|
Thank you sincerely, John and David, for the time
you took and for your patience and humility, both of which (all four of which?
:-) ) are greater than mine.
The many points of agreement as well as the
differences are clearer to me (and I'm not just saying that!) There
are still stumbling-blocks left for me in your view, David (i.e., things I
can't reconcile fully with each other), but I don't think it's for lack of you
explaining yourself, so I will leave it at that and express my respect as well
as my intention to refrain from mentally writing off all you say because of
things I can't agree with. John, the below satisfies and fits with what you've
said other times. And although it is the view that I find easier to sort out and
agree with, I'm sure that's no guarantee of anything! :-)
Debbie
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 10:19
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] to be fair
In a message dated 3/28/2005 8:54:54 PM Pacific
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I guess the question that would be asked of John is, How do
we account for people who say they are trusting God's gracious
reconciliation, but don't appear (that necessarily means, "don't appear to
us") to be interested in living in that reconciliation at all?
Answering for myself, I now look to them with a degree of the same
passion God has for them. The "fact of reconciliation," if
viewed as the result of the reconciliation of all things in Christ
(Godhead, creation, humanity), is relational in nature and ontological in
effect. It is NOT the result of a decision so much as it is a
result of a recapitulation of all things (Eph 1:10 "summing up"
is the same word). So then, the "purpose" is without law as
well (Gal 5:18). The purpose, holiness of those involved
in the reconciliation of all things, is first and foremost, an assumption (a
consideration) on the part of God. He sees our connection to the
faith of Christ, our inclusion IN Christ, and sees nothing but our
victory. We cannot discontinue that relational benefit
without doing ourselves great harm. Self destruction is the
ultimate result. But who really knows what is going on the
life of an individual? My sharing in God's great Assumption does not
mean that are all going "to heaven." But there is no good
accomplished in my decision to exclude them in an ultimate and final
sense. We are God's manifestation to the world -- not the
only manifestation, but we are included. "Forgiveness" is a
jargon word to me -- patient acceptance without compromise
is the down and dirty. Those who are not (apparently) living out
the purpose of God for themselves NEED relationships with others that
find them thoroughly accepted but without compromise. Often,
this is no easy task -- but Christ died for all of us IN OUR
SINS (while we yet sinners). The Legal Church screams "Repent or
perish" and isolates these persons from all that is profound, having "no
fellowship with darkness" as it's guide. The Redemptive Church,
must counter this with arms open wide, patient association,
acceptance that is real and full of love, a stand for what is right as a
matter of spiritual health and preach (share) the word of
reconciliation. This "failure" you have in your arms, for the most
part, already knows of his distress !!!! He needs
help and time. I am sure that
nobody on TT is really (non-rhetorically) accusing John of being such a
person.
I said what my own answer
would be if I were challenged as being such a person: I do not concern
myself with [other people's] (or my own) judgment. I trust God to complete
the work begun in me; he has until the Day of Jesus Christ (and may well do
a hefty passel of it right then!). But that's because I am confident of my
own relationship to Christ and my desire to live it out. What do we say
about other people? Do we just decline to make a judgment? Is that a
cop-out? Do we stoutly trust that they are in a process of growth whose germ
we cannot yet see? Or do we conclude that they are in defiance of the ground
of their own existence and therefore self-destructing? Perhaps I have
answered all this in the above. And if so, can a similarity be
acknowledged between that and David's position?
Debbie
|
