Continued from Part 2
From this point forward, this paper follows a fairly radical ethical line – one based on Mat 16:25-26,
“For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit them if they gain the whole world but forfeit their life? Or what will they give in return for their life?” (NRSV)
The church has based much of its behavior, since becoming an institution, on maintaining its status, solvency, relevance and political clout in the world. That behavior, as stated above, has included the historical marginalization or oppression of significant groups, many of who are still found within its doors. When this conduct is measured against what is perhaps the most significant Christian ethic, the “greatest commandment” of Mat 22:37-39[1], it fails miserably. The antidote for this ethos is none other than to embrace the message of the greatest commandment even if it leads to the church’s own material demise. The life of the church is founded on the concept of being the light of Christ to the world and, however divine the calling may be, is a temporal and, therefore, quite possibly a temporary presence in society. To maintain its existence at the expense of any of its neighbors, which includes any part of God’s creation inside or outside its walls, is to seek life over its mission. Continue reading ‘Can the Church Reconcile with its Own Victims? (Part 3)’
Recent Comments