|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Gentiles in the New Covenant
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
What is a contemporary analogy for New Testament gentile inclusion in the new covenant? I mean its a massive deal. But one I can't find a similar idea for in our day and age. Is there even one? What do you think?
I have Peter's sheet vision in mind here:
Acts 11:1-18
It seems to me, God is saying it is no longer only Israel that are now my people. All people are now invited to the party that leads to life.
Part of the problem is why did God not invite all from the beginning? But that's kind of another vantage point.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
What is a contemporary analogy for New Testament gentile inclusion in the new covenant?
The Gentiles always had a route into the old covenant, they could accept the Law and be circumcised. So, the issue wasn't that they were outside but that they could only come in by changing first, for the unclean to become clean. The revolution was that God declared them clean and welcome in the new covenant without them first changing to become Jews,
So, a contemporary analogy would be any group that we would keep on the outside unless they change. Do you welcome the drug addict as she is, or ask her to quit her habit first? So you welcome the homeless man to your worship on Sunday, or insist he has a bath and clean clothes first? Because, God has declared them clean as they are.
“What God has made clean, you must not call profane.”
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
It depends what kind of parallel you're looking for. In one sense, once you've gone from "some" to "all" once, that's unrepeatable: there's nothing more all-y than all.
But, grand ideas and lived praxis are two different things. Reading Acts, I'm always amazed at how ready Peter was to jettison practices that had powerfully expressed and ingrained relationship with God for Jews for centuries, all at the service of mission. I'd say the contemporary parallel that speaks to me is the same question: how many good practices are we prepared to sacrifice if they're no longer inviting people into relationship with the living God?
Pope Francis wrote about this near the start of his Papacy:
quote:
27. I dream of a “missionary option”, that is, a missionary impulse capable of transforming everything, so that the Church’s customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channeled for the evangelization of today’s world rather than for her self-preservation. The renewal of structures demanded by pastoral conversion can only be understood in this light: as part of an effort to make them more mission-oriented, to make ordinary pastoral activity on every level more inclusive and open, to inspire in pastoral workers a constant desire to go forth and in this way to elicit a positive response from all those whom Jesus summons to friendship with himself. As John Paul II once said to the Bishops of Oceania: “All renewal in the Church must have mission as its goal if it is not to fall prey to a kind of ecclesial introversion”.
[Edited to repair broken scroll lock. Mamacita, Host]
[ 18. April 2016, 03:58: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Alan and Adam.
My original feeling was what you have articulated Adam. The thing that is bothering me is that what God is doing here is really very dangerous. Gentile inclusion is quite obviously God's initiative here. Yet Peter is rightfully dubious and afraid because he is essentially being told to change commandments that God himself has instituted.
The Jews are a chosen and especially favoured people and as such are required to be holy as God is holy. "Holiness" in this sense is separateness: separateness essentially from idolatry and its poisonous influence. The Ten Commandments embody this call to life differently and it spills over everywhere to include table fellowship (food laws).
Check out Leviticus 20:22-26:
You shall keep all my statutes and all my ordinances, and observe them, so that the land to which I bring you to settle in may not vomit you out. You shall not follow the practices of the nation that I am driving out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. But I have said to you: You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey. I am the Lord your God; I have separated you from the peoples. You shall therefore make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; you shall not bring abomination on yourselves by animal or by bird or by anything with which the ground teems, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean. You shall be holy to me; for I the Lord am holy, and I have separated you from the other peoples to be mine.
Not sharing table fellowship with non Jews is therefore A Good Thing. It's kind of a case of bad company ruining good morals.
So what Peter is being asked to do is remove A Good Thing.
Tricky stuff!!
So I think a true analogy would have to include the removal of a good thing, for something of even more of a good thing. (God's offer of salvation to the Gentiles). Which Pope Francis articulates beautifully. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But now I think about it. I still can't think of one! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Peter had a gut reaction that this was something unthinkable, totally contrary to everything he held dear. It would actually need to be something equally extreme for us.
How about the Church offering a radical welcome to the people society totally rejects. Anyone up for asking a known paedophile to join the junior church picnic?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Alan Cresswell quote:
How about the Church offering a radical welcome to the people society totally rejects. Anyone up for asking a known paedophile to join the junior church picnic?
When the spirit fell on the Gentiles it affirmed their cultural practises. I find it difficult to believe that when the spirit falls on paedophiles that their paedophilia is similarly endorsed.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
When the spirit fell on the Gentiles it affirmed their cultural practises.
I find that difficult to see in the New Testament. It's certainly evident that the Spirits' affirmation of their cultural practices was unclear when it came to things like eating meat offered to idols, if the Spirit was clearly affirming this cultural practice then a lot of the NT wouldn't have needed to be written. What is clear is that the Spirit cleared the way for the Gentiles to enter the Church without first becoming Jews, but that also a lot of Gentiles made significant changes to their practices.
Jesus called tax collectors, but didn't call them to stop being tax collectors - just to be honest and only collect what they were authorised to do.
Besides, the vision given to Peter to show that God was calling him to preach to the Gentiles and to accept them as clean came before he woul dhave had any inclination of what the Spirit was about to do.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Alan Cresswell quote:
Jesus called tax collectors, but didn't call them to stop being tax collectors - just to be honest and only collect what they were authorised to do.
Surely, you are not arguing that a paedophile is covered by that argument?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Why not?
Tax collectors were called, but not required to radically change who they were (by stopping being tax collectors). Gentiles were called, but not required to radically change who they were (by becoming Jews). In both cases, despite not being required to change who they were, there was an expectation that having responded to the call of Christ they would make changes in their behaviour. In the case of tax collectors to only collect what was due rather than (perfectly legally) taking extra, the expectation was to do more than the law required - just as the law allowed a soldier to force you to carry his pack a mile, and Jesus said go the extra mile. Gentiles were not required to live by the Jewish Law, but they were asked to refrain from eating meat sacrificed to idols.
Now, back to Peter. In his vision of the sheet he was challenged to change everything he thoguht he knew about the difference between clean and unclean - the sheet showed him food, and immediately afterwards he is told to go to the house of Cornelius and realises that this also applies to people. There is no one who is unclean, there is no one to whom the invitation of Christ to "come, follow me" cannot be offered.
2000 years down the line we still need to be reminded of that, and I went for one of the groups of people who society still routinely class as "unclean", people who we are told deserve to be treated differently from everyone else.
Evensong, quite rightly, noted that the inclusion of Gentiles into full and equal membership in the Church was a massive deal, and asked for what would be an equally massive deal in our day and age. So, would we accept paedophiles into full and equal membership of the Church? Including joining everyone at the junior church picnic.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Alan Cresswell quote:
Jesus called tax collectors, but didn't call them to stop being tax collectors - just to be honest and only collect what they were authorised to do.
Your version: " Jesus calls paedophiles, but didn't call them to stop being paedophiles- just to be honest and only molest children they are authorised to do."
To my mind the only get out is to say that they are not authorised to molest any children at all.
I accept the proposition that Jesus offers salvation to all, but it involves repentance and conversion, and particularly so when, as in the case of practising paedophiles, it involves grievous harm to others, especially children. The passage being discussed here, however, is not dealing with conversion, but whether the continuation of traditional practises are compatible with a Christian identity. A more apt analogy with the passage might be the question as to whether polygamy is compatible with Christianity and what church offices a polygamist might hold in the Church. Ditto, of course, the recognition of same-sex marriage.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
The passage being discussed here, however, is not dealing with conversion, but whether the continuation of traditional practises are compatible with a Christian identity.
The passage deals with one particular traditional practice. That of considering some people as unclean and therefore excluded even from mission unless they radically changed. The message is that God has declared all to be clean, and all to be invited, and the traditional practice of not even talking to other people has to stop.
The passage does not deal with the traditional practices of the Gentiles and whether conversion would lead to those being dropped or changed. Peter is told to go into the house of someone who is "unclean" without knowing what the outcome would be. For Peter to even contemplate going to the house of a Gentile would be not only unthinkable, but also almost certainly something he would find repugnant, and he was sent to welcome them into the Church.
I'm saying that we have that same feeling at welcoming paedophiles into the Church. And, just like welcoming anyone else, we do it without knowing what the outcome would be. There may be conversion and repentance, there may not. But, if we always consider paedophiles to be "unclean" and keep them at a distance then they will forever find themselves despised and unloved, and what chance then of repentance?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Alan and Adam.
My original feeling was what you have articulated Adam. The thing that is bothering me is that what God is doing here is really very dangerous. Gentile inclusion is quite obviously God's initiative here. Yet Peter is rightfully dubious and afraid because he is essentially being told to change commandments that God himself has instituted.
The Jews are a chosen and especially favoured people and as such are required to be holy as God is holy. "Holiness" in this sense is separateness: separateness essentially from idolatry and its poisonous influence. The Ten Commandments embody this call to life differently and it spills over everywhere to include table fellowship (food laws).
Check out Leviticus 20:22-26:
You shall keep all my statutes and all my ordinances, and observe them, so that the land to which I bring you to settle in may not vomit you out. You shall not follow the practices of the nation that I am driving out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. But I have said to you: You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey. I am the Lord your God; I have separated you from the peoples. You shall therefore make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; you shall not bring abomination on yourselves by animal or by bird or by anything with which the ground teems, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean. You shall be holy to me; for I the Lord am holy, and I have separated you from the other peoples to be mine.
Not sharing table fellowship with non Jews is therefore A Good Thing. It's kind of a case of bad company ruining good morals.
So what Peter is being asked to do is remove A Good Thing.
Tricky stuff!!
So I think a true analogy would have to include the removal of a good thing, for something of even more of a good thing. (God's offer of salvation to the Gentiles). Which Pope Francis articulates beautifully.
But now I think about it. I still can't think of one!
1st century Judaism really did have a screwed up, obnoxious, racist sense of self-importance, didn't it?
Rather glad the NT cleared that up.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, would we accept paedophiles into full and equal membership of the Church? Including joining everyone at the junior church picnic.
Yes.
And like the Council of Jerusalem, we would (and indeed do) work out some sensible guidelines to ensure that welcome did not antagonise or otherwise disrupt those welcoming them.
I think there's a hint of Gentiles being welcomed right back into the Old Testament. In Romans Paul argues we are all justified by faith and that indeed this was the basis on which Abraham, "father of us all", was justified, long before the Law came along.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Eutychus quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, would we accept paedophiles into full and equal membership of the Church? Including joining everyone at the junior church picnic.
Yes.
And like the Council of Jerusalem, we would (and indeed do) work out some sensible guidelines to ensure that welcome did not antagonise or otherwise disrupt those welcoming them.
Are you arguing, Eutychus, that paedophilia is an acceptable practise amongst Christians? I would certainly exclude paedophiles from a wide number of church offices, especially those involving contact with young people. To do otherwise would amount to criminal negligence on the part of the church authorities in their responsibility for care for children and young people with which it comes into contact, as well as exposing paedophiles to great temptation. I would have thought that the crisis in the Catholic Church over the behaviour of paedophile priests is ample evidence. In Acts 11 the dietary practises of the Gentiles are accepted by God as clean, paedophilia is not.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I agree there is a real dilemma here.
As I see it, there is a tension for the Church between the all-inclusive message of grace and a call to right living.
While paedophilia by priests is front page news in France right now, I am far from comfortable with a welcome by the church of paedophiles that sees them as some lesser species for whom friendship is imitated, not genuinely extended.
If one's starting point is that justification is by faith through grace, while there is an expectation of changed lives there is no criterion of admission to the New Covenant. In the context of this passage, I'd say God "declares clean" because of his free grace, not because the Gentiles have suddenly ticked some boxes they didn't before.
How that works out in the context of a gathered church community is another question, to which I think the Council of Jerusalem gives some clues. My church community includes people convicted of a range of criminal offences, including child abuse. And that's how I think things should be.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
In Acts 11 the dietary practises of the Gentiles are accepted by God as clean, paedophilia is not.
In Acts 10-11, Gentiles are accepted by God as clean. In Acts 15, Gentiles are instructed to refrain from some dietary practices, by the time we get into the Epistles even those restrictions are being eroded. We see an erosion of the concept of "unclean", and in general Paul replaces it with the concept of that which builds up others.
Ideally, the Church should not need to do anything to ban anyone from any position. If someone is repentant then they will choose to refrain from situations that offer more temptation than they think they can manage, and the Church should support them in that. So, repentant paedophiles would choose not to go to the childrens' picnic, the Church would not ban them - though the Church may provide an alternative adult-only activity at the same time for those who don't really want to be around children for the afternoon. In the same way as alcoholics who are trying to remain sober wouldn't go on a pub crawl.
Of course, it's not an ideal world and the Church does need to take certain steps (in part, there is a legal requirement to do so).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Alan and Eutychus, I think the difficulty we have lies in the necessity of differentiating the question of "Who can be saved?" from pastoral questions and the need for order and discipline within the church.
I think we, at least, are agreed that all can be saved, and that we all need to be saved. We are all damaged goods, and need to be sanctified. In those important senses then we all stand equally in need of redeeming grace. In that context there is no theological reason why anyone should be excluded from a church picnic.
We are, however, imperfect beings, and some of those imperfections render us unsuitable to fulfil certain roles in the church. A kleptomaniac should not be put in charge of the cloakroom, an embezzler should not be a church treasurer, a lethario should not be a pastoral visitor to females, and so on. "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."
Of course, it is possible for individuals to be reformed, but we have to be careful. Is, for example. a paedophile what one is or what one does? My guess is that it's difficult for a paedophile to cease having an attraction to children, though it is possible (with difficulty) to refrain from expressing it practically. Thus, while a church community should accept a paedophile it has to accept a pastoral responsibility both to the individual and the children in its care. This is not simply a question of the law of the land but of Christian love.
All Christians are not the same, and need to be treated differently regarding pastoral questions and in relation to order and discipline. The problem is what elements of discrimination are acceptable and necessary and which are not. For example, in Africa there is the question as to whether those in polygamous marriages and those in customary marriages are suitable to be appointed as church leaders. In the western church similar questions are asked in relation to gay and bi-sexual relationships, particularly in the ordained ministry. It is here, perhaps, that considerations of "cleanliness" and pastoral considerations intersect. I cannot, however, see paedophilia as anything other than to be permanently deprecated.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
There is an important difference between "full and equal membership of the church" and a given role within a church.
I think Peter's vision was more to do with the former than the latter.
I work hard to achieve the former in all cases (and I mean all), but considering people for specific roles is another matter altogether.
As far as concerns pertaining to church order go, I have for some time taken the view that this relates to order for the gathered church, and not to people's private lives.
Matters regarding our private lives should not disrupt the ground of grace and mutual bearing with one another that apply when Christians meet together (taking the Council of Jerusalem and Paul's teaching on conscience as a guide here), and so long as there is no disruption à la Corinth, neither should they be a focus for the gathered church or the subject of scrutiny by its leaders.
There are dangers with taking what might look like a lax approach to pastoral matters, but my considered opinion after many years of ministry is that the dangers of leaders policing other people's personal sanctification are greater.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Eurychus quote:
There are dangers with taking what might look like a lax approach to pastoral matters, but my considered opinion after many years of ministry is that the dangers of leaders policing other people's personal sanctification are greater.
The problem, of course, is when the private life of one invades another's private space uninvited and unwelcome which you, Eutychus, might have facilitated. It's less question of "policing other people's personal sanctification' than of policing other people's "self-gratification." To my mind your insouciant attitude to paedophilia is unacceptable.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doone
Shipmate
# 18470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Eurychus quote:
There are dangers with taking what might look like a lax approach to pastoral matters, but my considered opinion after many years of ministry is that the dangers of leaders policing other people's personal sanctification are greater.
The problem, of course, is when the private life of one invades another's private school tomorrow pace uninvited and unwelcome which you, Eutychus, might have facilitated. It's less question of "policing other people's personal sanctification' than of policing other people's "self-gratification." To my mind your insouciant attitude to paedophilia is unacceptable.
I only ŵant to say that I totally agree with Kwesi on this one. I personally know of a situation where the outcome was such as he is warning about. We all struggle with sin and brokenness, even after accepting new life in Christ, and consequences are worse when they may impact on others, especially children.
Posts: 2208 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
It's less question of "policing other people's personal sanctification' than of policing other people's "self-gratification." To my mind your insouciant attitude to paedophilia is unacceptable.
There is a difference between responsibly implementing safeguards that apply in a gathered church setting and trying to monitor people's interactions outside that setting.
(In the latter instance, it is my experience that attempts to do so foster a false sense of security; people determinedly engaging in wrong behaviour simply slip under the radar).
If we start drawing up a list of people who aren't welcome to a church meeting, or are only welcome as second-class members for life, I think we're back to the problems of Acts.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I should perhaps add that I'm not ruling out any and all pastoral intervention outside the gathered church, if there is an apparent danger, but I think it's very difficult to do more than warn.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, would we accept paedophiles into full and equal membership of the Church? Including joining everyone at the junior church picnic.
Going with Adam's take, this is not an appropriate analogy because pedophilia is not something that was previously required by God to separate God's people from idolatry and dangerous moral practices God's people might accustom themselves to if they were allowed to fraternise too freely with the surrounding cultures. It was previously not something good that might be given up for the risk of something better.
[ 20. April 2016, 09:57: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I keep going back to the vibe that God is doing something very dangerous in expanding the covenant to absolutely everyone.
Remember how much trouble Paul had with the Corinthians because they were a largely gentile population and had no inherent living of the law?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
No, but separation from paedophiles (and, in particular, separating our children from paedophiles) is something that is seen as good. It is something that is seen as a means to protect us/our children from harm.
The separation of the Jews from Gentiles was seen as good, a means to protect the people of God from harm (in the form of temptation to worship idols etc).
So, when Peter had his vision and was told that he had to reject all that said he had to separate himself from Gentiles (good though it was to safeguard the children of Israel), does it also follow that we need to reject that which separates us from paedophiles (good though it is to safeguard our children)?
ETA: due to cross-post. Yes, that is something dangerous.
[ 20. April 2016, 10:26: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Evensong quote:
I keep going back to the vibe that God is doing something very dangerous in expanding the covenant to absolutely everyone.
Of course, it is a new covenant, distinguishing Christianity from Judaism.
I also agree with you entirely that Acts 11 does not relate to the issue of paedophilia.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, but separation from paedophiles (and, in particular, separating our children from paedophiles) is something that is seen as good. It is something that is seen as a means to protect us/our children from harm.
The separation of the Jews from Gentiles was seen as good, a means to protect the people of God from harm (in the form of temptation to worship idols etc).
So, when Peter had his vision and was told that he had to reject all that said he had to separate himself from Gentiles (good though it was to safeguard the children of Israel), does it also follow that we need to reject that which separates us from paedophiles (good though it is to safeguard our children)?
ETA: due to cross-post. Yes, that is something dangerous.
Even better analogy. I didn't quite twig it before.
Yes we must welcome paedophiles in the plan of salvation. Everyone has the chance to change and repent. But we must be wise as serpents and gentle as doves in the doing. So no, inviting paedophiles to group picnic is a terrible idea. You're simply putting temptation in the way and exposing others to harm. The point is to remove temptation and danger whilst attending to the spiritual needs of the person (who is still worthy of God's love) in a safe context.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The same temptation to which Satan subjected Christ, to throw himself from the roof.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doone
Shipmate
# 18470
|
Posted
Yes, totally agree Evensong.
Posts: 2208 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Even better analogy. I didn't quite twig it before.
That's almost certainly my fault. It was clear in my mind that's what I was trying to say. My fingers failed to get the right words typed.
quote:
But we must be wise as serpents and gentle as doves in the doing. ... The point is to remove temptation and danger whilst attending to the spiritual needs of the person (who is still worthy of God's love) in a safe context.
Yes, and safe for both our children and the paedophiles in our midst. The question is how do we do that? It takes serpentine wisdom, it also takes the boldness to take risks - the same boldness Peter showed walking out of Joppa on his way to the house of a Gentile.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Risks with whom? OK, so long as those at risk are consenting, and kept fully informed.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
In the case of Peter, he was risking the whole Church descending into chaos. When he got back to Jerusalem his actions were already the basis of a campaign to oust him from his leadership position for having visited the home of a Gentile. He was only saved because the Spirit had descended on Cornelius and his household as it had on the church in the beginning. Without that powerful demonstration that they were accepted by God Peter would have had a very rough time.
In our case, do you think welcoming a known paedophile into our churches is going to happen without complaints both within the church and in society more generally? Would you not expect some members of the church to go elsewhere? And, the red tops would have a field day with the "Church lets kiddie-fiddlers in" head lines. I've known churches face local opposition for allowing their premises be used by Narcotics Anonymous groups on the basis that it brings drug addicts, and dealers following them, into their neighbourhood. What do you think will happen if they find out the church down the road has a paedophile in the membership?
As I said, taken the steps to bring in paedophiles is not without risk. When society declares someone to be "unclean" then if we're genuine about saying that God calls all "clean" then (in the eyes of society) we're going to dirty ourselves associating with those perceived as "unclean".
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In our case, do you think welcoming a known paedophile into our churches is going to happen without complaints both within the church and in society more generally? Would you not expect some members of the church to go elsewhere?
It typically depends on whether the pædophile in question is congregant or clergy. If it's the latter, past experience seems to show that the faithful will often shrug it off as an aberration or blame the victims.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
How did this turn into a discussion of pedophiles?
Returning to the OP:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
What is a contemporary analogy for New Testament gentile inclusion in the new covenant? I mean its a massive deal. But one I can't find a similar idea for in our day and age. Is there even one? What do you think?
I hope that I am not misunderstanding the question.
Current polls worldwide show that most Christians believe that people of every religion are saved. Even the Pope seems to say that.
No one thought that a hundred years ago.
The concept is a clear trend away from every kind of exclusivism and exceptionalism. It is a recognition that people are inherently similar and that the same universal laws govern all of us.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Part of the problem is why did God not invite all from the beginning? But that's kind of another vantage point.
God did invite all from the beginning. The same spiritual realities have always applied to everyone. God simply used the natural human inclination to see one's "own kind" as superior to lead them to accept and do His will. Dealing with human freedom, the Gospel could only come into being by being written in one place and spread to others.
It is clear from both the Old and New Testaments that "Gentiles" are often more well disposed and more inclined to believe than those who supposedly are part of the "church."
The modern version of all of this is that Christianity continues to spread rapidly in Africa and Asia, and not in the West.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
No one thought that a hundred years ago.
The concept is a clear trend away from every kind of exclusivism and exceptionalism. It is a recognition that people are inherently similar and that the same universal laws govern all of us..
On this point, I read this today in an opinion article of the Los Angeles times:
quote:
All three monotheistic faiths share the same goal: the revelation of God's presence in this world. But Judaism, once again, works a little differently. While one can of course convert and become a Jew, Judaism was never intended to be a universal faith, only the faith of a specific people — whose purpose is to be a spiritual avant guard within humanity for its eventual redemption. Judaism is a particularist strategy for a universalist goal.
I think this can certainly be argued from an Old Testament perspective.
Exodus 19:4-6
You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation.
Curious. I never thought of the elect as a "spiritual avante guard" before: the one for the many. The more I think about this gentile bizzo the more amazing it becomes.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Judaism was never intended to be a universal faith, only the faith of a specific people — whose purpose is to be a spiritual avant guard within humanity for its eventual redemption. Judaism is a particularist strategy for a universalist goal.
Thank you for sharing that! It is brilliant.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
