John P. Webster Library First Church of Christ, Congregational, UCC 12 South Main Street West Hartford CT 06107

+Library home +Resources and services +News and events +New materials +Online catalog +Hours and location +Contact us

Online Summer Bible Study, 2004
Week 14 (September 5-11): Matthew 21-28

Hi David,

"This is an interpretation that holds out promise for our multi-cultural world. It shifts our attention to the beam in our own eye. However, it also demands that we identify who is and is not a 'true member of the Church'."

Yes and no...as I said, "they are difficult to distinguish from the true Christians, and so cannot and should not be rooted out." And we have witnesses such as Philippians 2:12-13 (NIV): "Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose." We need to identify whether *we* are true members of the Church to the best of our knowledge, and while that will inevitably involve comparisons with those around us, the focus is on us, and not on those others.

However, admittedly, there are also passages such as Matthew 18:15-17 (NIV) which suggest a more interventionist attitude...

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

Paul similarly advises congregations to police the behavior of their members. However, again, the focus is on confronting *sin*, not identifying people categorically as *sinners*, especially since both Jesus and Paul worry about people glorifying themselves at the expense of others. I know, I know--it's a fine line. Unfortunately, we're not given many thick and clear lines to walk in this world.

"As I do not believe, for example, in a literal resurrection and ascension, there is a pretty good possibility that many (most?) 'true' Christians would consider me to be one of the weeds."

Don't we all make our own lists of weeds, whatever our intentions to be inclusive? I know I do, with Fred Phelps at the top of the list, and folks like James Dobson and Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell jostling each other in the middle, a few slots above John Shelby Spong. The question is what we do with these lists, and how overly confident we are that we ourselves don't belong on them.

Also, Matthew is not terribly concerned about sin as bad doctrine, but about sin as bad action. Matthew 25:31-46 (NIV)...

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

(This is basically an expanded version of Matthew 7:21 [NIV]: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.")

If someone is going to call you a weed--or we are going to call someone else a weed, or declare ourselves to be "good seed"--well, there we have the relevant criteria. (Tony Campolo, the evangelistic professor you considered disingenuous, was the first person I encountered this point from).

Another emphasis on action instead of doctrine can be found in the Great Commission, Matthew 28:19-20 (NIV): "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Not teaching them to believe or testify, but to obey. That is one of the key themes of Matthew: obedience. Thus the passion and crucifixion are presented not as cosmically atoning acts in and of themselves, but as signs of faithfulness: Jesus' faithfulness to the will of God, and God's faithfulness to the words God gave the prophets (e.g., fulfilling scripture).

[Me: "Judgment is a task that belongs to the Son of Man and his angels"]

"I wonder what Jesus of Nazareth would think of that?"

Hard to say, since the gospels are more or less our only record of Jesus' words and deeds, and Matthew puts the words about the Son of Man and his angels in Jesus' mouth.

"Nietzsche said, 'Beware in casting out your demons that you do not cast out the best part of yourself.'"

God is a lot better at casting out demons than we are.

"Do you believe that in your heart of hearts, there is a part of you that is 'utterly depraved'?"

You don't?

"perhaps describe how 'utter depravity' manifests itself in an average man."

Let us define good as "loving God completely and loving our neighbor as ourself." (If the loving God part is too controversial, just stick with the neighbor clause). Not-good would then be anything we do that isn't loving, towards ourselves or those around us. Is anyone loving all the time? Forget the rationalizations and self-justifications for a moment--yes, there can be consequences to being unconditionally loving, but the Gospel doesn't say anything about us avoiding consequences--and be completely honest. How many people in need do we pass by each day, just the ones who are easily identified, the stranded and the distraught and the hungry and the sick? Does the fact that we feel bad in passing them by diminish in any way the reality of our passing them by? Does the fact that we pass them by even while feeling bad make us somehow *worse* than passersby who are simply ignorant?

The version of utter depravity I believe in is that each person has a piece inside them, however large or small, that is ineradicable and refuses to give itself in love; that whatever deeds come from that piece lead to evil, however large or small; and that whatever strength we have to avoid or override or resist that piece comes from God, and only from God.

Peace,
Mark Kille
John P. Webster Library

"We need to identify whether *we* are true members of the Church to the best of our knowledge, and while that will inevitably involve comparisons with those around us, the focus is on us, and not on those others."

What are the benchmarks that distinguish a "true" Christian from an imposter?

"Paul similarly advises congregations to police the behavior of their members. However, again, the focus is on confronting *sin*, not identifying people categorically as *sinners*, especially since both Jesus and Paul worry about people glorifying themselves at the expense of others."

I've been trading editorials with a Catholic priest in the Westerly Sun lately. He makes a similar point: love the sinner and hate the sin. I don't think most people are going to be able to make that distinction in the blur of day to day experience. I would find it very difficult to say (and mean), "I love you but I hate the fact that you appear to have the characteristics of an arrogant, selfish jerk."

"Also, Matthew is not terribly concerned about sin as bad doctrine, but about sin as bad action."

Good point. Well stated.

"If someone is going to call you a weed--or we are going to call someone else a weed, or declare ourselves to be "good seed"--well, there we have the relevant criteria. (Tony Campolo, the evangelistic professor you considered disingenuous, was the first person I encountered this point from)."

You are referring to what I said on August 19. The actual quote was: "I'm sorry, Tony, but I find this statement to be somewhat disingenuous."

This is an example of how difficult it is to distinguish the person from the act. I was not calling Tony Campolo disingenuous. I said his statement was disingenuous and I made that distinction deliberately. But the state of being disingenuous attached itself to the person, not to what the person did, or in this case, said. This is why Paul's advice on "policing" behavior can so easily be misapplied.

"God is a lot better at casting out demons than we are."

Speaking metaphorically, I agree.

"Do you believe that in your heart of hearts, there is a part of you that is 'utterly depraved'?" (David)

"You don't?" (Mark)

I can go along with saying, "There is a part of me that is depraved." But to say "utterly depraved" means to me we are without hope of improvement (redemption if you will). I don't think that is in synch with the basic message of Christianity. Do you also believe there is a part of us that is utterly good? As a Quaker (and also in my ABCCONN and UCC days) I believe there is "that of God in all of us". Peel away the layers long enough and you come to God in the human heart. Granted, many people have lots and lots of layers.

"Not-good would then be anything we do that isn't loving, towards ourselves or those around us."

But there are degrees. I may drive by someone on the highway who has a flat tire and do nothing to help. That's not the same as a hit and run accident.

"Is anyone loving all the time?"

No, but that doesn't mean that there is a part of me that never loves.

"The version of utter depravity I believe in is that each person has a piece inside them, however large or small, that is ineradicable and refuses to give itself in love; that whatever deeds come from that piece lead to evil, however large or small; and that whatever strength we have to avoid or override or resist that piece comes from God, and only from God."

For now, I will agree with what you are saying to this extent: we are imperfect creatures bound, to varying degrees, by our lack of consciousness.

Hi David,

"What are the benchmarks that distinguish a 'true' Christian from an imposter?"

Forgive the paraphrasing, collating, and non-inclusive language...Jesus said: "My follower is he who does the will of my Father in heaven: he fed me when I was hungry, visited me in prison, and cared for me when I was sick."

Note that when the post-resurrection Jesus asks Peter "Do you love me?" the following command is "Feed my sheep." Not "Go make everybody believe in my divinity and atoning sacrifice."

"I've been trading editorials with a Catholic priest in the Westerly Sun lately. He makes a similar point: love the sinner and hate the sin. I don't think most people are going to be able to make that distinction in the blur of day to day experience. I would find it very difficult to say (and mean), 'I love you but I hate the fact that you appear to have the characteristics of an arrogant, selfish jerk.'"

That's not what you do, though. You say, "I love you, but it wasn't OK when you [acted arrogantly a specific time or like a jerk a specific time]." Sin must be confronted at the level of specifics, at least to begin with. Telling someone "stop being mean to me!" is less likely to be effective than "stop telling I'm so ugly I scare the pigeons!"--and if you can't think of a specific mean thing they've done, then chances are you might be mistaken about the meanness.

Beyond that, though, *of course* it's difficult. What, "love your neighbor as yourself" is *easy*?

[Me: "(Tony Campolo, the evangelistic professor you considered disingenuous, was the first person I encountered this point from)."]

"You are referring to what I said on August 19. The actual quote was: 'I'm sorry, Tony, but I find this statement to be somewhat disingenuous.' This is an example of how difficult it is to distinguish the person from the act...This is why Paul's advice on 'policing' behavior can so easily be misapplied."

Anything can easily be misapplied. The question is, what happens when mistakes are made? In this case, I say, "I'm sorry I misunderstood your statement," and it's not a big deal.

"I can go along with saying, 'There is a part of me that is depraved.' But to say 'utterly depraved' means to me we are without hope of improvement (redemption if you will). I don't think that is in synch with the basic message of Christianity."

Sure it is, or can be, because it's not that we are without hope of improvement--it's that we're without hope of meaningful improvement *on our own*. We have lots of hope of improvement. It's called grace.

"Do you also believe there is a part of us that is utterly good?"

I believe we carry the image of God within us, which can never be completely stamped out such that grace cannot restore it, whatever we do or do not do. But is that "us," in a meaningful way? I'm not convinced it is. It's a representation of God, which we can imperfectly model our life after, if we stay focused on it.

"As a Quaker (and also in my ABCCONN and UCC days) I believe there is 'that of God in all of us'. Peel away the layers long enough and you come to God in the human heart. Granted, many people have lots and lots of layers."

But the layers are always there, however few or many. And the layers aren't good, however much we justify them by their universality.

"But there are degrees. I may drive by someone on the highway who has a flat tire and do nothing to help. That's not the same as a hit and run accident."

Suppose you are part of a hit and run accident, and the person in the other car is not seriously injured. Traveling along, you then pass by someone who has a flat tire and don't help them. While stranded, they are robbed and killed, or struck by a drunk driver and killed, or some other bad thing and killed. Who suffered the most harm because of your actions?

The problem with judging actions by consequences is that we can't ever know what the consequences will actually be. And, since a worse action can always be identified, people can always justify what they're doing.

[Me: "Is anyone loving all the time?"]

"No, but that doesn't mean that there is a part of me that never loves."

I didn't say there was. But imagine if Mother Teresa, in her last days, had snapped and gone on a shooting spree, killing a single person. Look how much pure, unselfish love we can see in her life. Yet she would still be a murderer. Would we say her act of murder wasn't *really* evil, because of the rest of her life?

"For now, I will agree with what you are saying to this extent: we are imperfect creatures bound, to varying degrees, by our lack of consciousness."

Being conscious of our faults rarely guarantees that they get fixed.

Peace,
Mark Kille
John P. Webster Library

"That's not what you do, though. You say, 'I love you, but it wasn't OK when you [acted arrogantly a specific time or like a jerk a specific time].'"

You're absolutely right. I agree.

".because it's not that we are without hope of improvement--it's that we're without hope of meaningful improvement *on our own*. We have lots of hope of improvement. It's called grace."

I can agree with this if the understanding is that grace is not dependent on accepting a particular doctrine, creed, or religion. If grace belongs to all of us simply by virtue of our humanity, then I believe in the reality of grace. However, if the understanding is that a person has to be a Christian, or even worse, a certain kind of Christian, then I see the availability of grace as one more thing that divides us as humans. If that is the case, it might be more authentic to make a go of it "on our own".

"I believe we carry the image of God within us, which can never be completely stamped out such that grace cannot restore it, whatever we do or do not do. But is that "us," in a meaningful way?"

What could be more "us" than the indwelling God in whose image we are made? Everything we know of God is a "representation" of God. The human mind cannot hold God anymore than a thimble can hold the ocean.

"But the layers are always there, however few or many. And the layers aren't good, however much we justify them by their universality."

The layers are a part of me. They make me who I am. I'm not sure I want to refer to the layers that are a part of me as "not good". It's another fine line, I know. Jungians might refer to this as "embracing the shadow", that is, accepting the layers rather than trying to hide them from others as being something shameful. I think this is a more psychologically healthy way to approach life than the traditional Christian way of declaring that we ourselves, with all our layers, "aren't good" until we accept the atoning sacrifice of Christ for our layers.

"Would we say her act of murder wasn't *really* evil, because of the rest of her life?"

Would most of us say it wasn't "good" if, in his youth, Hitler had jumped into freezing water to rescue a drowning baby?

"Being conscious of our faults rarely guarantees that they get fixed."

It might be that grace cannot "fix" the fault until we have attended to the task of bringing the fault to consciousness.

Hi David, "I can agree with this if the understanding is that grace is not dependent on accepting a particular doctrine, creed, or religion."

Any doctrine of grace that restricts God's ability to bestow it on people based on their ability or willingness to believe certain things is not a doctrine of grace, but of works. In other words, no, grace is not dependent on accepting a particular doctrine, creed, or religion. (However, accepting one or more of those might make someone more receptive to the grace God is offering...)

"If that is the case, it might be more authentic to make a go of it 'on our own'."

What is the intrinsic value of this kind of authenticity?

"What could be more 'us' than the indwelling God in whose image we are made?"

Well, the "layers" we have been discussing, for one thing. It depends on how one conceives of the image of God within individuals, whether there is more uniqueness and self-determination in the non-image part of us or the image part.

"The layers are a part of me. They make me who I am. I'm not sure I want to refer to the layers that are a part of me as 'not good'."

What is the intrinsic value of this kind of individuality?

"Jungians might refer to this as 'embracing the shadow', that is, accepting the layers rather than trying to hide them from others as being something shameful."

Why is hiding the necessary consequence of disapproving of one's "shadow"? If you have a broken arm, you walk around with a cast on it. If you have an illness that requires you to take medicine with your meals, and you are out to dinner or lunch with other people, you take your medicine in front of them. If you have mobility problems, you use a walker or a wheelchair or a Rascal or a cane. Etc. Since everyone has a "shadow," where is the shame in acknowledging that you have one too? It's like being ashamed of having to use the bathroom--some people are, but it's silly.

"I think this is a more psychologically healthy way to approach life than the traditional Christian way of declaring that we ourselves, with all our layers, 'aren't good' until we accept the atoning sacrifice of Christ for our layers."

That is a misinterpretation in at least two different directions. First, traditional Christianity doesn't say that accepting the atonement makes us good, quite the opposite; what it does is make us forgiven, with Christ's goodness covering our own sinfulness. Second, what allows us to be "good" (sanctifies us) is the indwelling Spirit (which convicts us of our sin and makes us aware of grace), not the cross. Traditional Christianity often conflates the two, yes, but that doesn't mean we have to. Some people may become aware of grace through the cross--cf. all the reported "Passion of the Christ" conversions--but many others become aware of grace through the Beatitudes, the eucharist, a loving neighbor, or a variety of other channels.

"Would most of us say it wasn't 'good' if, in his youth, Hitler had jumped into freezing water to rescue a drowning baby?"

We'd say it was a good act, but I imagine most of us would still consider Hitler to be an evil man, with what he still would have gone on to do.

"It might be that grace cannot 'fix' the fault until we have attended to the task of bringing the fault to consciousness."

Sure, consciousness is necessary. But it is far from sufficient.

Peace,
Mark Kille
John P. Webster Library

Please visit the First Church home page!