Christians don’t think on this as much as they maybe ought:
1 Like
Or when they do meditate on it, their thoughts twist it into an “I’m glad I’m not one of those wicked people over there” attitude. Instead of thinking of righteousness and wickedness each being fruitful in their respective good and bad ways in each of us, they instead think of this as a division that celebrates one group of people (always us of course), while writing off another group of people entirely (always the people most hated or feared at the moment.)
2 Likes
Indeed… I see how bad people like Ravi Zacharias and Frank Houston were, and I am glad the Lord spared me from those grievous sins. “There but for the grace of God go I.” And this road ain’t over yet, so I draw near to my God and take comfort in his grace which is new every day and that I might catch a glimpse of his face in the morning and he put a new song in my heart.
1 Like
Not all as you imply, they, judgmentally?
Hopefully not all. Hyperbole is a normal part of discourse for most people - and exceptions (even many of them) can still prove ‘a rule’.
But yes - I am being judgmental. First of myself, and then also of “my own” (meaning other people who also identify as Christian like I do.) Judgment starts at home, so that we can hopefully avoid even harsher judgment later. Christ and Paul both did this quite a bit. So I think I’m in pretty good company, so long as I realize that I too am a fair game target of the same. Your observation of irony here is not lost on me and nor does it detract from the observation offered that stands nonetheless.
The irony was not implicit and it couldn’t have been worded differently.
That is not the way it read.
I would be interested in your showing me where Jesus judged himself first to avoid harsher judgment later. Paul I get, and he gave us severe warnings and ‘laws of love’ against which to test ourselves to be sure we are in the faith.
Jesus and Paul had something in common though, speaking about others.
we were by nature children of wrath. Ephesians 2:3 All of us also lived among them at one time, fulfilling the cravings of our flesh and indulging its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature children of wrath.
sons of disobedience Ephesians 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience.
I’m not saying Jesus had sin that he needed to judge - but rather that Jesus taught us to judge ourselves (and Paul seems to have taken the Lord’s instructions to heart and taught that way too). Jesus teaches that we receive in the same measure that we give. Pharisees were good at giving judgments over others, but apparently not at all good judging themselves. Jesus called them on that - a whole lot, as I see you’ve noted already in another reply. Jesus also tells the parable of us needing to try to settle our debts while we still can as free persons and not to wait until much harsher compulsions come into force later.
Paul teaches the same sorts of things; and indeed he is rather harsher about it towards people who identify as believers than most of us would be today (end of 1 Corinthians 5). People who are excited about excommunication and such probably draw heavily on that passage. But the point is, Paul didn’t see it as applicable to the world in general, but first (and only) to his own. And we see Paul exemplifying this in Romans (7) where he laments his own status as enslaved to his flesh - totally dependent on rescue.
[I should have added in here 1 Corinthians 11:31 which probably states it in the pithiest most direct way: “But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged.” Which is Paul applying it to eating at the Lord’s table. But I believe the principle is very applicable more widely as seen in much of the rest of the New Testament I think.]
I can’t get past this. Somehow I don’t get that in Psalm 1, or in what Jesus or Paul conveyed.
Jesus said fruitfulness was impossible apart from him.
Paul was well aware of his sinful nature apart from Jesus, and had a real passion for the lost, but this passion never lead him to equivocate about those who are outside of Christ.
1 Like
Great reference, it leads to the antithesis of judgement in the following chapter.
11:32 is also neat in how it says that even when we are judged, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned along with the world
1 Like
(131) The Two Worst Heresies
The worst heresy, next to that of dividing religion and righteousness, is to divide the Father from the Son–in thought or feeling or action or intent; to represent the Son as doing that which the Father does not himself do.
As found in MacDonald’s unspoken sermon: “Life”.
2 Likes
My best guess is this is what happens when those entrusted with authority within a religious tradition use that authority to subvert true righteousness toward worldly, political causes.
I look forward to your interpretation. The best I can do is to think that there are two components to our experience. That which is more thoroughly up to us and then that which we only understand implicitly. So I attach “son” to that which we more directly control “father” to that which is wiser but given, not taken. So for that which is more limited but ostensibly in control to make choices irrespective of that which what is wiser would recommend is heretical in my book too.
Edited to clean up that messy last sentence.
I think those are interesting, and probably profound, possible interpretations; though I confess I hadn’t (yet) read that deeply into it. As a Christian, the easiest ‘surfacey’ meaning my lazy brain just went with was to just take it on commentary about the person Jesus himself, and that he (without fail) always did what he saw his Father doing (and perhaps more interestingly for most Christians…) the additional claim that the son would never have done anything that the Father would not also do, as the Father.
2 Likes
Christian or not, I find you one of the least lazy thinkers I’ve ever come across. I’ve always thought there must be both advantages and disadvantages to any traditional system of belief, but I don’t see disbelief as any sure safeguard against any of the disadvantages and the advantages must be a good deal harder to come by without. Also I never hear anyone mention it but it seems to me that while it may be possible to attain some of the depth of humanity religion seeks to preserve without adopting the same beliefs, it isn’t at all clear that would be the case if religion had never come about. It’s kind of like the joke where God tells the scientist to create his own dirt too:
God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to Him, “Lord, we
don’t need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to
create life out of nothing. In other words, we can now do what you
did in the ‘beginning’.”
“Oh, is that so? Tell me…” replies God.
“Well”, says the scientist, “we can take dirt and form it into the
likeness of you and breathe life into it, thus creating man.”
"Well, that’s interesting. Show Me. "
So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil.
“Oh no, no, no…” interrupts God, “Get your own dirt."
2 Likes
That is a classic story. It does make a parent wonder … is it a good day or a bad day when it becomes apparent that your child no longer needs you. We recognize that we ought to see that as a good day, but still - that’s not what it necessarily feels like to everyone. Not that Christians think that analogy has much parallel to God. But yet … it’s not entirely not parallel either!
3 Likes
You are very generous in your feedback and I appreciate that. For what its worth I don’t think what God is is ever not needed. I only think the ways we think about and attend to that evolve. From a Christian perspective I’d say God tells us what we need to hear to help us.
2 Likes
Thanks for that clarification. Yeah - and my analogy could be helped just a bit had I worded it: “…when your (still young) child thinks they no longer need you…” But yes - as the parent ages, the need, while always still hopefully present at least in lingering important amounts, must necessarily taper off as the growing young adult emerges into independence. But with the Christian conception of God, our ‘independence’ would always remain wholly imaginary, to be sure.
And yet … we are created to be something other than God that can yet make decisions about our own love with regard to our Creator … and so at least some small part of that whole question stubbornly remains in play!
1 Like
I think I see MacDonald here taking special aim at a certain theological proposition that would have Jesus coming to us as a tender, seeking shepherd, and an agent of mercy (His special role), but then would distinguish that role from God the Father, the just and consequently wrathful judge. Those who would parse out these two members of the trinity into a kind of “good cop / bad cop” distinction are what I imagine provoked him to pen these lines - an imagination now reinforced by my reading more of MacDonald’s thoughts from the actual sermon.