worship a God who created mankind with foreknowledge that billions of people would experience eternal conscious torment, whereas I choose to deny the existence of such a God? How then can you be more compassionate than me? In my book such a being would be enormously evil.
Comment by: Helen
35 04/27/08 5:38 AM | Comment Link |Compassionate Christian wrote:
It’s interesting you bring up Jesus and the Pharisees. Have you notice how often he was angry at them for the sin of obstructing compassion?
When they complained about him healing or feeding people on the Sabbath, that’s what they were doing - they were making rules more important than compassionately helping human beings with their practical needs.
I understand what Benjamin is saying - I would say his argument is with God and conservative Christian doctrine more than you. The doctrine defines compassion as what God is full of and the majority of people God created are going to hell. Some of us are unable to understand how creating people who will go to hell can be an act of compassion. We feel that it subverts the meaning of compassion so much that we’re not even sure we’re talking about the same trait/quality when we use the word ‘compassion’.
Anyway, we may never agree on doctrine but can you tell us more about what you’re doing for the Domenican Republic? It sounds like your involvement there is something we’d all agree is compassionate. Which means it’s not off-topic, since we’re talking about compassion :).
Thanks for jumping in and staying in this conversation, by the way. I’m impressed by your persistence and your ability to respond with civility to people who strongly disagree with you. It’s not easy to ’swim upstream’!
Comment by: Compassionate Christian
36 04/27/08 12:20 PM | Comment Link |Well - I don’t like the whole “Look at what I’m doing” thing because I feel like God sees it and that’s all that matters but I will tell you since you did ask. One of the things we did while we were down there in additional to share the Gospel is provide food for 90 families for 4 days. My daughter, who is 7, gave some of her own new clothes and shoes to a girl who had no shoes in one of the villages. The group who went is organizing a drive to get clothing and other items to the village this summer. We are going to fill up a truck with clothes, toys, etc and drive it to the organization who works with that village and they will ensure the items get there.
Additionally, while I was down there I visited a girls’ orphanage and was moved to sponsor two of the girls (Who are sisters). I actually have a bonus check coming next month and all of it, other than my tithe, will be used to sponsor girls at the orphanage for one year. Although I cannot financially afford to at this time, I am praying for these girls that God would provide a loving father and mother to adopt them or that God would provide a way for me to adopt them.
I’ll agree that many people claim to love Christ and yet do nothing about suffering but there are some of us out there who hold to doctrinal truths while joining God in His compassion toward the suffering.
No - thank everyone for their input and the opportunity to explain. I have been some places online where I would be banned for being too liberal and other places for being too conservative. While I do believe in sharing the Truth of scripture I also believe in doing it in a way that glorifies God…In Love.
Thanks.
Comment by: Helen
37 04/27/08 12:30 PM | Comment Link |CC thanks for answering my question about what you’re doing for the Domenican Republic. To avoid you feeling uncomfortable about sharing it I’ll refrain from telling you how wonderful you are for helping in those ways :). Seriously, I do like to hear what other people are doing to help with practical needs around the world. It challenges me when I hear it.
I’m intrigued that you would be banned from some sites for being too liberal. I hadn’t noticed you saying anything liberal here. I try to keep the conversation here as open as I can - I think there’s more opportunity to learn from each other if we don’t agree on everything already.
Comment by: Compassionate Christian
38 04/27/08 12:32 PM | Comment Link |I do not claim to be more compassionate. I am only saying that if I believe according to scripture that people are going to spend eternity in that situation and I do not tell them and show them the escape, then I am not compassionate. Seriously, if you knew someone’s house was on fire and they were sleeping but you did not go in to wake them or warn them wouldn’t you think that was showing a lack of compassion?
I base my belief on the historical accuracy of scripture and the contextual meaning of it. I study and go back to the Greek and Hebrew original meanings so I can understand it to the extent possible. I actually used to have a more “Charismatic” view until I started attending a different church years ago that taught the scripture in context and I did change some of my doctrinal beliefs - but only because I was shown the proof. If someone wants to “discuss” doctrine - not “debate” it, I am always open to that. I live according to the scriptures the best I can and God has always been faithful. People have tried to show me “contradictions” in the Bible that after they realized the context of the different verses were not really contradictions at all.
I will hopefully end the theological discussion (since this is really supposed to be about compassion) with this quote from the Bible “All I know is that I was blind and now I see.”
I will never convince anyone, only the Holy Spirit can do that. Thanks for the response.
Comment by: Compassionate Christian
39 04/27/08 12:36 PM | Comment Link |Try going to some of the sites that are run by Cavinists and trying to post Arminian views or questions without being personally attacked. Not all but there are some. I’m sure there are some Arminian sites that may be the same way against Calvinist opposers.
I realized I had better things to do with my time and moved on from them. That kind of arguing accomplishes nothing.
Comment by: Helen
40 04/27/08 1:02 PM | Comment Link |CC, yes, I see what you mean - I tried posting a little on teampyro some months ago and was treated worse there than I’ve ever been treated online. Which is what happens to anyone who disagrees with them.
I chose to comment there and I’d seen how mean they were to others so I wasn’t surprised. They were too brutally unkind for me to stick around long - I gave up pretty quickly.
Comment by: benjamin ady
41 04/27/08 2:14 PM | Comment Link |CC,
Thank you for engaging. Hablas espanol? Or did you have to speak through an interpreter in Republica Dominicana? I had a couple good friends from there once.
I was watching an interview with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright over the weekend, and one of the things he said
This really struck me. In the church I grew up in, we weren’t allowed to “grapple” with the Scripture in the sense Dr. Wright is using–it was more about … obeying/belieiving/accepting/agreeing with the Scripture. Do Wright’s words resonate with you at all–that we gotta grapple/argue with our sacred texts?
Comment by: Compassionate Christian
42 04/27/08 6:13 PM | Comment Link |I think we gotta grapple with many misinterpretations that have been placed out there and even some of the things that were “allowed” yet not really “approved of” in the Bible. For example, in Judges 19 it says,
But Nowhere does it say that this was right or approved of by God. Nor does it say this next part is right:
One Commentary states that “while this is difficult for modern readers to understand, he meant to arouse the nation to action by calling for a national judicial hearing. Perhaps he was charging them with the responsibility of removing the bloodguuiltiness that rested on the entire nation for his concubine’s death. The peopel who saw a part of her were appalled and bewildered as to what to do.” This is what rolled over into chapter 20 (the Benjamite War) and beyond.
I probably won’t be back on for a week or so since I have a long and busy week but thanks to everyone for the dialogue. You’re all great.
Comment by: Helen
43 04/27/08 6:49 PM | Comment Link |Have a great week, CC!
Comment by: Unorthodoxology
44 04/27/08 11:34 PM | Comment Link |Absolutely. Living life, regardless of which path, should never be about answering yes or no to a list of questions about belief or disbelief. There are some really strange things in sacred texts and everything must be contextualized. But further than that, like Wright says, to take a text seriously we have to pummel it with questions. We should never be afraid to wrestle with a text, with faith, or I daresay god. That is in fact what religion is, to me at least.
I too grew up in a church where I wasn’t allowed to grapple. But sometimes, the text grapples with you.
Comment by: David H
45 04/28/08 10:23 AM | Comment Link |I have recently been struck by the use of this verse. A joyous blind man proclaims the obvious and today it is a metaphor for the clarity of interpretation by some. Paul, who likewise (according to the Bible) was blind and had his eyesight restored, says in I Cor. that until we stand face-to-face with the Truth, everything will be seen “as through a glass darkly.”
As for the Pharisees and Saducees, Jesus did criticize their interpretations of scriptures. However, it was almost entirely over a) where their hearts were in what they were doing, b) because they emphasized strict adherence to the law over compassion, c) because they were inconsistent, interpreting liberally on such things as lending practices, but playing the part of fundamental literalists when it came to things like helping the sick or feeding the poor. I don’t read Jesus ever saying: You let too many people in. His criticism is that they try to keep too many people out.
I know I am late to this discussion. I won’t bore with excuses. Here are some things that struck me from this discussion:
1. I have been astounded at the criticism of Bell and Padgit. Some of their loudest detractors (one example, Focus on the Family provides another) conversely don’t allow much to be spoken against things like the war in Iraq. You can say, perhaps, that the war has been pursued badly, but don’t ever say the war is bad. I’m not an apologist for either of these guys. And maybe the argument against them is that they may consign many to eternal damnation. However, the war in Iraq is consigning millions today to hell on earth. Can Christians attack one and defend the other and still expect to be called compassionate?
2. Those who note apparent contradictions in a supposedly merciful God who does unmerciful things should also remember that an apparent contradiction doesn’t always mean an actual contradiction. However, that doesn’t offer much protection for Christians. It is awful tough to argue against an apparent contradiction when you can’t produce anything other than a book that supposedly says: Don’t worry about that, it will all be clear in the end. Claiming the Bible says so doesn’t hold much weight with anyone who doesn’t already believe (at some level) that the Bible has the ultimate authority to say so. Unless “Mark” is going to show up, prove he is “Mark” (and not just a proxy), then say: “This is exactly what I meant” under hours of curious questioning, then the book is just a book. Use it wisely.
3. I grew up with the analogy of people wearing blindfolds and walking towards a cliff. While I still believe Jesus was the son of God, provided a gift of salvation, and has a special authority above, for instance, someone like Gandhi, I no longer believe this metaphor has any value. Firstly, it justifies the use of almost anything to stop someone from moving toward that cliff. I have known people who have taken that liberty all too literally. Secondly, Christians are not a verifiable klaxon in many respects. Our warning could be more to win contributions and adherence (what do the blind-folded know, they can’t see anything if they believe us) rather than a siren warning of impending doom. Moreover, we are far too inconsistent to prove ourselves trustworthy. We claim Love is most important, but through the centuries have launched countless wars, tortured many on this earth, stood for the execution of innocents while protesting forgiveness for the guilty, blown up clinics, and screamed into the faces of black people, those walking into family planning centers, and many others who were (according to our own definition) lost or lonely. We’re not the little boy who cried wolf, we’re all too often (in some of our more than 20,000 denominational incarnations) the monstrous child who would gladly lead you to the cliff’s edge, then push you off just to prove his righteous point.
4. While the chopping up of the concubine is certainly appalling, I am more disturbed by some other aspects of the text. For instance, the man with the concubine by-passed a Jebusite city, only to be assaulted in an Israelite city (what does that say about the righteous?). When the “bad” men come and want to have sex with the man, he and the householder give them his “concubine.” They didn’t offer to fight; they weren’t (apparently) willing to die for her or even their own honor. Heck, the guy who owned the house even offered the bad guys his virgin daughter. Finally, after being gang-raped, the woman makes it back to the house but no one lets her in and no one offers her medical attention when she is discovered. The text doesn’t say she was dead, simply that she didn’t answer when her “master” told her to get up. Go figure. So he straps her on his mule like so much baggage, takes her the rest of the way home, and chops her into pieces. Upside to this story is that the bad men didn’t engage in a homosexual act cause that would have been unforgivable.
Interestingly, in Judges 20 we read about the nation’s response. They send thousands from the other 11 tribes to demand the miscreants from Gibeah. The Benjamites raise their own army and proceed to kick some serious butt (wait, aren’t these guys on the wrong side?). After days of being thumped, the good guys come up with a great plan — start the battle away from town, then send in a special group to attack Gibeah. Works like a charm. All of Israel is getting their asses handed to them yet again, until their hand-picked soldiers overwhelm the remaining defenders of the town. The Benjamite army sees the smoke from the burning town and falls apart.
What’s the end of the story? The army of Benjamin (with apologies to Mr. Addy) is utterly destroyed (roughly 25,000 men) and the entire town of Gibeah (heck, according to verse 48, all the towns of Benjamin) is put to the sword. Perhaps this provides an illustration of God’s justice, but it seems out of proportion to what sparked it. More importantly, how does the guy who gave up his concubine get off scott free? How might this story have been different if he had picked up a stick (or sword) and told those bad guys to leave him alone? Would he have been more Christ-like had he allowed them to take him rather than sacrifice his concubine or the householder’s daughter? What would have been the response if he had allowed the men to rape him, then instructed his concubine to chop him up and send the pieces to every tribe in Israel? Remind me again: Whose side was God on in this whole mess? Also, what is the instruction for our compassion in this story?
For me such acts of genocide as the destruction of Gibeah or the sacking of Jericho (as just two of many examples) make it very difficult to find much that guides my walk with Jesus in the Old Testament. I can’t simply throw those books away. That would be as cowardly as the man handing over his concubine. But one would have to be as omniscient and all-powerful as God to reconcile such acts with the orders to “love your neighbor as yourself” and “do good to those who harm you.”
All of this is to say that not only do I prefer to grapple with the text, I find it impossible not to seek modern relevancy or even re-interpretation. Maybe Jesus didn’t do that, but it certainly seems like he did.
Where does that leave us with Monsieurs Padgit and Bell? It leaves me unable to call them blasphemers, apostate, heretic or even ashamed of the gospel. I may not agree with all that they say, but then again I see through a glass that is very dark. I will err on the side of acceptance.
I am reminded of Jesus speaking of separating the sheep from the goats in Matthew 25. What was the mechanism he used to choose the sheep? Was it the purity of the belief system? Was it their strict adherence to a literal interpretation of scripture? Was it their intolerance for those who didn’t hold the right beliefs? Was it that they said the sinner’s prayer? One might find in that passage some backing for the belief that compassion trumps everything, because any act of true compassion (even by those who don’t know it) is really a profession of faith. But I could be wrong.
Comment by: benjamin ady
46 04/28/08 8:00 PM | Comment Link |Thanks for the apologies, David.
I like, rather, Genesis 43:34. That whole “The second most powerful person in the known world liked Benjamin best” thing really works for me =)
Comment by: benjamin ady
47 04/30/08 7:33 AM | Comment Link |Compassionate Christian,
I think I was a bit over the top, claiming that I was more compassionate than you–more than a bit, actually. It was uncalled for and a bit rude, and I’m sorry.