Skip to main content

Julia, interesting comment on Aristotle's moral compass.   It seems that in general, he equates virtue with moderation.  Eg.  Don't be too courageous, but don't be too afraid.   or... don't be too stingy, but not too generous either.   While this often seems to be common sense, it is not the kind of standard we want to apply to Christian living, it seems to me.  It is a bit arbitrary... and ends up saying something like, have faith, but not too much faith.  Pray some, but don't pray too much. 

I believe that common sense and balance does play a role, but that doesn't mean that somehow using common sense is more virtuous than stepping out in faith.   Jesus command to the rich man to sell all he had and follow HIm might seem to lead to the vice of carelessness by worldly and aristotelian standards, but Jesus' standards are different.  For Jesus, fishing for men instead of for fish, is not as extreme as many might think.  Caring for and sharing with the poor is okay, no matter how extreme.  Claiming all the world (not just Sundays) for Christ is the right kind of extreme. 

I wonder if the first type of illness we ought to be thinking of is spiritual illness.  Spiritual illness  would be a misunderstanding of who God is, or a denial of God, or lack of a confident relationship with God.  It is this type of illness that often leads to a moral quagmire, sometimes moral illness, since there is no real reference point for truth and behaviour outside of oneself and thus might lead to all kinds of immoral behaviour.   This is a situation where there is no immunity or resistance anymore to the immoral behaviour which is displayed by others on tv or internet or magazines or conversation. 

 I would think spiritual illness can also lead to some types of mental illness, once that realization of a lack of reference point, and a lack of purpose, a lack of real relationship sinks in.   This can be a common cause of depression and anger and unhappiness, both for non-christians, but also sometimes for christians. 

Moral illness leads directly to sin, and because we cannot always read the heart, we must deal with the sin more than with the moral illness that might cause us to sin.  But moral illness can be catching, even for Christians.  It helps if we put a quarantine on ourselves or on those who are morally ill, so that it will not infect us.   On the other hand, spiritual health can heal the heart, will help us to resist, and our relationship with God will have an impact on how we live. 

What's interesting, is that the same basic word used for deacon is also used for (translated into)  "minister" and "ministry".

Presumably, most seminary graduates would have learned most of their world view perspectives and "every square inch belongs to God" before they attended seminary.   Hopefully they would have attended Christian world-view colleges. 

Elly, your story is great, with the help of people to get a quadriplegic on a hiking trip.   But if you google Camrose Alberta for a 3D view, you will not see any mountains at all anywhere from Camrose.   An 8000 foot mountain is pretty high, and Camrose is still in the prairie part of Alberta.   Should the location have been Canmore perhaps?  

These stories are great!  I am reminded of a girl, Colleen Buitendyk, who has been in a wheelchair all her life with cerebral palsy, who used to enjoy having a two wheel cart attached to her powered wheel chair and pulling little kids behind her in it, across the grass and the gravel parking area at our place.  Or her independance in tearing across the playing field at the local Bible Camp. 

I am reminded of a nephew in a wheel chair with mental capacity issues, who attended his sister's wedding.   When the minister asked her if she would take "this man to be her husband", her younger brother yelled out, "No!"   .... and there were some chuckles.... and no one was upset....   and the wedding went on....

Jolanda, I appreciate what you've said here.   It is really important for the teachers to capture the vision.   This helps them to go beyond just going through the motions, to realizing that we are helping our children to put on the full armor of God, in an eternal life and death situation. 

I wonder if the way to make sure we see needs, is to stop always calling it injustice.  We probably don't see injustice because we do not see it as injustice.  We do not see our own actions as injust, nor the actions of others as unjust, yet there are needs.   For example, are victims of the tsunami considered to be victims of injustice?  Are victims of hurricane Isaac victims of injustice?    yet, they have needs.   Needs, yes, that's something we can see.

John Zylstra on August 9, 2012

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

Debra, yes Paul was a flawed human being.  But then, so are you.  If being flawed means your view should be disregarded, then I guess your view should be disregarded.  Paul was showing us how to worship Jesus, how to serve his Lord and our Lord.   Paul as an apostle chosen by Christ, presented the scriptural and Godly perspective on homosex, drunkeness, slandering, swindlers,sexually immoral, greed, etc.      Loving everyone does not mean loving everything that they do.  There are many things that Jesus did not speak about directly but that scripture still gives us guidance on, and  the apostles were able to write about that. 

A good article, Ryan.   I would suggest that it also be written to elders, since some elders are also leaders, and can provide encouragement and direction and support for preachers and evangelists in their desire to see others come to Christ.   This can be particularly valuable when the preacher may not be thinking like an evangelist. 

John Zylstra on August 9, 2012

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

Ryan, perhaps you ought to define what you mean by human.   If we have rejected God, are we then not living by our "animalistic" nature, as you term it?  If we reject God, then we depend on ourselves, create our own gods, make ourself into a god... is this not animalistic?   Does it matter then if we choose a violent or coercive pathway, or a  politically pleasing persuasive pathway while we still serve only ourself?    Does it matter then if we achieve the approval of men or not, if we have rejected God?  

How does your definition of "human" fit with the potential to be redeemed?   Is the mere act of repentance a transition from less human to more human?   Did the man on the cross next to Jesus  become more human without any other act than acknowledging his own guilt?   Or was he still inhuman or less human because of what he had done? 

Is it our own actions, or the grace of God that redeems us? 

John Zylstra on July 13, 2012

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

Clarification:  I meant the primary mention of offices in scripture refers to elders and deacons. 

Karl, perhaps I missed it, but did you ever define or identify who these regional leaders are?  or these regional leadership positions? 

John Zylstra on August 10, 2012

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

Ryan, I agree with most of your answers, especially in terms of our responsibiilty and response to God.   Only I have difficulty with your definition of human.  You said, "One of the biggest differences between humans and animals is that we know good and evil and can strive towards good.  The more we do this, the more human we are."  

I agree that humans can know good and evil and take responsibility for it, while animals are driven merely by instinct.   But I do not agree that humans can be more human or less human.   You see, the problem with saying that men could be less human, such as Hitler for example, is that if he is nothing more than an animal, how could he be held eternally responsible for his actions as a human being?   How can an animal know good and evil?   How could an animal repent from his actions?   Why would we expect anything else from an animal or a less-than-human? 

You see, he is fully human, although he had perverted his humanity and his relationship with God.  He is fully accountable to God as a human.  It is in our full humanity that we are sinners;  we cannot use the excuse of our instincts or our supposed animal instincts to excuse our disobedience.   Jesus became fully human, and in his humanity did not sin, and because of that, was able to be a substitute for us as humans.   Jesus did not become partially animal in order to redeem our animal nature.   It is disobedience and obedience that is at stake, not a reversion or change to some animal nature.  Although we might sometimes use the terms "monster" or "animal" to describe a particularly heinous situation, we should realize it is ultimately a figure of speech. 

John . " 

We want to hear from you.

Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.

Add Your Post