Ten Words
We Christians should pay attention when thoughtful Jewish people interpret God's Word, especially that part in the front that was written in Hebrew.
This piece from Beliefnet (from January 19, 2006) speaks to much of our conversation right now in the Church of Christ blogging community, even if we've stopped talking directly across the aisles.
The rabbi teaches that "taking the Lord's name in vain" may mean much more than "OMG!" parlance, but that we should tread carefully when we declare that God endorses our positions. We must evaluate ourselves to find whether we invoke God because we hope we're on His side, or because we want the heft of His imprimatur for persuation and victory in our arenas.
This piece from Beliefnet (from January 19, 2006) speaks to much of our conversation right now in the Church of Christ blogging community, even if we've stopped talking directly across the aisles.
The rabbi teaches that "taking the Lord's name in vain" may mean much more than "OMG!" parlance, but that we should tread carefully when we declare that God endorses our positions. We must evaluate ourselves to find whether we invoke God because we hope we're on His side, or because we want the heft of His imprimatur for persuation and victory in our arenas.
posted by JRB at 9:21 AM
6 Comments:
Sometimes that's a distinction without a difference.
Ex -
This is a communal admonition, not an accusation. We need to be mindful of our hearts and motives as we debate and converse about the state of things. As we are all Christians, seeking God's will and glory, our language and discourse must invoke His name and Word. We must invoke Him humbly and in love, and that's nearly always an internal evaluation for the writer.
Check out Chuck Colson's piece in the 2/06 issue of Christianity Today. Kendall-Ball links to it. Good stuff.
Jeff-
Maybe if you used the word "I" instead of "we" in your writings you might come across as less arrogant and 'preachy'.
Just a suggestion.
A Friend
Anonymous,
Thanks for your thought. From another perspective, I tend to associate the use of the first person plural "we" with an suggestion, comment, or critique in which the author speaks to himself/herself as much as to other readers. I guess I don't consider JRB's "we" comments as "preachy" because I can tell that he asking us all to evaluate these things, starting with himself. I would feel much different if he were using the second person plural "you". But, that is just me.
I guess I also put all of his comments in the world of long, late night discussions I have had with JRB on matters of true import in which we have struggled together to take an honest look at ourselves before simply critiquing others. That kind of outside the blog-o-sphere interaction probably helps shade the leses through which I read his comments.
Just my thoughts.
Again, thanks for your perspective, but I think if he were to only refer to himself in the first person singular, some readers might dismiss his comments as something they should take to heart and practice as well.
Again, just my thoughts.
(I am going a hundred different directions today, so if this makes no sense, please forgive me.)
Grace and peace...
Anonymous,
Also, I must say that such criticism and suggestions would be much more palatable, credible and useful if you would own up to them.
To be a little more constructive myself, Anon. Please review the comments to my "Gospel" post in the archives. We had a pretty good discussion of the relative preachy attributes of first, second and third person addresses. In that piece, I made the editorial decision to use "you" and it made a lot of folks, including me, squirm.
Post a Comment
<< Home