Yes, we engage, we risk, and we share. And, to get agreement, we must get into the principles for methodology. How do we do these things - and what is our view (how do we treat) - the "poor" person? For example, in lands of plenty - who is the poor person? At another time and place, it was the widow and the orphan. In a land and time of life insurance and social security, is this still so? This is a good start, Brad, and I suspect most will agree. Now, however, to get into the realm where the rubber can hit the road (policy - where we can find unintended consequences, such as enabling, learned helplessness, etc.), let's agree on contextual, trans-cultural principles for strategy. (This is going to be joyful real work, isn't it?)
By "here" which I will revise, I didn;t mean here in blogging but "here" as in what Bolsinger is doing.
Blue,
Yes, the discussion needs to happen at many levels. At the detail level many will disagree and that is OK. We learn by doing. I believe that is a good methodology of learning.
Also, I think "in the context of community" is the way to learn. And "in the context of community" is the way those we are attempting to help learn. BUT this is is jumping to solution...
The 95 thesis question is simply laying out some agreed upon problems or opportunities for improvement.
Joy to You,
brad
Loved your starting point for your 95 theses. I'm also glad to see you're not getting caught in the trappings of posing political, that is policy-based, solutions to moral questions. I think you've got a good start here.
Item #1
The gospel offered in America today is deficient, and unbiblical. Therefore we must recover Jesus' gospel of the kingdom which states that we enter the kingdom by faith in Christ (John 3:3-5, 16), but our measure of joy and degree of honor in the kingdom is determined by the degree to which we live as faithful Christians (Romans 8:17).
Item #2
The problem will not be solved by cursing the darkness, but rather warning of God's retributive wrath on the indulgent believers and promising kingdom treasure for those who follow.
You're off to a good start. I remember hearing once that all great revivals begin with sustained prayer. That sounds like a great way to start.
Yes Brad, you get my point just fine. Thanks for the idea.
Brad, you make a good point about staying away from the details in a thesis. Quite correct and I will attempt to follow your example - keeping if all clear and simple - over at Blue Godfish. I've added 21 theses for consideration. Can we agree on some of these?
Also, yes, I agree, this must be a matter of prayer, for all of us.
One thing is certain, change is required. On that we all agree, do we not?
That's "Goldfish" (pardon my Freudian slip).
I will look at your growing list. I am looking for atention span on this one.
PS I will be out for a week.
Another you can add:
http://www.dedelen.com/2005/04/a...sing-
ashes.html
I'm sure I missed something. Aren't these points supposed to be controversial? Or is the controversy to be found in the details of the argument?
I believe the controversy is usually found when people realize that application must follow interpretation. That is when it becomes a whole other matter.
You can point out what the Bible teaches about something, and nobody will object most of the time. When they consider that they are now responsible to conform to this teaching, the fur begins to fly.
I think it's important to distinguish our moral responsibility toward believers around the world with whatever responsibility we have toward people simply in need who aren't believers. Our responsibility to each is different (first to the household of faith...) and for different reasons. I do agree with you that beyond our immediate responsibilities to those in our direct sphere of influence, whose real needs we should not sacrifice, we should keep in mind that distance is no reason not to count someone within the range of our moral obligations, particularly if it's someone who is spiritually speaking gathered around God's throne in heaven with us, seated with Christ in the heavenlies with us, members with us of Christ's body.
Commenting by HaloScan
