Listen to this Audio Message...

[Guest]

Hello, JC,

Thank you for your response.

Emmet, I appreciate you giving us your take on the issue, but did you listen to the audio link I provided? I only ask because the points you've raised don't entirely fit the message I'm promoting here.

No, I did not listen to the audio link. I was responding to your written statement that "it's not the rule that matters...."

Perhaps your statement did not exactly correspond to your message? As you know, I'm a language nazi. But in my defense, our communication largely depends upon the medium of language, and if this medium is not carefully attended to, it can betray our efforts at communicating - not only with others, but even with ourselves.

The prominent example Greg Boyd gave is when Jesus was criticized for breaking the Sabbath by doing his normal work, which just happened to be healing people. With respect to the law, they were correct. Jesus didn't cease from doing his normal work on the Sabbath and this was the cause of several disputes.

Jesus didn't respond to their criticism by stating that he, in fact, had not broken the Sabbath. Instead, he pointed to the example of David eating the showbread. David indeed broke the law... which is a religious rule to be followed.

It appears there may be some conflation here. Jesus' citation of the showbread incident is not a response to his own breaking of Shabbath, but rather a response to criticism of his disciples' activities in snacking (q.v., Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5).

On this point - unless I am missing something, Jesus' argumentation is frankly lackluster. In effect, it amounts to "but Davey did it...". If, in fact, David broke the law, such would not mean that his example is worthy or justifiable. David was not impeccable.

For my money, the disciples' activity here was not actually a violation of Shabbath. But if it were, then the disciples should have "manned up" and waited until they had proper opportunity to eat. Does not your bible say that "man does not live upon bread alone, but upon each word that comes forth from the mouth of God"? And the Shabbath command is one such word.


As for healing being Jesus' "normal work," here we encounter a sticky issue. It might be suggested that Jesus did not actually work healing, but rather God worked healing; this perspective might hold for persons who do not believe Jesus to be God, and for those who do believe he is God, yet are sensitive to kenosis theory. As such, Jesus might not actually be breaking Shabbath. But maybe that doesn't hold water - and it probably would be less than convincing for someone who believes Jesus healed through his own power.

Jesus underscored the virtues of mercy and thus defended his actions. He chose to heal a man in defiance of the law. This is a clear example of a principal (mercy) trumping a rule (Sabbath-keeping).

As discussed above, the status of Jesus' activity here as work may be disputed. But setting that aside - if your argumentation is to hold, then we undermine the character of God as a result.

How so? Well, at any given moment during any Shabbath, there will be human beings who would benefit from God's servants working mercy. Thus, if mercy trumps Shabbath, then every moment of Shabbath should be spent working mercy. But if that were the case, then what does that say for the character of God, that he established the rule of Shabbath in the first place?

Rather, does not your bible say "to every thing there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven?" So we find six days for working mercy, and one day for being merciful without working. Why? Perhaps because God is being merciful in that season toward the workers of mercy.

When we focus on the rules we become very cynical and I know this from personal experience. I've also observed it in countless others. Cynicism is not a fruit of the spirit.

"Cynicism is not a fruit of the spirit," but it is a fruit of an unhealthy spirit. If persons are falling into cynicism, we might look to their spirit to discern the root of their ailment.

I probably am not familiar with the persons you have observed. But a person who focuses on rules with a proper spirit - this one husbands the orchard of the fruits of the spirit.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Perhaps your statement did not exactly correspond to your message? As you know, I'm a language nazi. But in my defense, our communication largely depends upon the medium of language, and if this medium is not carefully attended to, it can betray our efforts at communicating - not only with others, but even with ourselves.

Emmet, my statement that you were responding to was meant in a certain context. People don't make statements in a vacuum. I've been somewhat impressed by your language skills but rather suprised by the way you miss context in nearly every response. The above is one example.

On this point - unless I am missing something, Jesus' argumentation is frankly lackluster. In effect, it amounts to "but Davey did it...". If, in fact, David broke the law, such would not mean that his example is worthy or justifiable. David was not impeccable.

Jesus' argument would only appear lackluster if you reject his authority. Since you do and I don't, our minds simply won't meet on this issue.

Rather, does not your bible say "to every thing there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven?" So we find six days for working mercy, and one day for being merciful without working. Why? Perhaps because God is being merciful in that season toward the workers of mercy.

Only scholars can take something entirely simple and turn it into rhetorical nonsense. This is nothing more than an attempt at mental gymnastics, Emmet. Your method of argumentation can be applied to anything. Is the sky blue today? Well, that would depend upon one's ocular health as interpreted by our current social standards of what "color" is. Come on, bro... look up and tell me what color the sky is.

I probably am not familiar with the persons you have observed. But a person who focuses on rules with a proper spirit - this one husbands the orchard of the fruits of the spirit.

I'm sure we agree.

[Guest]

Hello, JC,

Thank you for your reply.

Emmet, my statement that you were responding to was meant in a certain context. People don't make statements in a vacuum. I've been somewhat impressed by your language skills but rather suprised by the way you miss context in nearly every response. The above is one example.

I will admit that the link you provided may have yielded a context that clarified your intended message, JC.

However, context provides a limited excuse when it comes to the formulation of epigrams such as your comment: "t's not the rule that matters... but the principle behind the rule." Why? Because such statements are readily divorced from their context, both within one's own mind and in their handling by others. This behooves us to formulate them with the utmost care.

It is perilous to allow the polarized formulation of rules not mattering, but principles mattering into one's mind or the mind of others, whether or not context has attenuated its meaning. Polarization is a hazardous tactic - dangerously open to distortion and untruth, and potentially disruptive of symbiosis and synergy. But if you would prefer not to entertain the objections of a heretic on this point, Os Guinness has identified polarization as a major pitfall in the thought of evangelical Christians (in his incisive work, Fit Bodies, Fat Minds: why evangelicals don't think and what to do about it - brief, inexpensive, published by Baker Books and presently available @ http://www.amazon.com/Fit-Bodies-Fat-Mi ... 033&sr=8-1).

Jesus' argument would only appear lackluster if you reject his authority. Since you do and I don't, our minds simply won't meet on this issue.

I acknowledge George W. Bush's authority, yet that does not keep me from entertaining the possibility that some of his ideas or actions may be lackluster.

But I can see how, if one were determined to understand Jesus in a certain light, nothing he said or did could appear lackluster.

Only scholars can take something entirely simple and turn it into rhetorical nonsense. This is nothing more than an attempt at mental gymnastics, Emmet. Your method of argumentation can be applied to anything. Is the sky blue today? Well, that would depend upon one's ocular health as interpreted by our current social standards of what "color" is. Come on, bro... look up and tell me what color the sky is.

It is less than compelling when a correspondent resorts to philistinism (actually, another pitfall that Guinness has mentioned in his book). Scholars are frequently unappreciated ... until something is wanted from them.

My argument is more than mere "mental gymnastics"; we have a very practical dimension in play. There is a consistent need for good works, and for good workers; but good workers are likely to have trouble sustaining their good work if they do not have time to rest and recreate. The argument is not terribly different from "The poor you will always have among you...." Yes, the poor need to be ministered to, and yes, there are works of mercy that need to be accomplished - but there are also other concerns to be attended to. Shabbath ensures that there is space for those concerns to be addressed. But this is just an apologetic for the commandment of God, and such an apologetic is not utterly necessary.

If you wish, I can make the issue "entirely simple":

(1) there is a commandment not to perform certain kinds of work during Shabbath;

(2) there is no commandment to pick, rub, or eat grain during Shabbath;

(3) there is no commandment to heal during Shabbath.

We may recognize the question of whether or not such handling of grain or healing might constitute the prohibited kinds of work.

Beyond this, a simple person can simply obey.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Perhaps I am a little slow here, but it seems to me rules and principles are both important. Rules help to show us how to apply principles. Blindly following rules in violation of a principle would be wrong, and they do conflict at times.

People can get into all sorts of trouble morally in application of the principle of love for others if rules are not considered or are ignored. The rules regarding divorce are a good example. If a husband and wife mutually agree they want a divorce so each can marry someone else, and there are no children involved, what principle, absent a rule, would inform them this is sin? It seems the Church could do with a lot more attention to rules in this regard, among others.

On the other hand it is easy to place rules regarding religious duty (for example "not forsaking the assembling of ourselves") above the need of one's neighbor. I seem to recall some folks doing a similar thing, but then a Samaritan came along and took care of the problem.

IMHO "legalism" is a much abused term. Strictly following the precepts of The Lord is a good thing if your heart is right in so doing. To me, the problem in "legalism" is not in the strict following of rules, but placing your trust in the following of rules, i.e., trusting in your own goodness. (Luke 18:9-14)

[Guest]

However, context provides a limited excuse when it comes to the formulation of epigrams such as your comment: "t's not the rule that matters... but the principle behind the rule." Why? Because such statements are readily divorced from their context, both within one's own mind and in their handling by others. This behooves us to formulate them with the utmost care.

I'm a film writer so I tend to be terse and emphatic. I can see how this would irritate a religious scholar.

Polarization is a hazardous tactic - dangerously open to distortion and untruth, and potentially disruptive of symbiosis and synergy. But if you would prefer not to entertain the objections of a heretic on this point, Os Guinness has identified polarization as a major pitfall in the thought of evangelical Christians

I think you and Homer may have gotten the wrong idea. I don't mean to polarize at all, just move the focus to better allow grace and liberty to work in a person's view of others. Mr. Boyd presents his case nicely. I was merely adding emphasis to one aspect of it. I don't have a problem with laws per se, only the micromanaging of others.

It is less than compelling when a correspondent resorts to philistinism (actually, another pitfall that Guinness has mentioned in his book). Scholars are frequently unappreciated ... until something is wanted from them.

Many scholars also seem aloof from reality. I dated a girl once who was working on her PhD at Cornell University after attaining a masters in chemistry. She also had little to no common sense whatsoever. By contrast, Steve Gregg's knowledge of the scriptures (in my opinion) surpasses any trained theologian I've ran across... and he's self-taught. In other words, scholars aren't always smart and I wanted to punctuate that fact. I've actually learned some profound things by observing children. Who knew?

There is a consistent need for good works, and for good workers; but good workers are likely to have trouble sustaining their good work if they do not have time to rest and recreate. The argument is not terribly different from "The poor you will always have among you...." Yes, the poor need to be ministered to, and yes, there are works of mercy that need to be accomplished - but there are also other concerns to be attended to.

You still seem to think I disagree with this. Jesus said that love for God and neighbor sum up the law and the prophets. How can that be since those are principles? Jesus outright says that some things are more important than others. "I require mercy, not sacrifice." Yet, he indeed required sacrifice... just not to the exclusion of the principle. I, like many other Christians, sometimes place an unhealthy focus on micromanaging other people. I simply think this attitude is void of liberality in Christ. Are rules important? Yes. Are they more important than the underlying principle? No.

(1) there is a commandment not to perform certain kinds of work during Shabbath;

(2) there is no commandment to pick, rub, or eat grain during Shabbath;

(3) there is no commandment to heal during Shabbath.

We may recognize the question of whether or not such handling of grain or healing might constitute the prohibited kinds of work.

One could easily argue that Jesus and his disciples were not, in fact, breaking the Sabbath command. I was just pointing out that Jesus used an unusual defense. He could've easily said, "We've not broken the Sabbath, only your understanding of it." Rather, he taught them about mercy and grace. Why? He had a golden opportunity to deflate their argument but expounded on a principle instead. Defending David, who broke more than one law in that example, was an unusual tactic. He made his point though.

[Guest]

Hello, JC,

Thank you for your response.

I'm a film writer so I tend to be terse and emphatic. I can see how this would irritate a religious scholar.

Your comment is illuminating. I imagine that film writers prioritize communicating in a way that grabs people's attention and evokes a response. My graduate training, on the other hand, has emphasized cautious and measured articulation (which I have found to irritate the ardent, in the past).

Not that I abstain from "terse and emphatic" communication, as you may know . But I invest time and effort into sculpting even such language, that it might not clodhopper the truth.

I think you and Homer may have gotten the wrong idea. I don't mean to polarize at all, just move the focus to better allow grace and liberty to work in a person's view of others.

Avoiding polarizing language can forestall others "[getting] the wrong idea."

kaufmannphillips: It is less than compelling when a correspondent resorts to philistinism (actually, another pitfall that Guinness has mentioned in his book). Scholars are frequently unappreciated ... until something is wanted from them.

JC: Many scholars also seem aloof from reality. I dated a girl once who was working on her PhD at Cornell University after attaining a masters in chemistry. She also had little to no common sense whatsoever. By contrast, Steve Gregg's knowledge of the scriptures (in my opinion) surpasses any trained theologian I've ran across... and he's self-taught. In other words, scholars aren't always smart and I wanted to punctuate that fact. I've actually learned some profound things by observing children. Who knew?

A less than compelling stance, bolstered by less than compelling argumentation. So you knew a chem major once? Ample basis for forming an opinion on religious scholarship! And you know someone who is not formally trained, but apparently competent? Clear grounds for dismissing the value of education! And you can learn things from children? Obviously, then, we may dispense with listening to adults!

Based on such keen argumentation, I may free myself from the foolishness of medical doctors! I knew a professor with a doctorate in history once, who did not appear very healthy; and some grandmothers make teas and poultices that make you feel better in no time; and I even learned some things about anatomy from watching wild animals hunt and feed on TV!

But to visit a bit more closely:

By contrast, Steve Gregg's knowledge of the scriptures (in my opinion) surpasses any trained theologian I've ran across... and he's self-taught.

So, how many trained theologians have you run across?

I am impressed by Steve's abilities, but I doubt that he has "self-taught" in a vacuum. Has he never availed himself of resources produced by formally-trained scholars? I will speculate that his English bible falls under that description - and yours as well. I doubt that either of you have personally collated the manuscript evidence and translated it comprehensively. So please don't imagine that you are not fundamentally dependent upon religious scholarship.

And:

I've actually learned some profound things by observing children. Who knew?

I've worked with children for much of my adult life. I can tell you two "terse and emphatic" things about children: good ones acquit thenselves by being obedient; bad ones seek to attain their personal desires by excuse and argument.

Jesus said that love for God and neighbor sum up the law and the prophets. How can that be since those are principles?

Actually, Jesus was tendering his appraisal of the two greatest rules, if you will recall the text. It is theological assunption that these two rules should override any others, rather than seeing the whole body of rules as fully concordant. What is love, and how is it to be expressed? The other rules establish parameters.

Jesus outright says that some things are more important than others. "I require mercy, not sacrifice." Yet, he indeed required sacrifice... just not to the exclusion of the principle.

Actually, the Hebrew says "I have desired" and not "I require." This gives insight to the heart of God, but does not alter his stated terms.

One could easily argue that Jesus and his disciples were not, in fact, breaking the Sabbath command. I was just pointing out that Jesus used an unusual defense. He could've easily said, "We've not broken the Sabbath, only your understanding of it." Rather, he taught them about mercy and grace. Why? He had a golden opportunity to deflate their argument but expounded on a principle instead. Defending David, who broke more than one law in that example, was an unusual tactic. He made his point though.

Yes - Jesus used a curious defense. And what was he attempting to accomplish by it? Validating disobedience?

Perhaps he was just advocating patience (cf. Matthew 9:15): David loved God, so his transgressions were tolerated (to a point). Yet surely patience must not be abused, and the rules remain firm despite the imperfect conduct of the faithful. Maybe Jesus' object is not about prioritizing principle over rule in a theological manner; maybe he is just making a pastoral point.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

A less than compelling stance, bolstered by less than compelling argumentation. So you knew a chem major once? Ample basis for forming an opinion on religious scholarship! And you know someone who is not formally trained, but apparently competent? Clear grounds for dismissing the value of education! And you can learn things from children? Obviously, then, we may dispense with listening to adults!

Emmet, perhaps you're incapable of light-hearted discussion but my mention of dating a chemist wasn't meant to prove anything. Could it be that your belt is a little tight, sir? It seems convenient that any time you misunderstand someone or fail to grasp the context of a discussion that you blame the communicator. I will admit that my perferred method of argumentation often refers to outlandish or tongue-in-cheeck examples, but you can't blame me when you take something more seriously than you ought.

Based on such keen argumentation, I may free myself from the foolishness of medical doctors! I knew a professor with a doctorate in history once, who did not appear very healthy; and some grandmothers make teas and poultices that make you feel better in no time; and I even learned some things about anatomy from watching wild animals hunt and feed on TV!

You're familiar with the term "straw man?" My position is not, nor has it ever been, that education is a thing to be dismissed. I'm formally educated myself, but I learned how to think on my own. I sometimes rail on academics because they so frequently neglect this task.

So, how many trained theologians have you run across?

Hundreds. I work in the ministry. My best friend is a pastor.

So please don't imagine that you are not fundamentally dependent upon religious scholarship.

I'm not against religious scholarship, only the abuse of it. One such abuse is to think more highly of oneself on the basis of training alone. There's a profound difference between parroting another scholar and actually reasoning through an issue by taking several views into consideration. You're a Jewish man engaging a Christian man in a discussion, so you may have avoided this elitist mentality yourself. This is branched into an off-topic discussion though.

Actually, Jesus was tendering his appraisal of the two greatest rules, if you will recall the text. It is theological assunption that these two rules should override any others, rather than seeing the whole body of rules as fully concordant. What is love, and how is it to be expressed? The other rules establish parameters.

I fail to see the practical value of this argument. If I love my neighbor I will istinctively know that I shouldn't steal his car. No one has to tell me not to steal his car because it wouldn't even cross my mind. If someone has to tell you, "Don't take advantage of people or harm them for your own personal gain" then you should perhaps start with loving others, since love is the reason we refrain from such things.

Another problem I have with "rules" as you seem to understand them is that it all boils down to... whose rules? Which rules, Emmet, must one follow to please God? You see why this gets dangerous?

[Guest]

JC & those who heard the sermon,

I've heard of Greg Boyd, not sure who from, maybe here?

Anyway, I liked the one JC recommended and downloaded a few more:

"The Kingdom of God is a Messy Party" kind of hit me, as in, I can tend to get too serious and on the overly theoretical end of things. (Greg says that we might need to "Repent of your boredom!") lol

"I Dream of a Genie-Jesus" was, well; the introduction part had me laughing for something like 10 minutes straight where Greg said, "I used to watch 'I Dream of Genie' religiously ... and it wasn't because I liked the plot." I don't know why but that caught me off guard ... just seemed especially funny coming from a preacher. (I didn't care for the plot much myself) ... "anyways" ....

Other than this, I learned that Greg Boyd's church believes healing is in the atonement. I go along with the other "Gregg" on that (Steve).

Thanx for posting the link, JC. Mixed it up for me a little!
Rick

[Guest]

Emmet,

If you get a chance, see this link, please:
How To Post a Link

It would surely help me out a lot!
Thanx,
Rick

[Guest]

Hello, Rick,

I tested the link to Amazon that I posted on page one of his thread, and it worked for me. Did you have trouble with it?

Shlamaa,
Emmet