|
Post by rick on Mar 29, 2006 18:27:43 GMT -5
St.Louieee said: I don't understand your meaning here. Which bold statement? You no longer agree with it? Help me out here please. The understanding I grew up with was: "shunning for the sole purpose of maintaining the purity of the remnant" This understanding was changed when a preacher reminded from the pulpit what you put into bold: "the standard text for dealing with church conflicts - where Jesus finishes off his "process" for handling such difficulties by saying that we should treat the as-yet unrepentant offender as an outcast - and what, pray tell, did Jesus do with outcasts? Why, he dined with them, of course!" He dined with outcasts that the self-righteous condemned and thought they were better than. That is different from "treating one as an outcast" in the context of excommunication. The outcasts were the ones who often believed in Jesus and wanted him to heal them or they wanted to touch his garment. They are not unrepentant - far from it - they beg for God's mercy, beat their chests and claim they are sinners. But the unrepentant BELIEVER should face discipline and possibly excommunication if he fails to repent. So I think these are two different situations and the pastor seems to have been a little confused about that.
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Mar 30, 2006 12:45:26 GMT -5
The understanding I grew up with was: "shunning for the sole purpose of maintaining the purity of the remnant" This understanding was changed when a preacher reminded from the pulpit what you put into bold: "the standard text for dealing with church conflicts - where Jesus finishes off his "process" for handling such difficulties by saying that we should treat the as-yet unrepentant offender as an outcast - and what, pray tell, did Jesus do with outcasts? Why, he dined with them, of course!" He dined with outcasts that the self-righteous condemned and thought they were better than. That is different from "treating one as an outcast" in the context of excommunication. The outcasts were the ones who often believed in Jesus and wanted him to heal them or they wanted to touch his garment. They are not unrepentant - far from it - they beg for God's mercy, beat their chests and claim they are sinners. But the unrepentant BELIEVER should face discipline and possibly excommunication if he fails to repent. So I think these are two different situations and the pastor seems to have been a little confused about that. Actually he dined with sinners (my quote was sloppy). Sinners were outcasts in the 4 gospels (Tax collectors were singled out separately for some reason). They MAY have been repentant WHEN Jesus dined with them, or they MAY NOT HAVE BEEN. The texts aren't all that clear on that point. The fact that Jesus dined with them does not mean that they had confessed their sins, nor does it mean that Jesus was downplaying their sins. And in many cases, the pharisees WERE better than the sinners. The point of the parable of the pharisee and the tax collector was NOT that the pharisee mistakenly thought he was better than the tax collector (the pharisee credited his good behavior ENTIRELY to God), but rather that the pharisee mistakenly thought he was a better candidate for RIGHTEOUSNESS because of his good behavior.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 30, 2006 13:48:38 GMT -5
He dined with outcasts that the self-righteous condemned and thought they were better than. That is different from "treating one as an outcast" in the context of excommunication. The outcasts were the ones who often believed in Jesus and wanted him to heal them or they wanted to touch his garment. They are not unrepentant - far from it - they beg for God's mercy, beat their chests and claim they are sinners. But the unrepentant BELIEVER should face discipline and possibly excommunication if he fails to repent. So I think these are two different situations and the pastor seems to have been a little confused about that. Actually he dined with sinners (my quote was sloppy). Sinners were outcasts in the 4 gospels (Tax collectors were singled out separately for some reason). They MAY have been repentant WHEN Jesus dined with them, or they MAY NOT HAVE BEEN. The texts aren't all that clear on that point. The fact that Jesus dined with them does not mean that they had confessed their sins, nor does it mean that Jesus was downplaying their sins. And in many cases, the pharisees WERE better than the sinners. The point of the parable of the pharisee and the tax collector was NOT that the pharisee mistakenly thought he was better than the tax collector (the pharisee credited his good behavior ENTIRELY to God), but rather that the pharisee mistakenly thought he was a better candidate for RIGHTEOUSNESS because of his good behavior. I think from my reading of history that tax collectors were despised because they were similar to jail trustees. They were Jews who cooperated with the Romans and collected taxes from among their own and they often extorted amounts above what they were supposed to collect. And Jesus understood that the Jews treated tax collectors as traitors and knew they were hated. And the same for pagans. Anyone who was not a Jew (Gentile) was considered unclean and Jesus knew that most Jews treated them with contempt and as outcasts. The Samaritans were treated likewise because they were a mix of Jew and Gentile which the Jews despised because Jews married Gentiles. And the apostles and disciples continued their treatment of these people that way even when they were right next to Jesus in their travels with Him. You recall them telling Jesus to not waste time on the woman who wanted to touch his garment and the woman at the well - the disciples asked Jesus what was he doing talking with one of "those." So Jesus, in Matthew 18, was saying that when a Christian (not called Christians at that time but followers of The Way) brother sins against you, it should first be taken to the individual privately. If no repentance, then to a small group of witnesses. If no repentance then to the church, which has the authority to excommunicate the brother if there is still no repentance. And Jesus, knowing the customs of the Jews and the ways in which tax collectors and Samaritans and outcasts were commonly treated by his Jewish followers, even in front of Him at times, commanded the church to treat an unrepentant brother like a pagan or tax collector because he knew they would know what that meant because that's the way they lived their lives every day. So yes, Jesus was telling them how to treat an unrepentant brother and it was to shun them in the same manner they had always shunned these groups. Now Jesus certainly did treat a certain tax collector(Gospel writer) and other Samaritans with compassion and the outcasts in the same way. Jesus knew their hearts because He is God. And he certainly was demonstrating a radical treatment of those to whom most Jews had shunned. But this is a different context than the point Jesus was trying to make with how a wayward brother should be treated for his own good and his own salvation. The reason for excommunication is not to damn someone forever but to bring them back into a right relationship with God. So yes, they should be treated like that. Some call it shunning but excommunication in the history of the church has always had as its purpose the return of the prodigal son and to accept him with open arms and celebrate his return to the family of God. That's all I was trying to say. The pastor just didn't seem to think this through enough when he suggested that once someone is excommunicated they should automatically let him off the hook and dine with him as Jesus did with the outcasts. That doesn't make any sense to treat someone like a despised person for a particular reason and then say, whoops, come back, I love you, no harm no foul. No, the brother must repent or not be allowed continued fellowship and the administration of the sacraments. There is a former pastor of a Lutheran Church (LCMS)in Valparaiso who wrote a heretical book and has refused to deny his heretical belief. He is allowed to come to church(the very same church he once pastored) but is not allowed to receive the sacraments until he recants his heretical belief even still today. Excommunication comes in all forms.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 31, 2006 12:14:25 GMT -5
St.Louiee: Talk about dumbing down and attempting to take many, if not all, of Jesus' hard sayings out of the Bible, there is a so-called Bible translation called "The Message" which, as it relates to the issue we have been discussing regarding Matthew 18, completely ignores Jesus' words about how to treat an unrepentant sinner. That book is popular but is not the Holy Bible as it was written. Not even an accurate paraphrase in my view. Was it Thomas Jefferson who removed from his copy of the Bible all of the references to miracles? I suppose that should have been expected from many of the founding fathers who were primarily Deists and not necessarily Christians.
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Mar 31, 2006 14:25:24 GMT -5
St.Louiee: Talk about dumbing down and attempting to take many, if not all, of Jesus' hard sayings out of the Bible, there is a so-called Bible translation called "The Message" which, as it relates to the issue we have been discussing regarding Matthew 18, completely ignores Jesus' words about how to treat an unrepentant sinner. That book is popular but is not the Holy Bible as it was written. Not even an accurate paraphrase in my view. Was it Thomas Jefferson who removed from his copy of the Bible all of the references to miracles? I suppose that should have been expected from many of the founding fathers who were primarily Deists and not necessarily Christians. Had not heard of that particular book, or if I have, it has slipped my mind. But I fully agree on Thomas Jefferson and most of his fellow founders being Deists and NOT Christians. That's my impression as well.
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Mar 31, 2006 14:45:25 GMT -5
So yes, Jesus was telling them how to treat an unrepentant brother and it was to shun them in the same manner they had always shunned these groups. Perhaps. But, as you seem to agree, it is NOT for maintaining the purity of the community, which means it should not be forbidden to ever talk to that person ever again, or anything close to that kind of embargo. That's all I'm trying to say. Now Jesus certainly did treat a certain tax collector(Gospel writer) and other Samaritans with compassion and the outcasts in the same way. Jesus knew their hearts because He is God. And he certainly was demonstrating a radical treatment of those to whom most Jews had shunned. But this is a different context than the point Jesus was trying to make with how a wayward brother should be treated for his own good and his own salvation. The reason for excommunication is not to damn someone forever but to bring them back into a right relationship with God. So yes, they should be treated like that. Some call it shunning but excommunication in the history of the church has always had as its purpose the return of the prodigal son and to accept him with open arms and celebrate his return to the family of God. OK. I don't see as much of a distinction in Jesus' outreach as you do here. The contexts are not, in my opinion, mutually exclusive. That's all I was trying to say. The pastor just didn't seem to think this through enough when he suggested that once someone is excommunicated they should automatically let him off the hook and dine with him as Jesus did with the outcasts. That's NOT what he said. I think you are reading that into it. Jesus dined with sinners. You think that meant they were "off the hook"? I don't think so. That doesn't make any sense to treat someone like a despised person for a particular reason and then say, whoops, come back, I love you, no harm no foul. No, the brother must repent or not be allowed continued fellowship and the administration of the sacraments. Actually there were no "sacraments" in Jesus' day, nor was there a "church" in the sense that we have it But for the most part, I agree, and that is precisely what the pastor I was talking about meant. There is a former pastor of a Lutheran Church (LCMS)in Valparaiso who wrote a heretical book and has refused to deny his heretical belief. He is allowed to come to church(the very same church he once pastored) but is not allowed to receive the sacraments until he recants his heretical belief even still today. Excommunication comes in all forms. Careful. Pastor Bretscher was my pastor in Lutheran Day School when I grew up I've read his book, and I agree that his book is heresy. Of course, I can't help wondering how few people truly understand why it is heresy: because it cheapens the salvation Jesus won for us all. I will say his book is a LOT BETTER than some of the assinine drivel I've read from the Jesus Seminar folks. At least Bretscher tries his best to build a case for his theology. Those guys are so arrogant they don't feel moved at all to do so. They start with their drastic conclusions and then argue from there. I am saddened by his fall from grace, because I always liked him growing up. Interestly enough, I am free, as an ELCA Lutheran, to receive communion at Immanuel Lutheran Church - LCMS - where Pastor Bretscher is denied. Luther said the only folks who should be denied communion are the folks that don't hunger for it. That may indeed be an accurate assessment of Pastor Bretscher, in some sense. I do wonder what Luther would say about this situation, but maybe he would approve.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 31, 2006 14:55:02 GMT -5
We are talking past each other on this point. We can discuss this when we meet sometime.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 31, 2006 15:00:12 GMT -5
Yes. The pastor I mentioned is not shunned personally although there are some very fundamentalist churches such as the Church of Christ (not the United CoC) that do shun and bring folks before the entire congregation for discipline. We have one in Valpo on Sturdy Road by the cemetery near Wal-Mart.
So I think different evangelical churches do it in different ways. The Catholic Church has done its share as well.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 31, 2006 15:02:05 GMT -5
He probably would have had more than a few beers and slept on it for awhile. ;D
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 31, 2006 16:00:53 GMT -5
That church allows open communion which is not exactly the way the LCMS would prefer. Must be some renegades over there.
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Mar 31, 2006 20:11:19 GMT -5
That church allows open communion which is not exactly the way the LCMS would prefer. Must be some renegades over there. When Bretscher was the pastor during the Seminex controversy, he was a voice for reconciliation in New Orleans during the 1973 convention, going so far as to engineer an opportunity for the embattled faculty to have a fair chance to defend themselves in assembly. Immanuel Church sponsored a resolution which called for peace between the 2 sides and ever so slightly sided with the faculty (at least in its tone). The retired pastor at the church I belong to here in St. Louis was a delegate to that convention and he let me borrow his convention workbook (very thick!). There were some sympathetic congregations that simply decided not to leave, maybe because they weren't as much of a target as the ones who did leave or were forced out. They "stayed behind the wall" as it were. Immanuel was probably one of them.
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Mar 31, 2006 20:17:07 GMT -5
We are talking past each other on this point. We can discuss this when we meet sometime. You may be right. I may have also been reading things into the what the writer you quoted was trying to say. In your posts, you are primarily concerned with cheap grace. In mine, I'm primarily concerned with cult-like behavior. Both of our concerns are equally valid and don't negate each other. Maybe with the <swish> soundtrack playing courtside, we'll do better with this conversation.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Apr 1, 2006 10:37:59 GMT -5
Not even close to what I was trying to say. That's why we need to talk the next time we see each other. Are you coming to Valpo anytime soon to visit your dad? If so, whadda ya say we have lunch - my treat?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Apr 1, 2006 10:55:31 GMT -5
St.Louiee wrote:
I agree but your post diverges from my original point (wasn't my main argument about repentance)that we need to discuss when we meet. Oh, and whomever he dined with, whether an apostle, a prostitute, a pharisee, a Sadducee, or anyone else - they were all sinners.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Apr 1, 2006 11:21:00 GMT -5
St.Louiee wrote:
Again your response is not really addressing my main argument to which you were attempting to respond with your above post. You are arguing a minor point in my original argument here. Will clear this up when we meet.
If we are talking about just this biblical situation however, I would disagree with you just a wee bit. Pharisees were not better than sinners, they themselves were sinners but often didn't think they were. When he thanked God that he was not like that other "sinner", he did think he was better than the other guy. He thought that for a couple of reasons in my view. One, that he did not do what the tax collector did, i.e., be a traitor or extort money from his fellow Jews. Secondly, he thought just because he rigidly kept all of the laws, many of which were man-made and not biblical while some were biblical, that he was a better person than the other fellow and that those actions made him better. Not true. He does not recognize that even if he has kept the hundreds of laws, both biblical and man-made, he is still a sinner. No one in the history of mankind except Jesus has ever been able perfectly to keep God's laws. You recall the guy who came up to Jesus who said he kept the law perfectly, his response to Jesus was something like, "but I have done all of that" (keeping the commandments, etc.) Then Jesus, knowing that this guy really hadn't done that - no one could ever do that if they tried - Adam tried and failed - that's why Jesus came - to do what Adam couldn't do - so Jesus said to him: "sell all that you have and follow me." If he would have done what Jesus asked of him, he would have kept the first commandment which he was unable to do and proved what he previously claimed was true - that he kept the commandments perfectly. But we know what he did. He turned and couldn't give up all that he had. He really didn't trust God for everything - he relied on his own abilities and couldn't follow Jesus. "Christ didn't die and rise from the dead merely to give us coping mechanisms for sin. Jesus came to restore creation to the purity of its origins." (CCC 2336)
|
|