Other Voices

i know this gay jewish black dude you should hang out with...

Josiah,

It appears that you are conflating two different ideas. First, there is the love due from us to our neighbors. This would include those of "ragingly different assumptions and lifestyles." It shouldn't necessarily shock us if this kind of love, assuming we can actually pull it off, goes in only one direction. But then you speak of "this community thing," which includes such things as "love, grace, and being downright Christ-like relational," and wonder if it would actually work in a different context. If you're simply speaking of the possiblity of heterogenous groups, e.g., including someone who can't stand Wes Anderson or whatever degree of 'different' that you're going for, then there isn't much to worry about. I suspect, though, that this is not the case. The key is in your qualifier concerning "protestant backgrounds." But let's expand this concept: include anybody, from whatever Christian tradition, who has a credible profession of being in faith-union with Christ. You're describing day to day fellowship and the question is then one of legitimacy. What does all of this really mean if we can't go and apply it to a radically different group of people? The concern would be valid if it were about love for our neighbors. After all, the heathen love their friends, but we are called to something higher than that. However, to ask that the manifestations of fellowship be transferable to other groups in which we may find ourselves, will only lead to a devaluation of that fellowship. Fellowship is not a set of principles; it is something that all Christians already have with God and with each other. Our covenantal status in Christ defines our ontology. This sort of 'community thing' is only possible because of who we are. Consequently, there is no need to worry that it might not work in other situations.

Hey, it's not that hard. I've been hangin' with gentiles for the past 4 years...

Huh?

Skip, Mesh is Jewish, but not practicing. I've been telling him for years he needs to go with the whole Messianic Jew thing, but the guy just spends too much of his time watching movies and reading Anthony Lane.

Kevin, I don't think Ontology, ESPECIALLY how it is so often used in the Vossian sector, is anywhere but not on the money. The way it is used, despite the "already not yet language" is static. It fails to mirror the tension between God's Sovereignty and the call to human beings to be acting. Quite simply, we're called to DO something, not just "be." Ya sure, you could say that by "doing" we're "being" what we are, but then it's just semantics and word games. My problem is therfore that the Vossian idea of "recognizing our already existing ontology" is simplistic and fails to recognize both the weight of Scripture and the tension of everyday existence.

But your thoughts earlier, on questioning the legitimacy of the "project" I think was getting to my worry. If the love and community we are called to is somehow incapable of translating into including people that just simply are different (is does not have to be a boolean saved/unsaved differnce), then one has to wonder about either a. its legitimacy or b. its maturity.

My hope is that it's a problem of B., and that we just simply need to mature further in our Christ-likeness and ability to love and stretch ourselves, as opposed to the chucking the project as a whole (since I'm fairly confidence its what we're called to).

But in conclusion, I definately agree with you that community, love, and fellowship is not something that exists as a set of principles. I believe the desire for those things, the need for those things, exists because of the fact that we were created as beings in relation, either in relation to God or in relation to other human beings. The fall killed both those things, and we have a responsibility to work towards the restitution of those relations. What that looks like, well, we've got little objectivity and certainty on that. I think the kicker is that we're called to try anyway.

Josiah,
While I would be all too willing to defend the merits of Vosian thinking, to do so would be beside the original concern of your post. I will try to limit it to whatever is necessary for dealing directly with the point. First, legitimacy vs. maturity. If we are agreed that this "project" is something to which we are called, then concerns of legitimacy are invalid. It is as legitimate as the God who issues the call. Maturity is a different matter. I agree with you on this point, with the clarification that the project itself does not admit to any degree of maturity. The project is legitimate, we can be immature.

Your concerns are more complex than a saved/unsaved issue; nevertheless, this issue does need to be addressed because it goes directly to the heart of legitimacy. I don't see that there is a call to love and community between these two groups. Love, yes-- We, as believers, are called to love our neighbors, whoever they may be--but not community. The difference, I suppose, is one of reciprocity. While I have every right to expect you to love me, and you, me; and while we are expected to love our neighbors, neither one of us can, in turn, expect them to love us. They can't because the source of that love is Christ. Consequently, if your concern is that we be mature enough to love those who are different than us, whether saved or unsaved, we are in complete agreement. However, if you are suggesting that the love and community, which you have experienced among fellow believers, is somehow illegitimate if it cannot be translated to a situation that embraces the unsaved, then I must dissent.

I'm glad that we're agreed about these things not exisitng as a set of principles. But your analysis rooting them and our responsibility to work towards them in a creation/fall pardigm has a few holes in it. If the desire for these things were rooted in creation, then everyone would have these desires. But they do not. To illustrate: fellowship is a technical term that includes the idea of union with the triune God(cf. John 17 and I John 1). Anyone who is unsaved could not possibly desire that. The desire to be loved is arguably universal, but what about the desire to love the unlovely? Creation, in and of itself, cannot account for the difference. It may, indeed, make us responsible for these things, but, it cannot make us desire them; nor does it provide the power to accomplish our desired end. The only thing that can sufficiently answer both of these concerns is the fact of an in-Christ ontology (note that I did not say 'a recognition of this ontology,' although I would consider this most desirable: true fellowship, after all, does exist among non-Vosians).

I could probably say much more, but it would fall under a defense of Vosian thought, which is outside the scope of this exchange. Perhaps we could both agree to pray for and admonish one another toward maturity in our responsibility toward a godly love for the radically different.