The Meaning of Metaphors; the Metaphors of Meaning

As I read back through my earlier post, I wonder if I created the wrong impression. I wonder if I created the impression that what Paul was suggesting is that our motivation should be to act out of love so that we create a sense of shame? If so, I think I did a poor job of communicating my thoughts. If shame is our objective, it would seem to me to be a wrong objective. We should love our enemies simply as a way of honoring the fact that God loves us. After all, in our sin we are enemies of God's holiness. Only through faith in Jesus may we become God's children.

I think what Paul was saying is that if someone is your enemy, presumably it is because they are unfriendly or worse towards you. To return love for hate will be the best way to make the other person realize the sin of their anger or enmity. But they may not, and whether they do or not is not really our concern. Love your enemies as God loves us, and allow God to sort out the wickedness of our hearts.

Whether there is a case within the Bible for a "just war" is a subject well above my learning. Smart people have come down on both sides of that question for centuries. Two thoughts:

• Some invoke Jesus's commandment to "turn the other cheek" as a way of arguing against any war. It's interesting to note that when Jesus stood before the High Priest prior to being taken to Pilate, he was slapped hard across the face by an official (Luke 18:22). His response was not to silently accept the abuse and offer his other cheek to be slapped as well. '"If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?"' (Luke 18:23) That's a rather challenging -- though not physically threatening -- response.
• Imagine two scenarios: in one, someone comes up to you and slaps you across the face. In another, someone goes up to a helpless invalid and slaps them across the face. Is your Christian obligation the same under both? I would think not. In the second scneario, if the threat of further violence was evident, wouldn't you have an obligation to assist the invalid? If so, can that idea be extrapolated to nations conducting broader war?

"How do you know that you are hearing the message of God and not your own?" Very good question. It's my understanding that one is to test the message against other scripture and with the help of other Godly people. But your point is a valid one -- the Bible is not a cookbook that tells us, "Today is Friday. Have a bowl of raisin bran and take the 8:15 bus to work." It is a book rich with opportunity for different interpretations. How then to reconcile differing interpretations? Ah ... now that takes us into the realm of Biblical essentials.

Here's a thought exercise: take out a 3x5 card. (And by the way, what on earth do you call that over in the U.K. with that silly metric stuff?) Write down the 4 to 6 or 7 core things you feel the Christian faith is absolutely dependent upon. Without any of those, the structure of the faith crumbles due to lack of structural support.

It's an interesting exercise because I'm willing to wager peripheral issues often squabbled over by denominational factions would not appear on the card. And it serves to focus one's attention on what's truly critical in being obedient to God.