« Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic | Main | Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic Index »

Jul 23, 2005


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Michael Kruse

will spotts said...
I don't mean to be dense.

I think my question here is does the ethic change? I accept the notion that we change -- and God has revealed more about himself and his desires for us. I see this individually, and I suspect it holds true for communities as well. Examples might be some of the teachings in the prophets which tend to alter the focus slightly from Torah, or the teachings of Jesus, and later Paul.

My question is this: was this a change in the ethic? It seems to me that Jesus spent considerable time referring to the Old Testament -- asserting that his teachings, though on the face of them revolutionary, were pre-supposed there.

It's similar to the way in which people teach evolution -- as population dynamics amplify certain traits -- these traits were already latently genetically present in the population. This population dynamic is well explained and illustrated. It is, however, unrelated to the concept of change via mutation. (i.e. there is some need for change from some outside source beyond on the orignal genetic potential). But the two are separate propositions. One is clearly much more supportable than the other. (People continue to debate mechanisms -- but they don't debate the population dynamic).

The analogy is this: are you talking about a New change, or one whose potential was latent in the Scripture to begin with?

Sorry . . .I'm really not trying to be so slow on this.

July 25, 2005 11:57 PM

Michael Kruse

Michael W. Kruse said...
Good questions Will. I like the term “ultimate ethic.” God’s nature does not change nor does the ultimate ethic change. The Pharisees once tried to trick Jesus with a question about divorce. He acknowledged that God had allowed them to divorce by giving a certificate of divorce but he said it was because of the hardness of their hearts that God allowed this. Jesus said divorce was only acceptable with the sexual infidelity of your partner, which was a de facto divorce done by your partner. In other words, divorce was never right! It is the tangled mess of our sinful natures that makes divorce the lesser evil in some circumstances. United as one has always been God’s ethic.

I think the process sanctification is an ever deepening awareness of our sinful nature combined with an ever deepening dependence on God’s grace and transforming power. Similarly, I think the history of God’s chosen people throughout the ages is a deepening awareness of our sinful nature and an ever deepening dependence on his grace and transforming power.

As The Kingdom of God expands across the planet it broadens. As it expands across time it takes us deeper into who God is. One day, at the end of time, the Kingdom will encompass the globe and be at the depth the God intended.

Am I getting at your question?

July 26, 2005 8:36 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Calmly Considered: Videocasts on Faith & Economics

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Kruse Kronicle on Kindle

Check It Out