tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5846671056195917287.post4099150545212869717..comments2024-03-12T00:51:27.766-04:00Comments on Ground Motive: Justice after a History of Violence? What to do when the Body of Christ Wages War with Itselfadmin1http://www.blogger.com/profile/16479743334126277132noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5846671056195917287.post-81579555467804185032014-12-04T08:30:32.460-05:002014-12-04T08:30:32.460-05:00Thank you for this very thoughtful post. Its over...Thank you for this very thoughtful post. Its overall thrust is something I find myself at one with. The dichotomy it lays out is one I also puzzle over. The frame of thought of each response is the inverse of the other, but both use metanymy as the crucial move to get as it were from the complex and ambivalent concrete of Christian history to the identity of a gist of that history that has the unity and univocity to bear a simple judgment. For the apologist, one must distinguish between the actions of individual Christians and the intent of the Gospel. That intent, embedded in the stories of Scripture, particularly those surrounding Jesus of Nazareth, are confirmed by the myriad instances of Christ-followers who have done likewise. This is the church in the world. Whenever a Christ-follower acts differently in a manner inconsistent with that gist, that is not an act of the Body of Christ but a deviation and perversion. Christ-likeness in the concrete then stands for the entire Body of Christ in all its concreteness; the Body of Christ then acts justly and is a force for justice in the world throughout its history. The opposite judgment involves an opposite metanymy. Yes, there are Christ followers who have acted for justice, but there are many who have not (with the standard for what justice is in a given situation always the standard of the judge and of her or his time and place). Since, the church has been a very powerful "secular" force for much of its history, and that history has been marked by countless injustices both structural and personal, the church bears responsibility for them. It had the power to resist and not only did not but often was the institutional instrument by which the conditions for such injustice was woven into the social tapestry. As a result, injustice marks the concrete historical meaning of the church in a way that the individual and communal acts of justice of its members does not. The gist of its being in history is as a force and structure of injustice etc. What I hear you advocating in this post is to foreswear this use of metanymy in our thinking about the Body of Christ in the world through time. I hear you advocating that we all, apologists and critics alike allow the full ambivalence of concrete deeds and structures in time stand without attempting to boil it down to one simple gist that can then be judged. Apologists must acknowledge the harm that has been done in the name of Christ and critics must acknowledge the good. Both would be wise to foster the good and condemn or repent of the harm. Metanoia, the capacity for repentance, an ethos of repentance, the humility that allows one to embrace the need for repentance--to me this is one of the great gifts of our God to the human community given in and through the stories and person of Jesus of Nazareth. I say that as an apologist who would be equally cognizant of and horrified by the harm that has been done in the name of Christ. bob sweetmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02020964276816359915noreply@blogger.com