main point -
The main point seems to be that Peter denied Jesus three times by the cock crow. John differs from the other gospels by separating the first denial and sandwiching other material between it and this passage. All four canonical gospels depict this -- so I gather it to be significant. A strong tradition which the early church felt needed to be preserved. In John alone will a three-fold forgiveness undo this in the resurrection. Another difference: the Synoptics depict a sudden flash of awareness in Peter at the sound of the crow. Peter realizes he has fulfilled his Master's prophesy and weeps. John remains silent on this.
new light -
No new light as such. New questions. Why is this story important for the first Christians to preserve? I don't know.
truth -
Following George Fox's instructions on how to read scriptures -- cited in his journal -- I take Peter with his denial into myself and ask how I am like Peter.
I am Peter -- I do not own Christ when put to the test. An atheist co-worker and I have a number of discussions on religion fairly regularly. Last night he introduced me to his wife as the guy trying to convert him -- I denied it.
I brooded on it later. We saw our discussions differently I suppose. I was not witnessing to him -- I have been careful to point out the limitations of faith and religion in my conversations and have not been trying to win him over or win the argument. I have tried to -- always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you (1 Peter 3:15) but fail even in that -- I equivocate.
My sense of the complexity of truth and the ambiguity present in matters of faith is stronger than my certitude -- there is perhaps more of Socrates than Jesus in me.
implications -
Perhaps in the resurrection Jesus will confront me for each time I could have witnessed and instead was silent -- and each time Christ will commission me and forgive.
In the meanwhile -- like Peter -- I will need to be faithful as I can and not as I cannot.
problems -
I feel no stop in my mind with this passage and that is itself a problem. Some bible stories are so familiar they no longer challenge us to faithfulness. They offer no problem as we can no longer read them for the first time.
6 comments:
David, I think there was a "lot of Socrates" in Jesus, too, which makes you two of a kind.
"Why is the story important"? I've tried to address that (to some degree) in my post.
Re talking with atheists: at that point we become fishers. We can expect many mistakes before we catch one (as for fishing for fish, I've never been worth a darn).
With atheists I begin with the realization that they are more serious about God than half the "Christians" I know. They don't give him an hour on Sunday; they give him a piece of their mind.
I go back to my favorite quote from old Bob: "love the hell out of 'em". But perhaps St. Francis is better:
"Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary use words."
Hang in there, Friend and brother.
Hi David. It's tough to know what to say to non-believers. I used to be one, and to me back then, the best testimonial of faith was the way a person led their life - that was more convincing than any theological argument. As someone (St. Francis?) once said ... be perfect - you may be the only gospel your brothers and sisters ever read.
I'm actually feeling no obligation to convert the fellow -- though there is a client in our office who does feel such a compunction.
He is already "saved" -- he is essentially a good person from what I can see. He is one of those of whom Paul said, someone who without the law does what the law requires.
I think he is also seeking -- though what I'm not sure. I'm coming to see my role may be to be there to help in discernment should he hear a call.
One part of traditional faith-talk is the notion taht everything happens for a reason. I do not buy into that one personally. And it is one of the notions that keeps my atheist friend from accepting faith.
If everything happens for a reason then we are actors on a stage.
But we are not -- we are co-authors of the play. And so there is much that happens that is not God's perfect will. And yet, even then -- God has provided opportunities to us to grow into that which we are called to be.
maybe. maybe not.
It happens to be one of my hobby horses. And what you say is likely a common attitude amongst Christians. So I'm likely the minority voice on this issue.
I'm more interested in how beliefs function in the lives of folks than in the content. Everything happens for a reason tends to encourage folks to accept some troublesome aspect of life rather than see it as a call from God to do something about it. Not always. But often.
here is an interesting post by Jon on being an athiest (with a twist!)
http://www.frimmin.com/mt/archives/000122.html
Post a Comment