Russ-
quote:
Thanks so much for your affirmation and shorthand version of the article. The book sounds really great! I just taught our adult class (picture a 23 year old in a circle with 7 80 year olds)and discussed turning the other cheek, going the second mile, and giving your cloak as well (following Wink's treatment of these texts) and they were sooo excited. They want me to teach again this Sunday, drawing some more practical applications.
It sounds as though you have a wonderful community in which to learn and teach. What a blessing!
quote:
Does the book cohere with Wink? Are there practical applications? It sounds like my library will be getting a book bigger!
Being unfamiliar with Wink, I had to do some research before responding. As the nature of my research was rushed, I hope that you will forgive and correct any hasty generalizations.
In a sense specific to our conversation here, I would say that yes, Forest’s treatment of the Beatitudes coheres with what I found about Wink’s teaching that Christ’s directives are intended for us to reclaim an intended harmony.
But, in a more general sense, my research on Wink revealed that his philosophy strays from Orthodox teaching—most notably in his Christology. What I read indicated a tendency to de-emphasize Christ’s divinity and focus on His humanity, along the way showing alternating strains of Gnosticism, Arianism, and Sabellianism. What concreted my evaluation of Wink was the indication in J. Harold Ellens recent review of
The Human Being that Wink rejects the important Christological formulations of the Ecumenical Councils. In that sense there is a huge divide.
However, I don’t think that the gap is unbridgeable, and, in fact, I think it stems from a healthy counter-reaction to our modern-day selfish culture. The emphasis Wink places on living in the kingdom now is spot on, I just think that he fails to realize that our participation in and union with the divinity of the Trinity as an all-important part of that process.
In Ladder of the Beatitudes, Forest gives many practical examples of opportunities to participate in this transformed reality. For the Orthodox Christian, this develops as an understanding that our participation in the sacraments is eschatological, that is (to use a common phrase): “we
are what we
are becoming.” The sacraments, then, necessarily are grounded in an objective reality by a physical element, and participate in the reality that Christ transformed by infusing the same physical acts with His transcendent grace. So, there is a way in which Wink’s words (I’m paraphrasing here: ) “our salvation is to become more human,” mean exactly what an Orthodox Christian would believe—that is, that Christ re-connected and perfected humanity in the hypostatic union of His divine and human self and we can therefore aspire, through His grace, to participate in that perfected humanity. However, what Wink conveys is an elevation of Christ’s humanity over His divinity simply because that is also what we bring to the equation. It is, in short, humanism. In contrast, Forest talks about seeing all life as sacramental; that is, if we believe that Christ transformed all of our reality ("that which is unassumed is unredeemed"
then we will strive for communion with others as a natural result of our communion with God. The end result on the social scale is very similar, the difference is in motivation.
quote:
For those who have not read the article I linked, it is worth it. Without getting the triadic structure into your bones Jesus' admonitions make little sense and seem to be impossible for the faithful to emulate.
And I would like to reiterate my recommendation as well. I would also like to recommend another article from the OPF site which is, again, similar (though not so fleshed-out as Forest’s), “Living the Beatitudes”:
http://www.incommunion.org/incommunion/Chryssavgis.htmI hope that my dialogue isn’t taken as combative, but as constructive and conciliatory: the sense in which it is offered. I am heartened, whatever the outcome, to hear another perspective that champions Christ’s humanity (just not to the point of diminishing His divinity) because that is the basis of our salvation. Even more, I laud the aim of your position to encourage living in the reality that Christ transformed, and thus greet you with the greeting that we Orthodox use to constantly affirm the reason of and our participation in that reality: Christ is in our midst!
I look forward to your answer. Feel free to respond by email (in profile) if that better suits your purposes.
NonReg85-
quote:
Does this mean that murder is a valid description of anyone's action that causes death regardless of intent? If, while hunting dear, I fire a weapon that misses its mark (the dear) and kills a person I have committed murder? Or, is it simply because war intends to kill some humans (combatants) that the accidental killing of other humans (non-combatants) becomes murder and collateral damage becomes "agnostic Newspeak?"
Without the benefit of Fr. Jim’s direct guidance, I can only share what I believe to be the meaning in the statement quoted above. That said, I think you come closer with your second proposition (bolded above) for the following reason: the difference between murder and accidental killing is in intent. In your illustration above, you give an example of how the resulting actions of your intent can go awry, yet the intent to end a life (or neglecting to adequately account for the potential of deadly force—the singing bush in
The Three Amigos comes to mind
)is predicated on a selfish (used non-pejoratively here) elevation of self above another. Titan and I have had several conversations—here and off-line—about the complications of political necessity, but the bottom line remains that from a Christian standpoint at least, that taking a life is a matter of conscience that must be dealt with individually, no matter how it is justified politically.
You might also find this article helpful:
http://www.incommunion.org/incommunion/murder.htm[This message has been edited by jkotinek (edited 3/24/2004 11:26p).]
Regarding Wink, I have not read the book whose review you read. My reference to Wink was regarding his specific treatment of Matt 5:38-41. See this in short form: "Reclaiming Jesus' Noviolent Alternative," Living Pulpit 7 no 4 O-D 1998, p 40-42. Or at length "Beyond Just War and Pacifism:Jesus' Nonviolent Way," Review and Expositor 89 (1992): 197-214.