I appreciate the increasing humility that informs your writing. Everyone has an opinion. Everyone wants to be an expert. We are human. We are not God. You are helping that to sink in. Thank you.
Ah, such a loaded topic in this world today that can spin off in many directions.
Here are some thoughts stirred within me in response:
What I am hearing is what I would term rationalization: our predominant philosophical style today that addresses a given principle we would agree on, suggests an exception to that agreed assumption causing us to question our agreement with the principle in theory, and then labels us negatively for having even supported that principle, even if it is only within our own minds. This particular form of rationalization is frequently thought to have been introduced into mainstream education in the 1960s, but is actually ancient. It is a ploy used to undermine our principles that we need to recognize for what it is…
I believe the first recorded use on this planet was in the serpent’s artless “you shall not surely die from eating this fruit” which was well-honed from the deceiver’s rebellion in Heaven earlier. Just a subtle question that questions a principle, God’s actions or even God. This leaves the recipients confused, questioning, and often rejecting in part or whole. (I have experienced this rationalization orientation ad nauseam in my doctoral program to the point I’m not sure I want to press further & finish.)
This is not to say that questioning is wrong, but rather to reject the endless theoretical/theological posturing on exceptions to principles that undermine and erode our beliefs over time. (I think there is already too much pressure without adding to it.)
So to your example of slavery: my principle: it is wrong, never right. Not something we should practice. But if you are going to address it, how are you going to define it? The lack of freedom from what? We are all slaves, says Paul, enslaved to sin, yet in Christ there is no slave, yet Paul affirms he is a slave to Christ. So which is it? Slavery in the negative form has not been done away with in any definition of slavery on this planet, slavery is alive and thriving in many parts of the world including here at home in the USA that would fit presumably under the idea of slavery we fought the civil war over.
We can’t eradicate slavery, but we can hold to the principles of it being wrong. But then if this is our position, are we obligated to act upon our decision? If so, how? I think that it is circular in that it brings us back to condemning the action but loving the person behind the action—a tough call, given the many thugs, bullies, and those intent on taking advantage of others. It’s actually difficult not to see some form of slavery everywhere and come up with an example of positive non-slavery to protect the principle being attacked sometimes.
So, my personal stand against slavery in any form is that in the process of living, we give rather than seek to enslave others. This means we are responsible for what we give, what we share, that it is done as freely without attachment as we can in Christ’s love and strength and as anonymously as possible, so that we are not tempted to boast or enslave any one else through our so-called “giving”. Because I think slavery is a slippery pit we all can fall into or practice against another…at any time.
Did I wander too far away from your intent/purpose?
Thanks for sharing, Dawn! Still chewing on all that you wrote. I think this part caught my eye the most and caused me to say a hearty "Amen!"
"My personal stand against slavery in any form is that in the process of living, we give rather than seek to enslave others. This means we are responsible for what we give, what we share, that it is done as freely without attachment as we can in Christ’s love and strength and as anonymously as possible, so that we are not tempted to boast or enslave any one else through our so-called “giving”."
Thanks for this! I probably utilized the term "condemn" too loosely here. Even in Greek, the word that is translated "condemn" is also translated "judge." Sometimes, we use the word "judge" in the sense of "condemn," though, when, at its best, it simply connotes the idea of determining the rightness or wrongness of an action. As I said in the post, minimally, I think there is a place for that - while stopping short of prognosticating about the person's eternal destiny. For example, if our commitment to "love" prevents us from stepping in and telling a person that they shouldn't be abusing their children, then we seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of love. Even though judgment is ultimately God's, He still invites us to participate in His work in the world.
At the same time, I totally hear what you're saying about God leading people progressively. I am committed to that theoretically, but does God invite humans to participate in the carrying out of His will? Had humans never confronted slavery in the South, would slavery have ever ended? Probably not! So that's what confuses me. Similarly, I am committed to pacifism as a military framework, but I also know that pacifism didn't stop Hitler. So I wrestle with these questions.
I appreciate the increasing humility that informs your writing. Everyone has an opinion. Everyone wants to be an expert. We are human. We are not God. You are helping that to sink in. Thank you.
Ah, such a loaded topic in this world today that can spin off in many directions.
Here are some thoughts stirred within me in response:
What I am hearing is what I would term rationalization: our predominant philosophical style today that addresses a given principle we would agree on, suggests an exception to that agreed assumption causing us to question our agreement with the principle in theory, and then labels us negatively for having even supported that principle, even if it is only within our own minds. This particular form of rationalization is frequently thought to have been introduced into mainstream education in the 1960s, but is actually ancient. It is a ploy used to undermine our principles that we need to recognize for what it is…
I believe the first recorded use on this planet was in the serpent’s artless “you shall not surely die from eating this fruit” which was well-honed from the deceiver’s rebellion in Heaven earlier. Just a subtle question that questions a principle, God’s actions or even God. This leaves the recipients confused, questioning, and often rejecting in part or whole. (I have experienced this rationalization orientation ad nauseam in my doctoral program to the point I’m not sure I want to press further & finish.)
This is not to say that questioning is wrong, but rather to reject the endless theoretical/theological posturing on exceptions to principles that undermine and erode our beliefs over time. (I think there is already too much pressure without adding to it.)
So to your example of slavery: my principle: it is wrong, never right. Not something we should practice. But if you are going to address it, how are you going to define it? The lack of freedom from what? We are all slaves, says Paul, enslaved to sin, yet in Christ there is no slave, yet Paul affirms he is a slave to Christ. So which is it? Slavery in the negative form has not been done away with in any definition of slavery on this planet, slavery is alive and thriving in many parts of the world including here at home in the USA that would fit presumably under the idea of slavery we fought the civil war over.
We can’t eradicate slavery, but we can hold to the principles of it being wrong. But then if this is our position, are we obligated to act upon our decision? If so, how? I think that it is circular in that it brings us back to condemning the action but loving the person behind the action—a tough call, given the many thugs, bullies, and those intent on taking advantage of others. It’s actually difficult not to see some form of slavery everywhere and come up with an example of positive non-slavery to protect the principle being attacked sometimes.
So, my personal stand against slavery in any form is that in the process of living, we give rather than seek to enslave others. This means we are responsible for what we give, what we share, that it is done as freely without attachment as we can in Christ’s love and strength and as anonymously as possible, so that we are not tempted to boast or enslave any one else through our so-called “giving”. Because I think slavery is a slippery pit we all can fall into or practice against another…at any time.
Did I wander too far away from your intent/purpose?
Thanks for sharing, Dawn! Still chewing on all that you wrote. I think this part caught my eye the most and caused me to say a hearty "Amen!"
"My personal stand against slavery in any form is that in the process of living, we give rather than seek to enslave others. This means we are responsible for what we give, what we share, that it is done as freely without attachment as we can in Christ’s love and strength and as anonymously as possible, so that we are not tempted to boast or enslave any one else through our so-called “giving”."
so good bro!!
Thanks for this! I probably utilized the term "condemn" too loosely here. Even in Greek, the word that is translated "condemn" is also translated "judge." Sometimes, we use the word "judge" in the sense of "condemn," though, when, at its best, it simply connotes the idea of determining the rightness or wrongness of an action. As I said in the post, minimally, I think there is a place for that - while stopping short of prognosticating about the person's eternal destiny. For example, if our commitment to "love" prevents us from stepping in and telling a person that they shouldn't be abusing their children, then we seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of love. Even though judgment is ultimately God's, He still invites us to participate in His work in the world.
At the same time, I totally hear what you're saying about God leading people progressively. I am committed to that theoretically, but does God invite humans to participate in the carrying out of His will? Had humans never confronted slavery in the South, would slavery have ever ended? Probably not! So that's what confuses me. Similarly, I am committed to pacifism as a military framework, but I also know that pacifism didn't stop Hitler. So I wrestle with these questions.