Would love to hear your response! Ask yourself, do you have any unchanging truths you subscribe true? Why?
It may sound simple, but I focus on the unchanging truth of God's love. In doing so, I must also accept, respect and honor, the unchanging truth of a just Lord. The covenant love God speaks to all Christ-followers is that in which we must strive to display to the world. All of creation. Human or animal. When the world looks at me, it is Christ they should see...
In subscribing to God's love and being an image bearer of that construct, I also follow and obey the laws and rules in which govern my choice as a Christ-follower. As Apostle Paul illustrates throughout many of the New Testament letters, we are called and set apart. Implying that our lives following Christ will look vastly different than those not following the light of the world.
How do they help you live a moral life?
I believe understanding there is a divine governing authority sustaining and over my life, is profoundly humbling and surrendering. Many people find issues with "authority" or dislike acknowledging a power far greater than their own, but I am in awe of God every single day. The breath that is breathed into my lungs, the life-sustaining power that can never be taken for granted.... this truth in and of itself is what keeps me grounded, humbled, and living a moral life...all for God's glory.
Wednesday, April 4, 2018
MLK and Theology- A Great Reminder!
"He realized that every genuine expression of love grows out of a consistent and total surrender to God" (King, 2010, p 44).
This statement I believe is the anchor to which I draw the relationship to this weeks readings and is also an hourly (not even daily!) reminder for me that my healing is not through my own will, but from a God is above all else.
I acknowledge that I come from a strong identity of justice. I feel that it must of been engrained in me from a child, because I found myself fascinated with criminology, and the whole construct of how we as a human race "seek" and "enforce" the ideology of justice in this world. However, I never took into perspective, from which anchor many people in society are drawing their perception of justice from. It's almost like drawing water from an empty well. If many are seeking justice through a lens of selfish desires, the end result can be extreme darkness.
King speaks to that within this chapter, that our construct of justice must originate from the complete surrender of ourselves. It is NOT about: "you."
Now, to have a moment of confession time. I personally know that this is not easy. After 11 years in the military, working CID and being in a position where a large chunk of my life was to interrogate extremists and terrorists for intel, knowing very well every breath could of been my last, (and for some of my brothers and sisters it was their last) I will be the very first one in line to tell you that forgiveness is not easy!!! I do not know if I have even to this day found complete peace. However, I do know one thing... God moves. He moves us. He moves our hearts. He moves our minds. But it will never happen if we do not let it.
This rings true in seminary and my time here. If anyone would of asked me if I would have been sitting back here in these rooms last December, I would have probably said no. There have been very dark and painful experiences done to me and many others in my population that have been judged and threatened, even as we sit here, in what is supposed to be a safe, cultivating "loving" and "just" space. It simply isn't for many of us.
But in the midst of all this, this is where we return to traditions, and possibly from that, that is our catalyst to becoming a change-agent in the world we live in. I then shift quick to the Ottati text:
"A key insight into human life is that it is eccentric. It finds itself in the midst of interrelations with other things, but it is not itself at the center of other things" (Ottati, 2011, p 45).
This statement affirms and intersects King's reminder of where our source truly is. To allow ourselves to exist and interrelate, and navigating what "doing life" looks like, but also always having a life source, a foundation, that is not of ourselves. That itself is love (e.g., the power to forgive and love enemies), and also that is one major element that shapes our view of justice.
This statement I believe is the anchor to which I draw the relationship to this weeks readings and is also an hourly (not even daily!) reminder for me that my healing is not through my own will, but from a God is above all else.
I acknowledge that I come from a strong identity of justice. I feel that it must of been engrained in me from a child, because I found myself fascinated with criminology, and the whole construct of how we as a human race "seek" and "enforce" the ideology of justice in this world. However, I never took into perspective, from which anchor many people in society are drawing their perception of justice from. It's almost like drawing water from an empty well. If many are seeking justice through a lens of selfish desires, the end result can be extreme darkness.
King speaks to that within this chapter, that our construct of justice must originate from the complete surrender of ourselves. It is NOT about: "you."
Now, to have a moment of confession time. I personally know that this is not easy. After 11 years in the military, working CID and being in a position where a large chunk of my life was to interrogate extremists and terrorists for intel, knowing very well every breath could of been my last, (and for some of my brothers and sisters it was their last) I will be the very first one in line to tell you that forgiveness is not easy!!! I do not know if I have even to this day found complete peace. However, I do know one thing... God moves. He moves us. He moves our hearts. He moves our minds. But it will never happen if we do not let it.
This rings true in seminary and my time here. If anyone would of asked me if I would have been sitting back here in these rooms last December, I would have probably said no. There have been very dark and painful experiences done to me and many others in my population that have been judged and threatened, even as we sit here, in what is supposed to be a safe, cultivating "loving" and "just" space. It simply isn't for many of us.
But in the midst of all this, this is where we return to traditions, and possibly from that, that is our catalyst to becoming a change-agent in the world we live in. I then shift quick to the Ottati text:
"A key insight into human life is that it is eccentric. It finds itself in the midst of interrelations with other things, but it is not itself at the center of other things" (Ottati, 2011, p 45).
This statement affirms and intersects King's reminder of where our source truly is. To allow ourselves to exist and interrelate, and navigating what "doing life" looks like, but also always having a life source, a foundation, that is not of ourselves. That itself is love (e.g., the power to forgive and love enemies), and also that is one major element that shapes our view of justice.
Moral Authority of Scripture..What should we think?
I was originally going to respond on the Johnson text, (because of a unique viewpoint I have being native american) however, the whole text is cut in have and unreadable for me, so I will respond to the Gomes text. After a bit of discernment, I can see more deeply of the expansion Gomes provides for us biblically in this text, and it's profoundly refreshing.
To start, Gomes lays out many straight forward (yet complex in context) truths that we as a society, and if we identify as Christ-followers must be willing to embrace:
1) the Bible must not be read and/or interpreted literally
2) cultural values and beliefs and spiritual values and beliefs are intertwined, however we must strive to view them independent of one another
3) The Bible does not present any credible case against homosexuality
While there is a lot more in the conversation that Gomes has, the above are an overview representation of his authority of Scripture.
Gomes clearly implies that in today's contemporary society, there has been much evolution within culture and the ways of life, that in some areas, he renders the Bible irrelevant and in many cases, oppressive. His main scope of investigation is around the central construct of homosexuality.
Because of this scope of focus, Gomes only briefly mentions slavery within the introduction of the text, which could be a small correlation to the Johnson text. However, the depth at which Johnson expands and analyzes the construct of slavery is unmatched.
Gomes continues and contrasts and compares two specific examples found within the Old Testament: The Book of Leviticus and Sodom and Gomorrah and then uses Apostle Paul in the New Testament. I found these choices interesting and possibly troubling in my own opinion, but I see why the author would choose these as stand-alone examples, and therefore they do hold their own weight.
In a nutshell, Gomes simplifies his analysis by saying the Bible has a clear voice on the "fallen nature of humankind." While there are direct references to homosexuality found within scripture, he deduces that the argument for what context is the true debate here.
For the majority of Gomes perspective I can agree with. I can see where their can be contextual arguments and where there is some gray areas. I also can understand the nature of not reading the Bible literally. However, I do struggle with sacrificing the integrity of the overall premise that the Bible is alive and is relevant to any and all human era.
We discussed last semester in a course that for those who are going into ordained ministry, to be careful to not be a "pick and choose" minister. The Bible is not a Golden Corral where you can just pick bits and pieces of food from what you want that day just because it "feels right" or it is what you want. That is not the gospel. While I am not entering into an ordained ministry setting at this time, I do agree with what the professor spoke on. You either take God's word all in, or not at all.
Within that contextual framework however, if you choose to take the Bible "all in" as Christ-followers we must think biblically, historically, spiritually, and above all through the lens of Christ on how we enact God's word. In that manner, we can come to the most christ-centered behavior and decisions as possible, without making the Bible out to be just what we "wished" it would have said.
To start, Gomes lays out many straight forward (yet complex in context) truths that we as a society, and if we identify as Christ-followers must be willing to embrace:
1) the Bible must not be read and/or interpreted literally
2) cultural values and beliefs and spiritual values and beliefs are intertwined, however we must strive to view them independent of one another
3) The Bible does not present any credible case against homosexuality
While there is a lot more in the conversation that Gomes has, the above are an overview representation of his authority of Scripture.
Gomes clearly implies that in today's contemporary society, there has been much evolution within culture and the ways of life, that in some areas, he renders the Bible irrelevant and in many cases, oppressive. His main scope of investigation is around the central construct of homosexuality.
Because of this scope of focus, Gomes only briefly mentions slavery within the introduction of the text, which could be a small correlation to the Johnson text. However, the depth at which Johnson expands and analyzes the construct of slavery is unmatched.
Gomes continues and contrasts and compares two specific examples found within the Old Testament: The Book of Leviticus and Sodom and Gomorrah and then uses Apostle Paul in the New Testament. I found these choices interesting and possibly troubling in my own opinion, but I see why the author would choose these as stand-alone examples, and therefore they do hold their own weight.
In a nutshell, Gomes simplifies his analysis by saying the Bible has a clear voice on the "fallen nature of humankind." While there are direct references to homosexuality found within scripture, he deduces that the argument for what context is the true debate here.
For the majority of Gomes perspective I can agree with. I can see where their can be contextual arguments and where there is some gray areas. I also can understand the nature of not reading the Bible literally. However, I do struggle with sacrificing the integrity of the overall premise that the Bible is alive and is relevant to any and all human era.
We discussed last semester in a course that for those who are going into ordained ministry, to be careful to not be a "pick and choose" minister. The Bible is not a Golden Corral where you can just pick bits and pieces of food from what you want that day just because it "feels right" or it is what you want. That is not the gospel. While I am not entering into an ordained ministry setting at this time, I do agree with what the professor spoke on. You either take God's word all in, or not at all.
Within that contextual framework however, if you choose to take the Bible "all in" as Christ-followers we must think biblically, historically, spiritually, and above all through the lens of Christ on how we enact God's word. In that manner, we can come to the most christ-centered behavior and decisions as possible, without making the Bible out to be just what we "wished" it would have said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)