Subversive Church (Mike) said...
"...Interesting. Fair enough on the weeds and wheat parable. But, how does Paul's idea of removing someone from a body fit into this idea?"
In a discussion on my previous post (Spectator Sport) Mike brought up the question about removing people from the body. I have been giving that some thought.
Paul talks a lot about the body. I was thinking particularly about all one body with many parts. And the importance of the eye and the ear, the honorable parts and the less honorable parts. And he wanted to keep them all, as they all have a function.
The conversation between Mike and I was regarding a sort of ex-communication. Maybe there are some in the body that are tearing the body down. Should we get rid of them?
What if they are cancerous? Is that still part of the body or is that a mutation of something that used to be part of the body. Cancer, left unchecked, will kill the body.
On the other hand, I was studying Matthew 18:15-20 tonight in preparation for tomorrow. In this selection of scripture, it discusses what the church should do with those who will not follow the churches prescription/advice. Jesus, in the writing of Matt., says to let them be to us like the gentile and the tax collector. Now knowing about the culture, these two groups were unpopular and unimportant. They were outsiders and were despised. So, on first reading, that would imply excommunication; no longer part of the church, amputation; no longer part of the body.
However, what about Jesus. You know, the guy saying this. How did he treat the tax collector and gentile? Wasn't Matthew, the disciple, a tax-collector? Wasn't Zaccheaus the chief tax-collector? Did people give Jesus grief for dining with sinners and tax collectors? Didn't Jesus heal the Centurion's (a Gentile) servant and the Canaanite (aka Syro-Phoenician, aka Gentile) woman's daughter?
How does that mean we treat those who disagree with the body?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
A few questions and thoughts.
In Matt. 18:7-9 Jesus talks about hacking off the hand or gouging out the eye to avoid temptation. This is right in the middle of talking about the innocent or little children. Was Jesus using a body analogy at this point like Paul did later? In context, it is arguable.
I have to respectfully disagree with your comparison of how he treated these groups (gentile and tax collector) initally to how they should be treated once they have been accepted.
And this is really the big, underlying issue of what we talk about on our blog.
Initially, we should not be exclusive. However, once someone has decided to join the kingdom of God, they are adopting a new set of standards, a new set of rules and laws.
Today, the opposite happens; the church is held to no standards and we exclude the world.
Many times our grievances are really just misunderstandings. Hence, if you go to someone personally, it can ususally be resolved.
However, there are times when grievances were committed purposefully. This is when a larger group of people become involved.
I think your analogy to cancer is a good example. And I think it is one both Paul and Jesus use.
However, in our present system of hierarchy, this model Jesus and Paul offer cannot work. Those who have been wronged by others in higher leadership positions cannot address the leadership in such a way. Very rarely will you see a congregant win over a pastor...even if the congregant is justified and in the right.
-mike
This is an interesting topic. Mike and I have talked about this quite a bit. I am a bit confused by your last question- "How does that mean we treat those who disagree with the body?" The fact that the mainstream church even thinks disagreement among the body is a completely negative thing is really just a bi-product of a culture of authority bred into the church. Excommunicating those who disagree, even if an agreement is near impossible, is only a result of someone claiming to have an exclusive hold on the complete absolute truth. However with that said there are always people who will resist or hold back a group from within. I think this is to whom you are referring. With that said, (sorry for the tangent)
Perhaps what is meant by "treat them as you would the tax collector or a gentile" means, from the perspective of the Jewish community, they have already exiled themselves. The tax collector by his actions toward his own people and the gentile by the circumstances of his birth. Though they may very well have been despised or loved (in the case of Jesus) they were, very simply put, just not a part of that particular community or "body". No action was necessary. It is a very natural thing, that someone working against or not working with a community, will alienate themselves simply by resisting the common goal. To do anything to remove these people is merely a distraction. This is not to say in an environment free of hierarchy, equals can approach one another with correction or advice to help usher them back into the body. However if someone has made the decision to act against the group they have outcast themselves. "Do not resist an evil person"
Interestingly enough I think much of the reason this is not a popular idea is because it removes the need for authority in this matter. Which is why Mike said in our present system of hierarchy, it can't really work. It is also why the idea became such a fundamental to Anarchist communities/ movements.
Post a Comment