Saturday, April 08, 2006
I would like to redirect our conversation to a degree and explain why it is necessary to do so. This blog is a conversation about why and how the "Church" should be characterized by "interrelation." One thing that has come up over and over in our conversations is how this idea affects the individual. This question needs to be addressed because one can only grasp the concept of interrelation in as much as one understands the limits of individuality. Thus I would like to propose a conversation on what are Biblical limits of the individual. What rights does the Biblical individual have that the Body must recognize or else consequently transgress God's will? Are there any contemporary understandings of human rights that go beyond the rights that God says an individual has within the Body of Christ? Please interact with this line of thinking and let me know what you think. If we can all come within close proximity of each other in suggesting where the defense of the individual should end, then we can move forward more concretely in defining how the Body should be represented in the local congregation of believers. I would like to primarily see Biblical passages here. A philosophy from an ancient or contemporary Christian scholar can be referenced as long as it applies to a relevant passage of Scripture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Biblical limits of the individual? Hmmm... lemme just throw some comments out there on things that I see as limits:
1 - Ability to self-refine. Matthew 18 discusses Church discipline and how we work together in that respect.
2 - We are limited in our giftings. God has given some gifts to some and other gifts to others. But, a fuller expression of Himself is made through these gifts being exemplified in the interrelated body. One person cannot exhibit God's being very well at all.
3 - We are meant to share the same love that is only found in interrelation (Phil 2)
4 - The second greatest commandment is to love our neighbor as ourself. This requires some level of interrelatedness that cannot be found in lone-rangerism
I'm sure I can come up with more... I'll keep pondering and try to post later on.
I believe when we start looking at the idea of individualism in the body of Christ, one has to think about the oxymoron of two becoming one. Moreover, we have to think about a multitude being one in Christ. Individualism can be a unique group, representing a oneness of mind; or common action; or spoken truth. (Webster's dictionary)
As I see it, there is no room in Christianity, for the renegade loner. The prodigal son, if you will. (Lk. 15:32) God is always going after the lost sheep (Matt. 18:12-14) in order to bring it back to the sheep fold. God's word is not teaching individuality but kingdom relationship.
Oh sorry, I am special in the brain. I was so tired last night when I posted that after I read the post, I looked back for the question and read, "Thus I would like to propose a conversation on what are Biblical limits of the individual. " But then the next sentence says that you're looking for what rights the individual has... argghh... whoops! I didn't read that the second time around
Anyway, so the Biblical rights an individual has:
1 - Has the right to be out of the body.
2 - Has the right to be significant in the body. (IE, we are all given a work to do. If the "body" keeps an individual from their faithful work, the body has transgressed the individual) I think some churches, perhaps many, propogate a group mindset that is very inward-looking, looking at the local church and at ourselves, forgeting that we have the duty and delight to shine as lights in other places.
3 - I think there might also be a right to retreat for the purposes of being prepared for service. I don't think we are meant to have the likes of Eastern Gurus, who live in solitude, supposedly acquiring wisdom and knowledge. But, there are times that it is appropriate to retreat into silence and separation, especially when you are uniquely called for specific acts of service. Christ did this, though He surely had a unique purpose of giving up his life. At the same time, there are times when we are called to give up our own lives, at least figuratively. I would say that if we didn't take time out to silently, separately contemplate those things, we might be ill-prepared for sacrifice.
I recall a Christian philosopher, in the context of explaining his unrestrained power to enter someone else's campus dwelling place to discover its compliance with...(?), making a statement to the effect of "In Christ, you have no rights."
Without being in the spirit of the devil, though perhaps proverbially in the 'spirit' of his 'advocate,' I want to hear the J. Glen version of said rights.
(I on the other hand am withdrawing from three weeks of medically dangerous levels of caffeine ingestion, and it's making me cranky, so, I'll sideline for the day)
I am afraid that we won't find the category of "rights" given to us from scripture. It seems that we are reading our western democratic enlightenment milieu into our discussion.
Will: You certainly know how to put Johnny on the Spot. If you mean by "unrestrained power to enter someone else's campus dwelling place," that this particular individual had a key to every students abode, then you are correct. But the particular person in question does not have the "right" to enter everyone's place of dwelling at his own whim. He is obligated to enter certain student's apartments at certain times for certain reasons, but always within guidelines set down by another.
It is in terms of these "guidelines" and our obligation to the "other" that I said that "in Christ" we have no rights. And thus my friend Nielsen is correct. Politically speaking, we are said to have certain rights as a check against the power that other individuals, or collections of individuals, have attained or been given to regulate our actions. But Biblically speaking, a Christian has no rights.
With this in mind I think it might be said that we have freedom within obligation. We are slaves to Christ and thus have no freedoms outside of Christ. When outside of Christ we were slaves to sin and thus all of our "freedoms" were founded upon our rebellion against God, therefore even a "good" action of our "free will" did not serve to pacify His just wrath against us.
So back to freedom. We have freedom in Christ in as much as we are within the lines of fulfilling our obligation to Him. If our actualization of the freedom we have in Christ transgresses an obligation we have to Christ, we are then outside of whatever "freedom" we really have, thus we sin and grieve the Spirit (Making a brother stumble for instance). There is certainly a discussion to be had about "all things" being "permissible," "but not everything" being "beneficial." But I leave this for another discussion.
Let me know what you think. Obligations and contingent freedom in Christ, but not rights?
put JOhnny on the spot?
heck, I got 'im playin' twister.
The right to encourage, rebuke, teach, support...
These are induvidual rights, but certainly have their impact on interrelatedness. But on a more individual level, if we have the right to these things, do we have a right to not do them?
Is the right to rebuke more of an obligation that we are given the right to decide the proper time and place?
I guess I have to go the way of the discussion and say that we really don't have any "rights"(who really does in a monarchy anyway, but if they weren't really rights then they would be law and we are supposed to be free from the law in as much as we take hold of the grace given us. hmmmm {scratching head in confusion}
Malcolm, sorry for the delay in writing back. I am right in the middle of tests and papers. Anyway, rights are based on law rather than being in opposition to them. We know of rights because we were presented with law as a guide. In Christ we are free from the law of sin and death. But the terminology of rights is still something foreign to the Bilbe. It is my suggestion that in relation to our discussion on the interrelation of the Church, we lay aside the term "rights" and use Biblical terminology such as debt, obligation, freedom, respect, and sacrifice.
FOr the sake of mixing up the brew:
I see laws as being based on rights.
IDEA # 2 there is only a right to chose ones teleological end...(City of God kind of idea)
Will,
I think there is a tendency to get rights mixed up with freedom. You have the freedom to choose how you will respond to the manifested gospel (depending on your theological persuasion) but I would not define this as a right. Since many Christians throughout history believed that man had the freedom of will to determine what he puts his faith in, they made laws that would give that person the legal right to religious freedom. Rights are contingent on laws, freedom is contingent on God's created order.
I would like to speak of our interrelation in the Body of Christ in terms of the created order of such a body rather than the so called "rights" one might have within such a Body.
Pot significantly stirred?
hmmmmm.
well, tell me if this is the sort of response that your answer should solicit:
(Will, to Jason:)so I guess we'll have a political theory discussion later as it seems you're disconnecting the political mechanica of the body of Christ from all other political bodies?
Am I on target to see you making that disconnection?
In as much as the Bible makes the same distinction, Yes.
Will, are you called to practice just War Theory in reference to fellow members of the Body of Christ? Does Christ implore us to allow into the fellowship of believers those who do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah?
that's what I thought you were moving toward...
consider this analogy. the chinchilla, the dolphin, the bat, and the human are all mammals. But, for all the fur, warm blood, and live-born babies, man is still different...
I think we're in the same book, but it would take too long to figure out if we're on the same page without some face to face time.
Face to Face time would be good. Are you in town next week?
yeah, actually i'm at the 'ol store that I know of.
Post a Comment