Thanks, JD, for the great example of hate
speech. Read my last post and see how “controlling” I
am. Izzy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005
6:22 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth as
viewed by one of the greats
Paul Tillich one said this: " .......anyone who has a degree of
ultimate concern is a theologian. One's life is, after all, is an
_expression_ of all his 'ologies, including his private theology."
I have noticed over the years --- some 41 years of ministry I
might add and proudly so, that those who claim sinless perfectionism "by
the power of the Indwelling" are the very one's who exhibit the most
severe of sin problems. These sins do not include the event
sins of the gutter. Rather, they are invariably
expressed as hate speech buried in diatribes expressing concern for the
"Word of Truth" and of "ultimate love and concern for the
'wayward soul' ." These people always believe that
God and His Word MUST be DEFENDED or
............................................. or "what" is
usually never really defined.
Those who function thusly, as a practice or way of life, actually
do little to distinguish themselves from the atheist ... afraid to
loose one 's self in attachment to the Divine. They see the
Christ as one who lived on the very edge of Anger. His benevolence
served only as comic relief from the fearfulness of His authority and
unavoidable judgment. They never argue that He died for sins
-- only that this death did not extend to all sin. How could
it? Such would mean that the sinner is justified fully and
completely in one single action that never ends. And
why? Why does the battle center itself on "sin" and
commandment keeping and "truth" ?? In a word,
CONTROL. When Paul spoke of love as being something
that "does not seek its own," he offered up one of the more
classic open-ended remarks of all time. It was as if he expected
us to plug in "does not seek its own ------------------ way, or
will, or life, or standard of truth, or
.........................whatever." And why did he include
this in his discussion of love on the corporate level?
Because he knew, as do many, that within man is this desire to be
"somebody." To rise above the Collective. How is this
accomplished when being a part of the Collective is impossible to avoid?
Some try "control." Control of one's spouse,
or one's children, or one's brethren. And when this control is
violated or threatened -- the talk always becomes exclusive
in tone and threatening or judgmental in nature. Counselor's see
this often and in most matters of marital difficulty. The real problem
with this particular sin is that it's practitioner always misses the
point. He/she has no choice for they must be in
control. It is an emotional thing, you know. The
dynamic of "control" springs from a deep seated
inferiority - a nagging and silent suspicion that
we, in fact, do not measure up. Beattle Baily once slapped
his Sarge on the back and said, " Sarge, you don't have an
inferiority complex, you really ARE inferior." We all fear
this. But, it is not the rebellious who reject this notion
and press for "what is right" and "doctrinal purity" and
the maintenance of the "right church.' No, rather, these are
those who are afraid to trust that someone else can and will bring them to a
reality that is beyond what they can ask or even
imagine. WHAT IF THEY ARE
WRONG? No -- best not
change. And "if I am right" then others must follow or be
forewarned.
In the end, there is no substitution for brokenness and contrition and, to use
a modern term, "total surrender." In total
surrender we loose our identify. Something, for some reason, to be
feared.
JD
