Re: [asa] A question on morals (OT and NT)

From: Jim Armstrong <jarmstro99@q.com>
Date: Mon Nov 09 2009 - 01:07:30 EST

As a PS to my post, it subsequently occurred to me to add that we are "called" by our Christian faith (and I would venture to say, by most faiths in their essentials) to be in some measure both transcendent and redemptive in what we bring to life. We can certainly do less than that, but at our best, we can transcend the animal and baser instincts for retribution, and we can on occasion - but not always - redeem the moment, the circumstance, the relationship, and even a future by reaching deep into our humanity and the tenets and hope embodied in our faiths.  -  JimA

I suppose with these simple-minded options, Bernie, that you are looking for some Christian-principled response. But the selection is inadequate and even wrong-minded. Even from a secular standpoint, there are all kinds of answers that are more intentionally nuanced, like anger-management or conflict-management responses. One might think of something like, "What was that for?", or "Was that really necessary?", the most rudimentary of ways to attempt open a dialogue and moderate the moment, rather than respond in kind. Of course, from a Christian perspective, there are echoes of things like, "love your enemies" or "those who despitefully use you" or "blessed are the peacemakers" which are intended to let our responses be more intentional and moderate. But it does place the weight on the offender to find a way to respond in some way that differs from the gut response to respond in kind. In the big picture (or A big picture), this ability or choice is one thing that differentiates us from other sorts of critters.

In short, there are many alternative responses that, unlike your choices, are intended to temper the conflict rather than accelerate it.
Or so it seemeth to me.   JimA  [Friend of ASA]

Dehler, Bernie wrote:

Pete said:
"Yes, Jesus was correct.  Next question."

Next question, regarding specific application:

Pete, suppose someone is mad at you and slaps you very hard across the face, so hard as to even knock out a tooth.

Which would be the best Christian response for you (as an immediate "next step" response in this confrontation):
A. Turn the other cheek, making it easy for them to strike again
B. Defend yourself against another attack and/or try to leave
C. Strike back to "teach them a lesson"

If you don't like those options, and think there is another one, please specify.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Enns [mailto:peteenns@mac.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 4:19 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] A question on morals (OT and NT)

Yes, Jesus was correct.

Next question.

Pete

On Nov 8, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Dehler, Bernie wrote:

  

"It is worth asking, esp. in the evangelical world, whether we are not
expecting too much of the Bible as a rule book of propositions rather
than as a book that reflects active theological thinking."

Hi Pete- overall- as far as Christian interpretation of things, I  
pretty much agree with you.  However, my question is more specific  
to the time and place of Jesus' "active theological thinking."

When Jesus talked about "turning the other cheek" I think what he  
meant, given the context is pretty clear.  And I think we might  
agree on what he meant.  My question goes beyond what most  
Christians want to do, and this is ask the question "was Jesus  
correct?"  (I'm sure most Christian philosophers are trained to ask  
such questions so it is no problem for most of them; but all other  
Christians probably think it is out-of-bounds to "question God.")

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]  
On Behalf Of Pete Enns
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 5:49 AM
To: Murray Hogg
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] A question on morals (OT and NT)

I'll try to comment more later, but I agree with this. A former
professor of mine, Paul Hanson, used to talk about the "form/reform"
dynamic on the OT, where particular ways of thinking gain assent but
then are themselves later reformed/changed. Chronicles is one global
example of this.

It is worth asking, esp. in the evangelical world, whether we are not
expecting too much of the Bible as a rule book of propositions rather
than as a book that reflects active theological thinking.

Some of you may no longer be wondering why I left WTS.....   :-)

Pete


On Nov 4, 2009, at 8:38 AM, Murray Hogg wrote:

    

Hi Pete,

I can see where the Talmud might be an interesting analogue - but
I'd have to play with it a bit myself.

As it is, the suggestion spawns one random thought:
Regardless of what dates we put on the various OT books and portions
thereof it seems to be pretty evident that the OT isn't the
unvarnished account of Israel's history that many would like it to
be. But this fact alone suggests that one doesn't need to even go as
far as the Talmud to discover a dynamic engagement with the
tradition as we already see just this very thing within the pages of
the canonical OT itself. The idea, then, that the covenant community
EVER had a static notion of scripture might be a tad unrealistic and
we may well need to accept that dynamic engagement with the
tradition has ALWAYS been part-and-parcel of the covenant
community's practice.

Of course, the tradition eventually ends up becoming codified -
first in the OT and subsequently in the Talmud and NT (same sort of
thing happens in Islam with the Koran and Hadiths) - but I wonder
(and it's just an idle musing for now) just what this suggests for
our theory of Scripture? All too often the focus is on the
codification. But what happens if one focuses on the dynamic nature
of the tradition in its formation and subsequent reception?

Could it be that the discontinuity and the continuity are, in fact,
one and the same thing? That is, might it not be the case that the
one constant throughout the entire history of the tradition is that
the tradition itself has always been dynamically appropriated?

Perhaps our maxim should be "Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme
chose" or something of that order?

Blessings,
Murray

Pete Enns wrote:
      

I think trajectory is a good model for the relationship between the
testament.
Another model I have toyed with--very simply--is that the NT is
analogous to to the Talmud. Both reflect attempts to engage the
Bible/OT in view of changing circumstances: for Jews, the exile and
for Christians the death and resurrection of the messiah.
I think the trajectory and Talmud models together aim at addressing
the continuity and discontinuity seen in the NT vis-a-vis the OT.
To get back to the original point, I think Bernie is concerned
about the fact that discontinuity is something that resides in a
book that is supposedly written on some level by God.
        

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
      

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.


To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
    

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.


  

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. Received on Mon Nov 9 01:07:42 2009