We started with John 18:36. Russell couldn’t get further than the word ‘now’; I was stuck at ‘if’. The conversation was animated. We worked ourselves across the room to the book shelf for resource (and leaning against). He waving the entirety of the Bible in front of my face every time I demanded a definition for love; periodically thumbing through the dictionary or the book of I John; then cheering whenever he scored a point in the conversation -which happened often. We didn't just travel across the room, we traveled from pacifism, to authority of government, to love as the basis for every ethical decision, to the relationship between truth and love. His biggest beef is how utilitarianism has crept into Christian thinking (or shall we properly say un-Christian thinking). Greatest good for the most people vs. love, justice, truth, hope, faith….
My mind is mulling on the conversation -
Where is the place for making decisions based on the greatest good for the greatest amount of people?
How is it different to be a citizen of God’s Kingdom and a citizen of the U.S.A.? Have we loyalties to both, or only one? Are there are different sets of morals and standards for the government than there are for people? For example, I’ve always believed that the government held a right to terminate the life of a murderer, but that individuals do not. Is that inconsistent?
Has modern Christendom thrown open the doors to reason-without-faith, allowing the wolf of ‘ends justify the means’ to creep through clothed in the fleece of ‘for the sake of love’?
Is Christ’s message counter cultural because it calls us, not to a different approach or shifting of the rules, but because he calls us to a new way of life altogether?
Ought we weigh our decisions in light of consequences, or by how they measure to the example of a new life and new spirit in Christ?
Have we lost the power of the Spirit, by relegating him to the realm of the Church and worship, adopting secular ideas for the realm of government, job, and ‘real life’?
I wrote a long comment and it wouldn't accept it :-) Considering that my brain won't click into gear thus my post was unhelpful, I don't blame your blog for not accepting it, but I did want to tell you that I read your post and thought about it. :-P ttyl dear friend!
ReplyDeleteGood, thought provoking stuff. Reminds me of that Yoder book.
ReplyDeleteHey Naomi, the part where you said "For example, I’ve always believed that the government held a right to terminate the life of a murderer, but that individuals do not. Is that inconsistent? ".... I have also wondered that myself. The world is so complicated that we has believers in Christ are trying to justify what the government says is right or wrong and we as citizens of this government "says" whatever the government says....like, we represent our government in a way...that's what our country sees as a whole. BUT what they dont see is our love for God and what we're really trying to say. We represent, but at the same time are ignored. Im confusing you arent I? we'll have to talk when you get back, lol
ReplyDelete