Something different: a story

[OneSheep]

Let me do something a little different here, by starting with a short story, which is based on something that really occurred. Once upon a time, there was a man who owed a lot of taxes to a newly crowned king. The man tells the king that he will pay him all the money he gets when he sells his house. The man sells his house, but he and his wife decide that the amount he got for his house was more than he owed in taxes, so he would keep some of the money.

The man goes before the king, and gives him what he and his wife decided would be a fair amount. The king, however, is disappointed, for he knew the sale price. “You lied to me, and did not give me what you promised. You lied to me before God.” Overcome with guilt and shame, the man suddenly dies. The man is immediately taken away by subjects and unceremoniously buried.

In the mean time, the man’s wife is called before the king. She is not told of her husband’s death. “How much tax have you decided to pay me?” he asks. She tells him the amount that she and her husband agreed upon. The king points to his subjects and says to the woman, “You have lied to me, and those who buried your husband are taking you too!” The wife, in her immediate grief, falls dead.

Now, folks, if you are like me, you would have a reaction of resentment toward the new king. The fact that the man was unceremoniously buried might be somewhat understandable in say, the middle ages. What particularly bothers me is the way the wife was treated, that she was not told of her husband’s death nor consoled by anyone in the story, and that she was told she would go where her husband has gone. Have you, the reader, also held something against the king? And, if so, can you forgive him?

This, however, is not the end of the story. Commentators on the occurrence have justified the actions of the king, saying they served as a warning to others. It is our calling to forgive the commentators too, if we hold something against them. How do we go about this?

 

[brumano]

Let me do something a little different here, by starting with a short story, which is based on something that really occurred. Once upon a time, there was a man who owed a lot of taxes to a newly crowned king. The man tells the king that he will pay him all the money he gets when he sells his house. The man sells his house, but he and his wife decide that the amount he got for his house was more than he owed in taxes, so he would keep some of the money.

The man goes before the king, and gives him what he and his wife decided would be a fair amount. The king, however, is disappointed, for he knew the sale price. “You lied to me, and did not give me what you promised. You lied to me before God.” Overcome with guilt and shame, the man suddenly dies. The man is immediately taken away by subjects and unceremoniously buried.

In the mean time, the man’s wife is called before the king. She is not told of her husband’s death. “How much tax have you decided to pay me?” he asks. She tells him the amount that she and her husband agreed upon. The king points to his subjects and says to the woman, “You have lied to me, and those who buried your husband are taking you too!” The wife, in her immediate grief, falls dead.

Now, folks, if you are like me, you would have a reaction of resentment toward the new king. The fact that the man was unceremoniously buried might be somewhat understandable in say, the middle ages. What particularly bothers me is the way the wife was treated, that she was not told of her husband’s death nor consoled by anyone in the story, and that she was told she would go where her husband has gone. Have you, the reader, also held something against the king? And, if so, can you forgive him?

This, however, is not the end of the story. Commentators on the occurrence have justified the actions of the king, saying they served as a warning to others. It is our calling to forgive the commentators too, if we hold something against them. How do we go about this?

In your theistic monarchy the King is very much wrong because the subject paid what was officially owed, he erred under duress in estimating a future value for his house; it was conceivable that the house would only bring the amount of the debt or less which the King accepted. The subject was wrong for lying, but only for lying not for keeping the amount above the amount owed.The king was malfeasant in a number of ways but egregiously so in concealing the event of the husband’s death from the wife…at that point his intention became malicious and tyrannical, he wished to cause harm.

If the story above is a caveat for what transpires in the Acts of the Apostles with the couple who withhold part of their estate from the new christian community where I suppose St. Peter would be cast as the King, it’s not the same at all. If you really study that hearing, the Holy Spirit is actively engaged and if you look very hard at what is really going on there is that the couple had actually conspired beforehand to deceive, in order to bring a fallatious charge at a later time with the first or second estate against the church in hopes of ruining it’s image and having it’s leaders arrested. Not the same at all.

 

[OneSheep]

In your theistic monarchy the King is very much wrong because the subject paid what was officially owed, he erred under duress in estimating a future value for his house; it was conceivable that the house would only bring the amount of the debt or less which the King accepted. The subject was wrong for lying, but only for lying not for keeping the amount above the amount owed.The king was malfeasant in a number of ways but egregiously so in concealing the event of the husband’s death from the wife…at that point his intention became malicious and tyrannical, he wished to cause harm.

Did he wish to cause harm, or was he instead focused on justice? I am thinking that his reaction to the lie was an automatic response. He did not think in terms of the value of the couple, he was acting on impulse, a reaction to punish an evil act. We all do this, don’t we? So, the king was perhaps intending harm, as you suggest, but the couple, upon lying, were immediately seen by him as having no more value than common mosquitos. The same blindness occurred in those who hung Jesus on the cross. We are all quite capable of such blindness, no?

If the story above is a caveat for what transpires in the Acts of the Apostles with the couple who withhold part of their estate from the new christian community where I suppose St. Peter would be cast as the King, it’s not the same at all. If you really study that hearing, the Holy Spirit is actively engaged and if you look very hard at what is really going on there is that the couple had actually conspired beforehand to deceive, in order to bring a fallatious charge at a later time with the first or second estate against the church in hopes of ruining it’s image and having it’s leaders arrested. Not the same at all.

You are referring to this passage:

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+5%3A1-11&version=NIV

I haven’t really “studied” that hearing, other than having read some commentaries. I did not read anywhere that the couple conspired to deceive even before selling the land, nor did I read anywhere that they had planned to ruin the church in the hopes of having the leaders arrested. Do you have a link to such added details? I’m interested.

Indeed, someone might add these aspects to the story to help justify what Peter did. Would the behavior on the part of the king still be justified if these elements were added to the story? To me: no. All of the assumptions on the part of the king concerning the couple’s motives would be just that, assumptions. Instead, I think the Christian approach is to forgive, not to condemn. We can forgive the king, and we can forgive Peter.

As far as the “Holy Spirit actively engaged”, if the Holy Spirit was actively engaged in the king’s mind, then he would have remembered to forgive, and would have treated the couple firmly, but with mercy. It appears to me that the king was not thinking of forgiveness, he was involved in an act of punishment.

The Holy Spirit involvement would result in love, forgiveness, and the disappearance of fear of the Church and its leadership. The Church stands for Love. Are we to fear love?

And thank you, greatly, for adding your viewpoints here, brumano. This story relates to the first occurrence of the word “church” in the whole bible, and it is a troubling story, a hard way to start. I am suggesting, obviously, that our Catholic approach not be one of justification, but forgiveness.

 

[brumano]

Did he wish to cause harm, or was he instead focused on justice? I am thinking that his reaction to the lie was an automatic response. He did not think in terms of the value of the couple, he was acting on impulse, a reaction to punish an evil act. We all do this, don’t we? So, the king was perhaps intending harm, as you suggest, but the couple, upon lying, were immediately seen by him as having no more value than common mosquitos. The same blindness occurred in those who hung Jesus on the cross. We are all quite capable of such blindness, no?

That we don’t know for certain, but the reason you cited in the first post as a possible justification is still probably the best available for the King; that being that an example would be made for all the kingdom to take notice of, hence precluding future mischief of that sort. The problem with that justification is that the example would be more of a rarity much more than it would be commonplace. The people are not likely to be tempted to go into arrears on their taxes so that they can offer the sale of their homes in lieu of payment with the hope that those sales will yield them profit secure from the King’s reach. So not really much if anything remaining in favor of the King. The King knew by right that the subject was only liable for the amount of the debt; regardless of what the debtor promised because the King is the absolute monarch in his state, it is incumbent upon him to rule and make judgements according to the moral law. The moral law exists, even for a king above any personal arbitrations or contrivances of that law; there’s no relief from this law due to personal impulses.

You are referring to this passage:

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+5%3A1-11&version=NIV

I haven’t really “studied” that hearing, other than having read some commentaries. I did not read anywhere that the couple conspired to deceive even before selling the land, nor did I read anywhere that they had planned to ruin the church in the hopes of having the leaders arrested. Do you have a link to such added details? I’m interested.

Indeed, someone might add these aspects to the story to help justify what Peter did. Would the behavior on the part of the king still be justified if these elements were added to the story? To me: no. All of the assumptions on the part of the king concerning the couple’s motives would be just that, assumptions. Instead, I think the Christian approach is to forgive, not to condemn. We can forgive the king, and we can forgive Peter.

As far as the “Holy Spirit actively engaged”, if the Holy Spirit was actively engaged in the king’s mind, then he would have remembered to forgive, and would have treated the couple firmly, but with mercy. It appears to me that the king was not thinking of forgiveness, he was involved in an act of punishment.

The Holy Spirit involvement would result in love, forgiveness, and the disappearance of fear of the Church and its leadership. The Church stands for Love. Are we to fear love?

And thank you, greatly, for adding your viewpoints here, brumano. This story relates to the first occurrence of the word “church” in the whole bible, and it is a troubling story, a hard way to start. I am suggesting, obviously, that our Catholic approach not be one of justification, but forgiveness.

 

[OneSheep]

That we don’t know for certain…

I’m not positive what you were referring to here, but that the couple was devalued by the king was a matter of human nature. If the king resented the couple’s actions, then in the absence of forgiveness he resented the couple themselves, and thus devalued their existence. He would have thought of the couple as “bad” people or “scum” or some other label. It’s human nature.

… but the reason you cited in the first post as a possible justification is still probably the best available for the King; that being that an example would be made for all the kingdom to take notice of, hence precluding future mischief of that sort. The problem with that justification is that the example would be more of a rarity much more than it would be commonplace. The people are not likely to be tempted to go into arrears on their taxes so that they can offer the sale of their homes in lieu of payment with the hope that those sales will yield them profit secure from the King’s reach. So not really much if anything remaining in favor of the King. The King knew by right that the subject was only liable for the amount of the debt; regardless of what the debtor promised because the King is the absolute monarch in his state, it is incumbent upon him to rule and make judgements according to the moral law. The moral law exists, even for a king above any personal arbitrations or contrivances of that law; there’s no relief from this law due to personal impulses.

Indeed, we are talking about leaders who break moral law. And certainly their is no “relief” from moral law if we are talking about doing what we can to correct the situation, in this case, perhaps, taking the king to trial (not likely to be heard in a monarchy, though). What I am focusing on is forgiveness. Can you forgive the king? Accepting our own capacity for blindness is part of such forgiveness. Are we not all capable of the king’s behavior? But God forgives us. I am also talking here about the manner of our apologetics. Is it not our calling to forgive? So why try to sugar-coat what the king did, to look for a rationalization for his behavior. The king did bad, and we are called to forgive.

I am still interested in the extra detail about the Acts story, please point me to a resource if one is available. And I am also interested in what you think about forgiving Peter rather than trying to justify his actions. Peter was no different than you and I. We are all capable of judging one another, and forgiveness is the antidote.

Acts 5:1-11 is not only a fascinating story, but it is also a curiosity that it appears in the New Testament at all. Isn’t it amazing that the story, wherein is mentioned “church” for the first time, is a story that ends with the people fearful of the hierarchy? Is it possible that someone in the early church thought that the general depiction of the community was too “loose” and added the story to instill obedience? Who knows? And then the commentaries are amazing. One commentary basically said “death is no big deal”. Another essentially said “this was not punishment”.

The commentators, justifying immoral behavior, also give us opportunities to forgive.

 

[brumano]

i’m not positive what you were referring to here, but that the couple was devalued by the king was a matter of human nature.

I meant we don’t know for certain whether he meant to cause harm or if he was focused on justice. Very true that our human nature is fallen and keeps falling in the way that we see and treat our brothers, that fall however was taken at the fall which happened in large part because of a concious agreement with the persuasion of evil, on our part and on the part of our first parents. That second grave sin, if you will, exerts itself in cain as he slew abel, whose life he had so devalued that when he’s asked about his brother by god he seems almost incredulous that anything is amiss. An interesting tie in here to the situation in acts, is that god had to stop cain and convict him; everyone knows the reasons that he had to do that, for one cain would have just gone along his natural way unphased by what he had done, but the other part that ties into acts is that cain also was under temptation that is from “the father of lies” and he actively joined his will to it. So, undeniably this tendency or pull towards devaluing each other, harming each other, sometimes conditionally sometimes unconditionally is within our human nature, but the moral law that would be especially binding on a king (“to whom much is given much will be expected”) is not at all lessened because evil is in our human nature; if anything it is heightened

.
Over, above and in the end, is the mercy and forgiveness in god. We are capable of the king’s behavior and much worse, and you’re totally right we blind ourselves to our own bad actions, sometimes even by accusing others (“thou hypocrite, first remove the log that is in your own eye then you will be able to see to remove the speck that is in your brother’s eye”) but think about the question, can we forgive the king, or anyone, or ourselves if they have not done anything needing forgiveness for, there isn’t a human being that ever needed to be forgiven just for being a human being even with all of our weaknesses, but we are all as you say, in need of forgiveness, evidently then we all must admit the existence of the higher law; you know the one i’m referrring to, the one that we did not write. And by that law we are called to forgive but first we must, say for instance in our own case understand without a doubt that we have wronged and we must have sorrow for, and truly regret having done that wrong; otherwise there is really is no forgiveness.

I am still interested in the extra detail about the acts story, please point me to a resource if one is available. And i am also interested in what you think about forgiving peter rather than trying to justify his actions. Peter was no different than you and i. We are all capable of judging one another, and forgiveness is the antidote.

Acts 5:1-11 is not only a fascinating story, but it is also a curiosity that it appears in the new testament at all. Isn’t it amazing that the story, wherein is mentioned “church” for the first time, is a story that ends with the people fearful of the hierarchy? Is it possible that someone in the early church thought that the general depiction of the community was too “loose” and added the story to instill obedience? Who knows? And then the commentaries are amazing. One commentary basically said “death is no big deal”. Another essentially said “this was not punishment”.

The commentators, justifying immoral behavior, also give us opportunities to forgive.

[/QUOTE]

 

[OneSheep]

Over, above and in the end, is the mercy and forgiveness in god. We are capable of the king’s behavior and much worse, and you’re totally right we blind ourselves to our own bad actions, sometimes even by accusing others (“thou hypocrite, first remove the log that is in your own eye then you will be able to see to remove the speck that is in your brother’s eye”)

I think we are now talking about two different phenomena, though. The blindness you are talking about is the denial that we have done anything wrong when we have. This is a coping mechanism, an attempt to escape guilt and/or shame. The blindness I am talking about is the blindness to the value of a person that happens automatically to us when we hate or resent. This is the blindness of the crowd that hung Jesus.

but think about the question, can we forgive the king, or anyone, or ourselves if they have not done anything needing forgiveness for, there isn’t a human being that ever needed to be forgiven just for being a human being even with all of our weaknesses, but we are all as you say, in need of forgiveness, evidently then we all must admit the existence of the higher law; you know the one i’m referrring to, the one that we did not write. And by that law we are called to forgive but first we must, say for instance in our own case understand without a doubt that we have wronged and we must have sorrow for, and truly regret having done that wrong; otherwise there is really is no forgiveness.

Here, also, we are referring to two different circumstances. I gather that you are referring to God forgiving us, and we know that God forgives unconditionally, but we are not aware of God’s forgiveness until we forgive everyone else.

What I am talking about is forgiving the king. If you are like me, when you heard the story you experienced some resentment toward him. Our calling is not to wait until the king is sorry or regrets his actions, but to do as Jesus did, and forgive unconditionally. It’s tough to do, and probably many people don’t even care about the king, especially if he is a fictional character. This is what makes the real story more pertinent, though. Peter was a real person, and he did some stuff that may trigger our resentment. This, I am saying, is an opportunity to forgive. Did Peter regret what he did? Perhaps. Well, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say “probably”. Or is it even more of benefit of the doubt to say that the story did not occur at all? Perhaps. But regardless whether Peter regretted or not, we are still called to forgive Peter if we resent what he did. What do you think?

 

[brumano]

I hope you’ll forgive me that i’m only starting to catch up on the first post. The only links that i can give you are scriptural. Like you when I first read this passage i was perplexed and i have to say a little discouraged and even horrified. And I also found it very interesting from a biblical study point of view; so in that common interest if we go back into the OT we see something very close to what happens in Acts5, in Joshua ch.7 when Joshua designates Achan who confesses to taking some valuable spoils which was forbidden, from the defeated kingdom of Ai. It’s also a gut wrenching passage to try to come to grips with, Achan is stoned by all the people, including his own parents. While we’re there you might be interested to note what happens to the King of Ai. After all his subjects were slaughtered, he was beaten and “hanged on a tree until sunset” then he was taken down and covered with a large pile of stones.

In the first chapters of Acts there’s more than one thread being developed, the church gathers in the upper room to pray for the Holy Spirit; Pentecost comes, the Apostles go out and begin to preach, the people are more and more overcoming their fear and reservations and being baptized, there’s alot going on. Signs are being done that confirm the church, like the healing of the beggar in ch.3. What has to do with ch.5.1-11 is what the reactions of the authorities who are deadset against the church are trying to do. They’re in a hopeless position, and they know it (ch.4v16 for example) and this is all taking place in the context of prophecy (ch.4v27,28 sum it up) which they themselves know is being fullfilled better then some of the converts know it. All of their attempts to destroy Christ have failed and are now failing against the infant church. So, my theroy about ch.5 is that they decide to take a surreptitious approach to striking at this church, that will damage it in the eyes of the people, and give them a legitimate charge to level against it’s leader with the Roman authority, that was now in a pact with the King of Judea.

 

[OneSheep]

I hope you’ll forgive me that i’m only starting to catch up on the first post. The only links that i can give you are scriptural. Like you when I first read this passage i was perplexed and i have to say a little discouraged and even horrified. And I also found it very interesting from a biblical study point of view; so in that common interest if we go back into the OT we see something very close to what happens in Acts5, in Joshua ch.7 when Joshua designates Achan who confesses to taking some valuable spoils which was forbidden, from the defeated kingdom of Ai. It’s also a gut wrenching passage to try to come to grips with, Achan is stoned by all the people, including his own parents. While we’re there you might be interested to note what happens to the King of Ai. After all his subjects were slaughtered, he was beaten and “hanged on a tree until sunset” then he was taken down and covered with a large pile of stones.

Hey, thanks for “catching up”! I figured you were avoiding the topic. This OT case looks like another opportunity to forgive rather than justify. It doesn’t bother me that the OT says that God told them to do all this stuff. To me, our idea of who God is evolves over time. Perhaps both the OT case you brought up and the story in Acts are examples. You have obviously studied the Bible a lot more than I have to pull up that OT story.

In the first chapters of Acts there’s more than one thread being developed, the church gathers in the upper room to pray for the Holy Spirit; Pentecost comes, the Apostles go out and begin to preach, the people are more and more overcoming their fear and reservations and being baptized, there’s alot going on. Signs are being done that confirm the church, like the healing of the beggar in ch.3. What has to do with ch.5.1-11 is what the reactions of the authorities who are deadset against the church are trying to do. They’re in a hopeless position, and they know it (ch.4v16 for example) and this is all taking place in the context of prophecy (ch.4v27,28 sum it up) which they themselves know is being fullfilled better then some of the converts know it. All of their attempts to destroy Christ have failed and are now failing against the infant church. So, my theroy about ch.5 is that they decide to take a surreptitious approach to striking at this church, that will damage it in the eyes of the people, and give them a legitimate charge to level against it’s leader with the Roman authority, that was now in a pact with the King of Judea.

Interesting theory, and I like your freedom to add details to make it all work for you. What I am saying is that one way to make it work, then, is to do as you did, and justify what Peter did, at the possible expense of some fallacy against Ananias and his wife. Another way to make it work is to simply admit that St. Peter messed up (again) and it is time to forgive him, at the expense of admission that Peter was not always up-to-par in mercy in his dealings with others (like the rest of us).

Let me propose yet another scenario. Scene one: The story occurred roughly the same way they say it. Peter does accuse Ananias of lying to the Spirit, who does die of guilt. This surprises the daylights out of Peter. When word gets back to his wife what happened, she dies of grief.

Scene two: Word gets around about the confrontation, and the deaths, and as strories go, the plot develops to the point that the Saphirra has been brought before Peter, etc. Peter does what he can to stop the rumor, but he is unsuccessful.

Scene Three: It is the early church, and given the rather, well, unsustainable way they fundraised, they need to get more money out of the people to keep going. A NT writer, (was it Luke, or was it someone else?) decides the story might serve the purpose of motivation if or when the Church says something like “the Holy Spirit says to give us more money”. The modified story is kept in Acts for financial purposes. All forgiveable, but now at the expense of “inspired” scripture.

But, as I implied earlier, I find nothing inspiring about a story where at the end the people fear the church. Our Church stands for Love, not tyranny.

In the end, it all works for me best to simply forgive rather than get into the tangle of justification and making up stories. We all make mistakes.

 

[brumano]

Hey, thanks for “catching up”! I figured you were avoiding the topic. This OT case looks like another opportunity to forgive rather than justify. It doesn’t bother me that the OT says that God told them to do all this stuff. To me, our idea of who God is evolves over time. Perhaps both the OT case you brought up and the story in Acts are examples.

It really looks like more of a case to forgive than Acts 5 1-11. Achan was a young man, he found himself in a certain situation and just acted rashly during strong temptation and gave in. Anyway it was a sin more of weakness, under strong temptation and not the culmination of premeditation as I’m pretty sure the couple in Acts were guilty of. You might think as i do from a certain standpoint, that humanly speaking, St.Pete should have just forgiven them too, and just sent them home with their money. First of all, again backtracking, I don’t think this was all St. Peter, I think it was more the Holy Spirit; not only convicting but executing, so we may as well say that we think God should have just forgiven them and let them off as I think you are saying and that would have sat much better with our evolved idea of who God is. Just as another note of interest Acts5,1-11 seems to have a certain overlapping from the OT as you said in the first post, that to you it doesn’t really seem to belong in the New Testament and that’s agreed in that light. Afterall The Lord has visited His people, suffered, died and has risen, He has ascended to His Father; why then should Acts5, 1-11 not play out in one of the scenarios you or I could draw up, one where Mercy and Forgiveness far outrule judgement.

A big part of the answer to this has to be found by understanding who the very first Christians Converts were, how did they think, not so much as how we now think; they were the lost sheep of Israel to whom Jesus Himself says He is sent. These people knew the law and the prophets, they knew the story of their tradition, the Mosaic Law, the History of their Nation. They knew the stories about Noah and the flood, Abraham’s sacrifice, the deliverance from Egypt, King David and the Prophecy of the Messiah and they had abiding belief in all of it, but Christianity was a New Sect and the people had to be able to see God The Father, The God of their Fathers, in it. They had to have the same recognition of the One True God, that is unmistakable through the OT as the Absolute Good, who is opposed by the absolute evil; satan.
Acts5,11-“And a great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard of these things.” This was necessary, absolutely necessary for them to be able to see that this was the True Way and not a Church that could be exploited unknown to God, or was going to be made sport of by the followers of the, other way, the way of the evil one.

 

[OneSheep]

You might think as i do from a certain standpoint, that humanly speaking, St.Pete should have just forgiven them too, and just sent them home with their money.

 

[OneSheep]

Just as another note of interest Acts5,1-11 seems to have a certain overlapping from the OT as you said in the first post, that to you it doesn’t really seem to belong in the New Testament and that’s agreed in that light. Afterall The Lord has visited His people, suffered, died and has risen, He has ascended to His Father; why then should Acts5, 1-11 not play out in one of the scenarios you or I could draw up, one where Mercy and Forgiveness far outrule judgement.

A big part of the answer to this has to be found by understanding who the very first Christians Converts were, how did they think, not so much as how we now think; they were the lost sheep of Israel to whom Jesus Himself says He is sent. These people knew the law and the prophets, they knew the story of their tradition, the Mosaic Law, the History of their Nation. They knew the stories about Noah and the flood, Abraham’s sacrifice, the deliverance from Egypt, King David and the Prophecy of the Messiah and they had abiding belief in all of it, but Christianity was a New Sect and the people had to be able to see God The Father, The God of their Fathers, in it. They had to have the same recognition of the One True God, that is unmistakable through the OT as the Absolute Good, who is opposed by the absolute evil; satan.
Acts5,11-“And a great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard of these things.” This was necessary, absolutely necessary for them to be able to see that this was the True Way and not a Church that could be exploited unknown to God, or was going to be made sport of by the followers of the, other way, the way of the evil one.

It is that line about fear of the Church that gets me to think that this line was an addition dating back to when the Church became the official Church of the Roman empire. If I had belonged to this early community, based on the teachings of a Man who talked of God’s love and forgiveness, and this was the practice of the leader, I would have found more civility elsewhere. If a person preaches love and forgiveness, and then treats people as Ananias and Saphirra were treated, some followers may fear, yes, but others would have seen the hypocrisy and dumped the movement. We must get back to the idea of WWJD. Peter’s actions were far from giving the cloak and the tunic. We can understand Peter’s actions in light of human nature, which is a good nature at that, but to say his actions were Christian, regardless of all the rationalizations and justifications, is not congruent with the gospel. Rationalizing ill treatment of people for the sake of avoiding exploitation is a very slippery slope. It doesn’t work for the king scenario, and it doesn’t work in Peter’s case either. The call is to forgive Peter, because any person who knows the God of Love is going to have their stomach turn at the story of Ananias and Saphirra.

Why would Apologetics not utilize the approach of forgiveness rather than justification? I would love to replace the sidenotes in my Bible with such an approach. Is the Church too proud to say that its leaders mess up sometimes? Perhaps. But such pride is also an opportunity for forgiveness. A sidenote based on the idea that Peter was human and just as capable of error as the rest of us, would set a great example for the Christian community today. Who is to say that sidenotes are not inspired by God too? Wouln’t a sidenote encouraging forgiveness be inspired? I think so.

Let’s face it, we have a church that is being led by someone with a much different approach than our former pope. Some people resented the actions of the former, and some people will resent the actions of our current. To those who resent, we could talk until we are blue in the face about how a particular Holy Father’s actions are justified, but such talk would yield very little. Encouragement of forgiveness, however, always works. Always.

 

[brumano]

would be the Holy Spirit at work. In those days, however, people were used to the whims of tax collectors.

Well, the “let them off” idea would be more in line with the scenario of the adulterous woman. But Peter would not have had to let them off, even if he had forgiven them. Acquittal is not what forgiveness is about. What would have been a fair deterrence for such action in the future? Peter’s disappointment, perhaps? If the couple gave in order to gain status in the community, he could have discredited them by simply telling people what they did, and voicing his disapproval. Such charitable leadership would have set a much better example for the Church’s future. I would love to have heard something about Peter forgiving A. and S.(continued)
Well here we have again a difference, or a deficeit in knowing fully what their intentions were, and going back to the earlier post about what the vested authorities were doing, I don’t think it’s a simple case of changing their minds; but I don’t know what the Holy Spirit knew. We do have to agree though that the church had a leader, and that leader and those leaders, have to make concrete decisions about everything that’s in the scope of their office that they were given and charged with. We can look at what they did and agree with it or not, but something had to be done and what was done is what we see in Acts51-11. If we move ahead in Acts we read of another encounter of the Apostle Peter and James, i think, when they were approached by Simon the Magician who wanted to purchase the powers they had for a sum of money. It ends up St. Peter warns him severely about his evildoings, but Simon the Magician says “pray for me that none of the things you have said will befall me.” I really get the sense that the two Apostle’s walked away from him praying for him, and he was’nt struck down dead. We can see here no compromise with evil, and at the same time the giving of Mercy and Conversion. As I once heard a priest say, there is never Conversion without Mercy, and there is never Mercy without Conversion. But, here again going back, if there’s no distinction made by God between good and evil and what is acceptable to Him and what is not, well the whole concept of God falls apart really; and we wind up really just in this morass of relativism that goes on and on pointlessly which would not reflect a fully Merciful God at all.

Still playing alot of catch up here.

 

[OneSheep]

As I once heard a priest say, there is never Conversion without Mercy, and there is never Mercy without Conversion.

 

[brumano]

brumano;11114104:

I don’t quite understand. I can give mercy without conversion, and I know plenty of others who do also. Mercy can actually lead to conversion, at least that was the case in Les Miserables. Fiction, but I am sure it happens.

Or, was this the priest’s point?

I didn’t read Les Miserables but if has to do with Mercy and Conversion being more of an ongoing interaction between God and us I think that’s probably more often the case than not.
Well it was a pretty involved homily, but I do remember being struck with that statement personally when I heard it; I just feel that there was a deep truth encapsulated in that statement.

 

[brumano]

.

You might still have the same problem with this scenario as you might with the Acts5 account; judgement was made and executed. That fact, their deaths, still take place under this scenario, maybe it just works better for us so we can still come away with a nicer feeling about the church, without having to come to grips with the truths that are meant to be understood by what happens, the only thing I think St. Peter was maybe surprised about was that they went ahead with this plan thinking they were going to pull it off.

Scene two: Word gets around about the confrontation, and the deaths, and as strories go, the plot develops to the point that the Saphirra has been brought before Peter, etc. Peter does what he can to stop the rumor, but he is unsuccessful.

This would have only created doubts about the authority of St. Peter, and the worst thing that could have hit the church at this stage, scandal. Rumors would have been flying and the church would have been knocked off course right from it’s start.

Scene Three: It is the early church, and given the rather, well, unsustainable way they fundraised, they need to get more money out of the people to keep going. A NT writer, (was it Luke, or was it someone else?) decides the story might serve the purpose of motivation if or when the Church says something like “the Holy Spirit says to give us more money”. The modified story is kept in Acts for financial purposes. All forgiveable, but now at the expense of “inspired” scripture

.

The church still raises funds in this unsustainable way, it is from the free will donation of the patrons of the church who love it enough to want to give what they have to see that it goes on beyond the end of their own earthly life. No one was coerced or threatened, in the story in Acts, they were’nt destroyed because they withheld the money they were destroyed because they defied The Holy Spirit. I think that is the lesson that the church was to come away with in Acts5 1-11.

But, as I implied earlier, I find nothing inspiring about a story where at the end the people fear the church. Our Church stands for Love, not tyranny.

In the end, it all works for me best to simply forgive rather than get into the tangle of justification and making up stories. We all make mistakes.

I can find inspiration in this story when taken along with all the other “mighty deeds and wonders” God was confirming on the Church that we read of in Acts. In Acts 5,1-11 I think the message is not fear the church, but have fear that the true god is in this church.

 

[OneSheep]

This would have only created doubts about the authority of St. Peter, and the worst thing that could have hit the church at this stage, scandal. Rumors would have been flying and the church would have been knocked off course right from it’s start.

You may have a point, for that day in age. But Jesus led with humility and service. Was Peter not secure in his position, in his authority? What is scandalous about error? Anyway, what occurred was in itself “scandalous”, certainly by today’s Church standards. Forgiveness was not evident. I found reason to forgive Peter, others believe his actions were from Love. I think its a stretch, but I can respect differences of opinion.

I can find inspiration in this story when taken along with all the other “mighty deeds and wonders” God was confirming on the Church that we read of in Acts. In Acts 5,1-11 I think the message is not fear the church, but have fear that the true god is in this church.

Fear of the true God’s presence, an interesting note. There is a time and place for fearing God, but I am in the position that such fear is not valuable for everyone. It might do good, for example, for a person out of control of his materialistic tendencies to fear that God might do bad things to him if he doesn’t practice more discipline. Does God condemn people? Does God want us to fear him? maybe, for some of us. I used to.

History tells us that the Church, especially its hierarchy, came to be something that people did indeed fear, and for good reason. Are we going back to that someday? I’d rather we not.

 

[brumano]

QUOTE=OneSheep;11140530]You may have a point, for that day in age. But Jesus led with humility and service. Was Peter not secure in his position, in his authority? What is scandalous about error? Anyway, what occurred was in itself “scandalous”, certainly by today’s Church standards. Forgiveness was not evident. I found reason to forgive Peter, others believe his actions were from Love. I think its a stretch, but I can respect differences of opinion.

Fear of the true God’s presence, an interesting note. There is a time and place for fearing God, but I am in the position that such fear is not valuable for everyone. It might do good, for example, for a person out of control of his materialistic tendencies to fear that God might do bad things to him if he doesn’t practice more discipline. Does God condemn people? Does God want us to fear him? maybe, for some of us. I used to.

History tells us that the Church, especially its hierarchy, came to be something that people did indeed fear, and for good reason. Are we going back to that someday? I’d rather

we not.

Certain things remain constant throughout the ages, one is this battle between good and evil, and if we look at the world today as it is we have to be able to recognize that this battle rages on, things as drastic as Acts5,1-11 have happened throughout the ages but these are now plain stories, not scripture. Most people would probably agree that they do happen sometimes. It is still true that the Lord is mercy and goodness itself , and in His goodness he has said “Fear not the one who can kill the body only but then can do no more, but the one who can both kill the body and cast into everlasting hell, him shall you fear.” I point out here that we don’t really know where the souls of the couple in Acts5 1-11are now, and it could be that what was done with them in Acts5 was just in the workings of the spiritual world the thing that had to be done, i don’t know of course.
There’s nothing scandalous about human error, but this entity that is our adversary can turn anything into a scandal, “Wickedness is easily multiplied.” St. Peter did not even touch them physically so I don’t think anyone at the time would have been able to say, look what he did to them; they would have to say look, this was an act of God that was done, there’s no way around that.

This works well for you, but could it be because you yourself have that basic fear or reverence for God that’s just part of your personhood? Some people do not, and some people even knowingly transgress against God, and they will not prevail in the end. we’re not talking in Acts5 about some unfounded obsessive compulsions or worrisome scrupulosity that is not intended by God for us to love Him. We are talking about people who know, and are in allegiance with satan, there’s no getting around that either. Here again, we can’t deny what we can plainly see in history and in our world today, and here again i can’t say i know, but how much of the evil that takes place now is from a deceptive mindset that has “lost all sense of sin” (quoting one, st.peter’s successors) if so is it because we’ve lost that fear of God, and if so perhaps God in His Mercy will reestablish it.
I think there was a long time where the heirarchy did become fearsome and not attentive as much to Mercy and forgiveness, and we have to forgive, not justify in those cases, as well as others in those cases, as well as ourselves in those cases, but no one can be helped by a church that does not teach right from wrong or, that if whatever we do it’s forgivable anyway so just go ahead; no, that’s not merciful that’s not good for our church or for our fellow human beings or for our own soul.

 

[OneSheep]

Certain things remain constant throughout the ages, one is this battle between good and evil, and if we look at the world today as it is we have to be able to recognize that this battle rages on, things as drastic as Acts5,1-11 have happened throughout the ages but these are now plain stories, not scripture. Most people would probably agree that they do happen sometimes. It is still true that the Lord is mercy and goodness itself , and in His goodness he has said “Fear not the one who can kill the body only but then can do no more, but the one who can both kill the body and cast into everlasting hell, him shall you fear.”

You bring up a fantastic point, and this is why I am leaning toward a developmental approach to theology. From the cross, Jesus forgave us (the crowd) unconditionally. He forgave an unrepentant crowd. This shows God’s unconditional love for us, the God who cares for us so much more than a sparrow, the God who has carved us into the palm of His hand. On the other hand, there is a lot to be said for an unrepentant person not being too comfortable with God’s forgiveness.

I know that God forgives Peter, Ananias, Sapphira, and all of those involved because I myself have forgiven all of those involved. It is simply impossible for me to believe in a God who is less forgiving than I am. What I am saying is that forgiveness itself is an act of repentance meant not only for reconciliation, but to additionally free us from the slavery of the compulsion to punish, the compulsion for justice. After all, this is exactly what the crowd wanted, justice, and they hung Jesus in their compulsive automaticity. We all do this.

In a nutshell, the person temporarily incapable of forgiving others can find some comprehensibility in the presentation of a God who is to be feared. Those who have totally forgiven the self and others find that an unconditionally loving and forgiving God is the only depiction of God that makes sense, there is no fear of God at all.

So, the apparent contradictions in the gospel have their purpose. Empathy develops with experience; a person who has not learned to love, empathize, and forgive their enemy, for example, will find solace in the biblical presentation of a God who punishes their enemy. Those who have, at least for the moment, come to empathize with those who exhibit the worst behaviors will relate more to the forgiveness demonstrated from Golgotha.

The Church, therefore, has a place for everyone: A place for those who fear God’s wrath, and a place for those who don’t believe in God’s wrath. A pastoral, inclusive approach would be to show the greatest respect for all spiritual phases.

… I don’t think anyone at the time would have been able to say, look what he did to them; they would have to say look, this was an act of God that was done, there’s no way around that…

I suppose all death can be looked at as an act of God. Are we to believe that the couples’ deaths are somehow related to their deceit? God seems to withhold his hand in cases of behaviors much worse than lying about how much a person is giving the church.

The couple died, and people feared. As I said above, there is a place for such interpretation of God’s will. On the other hand, there is a place for saying that Peter got a little out of hand, and we are to forgive him if we feel any resentment.

This works well for you, but could it be because you yourself have that basic fear or reverence for God that’s just part of your personhood? Some people do not, and some people even knowingly transgress against God, and they will not prevail in the end.

Well, I no longer fear God. I did, but no longer. Reverence, yes. I have a reverence for God as He exists in all people. Do people ever knowingly transgress against God? Can you think of an example? The crowd who sent Jesus to the cross did not know what they were doing, and God was there before them. We can say “they should have known it was wrong”, but that is just the problem. In their blindness, they thought they were doing something right. This is always the case. As St. Augustine found, there are good intentions even in the worst of behaviors.

(continued)

 

[OneSheep]

we’re not talking in Acts5 about some unfounded obsessive compulsions or worrisome scrupulosity that is not intended by God for us to love Him. We are talking about people who know, and are in allegiance with satan, there’s no getting around that either. Here again, we can’t deny what we can plainly see in history and in our world today, and here again i can’t say i know, but how much of the evil that takes place now is from a deceptive mindset that has “lost all sense of sin” (quoting one, st.peter’s successors) if so is it because we’ve lost that fear of God, and if so perhaps God in His Mercy will reestablish it.
I think there was a long time where the heirarchy did become fearsome and not attentive as much to Mercy and forgiveness, and we have to forgive, not justify in those cases, as well as others in those cases, as well as ourselves in those cases, but no one can be helped by a church that does not teach right from wrong or, that if whatever we do it’s forgivable anyway so just go ahead; no, that’s not merciful that’s not good for our church or for our fellow human beings or for our own soul.

We don’t know of the couple’s “allegiance with Satan”. They might have planned to use the withheld funds for the betterment of some others, who knows what, but we don’t really need to get into that kind of speculation. We can take the best-case scenario, and forgive them for that; then we can take the worst-case scenario, and forgive them for that.

Yes, I agree completely, though, about the need for all people to know right from wrong, as described by law. There would be no need for law or 10 commandments if everyone behaved from a standpoint of complete empathy for the other. Do you see what I am saying here? However, such empathy is not the case, our empathy is blocked in certain circumstances, thus the need for strict guidance. Empathy develops but is still blocked sometimes. Temporary blindness is an aspect of our nature.