catapult magazine

I think your point re natural vs supernatural is a legitimate one. It’s easy to turn around what is “natural.” (Sort of like discussing whether it was the Loyalists or the rebels in the American Revolution who were the real “traitors.”) I used the term “supernatural” only because most of the world (including a lot of Christians, I dare say) think of actually relying on an unseen God to give us daily advice is pretty far out and – well, supernatural.

I understand. Maybe I’m just to dutch, but “relativism” gives me the proverbial heebeegeebees. It seems as though we’re getting into something a bit bigger than the original post, but I’m game.

It’s this “grey area” that worries me a bit. Who determines the grey area. I realize that scripture doesn’t cover everything (as you mentioned in your online scene), but who determines what is debatable. When and where does scripture and exegesis cross? The potential for risk here is huge. I know I could turn to individual doctrines here, but I don’t want to do that. There is something equally frightening about established, unchallenged dogma.

I have been searching the Web for a couple years, trying to find a group of Christians who think like I do (Scary thought, huh?). The “conservative” groups drive me up the walls. I tried a “liberal” group, and found it to be as rigid, mean-spirited, and (in my opinion) un-Christian as the conservatives.

From my perspective, Jesus was without politics, and just did what needed to be done at the time. As I’ve said in several of my writings, I think he was a “situation ethicist.” What do you think? You can find more on this at: http://www.netcom.com/~symbios/ethics.html
Cheers,
Sandy Wilbur

Thanks for the post and link to your site. I read the dialogue you had printed there. Interesting.
I guess my biggest question is where does “situation ethics” end and relativism begin?
The examples you give, on divorce, honor your father and mother…are great. And I understand that the law was made for man, not man for the law, but there is still a bit of grey area. Or is that your point?

Norbert

I think we are understanding “relativism” the same way – that the person, place, situation, etc., dictates the response. In that case, “situation ethics” is comparable, except that for a Christian, the response is not completely wide open. What God wants – immediately and longterm – provides the framework for the response. And, yes, I do think that there is considerable “gray area” – the difference between the Law and the Gospels, so to speak. The Old Testament doesn’t provide a framework; it provides definite rules for every occasion. The grace of the New Testament frees us to respond within a framework.
Clear as mud?
Sandy

I haven’t given up on this thread; just got busy. I’ll be back in the next day or so.
Sandy Wilbur

Getting back to my original theme regarding Christianity and politics, and the problem of the ?gray areas:? Old Testament law had an extremely rigid set of requirements and prohibitions. Jesus replaced them with a framework of concepts and attitudes (Be-attitudes, as somebody said in a song), with the Holy Spirit as our daily guide to living within the framework. But concepts are hard; do?s and dont?s are easy. They don?t require a brain, or imagination, or compassion, or even God (since there?s nothing God can tell us that isn?t in the list of do?s and dont?s). Lots of rules may make for a strong ?religion,? but Christianity (if really embraced) isn?t a club we belong to, but it?s a way of life. We do things (with the Holy Spirit?s guidance) because they seem the ?right? things to do. The ?gray areas? are only gray to us because we don?t know the right action or response until the time comes to make it. That?s where believing God?s promises and trusting the Holy Spirit come in.

Christians in general are uncomfortable talking about the Holy Spirit, but I don?t see how you can discuss Christianity and omit the role of the Holy Spirit. Non-charismatics tend to write off the subject because they may never have really thought about the Holy Spirit except in terms of weird ?gifts? and manifestations. Many Pentecostals and charismatics have never got beyond the ?showy? aspects. Philosophically, few of us are willing to let a supernatural force run our lives – and yet God is supernatural, right? Jesus said he would send God?s Holy Spirit to lead us and guide us. I think what we have to do is trust that things really will work that way if we expect them to.

Not that I want to define the Holy Spirit in any kind of narrow or scientific way, but can we try to describe this Spirit in a different way than we’ve done so far?

I’m not sure that I’m willing to accept the natural—supernatural distinction of describing God or the Spirit, Whose “supernatural” ways are beyond our “natural” ways. God’s way, since it is the way of the Creator of the heavens and the earth, is the one way, right? It was the way of first life in Genesis just as it is the way in which we are to live (have life) now with the help of the Spirit.

Talking in terms of natural or supernatural seems to suggest that God’s Spirit is apart or separate from the natural world. If indeed there is any need for the term “natural”, why can’t the Holy Spirit be natural? This is why it seems better to talk in terms of what is “creational” rather than “natural” or “supernatural”.

Having said this, are we any closer to a “creational” description of the Holy Spirit?