ASA - July 2006: Re: [asa] Opposing Anti-Evolution

From: Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue Jul 18 2006 - 13:58:47 EDT

At 01:44 PM 7/18/2006, Rich Blinne wrote:
> On 7/18/06, <mailto:RFaussette@aol.com>RFaussette@aol.com
> <<mailto:RFaussette@aol.com>RFaussette@aol.com> wrote:
>
> "..As you say, the man who loves God is known by God, but be
> careful, love is the wrong word. (Self) Surrender is a better word.
> Love is so often mistaken for romantic love.
>
> So good of you to improve on Scripture. I didn't say that, the
> Apostle Paul did. He used the word love and it couldn't possibly
> confused for romantic love because it wasn't eros but rather
> agape. ~ Rich Blinn

@ "Love" By Any Other Name?

What exactly is agape, or "love" as it is translated? The NT tells us:

Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

We read such passages and tend to assume at once that "love" means
what it does to us in modern times -- in this case, a mushy
sentimentality that never says a harsh word and never steps on the
toes of others. The same word is used in 1 Cor. 13 (though translated
differently):
Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity
vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself
unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no
evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth
all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all
things.

The question at issue: how is all of this actually worked out in
practice? Does agape mean not confronting others with error or sin?
Do we need a deep relationship (a "25 ton bridge" as one friend calls
it) to relate to a person and to correct them? On the surface this is
an obvious no-brainer, since of course the writers of the NT were
constantly confronting others on various errors, even people they
obviously could not have known well (even if we assume, wrongly, that
they related on modern, individualist terms!). It takes a
"politically correct" stretch to argue otherwise. But there is a more
moderate view: We can confront, but can only do so politely. Well,
that too is a no-brainer on the surface, given the many abrasive
comments given by Jesus and by Paul to their opponents (i.e.,
Pharisees, the Galatian "Judaizers") and even to fellow believers
(like Peter and the "Satan" quote) who went awry. Indeed, rhetorical
analysis of Paul's letters indicates that he used some very sharp
rhetorical tactics which would have seriously shamed his opponents
and even his readers.

The answer is found in one of two places: 1) The NT teaches but does
not act out agape; 2) We are not really understanding what agape
means. And as it happens, the social science data tells us that #2 is
the way to go. In the following we will draw in some points that some
readers may recognize from previous essays here on tektonics.org; but
there is also some new material added.

A key difference in understanding the meaning of agape is to
recognize that our culture is centered on the individual, whereas
ancient Biblical society (and 70% of societies today) are
group-centered. What is good for the group is what is paramount.
Hence when the NT speaks of agape it refers to the "value of group
attachment and group bonding" [Malina and Neyrey, Portraits of Paul,
196]. Agape is not an exchange on a personal level and "will have
little to do with feelings of affection, sentiments of fondness, and
warm, glowing affinity." It is a gift that puts the group first.

With that in mind, what of the passage which tells us to "Love your
enemies"? How is this reconciled with places where Jesus calls the
Pharisees names, or Peter "Satan"? How is it reconciled with where
Paul wishes emasculation on his Galatian opponents (Gal. 5) and
shames the Galatians with his rhetoric? How is it reconciled with
even confronting others with sin and error, for that matter?

Given the definition of "group attachment" above, it may be best to
understand agape as a parallel to another known concept of today --
not love, but tough love. For the sake of popular culture awareness I
will allude to perhaps the most famous example of such "tough love"
known today -- the New Jersey high school principal Joe Clark (whose
story was told in the movie Lean on Me) who cleaned out his high
school and made it a safe place for those who wanted to learn.

Clark was no soft sentimentalist! He kicked those out of school who
disrupted the learning of others. He used physical compulsion to do
it as needed. He used a bullhorn to get people's attention. Is this
agape? Yes, it is! It is the Biblical form of agape in which Clark
valued what was best for his students as a whole versus what the
individual wanted.

Now consider this understanding in light of, for example, Jesus'
confrontation with the Pharisees and others. It will take a
complexity of emotion we find foreign, but conceptually, it is
certainly possible to love one's enemies, and yet also attack them;
and the same for one's disciples or allies. Like Clark's disruptive
students, the Pharisees were a threat to the well-being of others; so
likewise Peter when he made his error. They spread deception and
falsehood and kept others from entering the Kingdom of God with their
deceptions; or else led people down the wrong path and away from
spiritual maturity. In such a scenario, not only is it right and
proper, for the sake of agape, to confront and confront boldly; it
may be the only responsible thing to do to keep the "disease" or
error from spreading and afflicting more souls! (In the ancient
world, and even today, insults and polemics were a way to shame and
discredit an opponent; see
<http://www.christian-thinktank.com/violentx.html>here.)

So agape does include verbally attacking and discrediting one's
opponents, or confronting other believers, when they are in the
wrong. Jesus speaks to these men not as his enemies, but as enemies
of the truth. There is no indication that he speaks to them as
personal enemies, for all of his comments reflect their deception of
others; the personal relationship between the parties does not even
come into the picture. They were enemies for the sake of the Kingdom
of God. By comparison, one would hardly suppose that Matthew 5:44
would restrict one from joining an army and fighting in a war against
a Hitler or a Stalin. This becomes a case of having agape for the
greater number, and generally innocent, at the expense of the lesser
who are guilty. Jesus' situation with the Pharisees and others
attacked was very much in this category, since their actions
imperiled the eternal fate or the spiritual maturity of others.

One may reply, "But what then of the example of the Good Samaritan?
He was kind to an enemy." He was kind to a personal enemy; the man
was not spreading lies and deceiving others! Here is food for
thought: If Jesus had been attacking a Pharisee, and the man had
suddenly clutched at his heart and dropped to the ground, would agape
have us give the Pharisee CPR? Yes, it would. We are thereby making
the man our "neighbor" and extending the hand of welcome into our
fellowship. From there what happens? The Pharisee may keep on his
attacks against the truth after he recovers; if so, he is still an
enemy for the sake of the Gospel and one to be publicly addressed in
disparaging terms. But if he drops to the ground again we will still
work to save him. Our modern society has lost this ability to
distinguish between sin and sinner; it is often assumed that to
attack the position is to attack the man! Such is the bane of
"tolerance" and political correctness. ~ James Patrick Holding -
What is "Agape" and How Did It
Work? http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatlove.html

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jul 23 23:32:22 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jul 23 2006 - 23:32:22 EDT