February 26, 2007
-
it seems that there is a definite difference between the peace that the world offers and the peace that is offered by God, what i would term as shalom. in his work the city of God, Augustine talks about two paradigmatic cities > the city of God, and the city of humanity. what differentiates them is the quality of the love that unites them as a common good. the love of the city of humanity is united by the peace that is defined more as the détente that exists as the result of a cessation of hostilities rather than the presence of the peace of God. it is the love within the city of God that is united by the shalom of God that means so much more than the absence of hostility, but also encompasses the presence of reconciliation and proper relationship, of prosperity and generosity, of steadfast love and of slowness to anger…
within these two cities, the εκκλεσια (or gathered assembly) is meant to embody the love and peace that exists in the kingdom of God. this εκκλεσια represents unity in diversity, since its members are drawn out of all nations and peoples, bound by love of God and love in God. the church at its best gives a sense of true love, true politics (love of city), true ethics in the world > a kind of witness, a general reflection…where we see brokenness is the visible invitation of God to envision wholeness, to see what the next step is to be > the church is the source of intelligibility for morality and ethics in this world…
so, what is the invitation when 7 anglican primates refuse to share communion with 31 others, because one is a woman and they don’t like her gender or her liberal view of God’s love and saving grace? what is the invitation when people persist in using God’s banquet table as a means of exclusion instead of inclusion? the only reason you could legitimately refuse Eucharist is if you were not “in love and charity with your neighbor” and did not “intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God”… this says more about the state of the hearts (unreconciled) of the abstaining archbishops than it does about any of the others…
but…how are we, as church, to witness to the world at large of the saving and reconciling love of God in Jesus Christ when even the leaders of the international anglican communion have trouble demonstrating that love?
Comments (7)
it’s interesting how we view the word “liberal” today.
in an apostate world where radical views were seen as the socio-religious norm, Christ was a liberal in the sense that while He obeyed Mosaic laws, He didn’t ‘strain at gnats and swallow camels’.
Liberal and Conservitive are just silly words used to describe masses. What happened to Christians being Christians? I must be missing something. :lookaround:
Glad for your heart….but I am not familiar with your situation. Loved City of God. was thinking of augustine recently…his advice re rape was woncderful and healing to many at that time and even helps now. lots of love
RYC—LBJ was conservative but very PRO civil rights, as were quite a few conservatives at the time—the neo=cons of today embrace the old Dixiecrat philosophy
*Electric Ladyland* and the Beatles “white” album were double albums released before Woodstock :sunny:
Haven’t read St Augustine since junior high, so can’t really riff on this.
i don’t remember if he got into the Paulist doctrine that the church embraced, but the hate and intolerance in the post-gospels apocrypha of the putz from Tarsus is what set Christianity on the eye-for-an-eye vengence that that the Jews of the Old Testament avoided with a passion.
ryc: Gosh. Well, I think you can take the biscuit, as I never had anything happen to me as such…
Incidentally, would you say that it would be impossible to love a person and kill them in a war – and therefore that no Christians should join the armed forces? (just trying to figure out your point; friendly discussion, not polemic)
p
ryc: christopher and i are stellar lately. all is well with you?
I agree with GunStarHero, what happened to Christians shunning the sin, not the sinner? :wha: