During last week's lesson we left an unanswered discussion on the subject of love, accountability and instruction.
The lesson asks two interesting questions that deserve discussion:
1. In what ways is it easy to confuse love with cheap grace? That is, what danger is there of allowing people to get away with things that they should not be doing, all because we want to reveal to them love? When is love sometimes best manifested by strict, moral accountability? How can we strike the right balance? If you are going to err, which side is it best to err on?
2. What parallels can you find between the Jewish nation (during the time it was a theocracy) and the SDA Church today? What lessons should we learn from their example? Are we learning them?
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
In question #1 the first question is In what ways is it easy to confuse love with cheap grace? I want to comment the following: Grace is a divine gift, infinite, eternal and beyond our understanding. Love happens to be in the same category. The problem lies when we, in our poor understanding of these two divine attributes begin to limit it to become judge and jury of the intentions and actions of our fellow Christians.
The reason why God didn't give us the prerogative of judgment toward other humans is because we just don't have the complete information nor the capacity to make a sound judgment about another human being.
I agree. The true essence of love & grace is only fully understood by God. Humanity unfortunately cannot fully grasp what it entails in our fallen state. However, we should not also be too quick to just let people get away with everything. Others wrongdoings can hurt not only themselves but others in the process.
During these times we must pray even harder to have the Holy Spirit lead us as to what to say. That is the only way to strike the right balance.
When is love sometimes best manifested by strict, moral accountability? Accountability presupposes a relationship. I can't be accountable to you unless unless I agree to provide you with a value. If there is no value exchange agreement there is no valid accountability.
The accountability process only evaluates actions and compares it to the value exchange agreement... Moral accountability can only exist on proven and confessed actions, beyond the shadow of doubt not on accusations, nor in assumptions of wrong doing.
The church many times in the past has passed judgment on others on assumptions and accusations of wrong doing. In the case of biblical characters such as Achan (Joshua 7), Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-10) the first was based on a proven fact of failing to obey a direct divine order and the second based on a proven lie "to the Holy Spirit."
Post a Comment