-
"Concerning 'humane', I remember some distinction between 'human' and
'humane'. One was the opposite for 'spiritual', the other was positive.
But it wasn't used much."
R.A. Exactly that I wanted to say: HUMANE was seen negatively, too. It was NOT seen positively, as you say. Behind that was our despise for the society built up to humanistic ideas from Enlightenment (Aufklärung) period. We saw it as a basis of individualistic and tolerant society, which is quite exact counterpart to our community's ideas.
- "We saw it as a basis of individualistic and tolerant society, which is quite exact counterpart to our community's ideas."
I correct myself. I meant, our community is exactly the opposite to the ideas of humanistic society.
Quotation from Josef's apology, which may imply, that 'humane' is not seen as good in our community. Capitalized letters from me. And remind, that we are talking about 'humane' and 'humanistic', and not about 'inhumane':
"Theology without the pursuit of holiness is blasphemy. Pure concentration on leading an ethical life without corresponding theological foundation, leads to a HUMANISTIC concept and away from God."
'Humanistic' is seen clearly as negative notion. Every concept outside concepts from Bible is seen negative, because we presupposed, that these concepts are always connected with other concepts, which are not good.
Again, I think it might be reason to think so. Nevertheless I doubt, that most people in our World are conscious of its theoretical base. 'Humanistic' and 'humane' have rather become equivalents to the general meanings of being kind, greathearted etc. If community wants to ignore the development of this notion into this direction, then it is sad. If truth might be monopolized to our community, then language is common property of society, which they cannot monopolize. -
R.A. said...
- "Well, we all were 'missionaries' who had to evangelize."
R.A. Well, if there was any 'missionary' in the sense that would fit to the meaning in other Christian congregation, then it was HIM. He didn't come to my country at random to look, what will happen (as we usually did). He had been set to quite specific task, because he was intelligent, he had gift to languages and he was according to my opinion quite unusual in the point, that he had a certain charisma, certain ability to be emphatic. In short - he had just these features, which makes somebody a missionary in its most understood sense.
My intention here is not to say, that to be a missionary is destined only for certain Christians. I wanted to say, that THIS missionary wasn't just a simple guy among us. Far of that. -
R.A. said...
- I know, I may explain as much I want, community would understand it in its own way.
Let's make it more clear: yes, every Christian is called and sent out for missionary work. But in the same way we sent out somebody to buy food for weekend (and not for mission), in the same way was sent out this missionary we talked about. He was sent out to foregn country for specific task to evangelize and to keep an eye on our brothers, and not with task to buy food or be just a companion for us, because we were fed up of brothers, who were only fellow countrymans. -
R.A. said...
- The aim of my apocalyptic description about our community is not out of
hate and despise. I just say out my opinion, that community is on th
threshold of crisis. I don't want to claim, that my opinion is a final
truth about this matter. I've said reasons, why I am thinking so as I
think.
As well you may see, that in every posting it does not succeed by my side to love enough my opponents, who have another opinion. Oh, I really like to experience, how great is God's grace towards me. I have so much to grow in love.
Actually, for me it seems to be impossible to love enemy, to love community in that way, so that also community and everybody would experience it in the same way as described in Mt 5:38-47. And this is truth, that for man it is impossible. But this is possible for God. Thereffrom differs God's love from world, too.
For this impossible love is God calling us.
Really, incredible. Wonderful. It is difficult to love enemy. And not because enemy doesn't let to love himself. Vica versa, this is the best opportunity to practice the love described in Mt 5. It is difficult to love enemy, because our own attitude, our own lack of mercy.
It is hard to acquire this attitude, which has the effect described in Mt 5, according to which the consequenced of love are experienced in the way described Mt 5. This good attitude has the results described in Mt 5, which does not forget first to pray for those, who persecute us (Mt 5:44), which is perceived to EVERYBODY as we can read out from Mt 5. And thereafter we may try also to 'say the truth' and 'assess' them, if we need it necessary. If it is necessary at all, because to assess your enemy is nothing special we can identify with love. It is quite easy to 'assess' your enemy and to 'say the truth' them. It gets easy. This is the first reaction, that comes from human behaviour.
We know, how much unjustice there is in the world and in ourselves. It is no news. Th good news is, that god has shown us the love, which reached us before any of us was worthy to.
Let's do something special: keep trying to excercise together the impossible love? I think it is good to start with them, whom it seems impossible to love, with whom we don't have any 'common background'. Because:
"And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?" (Mt 5:47) -
R.A. said...
- I would take as an object to love my former community, and then Gerald
Kluge. And I think Gerald Kluge would choose my former community (and
then maybe me?) ;-)
I wish that we would find the common ground in Jesus' love. This would be really a powerful sign for those who don't believe, that God does still miracles. -
R.A. said...
- For me is the biggest challenge to love them, whose love to Jesus is mostly experienced with their overthrowing the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sell doves.
January 12, 2011
R.A's comments on 'Decrease'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment