Re: [TruthTalk] Truth as viewed by one of the greats

[Knpraise]

Paul Tillich one said this:  " .......anyone who has a degree of ultimate concern is a theologian.   One's life is, after all, is an _expression_ of all his 'ologies, including his private theology."

I have noticed over the years  ---   some 41 years of ministry I might add and proudly so, that those who claim sinless perfectionism "by the power of the Indwelling" are the very one's who exhibit the most severe of sin problems.    These sins do not include the event sins of the gutter.     Rather, they are invariably expressed as hate speech buried in diatribes expressing concern for the "Word of Truth" and of "ultimate love and concern for the 'wayward soul' ."    These people always believe that God  and His Word MUST be DEFENDED or   .............................................  or "what" is usually never really defined. 

Those who function thusly,  as a practice or way of life,  actually do little to distinguish themselves from the atheist ...   afraid to loose one 's self in attachment to the Divine.    They see the Christ as one who lived on the very edge of Anger.   His benevolence served only as comic relief from the fearfulness of His authority and unavoidable judgment.   They never argue that He died for sins  --  only that this death did not extend to all sin.  How could it?   Such would mean that the sinner is justified  fully and completely in one single action that never ends.    And why?   Why does the battle center itself on "sin" and commandment keeping and "truth" ??   In a word, CONTROL.     When Paul spoke of love as being something that "does not seek its own,"  he offered up one of the more classic open-ended remarks of all time.   It was as if he expected us  to plug in "does not seek its own ------------------ way, or will, or life, or standard of truth,  or  .........................whatever."   And why did he include this in his discussion of love on the corporate level?    Because he knew, as do many,  that within man is this desire to be "somebody."  To rise above the Collective.  How is this accomplished when being a part of the Collective is impossible to avoid?    Some try  "control."    Control of one's spouse, or one's children, or one's brethren.   And when this control is violated or threatened  --   the talk always becomes exclusive in tone and threatening or judgmental in nature.   Counselor's see this often and in most matters of marital difficulty.  The real problem with this particular sin is that it's practitioner always misses the point.   He/she has no choice for they must be in control.    It is an emotional thing, you know.   The dynamic of "control" springs from a deep seated inferiority   -    a nagging and silent suspicion that we, in fact, do not measure up.    Beattle Baily once slapped his Sarge on the back and said,  "  Sarge, you don't have an inferiority complex, you really ARE inferior."   We all fear this.   But,  it is not the rebellious who reject this notion and press for "what is right" and "doctrinal purity" and the maintenance of the "right church.'   No, rather, these are those who are afraid to trust that someone else can and will bring them to a reality that is beyond what they can ask or even imagine.     WHAT IF THEY ARE WRONG?     No   --    best not change.  And "if I am right" then others must follow or be forewarned. 

In the end, there is no substitution for brokenness and contrition and, to use a modern term, "total surrender."    In total surrender we loose our identify.   Something, for some reason, to be feared.  

JD