Relationship

[Amie]

It's similar in theological debates; my theology is the RIGHT one, and so-and-so's is the WRONG one. Everything in our being then demands that we prove that we are RIGHT, and that the others are WRONG.

I have some notes on a relational perspective that I've been thinking over. This can bleed over into many areas like whose opinions are right and wrong, whose feelings are right and wrong, whose perceptions are right and wrong, etc...

We can recognize "old covenant relationship", yet what of folks outside of our little sphere of theology? How do we translate that into their language? I was thinking: "Retributive relationship". The thinking there is "I have your love because I deserve it."

The minute that a person that we care about thinks something "bad" about us, we go about to correct their thinking. We enter the court process and pull out the law books. The issue is that when we enter into the courtroom, our focus is on building our case and proving our points - regardless of the feelings of the other person. Many see that as a "necessary evil" and the intent and goal is almost honorable - winning the love of the other person or even of themselves.

Once I thought about this, I was conscious of how often I enter the proverbial courtroom during my days and that began to lessen. From my notes:


Retribution = "A justly deserved penalty": I deserve for him to believe that I did not do this or did do that because I did not or did - because he is wrong. How could he believe that about me! Of all people, he should know me!

What was God's response when folks pegged God all wrong? What example is there when we chose our direction?

I mean, I think that there are times when the courtroom is a great thing - say in the literal legal system when it comes to actual damages and stuff. Yet, what would a different approach do for our relationships? What would it mean to accept what the other person thinks, feels, and believes and then relate to them from where they are? Those are the kinds of questions that are going through my mind.

I don't think it would just affect our relationships with other people, but with ourselves. Like, what if we just accepted who we are and stood there as humbly as Ed described in the previous thread? What happens when we stop taking ourselves to court as well?

And I was thinking about how to translate "new covenant relationship" in every day terms. I'm not sure.

All of this could be helpful in talking with folks with different belief systems and non belief systems.

In my view, the story of constant and undying Love is revelatory of our own development and consciousness. To me, it wasn't God cutting out old eyes and poking new ones in that enabled humanity to own a broader consciousness. It was God's relationship with us.

To me, the more and the better we can describe that relationship, the more able we might be to understand it - the more we are able to communicate it.


If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. --
Albert Einstein

One way I think I can relate to God is as a parent (for one) because LOVE is so present in that relationship in my life towards my children. I think to myself, what if, for example, Cain were my son? What if the folks denying my love were my children? Would it matter as much as when they are not my children. So far, the answer is a resounding "yes" (that's just speaking for myself mind you).

If I imagine a "what" happened in the bible story, I then ask "why"? Like, why was it really that they were called to love the enemy?? Would that answer be something that would make sense for my life? I suspect that it would set the stage for "new covenant relationship" (still would love to find a different translatable word for that), but I've only begun to imagine.

Any thoughts?

Amie

[Me Again]

thanks Amie. Gives me a lot to think about. More so than even I planned on when I posted mine.

[Robert]

Amie- swinging for the fences here with this one :) You and Ed hitting homeruns in your thoughts!!! I love your saying letting the value of the relationship take precedence over whos right or wrong. A scenario though, i have a friend whos sister got raped. She saw the man and identified him, but he denied it and was a somewhat famous individual in the town where it happened, so he had sympathy on his side it seems. How would you tell his sister to love and relate to the guy??? Would you separate the legal status from the personal/relational??? Just asking as my friend raised this as a question in our discussing grace/forgiveness together. What would you tell your own sister??? Thanks Amie!!

Robert

[Amie]

Robert,

She did the right thing already by identifying him imo. Love does not enable others to continue to cause harm. It was no ok for him to hurt her and she did nothing to deserve it.


How would you tell his sister to love and relate to the guy???

Why would I tell her to love or relate to him at all?


Would you separate the legal status from the personal/relational???

I don't understand what you are trying to ask?

Amie :)

[Robert]

Amie- ok we are told to love our enemies and forgive when sinned against, so my question is does this apply to the woman and her rapist at all??? I was trying to draw a distinction between legal area and personal area. Legally he should be prosecuted for his crime, but personally should she forgive him and extend grace to him??/ These are the issues raised in the class discussion with my friend. i hope that clarifies for you. When you say why would you tell her to love or relate to him at all, are you saying the command to love our enemies is not including enemies such as a rapist or murderer say??? See where i'm going??

Robert :)

[Me Again]

Robert, I think that the guy should be locked up and the girl should make sure of it - through testimony, etc. I also think that, if she can, it would be good for her to forgive...

Rambling thoughts....there is a tendency of ours, as humans, to seek retribution, vengeance. Perhaps it would be better to forgive, BUT to still demand justice out of love for other women who might be harmed by the rapist. Does that make sense?

What do you think Amie? I would very much welcome your take on it - as a woman and as someone who has dealt with a lot of things in regards to forgiveness.

[Amie]

Robert,

I don't have to imagine that we're talking about someone close to me, I know that reality. Your friend's sister already has a relationship with her rapist. He capitalized on it as he saw fit. Her journey will be in finding how to live with it.

Aside from disagreeing that "we" were told to do a thing, "love your enemy" does not mean enable your enemy. In other words, it doesn't mean to provide the means or opportunity to harm - whether the victim, another victim, or themselves - (and key imo that Barry and I talked about a while back) without consequence. Love allows for consequence, but does not punish.

Retributionally, "love" is seen as something that is earned to begin with. There is punishment for falling short of earning it, and reward for successes. There is no consideration for the attacker in that there is no interest in their learning anything, nor is there any interest in preventing another person from becoming an attacker. It is black. And white. Either their is success and reward or failure and punishment. As for the victim, there is no concern there either because punishment was never about the victim it was about the attacker's behavior and whether they succeeded or failed. There is no mercy in that system for anyone.

Forgiveness is seen within a retributional relationship as "full pardon of culpability". I'm thinking that forgiveness as it would be defined "new covenantally" was put well in a recent article that Laren shared having forgiveness as "letting go of the need for anything to change." The definitions are very similar, and very different at the same time. The first lacks punishment or consequence and the second only lacks punishment. I hope that makes some sense, I'm trying really hard yet I know that I'm not always clear in communicating thoughts.

I wouldn't tell her what to feel, think, do, or who to be - I would value her as she is.

Amie

[Robert]

Amie- in total agreement with you as far as not meaning *enabling* Forgiveness does not mean you just say oh that's fine and let a repeat offense happen again and again, definitely. The discussion centered around how to apply grace and forgiveness in situations where it appears almost impossible humanly speaking to do so.

Can you explain more where you say we disagree on the *we* are commanded to love?? As we have talked about before, Scripture was not written to us but for us. However, are there not parts which are universally applicable absolutely??? I think we have a thread on here somewhere where the question was posed, *what parts of the Bible do you take as universal and why*?? God wants all to love doesn't He??? Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords for all isnt't He?? I just want to be clear on the distinction you are making.

Robert

[Laren]

Can you explain more where you say we disagree on the *we* are commanded to love??
Robert


what's the measuring stick? When have i loved? Perfect love casts out all fear, so am I only loving when I am fearless?

If I am commanded to love, it's as if it's a goal to obtain, which sends the message i am not loving, but can get there. It's a perfect environment for self shame, condemnation, and guilt.

It's a message of "lack" is it not??

It's a view of "not loving" but will "try hard". The "me" that is trying, is a "lacking me". As far as I know, "lack" will always attract more "lack".

just thinking. Haven't read this thread, so I apologize if this is out of context of the conversation.

[Amie]

Can you explain more where you say we disagree on the *we* are commanded to love??

For example, at the beginning of Matthew 5 it specifies that Jesus was talking to the disciples there with him when he said "love your enemies". "We" were not "told" to do so. There may be a timeless principle there (not to be confused with a timeless law), but that principle is drawn through understanding their context.


just thinking. Haven't read this thread, so I apologize if this is out of context of the conversation.

Don't sweat it. :) You make a good point imo in how love can be turned into a law and the difficulties that can result from that.

Amie