Well, Charlie, I think it is the same text, some of us see it through the eyes of Mercy, others of us see it through the eyes of Judgment.  But my charge against the really rabid conservatives is that they do violence to the Gospel by making it a tool of exclusion and a basis for justifying violence against people.

We do not read different Gospels, we read the same gospel differently.

I am open to the possibility that we read the same Gospel from different perspectives.

I am sure “rabid conservatives” do make such a fundamental mistake. But as I do not make this mistake, nor am I aware of any of the other conservatives here at C-C making that mistake, we can set aside such useless rhetoric, and look together at this multifaceted Gospel.

The really obvious thing is that Mercy makes no sense apart from Judgment. So Evangelicals affirm strongly that Jesus has taken upon Himself at the Cross the Judgment we rightly deserve - “O what Mercy Divine.” And anyone who justifies violence against anyone has forgotten that Jesus took onto Himself the totality of the World’s violence.

Progressives do a great service when they remind us that there is nothing that a person can do that can place them outside of the saving reach of Jesus - therefore no person outside that reach.

And in dealing with the sin that has separated both humanity from God, and humanity from each other, God in Christ is reconciling ALL THINGS to himself. This is a great, big Gospel.

If you boil it down to mean “include all people,” and leave out how the Mercy was obtained, then it is indeed a different Gospel (and ultimately not good news at all).

Charlie Clauss - 18 March 2010 09:27 PM

Well, Charlie, I think it is the same text, some of us see it through the eyes of Mercy, others of us see it through the eyes of Judgment.  But my charge against the really rabid conservatives is that they do violence to the Gospel by making it a tool of exclusion and a basis for justifying violence against people.

We do not read different Gospels, we read the same gospel differently.

I am open to the possibility that we read the same Gospel from different perspectives.

I am sure “rabid conservatives” do make such a fundamental mistake. But as I do not make this mistake, nor am I aware of any of the other conservatives here at C-C making that mistake, we can set aside such useless rhetoric, and look together at this multifaceted Gospel.

The really obvious thing is that Mercy makes no sense apart from Judgment. So Evangelicals affirm strongly that Jesus has taken upon Himself at the Cross the Judgment we rightly deserve - “O what Mercy Divine.” And anyone who justifies violence against anyone has forgotten that Jesus took onto Himself the totality of the World’s violence.

Progressives do a great service when they remind us that there is nothing that a person can do that can place them outside of the saving reach of Jesus - therefore no person outside that reach.

And in dealing with the sin that has separated both humanity from God, and humanity from each other, God in Christ is reconciling ALL THINGS to himself. This is a great, big Gospel.

If you boil it down to mean “include all people,” and leave out how the Mercy was obtained, then it is indeed a different Gospel (and ultimately not good news at all).

Gosh, did you read the Gospel with the parable of the Prodigal Son?  Where was the judgment in that?  Certainly not on the part of the Father.  Older brother, yup, the Prodigal Son figured himself out and returned home repentant and the Father would have nothing to do with that.  He was alive again and the Father rejoiced.

This is the pivotal parable in Luke’s Gospel, nearly at the center of his long unique set of parables.  So here is what I get from it. Hissy older brothers loaded with judgment miss out on the Gospel.  The father refuses to even let the son make his speech about being a servant.  Reconciliation required no penance, in fact the Prodigal got a party the likes of which the older brother had never seen.  There is simply no “authorized” judgment in that parable.

As best as I can tell Evangelicalism totally misses the point of this parable.  It internalizes the bile of the older brother so that after evangelicals heap a good dose of guilt upon themselves, they are bound to heap it on others to justify the self loathing they have internalized from that “older Brother” script.  Evangelicalism, like Pharisaism will always be surprised and offended by God’s decision to throw parties for the unworthy.

I think Charlie’s analysis of repentance and forgiveness is spot on. There can be no salvation without repentance, as I understand Christian teaching. The prodigal was led by God to repent of his foolishness. His father demonstrated the kind of loving attitude acceptance Chalrie spoke about, of unconditional acceptance grounded in unconditional repentance.

The difficulty Michael writes about in relation to sexual matters is compounded by our reading of Scripture and that is, unavoidably, grounded in culture and experience. For many of us, homosexuality is, biblically speaking, a sin, and must therefore be subjected to Divine forgiveness as do all sins. Divine forgiveness is ultimately grounded, along with other references, in our Lord’s remark to the woman found in adultery, an equally grave sexual sin, by the way. Jesus said, “Go and sin no more.”

Forgiveness requires repentance, and repentance requires an end to the sin being repented of. I often wonder why conservatives seem more ready to forgive heterosexual sinners, and tolerate the continuance of clergy who have committed adultery for example, while not being prepared to extend their tolerance to homosexuals. I also wonder why Catholic officialdom is tolerant, or so it seems, of priests who commit sexual sin, including paedophilia, while condemning homosexuality. The speed with which the PB of German Lutherans resigned her post over a traffic offence contrasts with that of Cardinal Brady in Ireland.

We apply double standards in many things, but I think sexuality is probably the most glaring example in the life of the church. I notice the evangelical Bishop of Liverpool wondering why so many people find it unacceptable to accept homosexuals in the ministry. I guess he was thinking of how readily we seem to accept other distortions of traditional Biblical sexuality, at least seen through Jesus’ eyes.

I am prepared for TEC to be a leper-witness on behalf of the Gospel.

Actually I consider myself a neo-lattitudinarian.

A good latitudinarian wouldn’t force people to which he is bound, yet with whom he disagrees, to be compelled to suffer the same fate he is willing to accept for his own beliefs.  It is one thing to accept the consequences of “civil disobedience” as an individual.  It is quite another to co-opt an institutional body and pretend everyone in the institution is on board with your agenda.

There is no question the Evangelical world tends to be “older brothers.” If you actually read what I wrote, and didn’t just put a quarter in your juke box, you would see I affirmed exactly what the parable of the Prodigal son says. But as Ian points out, the younger son had to “come to his senses” and return home.

But I read the the whole Gospels, I don’t stop at one parable. You will have to do better dealing with these “Crucifixion stories with extended introductions” (Kähler).

Time to quote Neibuhr again:

A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.

A prayer for this Friday in Lent:

Lord Jesus Christ, who didst stretch out thine arms of love
on the hard wood of the cross that everyone might come
within the reach of thy saving embrace: So clothe us in thy
Spirit that we, reaching forth our hands in love, may bring
those who do not know thee to the knowledge and love of
thee; for the honor of thy Name.  Amen.

Post script on the Prodigal son:

It is ironic that what the Father calls the older brother to is exactly the same thing the younger brother needed: repentance. The older brother sits under judgment, having tried to make himself the judge. Will he repent? That is, will he go into the party and be reconciled to his father and brother?

[This Lent our sermon series has been on the parable, so this insight is from my rector’s sermon today.]

Charlie Clauss - 21 March 2010 02:21 PM

Post script on the Prodigal son:

It is ironic that what the Father calls the older brother to is exactly the same thing the younger brother needed: repentance. The older brother sits under judgment, having tried to make himself the judge. Will he repent? That is, will he go into the party and be reconciled to his father and brother?

[This Lent our sermon series has been on the parable, so this insight is from my rector’s sermon today.]

At my home parish the Lenten Soup Supper series is also based on the parable, using a book called The Prodigal God by Timothy Keller.