Intellectuelle

I wonder, is Morgon77, by virtue of his comment, engaged in some sort of battle to be right?

Great website redesign! (btw)

Hi Rusty,

Why do you ask?

Thanks on the redesign -- it's Ilona's handiwork :-)

Bonnie,

Why do you ask?

Oh, nothing too heavy, just wondering if Morgon77 is engaged in some sort of battle to preserve standards by admonishing those who he sees to be engaged in some sort of battle to preserve standards...

it's Ilona's handiwork

With the beauty of the layout, I suspected as much.

just wondering if Morgon77 is engaged in some sort of battle...

Indulge my curiosity, if you will: do you see signs of battle on his part, and what standard is he trying to preserve, by his statement?

Thanks :-)

Hi Bonnie,

I don't see signs of a battle in what Morgon77 wrote. As for any standard he's trying to preserve, how about his effort in maintaining some sort of position to either submit, or even practice agape toward others? IOW, is his effort immune from the pitfalls he warns us about? Or is he, too, trying to be... right?

Thanks, Rusty.

I don’t see his (her?) effort as aimed at maintaining a position. He’s making a statement. He's saying that if a person is too busy maintaining some sort of position, then that person’s thoughts are not reflecting Christ, and he is not practicing agape. The reverse would also be true; if a person’s thoughts are reflecting Christ such that he is busied submitting and practicing agape, then he can’t possibly be occupied with maintaining a position. The two are exclusive of one another.

IOW, I see him doing what I wrote at the end of the post, upholding truth, not a standard. I don't see submission to Christ as a standard, nor making a statement about something as trying to be right.

Hi Bonnie,

Yes I understand where you're coming from. I simply see his comment admonishing those who try to be "right" (albeit for what he has decided to be inconsequential issues) as being another form of trying to be right. Is he not maintaining the position that our thoughts ought to reflect Christ?

This is not to say that I don't agree with the thinking he posits. I suppose I would need to see more concrete examples of what he considers to be "battles" to preserve standards (other than those of the getting cut-off in traffic variety).

Rusty,

Is he not maintaining the position that our thoughts ought to reflect Christ?

No, I don't see that. I don't see an "ought." He's speaking in the first person. I think you're reading into his statement. :-)

It's funny, before we had this conversation I had a post draft, a follow-up to this post, that in some ways addresses what we're talking about. If I can get it edited I'll put it up tomorrow.

A follow-up thought, which is in the post pending:

There's a difference between saying something is true, or saying that something is right or wrong, and saying that everyone "ought" to act accordingly. Big difference. One is expository, the other is manipulative. (Or, at the very least, imperative.)

Hi Bonnie,

I'm still not convinced.

If it's true that "we ought not torture babies for pleasure", then doesn't it follow that we posit that "torturing babies for pleasure" is wrong? (or, one could say that those people who torture babies for pleasure are missing the mark of truth from the initial statement) They are intertwined.

Hi Rusty,

When do we enter the ring? ;-)

If it's true that "we ought not torture babies for pleasure", then doesn't it follow that we posit that "torturing babies for pleasure" is wrong?

Yes, it does, but your statement is not analogous to Morgon77's. His was not an “ought” statement.

(or, one could say that those people who torture babies for pleasure are missing the mark of truth from the initial statement)

I wouldn’t say that someone who tortures babies for pleasure is missing the mark of truth unless the subject at hand is hitting or missing that mark, or a particular mark; i.e., that of not torturing babies.

Morgon77's statement wasn’t about marks or oughts or rights and wrongs. Yes, his statement carries the implication that it’s “right” to submit to Christ and “wrong” not to, which I think is what you are noting, but that wasn’t the purpose or content of his statement. He simply made the point I’ve already explained, that if you’re doing the one, then you’re not doing the other. He did not admonish, as you suggested. He stated. He made an if/then statement about two things that are mutually exclusive. Nothing more, nothing less.

You seem to be suggesting that Morgon77's statement is hypocritical, but in so doing, you misrepresent what he actually said. You put words into his mouth. It is incorrect (and unjust) to suggest that anyone who states a truth as he did is succumbing to whatever pitfall he might be illustrating (although Morgon77 was not speaking of nor illustrating a pitfall.) A person speaking of pitfalls must certainly watch him(or her-)self; he is subject to falling into the same pit (Gal. 6:1), but that doesn't mean he’s automatically there.

You are reading into Morgon77's statement and suggesting that it’s something that it’s not.

But I still love ya :-)

Hi friends:)
Now that I am coming up for air from the MT code dungeon, this conversation is quite interesting.
I tend to see Rusty's take on this, and for myself I don't see the distinction between the stance of taking a position for what is right and practicing agape. When one practices agape one is in the right, and there is no possibility of being outside the standard of what is right. And that sometimes means behaving in ways that exemplify the spirit of agape, but in ways that people find painful, and thus don't interpret as their idea of love.
In the context of the Morgon77 comment and the original post, I believe the point trying to be made (comment textareas aren't known to be conducive to precision) is that if we position ourselves on who is right or wrong in a particular situation involving personal rights then we are missing the focus of our direction on being meek in the way Christ is in such situations. I don't think it had to do with taking positions of right or holding standards in larger issues.

That said, I think it is impossible to avoid a demarcation of right and wrong.. it is more our misunderstanding of where the demarcation is located that causes some of the trouble. i.e. when we say "ought" that means it is right to do something, but how strong is the demand on us? Where is it positioned within our free choice rights? Like the decision to eat meat or abstain ( to use the bible example) we may have good reason to say ought when another wold not need to abide by that. But I think that the original post, especially, and the response to it made a good point in choosing the "better" way of love and choose to minister "right" rather than demand it.

In the arguments concerning a women's place or a man's place, it is the striving for ones rights that is admonished here, I think. In that sense, we are being called to examine what spirit we are engaging with... a spirit of love and humility? or strife? That is a good question to consider when taking up the banner for what is right.

...and maybe that is what Bonnie was proposing?

Hi Bonnie,

Let's look at Morgon77's statement, again (with my emphasis included):

If my life is truly about serving Christ, and being Christ's disciple, so that my life, my actions, my every thought reflects what Christ was, then submitting to others, whether it's my coworkers, or my wife, or the guy who cut me off in traffic, or the last person who used the toilet but didn't flush or aim at the toilet bowl, or whatever else, is not a problem.

But if, instead, I'm fighting some sort of battle to preserve standards, to maintain righteousness, to be...right... then I'm too busy maintaining some sort of position to either submit, or even practice agape toward others.

BTW, I'm not implying that Morgy is a hypocrite (although you may have inferred it). ;^) And I do agree with your analysis in your second post on the aspects of being a hypocrite.

As you state, there are two if/then statements. However, Morgy links the two with the critical word, "But". Now, if the premise is that practicing agape is what we should be doing, then it follows that a practice which hinders that is wrong. I'm not saying that Morgy has declared we ought to practice agape - I'm not really concerned with whether or not Morgy thinks we ought to do that - I'm the one who is taking it as a given. As you state, "...if you're doing the one, then you're not doing the other," so doesn't it follow that, if you're not doing the one you ought to be doing because of the one you are doing, then the one you are doing is not the one you should be doing so you can get about doing the one you ought to be doing? (LOL)

Ilona,

Yes, the original context probably sheds needed light on the subject (and, I have not read the source post). I agree with your take (and, actually, I agree with the gist of what Bonnie has written, as well as Morgy's statement). Being my ornery self, though, I like to interject thorns into the issue a la the variety of,
Statement: "Question authority!"
My Response: "Question those who question authority!"

Rusty, you’re right about the way the statement is written – use of “but” and “instead” and two “if/thens,” not one (thanks for pointing that out!) And I see now how his wording, by using the words “but” and “instead” give indication that the first if/then is preferable to the second. He is saying that the second precludes the first, not the other way around, or, that the first is preferable to the second.

When I read the linked post and comment, I saw that each precludes the other. But that’s attributable to me, not Morgon’s statement. I make that correction and thank you for your help!

However, I still don’t see that Morgon is necessarily stating a position in addition to a point. I don’t see that the point of his statement was to state a position, but rather to make the point, and state his belief. He is upholding a lifestyle characterized by reflection of Christ. I don’t see such living as a standard, therefore neither does his statement about it uphold a standard. Nor is such living something to preserve, as one would speak of preserving standards.

And, how would Morgon not be a hypocrite if he was doing as you suggested, being “engaged in some sort of battle to preserve standards by admonishing those who he sees to be engaged in some sort of battle to preserve standards”? Given what I said in the last paragraph, how is his effort one of maintaining a position? I don’t see being motivated by the salvation found in Christ, or acting in agape or submission, as a position. It’s a state of being. And how is Morgon’s statement itself not submission or agape? How does it serve him and not God, or others?

doesn't it follow that, if you're not doing the one you ought to be doing because of the one you are doing, then the one you are doing is not the one you should be doing so you can get about doing the one you ought to be doing?

LOL, I actually did follow that, and my answer is, “According to whom?”

Ilona,

I don't see the distinction between the stance of taking a position for what is right and practicing agape.

Practicing agape may involve taking or having a position but it doesn’t have to. Nor do I view rightness as a standard. Those are distinctions I wanted to make because it’s the standards that become a law, and upholding them a legalism.

There is, however, no “law of agape” in a legal sense. There is no law that says, “You must practice agape.” Agape is what you do when you are fully dependent upon Christ. That’s a law of the universe, a spiritual law, but not a codifiable thing. At least as I understand it.

Yes, I think personal rights were being discussed in the post I linked to and in Morgon’s statement, but so also was the concept of “being right” and maintain one’s own righteousness as opposed to practicing agape. You could say that practicing agape is doing the right thing, but does it mean you are “right?” I think not – “being right” is about taking positions. Morgon was saying that doing right isn’t about having the right position, it’s about being secure in Christ.

Hi Bonnie,

I don’t see being motivated by the salvation found in Christ, or acting in agape or submission, as a position.

That's probably the source of the rub between us.

And, how would Morgon not be a hypocrite if he was doing as you suggested...

In the same manner by which you and I are not hypocrites if we acknowledge that sin is wrong, and yet still fail to live perfectly.

Rusty,

It seems that this discussion has gotten bigger than the point of the post, and I confess that I'm disappointed to be no closer to understanding where you're coming from than I was at the beginning, although I appreciate your engagement in this discussion.

You said that you saw Morgon's comment as indicating that Morgon was trying to be right. If that's true, which I don't think it is, but if it is, then he is a hypocrite. (IOW, I don't understand how you can both agree with Morgon's statement yet suggest that in some way he's contradicting himself. And, if you agree with him, are you saying that you are contradictory too? Sheesh, this is all too confusing!) What I'm asking is, did you see his comment as being made for the sake of showing himself to be right?

Try as I might, I don't understand how Morgon was “engaged in some sort of battle to preserve standards by admonishing those whom he sees to be engaged in some sort of battle to preserve standards," or how he was putting effort toward "maintaining some sort of position to either submit, or even practice agape toward others," as you suggested he was.

I maintain that making a point is not synonymous with maintaining a position. It can be, but doesn't have to be. Nor is motivation synonymous with position-holding. Motivation is motivation, and I believe that a person is either motivated by agape or by self-serving self-preservation. Or some of both. But those are the two basic motivations that people have.

If one is making a point, then the focus is on the point. If one is maintaining a position, for the sake of the position and not the point, then the focus is on the position, or on the one maintaining it, in that it is that person making the point or maintaining the position. In this case, the position serves itself (or the person) rather than the point. I think one can have a position or maintain a position for the sake of the point and not the position. It's a matter of focus. And that's the point of Morgon's comment!

That's why I asked, in answer to your question, "According to whom?" Are Morgon's words about a truth authored by God, or by Morgon, and to whom is he bringing attention?

and I confess that I'm disappointed to be no closer to understanding where you're coming from than I was at the beginning,

So when has that stopped us in the past?

;^)

I think we've beat this one into the ground. However, at the risk of generating even more confusion, I'll try to answer your question: What I'm asking is, did you see his comment as being made for the sake of showing himself to be right?

No.

I see it more along the lines of how po-mo's (and I'm not saying that he's po-mo) criticize modernists as adhering to some sort of "meta-narrative" and then claim that no meta-narrative is correct (somehow ignoring the fact that they are presenting a meta-narrative of their own). It's not necessarily hypocritical, but I do think it is faulty.

OK, then. But humor me, if you will, and pound this last ounce of pulp: tell me how Morgon’s statement is faulty and how he could’ve made the point in a non-faulty way.

Thanks :-) XOXOXO

(And tell me you're not criticizing Morgon for criticizing something else...or should we define what "criticizing" means, exactly, and whether or not he was, or you are? ;-) )

Okay, Bonnie. I didn't fully explain my point on the "faulty" comment, with the result being that I've ended up saying he is faulty, when I should have said he could be faulty. My error.

My original comment was, "I wonder, is Morgon77, by virtue of his comment, engaged in some sort of battle to be right?" I happen to think that he is engaged in some sort of battle to be right by virtue of the juxtaposition he gives between submitting to Christ and chasing after "being right" (as ill-defined as that is). Whereas someone else may be engaged in such a battle, in order to "preserve standards", I see him engaged in a similar battle, in order to preserve true submission. Now, given that he is just as fallen as any of the rest of us, how do I know that he hasn't fallen into the same trap as the "standard" bearers? You see, it's a little too easy to make a statement pointing out the errors which deviate from submission to Christ, and then not give any practical means or definition of what submission to Christ involves (other than essentially restating "submission to Christ").

That's the way I see it. Certainly, I could be wrong (and I probably am).

Thank you, Rusty. I appreciate the explanation. :-)