Born: June 9, 1972
« Bus Proverb #3 | Home | Please don't take awa… »
April 30, 2004 at 07:48 am
Jesus and boundaries...
Remind me to elaborate on this later…
Yesterday, a guy named Dwight made a comment on my post about the modern legalism of communion.
Speaking of how we limit communion to believers, he said:
“It is not legalism to insist that there are boundaries for the community and its activities.”This is really making me think this morning. What’s getting me is that “I just can’t come to terms with placing the name of Jesus next to the word ‘boundary’” (to quote myself).
Anyway, I apologize for quoting some comments that you could have just read on your own, but I would like to talk about this a little more at some point and I’d love it if someone would hold me to it.
Digg This Story | 
Save This Page
No Trackbacks
Trackback Link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
Comments (5)
> It is bad to hold others away and
> never let anyone close.
> But good boundaries are designed
> to keep the good in and the bad
> out.
I agree that there are multiple senses to the word “boundaries.” I like the distinctions you have made.
> never let anyone close.
> But good boundaries are designed
> to keep the good in and the bad
> out.
I agree that there are multiple senses to the word “boundaries.” I like the distinctions you have made.
» Comment by timsamoff () (URL), on May 06, 2004 at 08:48 am
This is a good line to be on; “boundaries” is an important idea for the Church to wrestle with.
I think the critical distinction in all of this is as follows (I hope I can get it out so that it makes sense): We must distinguish the Gospel’s inclusivity as it applies to the ultimate destiny of the cosmos from life in Christ with life in the Gospel or in Christ. The Gospel’s promise is a transforming word; it changes us. “If anyone is in Christ, that person is a new creation.”
The Gospel’s promise (that is actually a redundancy for the nature of Gospel is promise) is offered to all without distinction. It is the promise of salvation. It is an invitation to life with God and life in God — not just for the far-out future, but today.
But there is a specific content to the salvation offered: In my personal formulation, salvation will save us from ourselves. (It is at this point that the modernists and postmodernists rebel, because they want to define salvation in terms of issues and values they bring to the conversation. Jesus says “no” to that. He determines and describes the nature of salvation.) Read the sermon on the mount: It is a thumbnail sketch of life in the Gospel. It involves coming into an exclusive community (exclusive, minimally, in that all other gods and values are forsaken) and living in concert with the work of God in the world as manifested by Jesus.
Here’s an analogy and a foreshadow: The LORD came to Israel (having created them as a nation for no particular reason — talk about free grace) in Egypt and promised salvation. He sent Moses to lead them out of Egypt. Moses tells Pharoah, “Let the LORD’s people go so that they might worship him in the wilderness.” (This is Cardinal Ratzinger’s reading of the Exodus.) When finally Israel gets past the Reed/Red Sea, what does the LORD do? He sends down the 10 Commandments (in Hebrew: the 10 words; they are, as I recall, framed in the indicative mode, not in the imperative). Israel’s salvation took a particular shape — a shape imposed by the LORD. That was how they lived their salvation (and that is why the Jews celebrate the Law and why Martin Luther never referred to the 10 Cs as “law”).
Israel, of course, didn’t like it. “Why can’t we have a dalliance with a golden calf?” “What’s wrong with a little tete-a-tete with a temple prostitute?” “Communing with the baalim feeds my spiritual impulses and corrects the narrow view of life offered by the LORD.” And you know what happened.
So it is with Christians: We are all alike called into communion (and ultimately eucharistic communion) with God. But we do not enter into that communion without changing. (That’s part of the meaning of the parable about the wedding guest.)
As a life-long and now relatively committed Lutheran (trained in theology at one of the ELCA’s finer seminaries), I have long questioned my tradition’s almost complete failure to talk about “sanctification.” It’s all justification — which I think is a perversion of Luther’s teaching about the life of faith. Ultimately, sanctification is both requisite and possible because the Gospel calls us to live freely within the boundaries of God. And to that extent, it is critical to speak out for boundaries.
I’m going on too long; I should have my own blog if I want to rant like this! I apologize, but I really enjoy thinking in these terms. Thanks for beginning to weave this thread.
Dwight P.
I think the critical distinction in all of this is as follows (I hope I can get it out so that it makes sense): We must distinguish the Gospel’s inclusivity as it applies to the ultimate destiny of the cosmos from life in Christ with life in the Gospel or in Christ. The Gospel’s promise is a transforming word; it changes us. “If anyone is in Christ, that person is a new creation.”
The Gospel’s promise (that is actually a redundancy for the nature of Gospel is promise) is offered to all without distinction. It is the promise of salvation. It is an invitation to life with God and life in God — not just for the far-out future, but today.
But there is a specific content to the salvation offered: In my personal formulation, salvation will save us from ourselves. (It is at this point that the modernists and postmodernists rebel, because they want to define salvation in terms of issues and values they bring to the conversation. Jesus says “no” to that. He determines and describes the nature of salvation.) Read the sermon on the mount: It is a thumbnail sketch of life in the Gospel. It involves coming into an exclusive community (exclusive, minimally, in that all other gods and values are forsaken) and living in concert with the work of God in the world as manifested by Jesus.
Here’s an analogy and a foreshadow: The LORD came to Israel (having created them as a nation for no particular reason — talk about free grace) in Egypt and promised salvation. He sent Moses to lead them out of Egypt. Moses tells Pharoah, “Let the LORD’s people go so that they might worship him in the wilderness.” (This is Cardinal Ratzinger’s reading of the Exodus.) When finally Israel gets past the Reed/Red Sea, what does the LORD do? He sends down the 10 Commandments (in Hebrew: the 10 words; they are, as I recall, framed in the indicative mode, not in the imperative). Israel’s salvation took a particular shape — a shape imposed by the LORD. That was how they lived their salvation (and that is why the Jews celebrate the Law and why Martin Luther never referred to the 10 Cs as “law”).
Israel, of course, didn’t like it. “Why can’t we have a dalliance with a golden calf?” “What’s wrong with a little tete-a-tete with a temple prostitute?” “Communing with the baalim feeds my spiritual impulses and corrects the narrow view of life offered by the LORD.” And you know what happened.
So it is with Christians: We are all alike called into communion (and ultimately eucharistic communion) with God. But we do not enter into that communion without changing. (That’s part of the meaning of the parable about the wedding guest.)
As a life-long and now relatively committed Lutheran (trained in theology at one of the ELCA’s finer seminaries), I have long questioned my tradition’s almost complete failure to talk about “sanctification.” It’s all justification — which I think is a perversion of Luther’s teaching about the life of faith. Ultimately, sanctification is both requisite and possible because the Gospel calls us to live freely within the boundaries of God. And to that extent, it is critical to speak out for boundaries.
I’m going on too long; I should have my own blog if I want to rant like this! I apologize, but I really enjoy thinking in these terms. Thanks for beginning to weave this thread.
Dwight P.
» Comment by Dwight P. () , on May 07, 2004 at 09:57 am
Dwight, please don’t apologize! I appreciate your time and thought (as I’m sure most of the people who read here do). Go on for as long as you’d like!
You have brought up some very interesting topics, most notably:
“Ultimately, sanctification is both requisite and possible because the Gospel calls us to live freely within the boundaries of God. And to that extent, it is critical to speak out for boundaries.”
Very profound. Yes, there are boundaries “in” God… But, it is difficult for me to comprehend boundaries within a context (God) that has no boundaries. God can do anything, save, according to scripture, break a promise. But, sure, He could even do that too if He wanted to!
Sanctification… Would you agree that sanctification is an ongoing process? If so, wouldn’t you say that so too are the boundaries that we discover during the course of our lives?
If this is true, then where do the boundaries that the Church has instituted come from? And are these boundaries necessarily helpful to those who are still growing in their faith?
To me, they almost seem harmful…sometimes.
Lastly, about the boundaries that God provided to Israel, pre-Christ… Weren’t these boundaries all shattered with the crucifixion?
Just a question.
I’d love to hear more pontification! :)
You have brought up some very interesting topics, most notably:
“Ultimately, sanctification is both requisite and possible because the Gospel calls us to live freely within the boundaries of God. And to that extent, it is critical to speak out for boundaries.”
Very profound. Yes, there are boundaries “in” God… But, it is difficult for me to comprehend boundaries within a context (God) that has no boundaries. God can do anything, save, according to scripture, break a promise. But, sure, He could even do that too if He wanted to!
Sanctification… Would you agree that sanctification is an ongoing process? If so, wouldn’t you say that so too are the boundaries that we discover during the course of our lives?
If this is true, then where do the boundaries that the Church has instituted come from? And are these boundaries necessarily helpful to those who are still growing in their faith?
To me, they almost seem harmful…sometimes.
Lastly, about the boundaries that God provided to Israel, pre-Christ… Weren’t these boundaries all shattered with the crucifixion?
Just a question.
I’d love to hear more pontification! :)
» Comment by timsamoff () (URL), on May 07, 2004 at 2:50 pm
By the way, find more thought here:
http://sense-datum.org/tim/pivot/entry.p..
http://sense-datum.org/tim/pivot/entry.p..
» Comment by timsamoff () (URL), on May 07, 2004 at 2:52 pm
But, I believe that you are correct in feeling like you need boundaries. We all need them in some way or another — boundaries are something (though not the only thing) that keeps us from sinning.
I need more time to think about this. :)