En steeds dink Stephan Joubert dat dit ’n deug is om op die draad te sit.

Kyk ook Stephan Joubert sit steeds op die draad waarin Chris Visser vir Stephan Joubert vra of ’n mens dan ook op die draad moet sit oor geloofskwessies soos homoseksualiteit.

********

Middelgrond dalk nou die nuwe radikaal | Netwerk24

Deur Stephan Joubert

8 Oktober 2021

Baie instellings het hul samehorigheid verloor. Kerke, skole en ondernemings sukkel om mense betrokke te hou. Die ekstreme is in. Jy is nou regs of links; vir of teen. Dit geld vir als van inentings tot politiek. Dis uit om in die middel te wees, ook op geloofsterrein.

Vir mense aan albei kante van die “vir of teen”-draad is die middelgroep uitverkopers of ruggraatloses. Toe nie! Die middel is die nuwe minderheid én dalk die nuwe radikaal.

Dis presies waar Jesus Sy mense wil hê. Hy het God se koninkryk gebring as die nuwe middelgrond te midde van stagnante godsdienstige en politieke ideologieë weerskante van Hom. Jesus was nooit die lakei van godsdienstige drukgroepe en ideologieë nie. Jesus het God se koninkryk bekend gemaak as die alternatief tot ander koninkryke. Dit was nooit bedoel as ’n aanvulling tot ander magsblokke of die kerk nie. Nog altyd is Jesus­ die alternatief. Hy is die duidelikste te vind by minderhede.

In ons tyd van kerklike verdeeldheid en groepvorming is Hy ons nuwe middelgrond. In Sy genade-spasie is daar plek vir verwondes en woedendes. Sy waarheid is nooit ’n wapen om dié aan weerskante van die draad te verwond nie.

Dis geen grap om in die middel te wees nie, want ekstremisme aan weerskante is fanaties. Dit verg dapperheid om te skuif na ’n sagter middel waar genade en waarheid mekaar komplementeer. Dit vra ’n nuwe­ bekering.

Kommentaar

Dubois du Toit

Middelgrond, per definisie, skuif soos wat polarisering groter of kleiner raak, dit is nie ’n vaste (stand)punt in die gesprek nie en dus ’n slegte teologiese plek om te wees behalwe as jy kies om nie ’n standpunt te hê nie – sou mens dan weer die geëikte stelling kon maak: definieer dan die middel. Jesus het baie duidelik standpunt ingeneem as sy Koninkryk dan as die middelgrond beskou kon word. Genade en Waarheid (vroom- en regsinnigheid) is voorwaar die Evangeliese kern, maar ons kan nie aanspraak maak op die middelgrond bloot in relasie tot die pole nie, dit is relatiwiteit.

Some have said that my being attacked by both  the “right” and the “left” is a sign I am teaching truth because truth is found in the middle between extremes. I appreciate the support, but I don’t think that’s accurate.

First, virtually everyone occupies a SOME middle because there’s nearly always someone to one side or the other on issues who thinks YOU have compromised. Nearly everyone is in a ‘middle’—the question is: which middle is the right one?

Second, Christians should never seek a middle ground for its own sake. The goal should be to take positions that do justice to the Biblical teaching, regardless of whether the world sees you—in its categories– as an extremist or a moderate.

Third, often Christians look like they are taking a “Third Way” not because they are moderates but because, in being biblical, they combine what the world considers extreme positions. So the bible’s view of humanity in the imago Dei is far more optimistic about human nature than Rousseau and yet its view of human sin is far more pessimistic than Hobbes—both at once! It might be fair to call that a third way between major alternatives but it is not a half-and-half way or middle way.

Fourth, when Christians formulated the doctrine of Christ’s person, was it a half-way between Docetism (Christ isn’t really human) and Ebionism (Christ isn’t really divine)? No, Jesus is not half God and half human but fully God and fully human. (Cf. key biblical doctrines—of the Trinity, of justification by faith alone)

The biblical doctrine IS NOT a middle way. It “diagonalizes” the alternatives (C. Watkin). It “subversively fulfills” the alternatives (D. Strange) That is, it fully critiques both and yet fulfills the best aspirations of both at the same time, without merely combining them or borrowing from them. The biblical position is not somewhere on a spectrum between alternatives—it is off the spectrum yet acknowledges the concerns of all the positions.

Fifth, my main criticism of so many Christians on social media who attack from the “Right” or from the “Left” is that they UNKNOWINGLY wed the faith with secular political ideologies. On the right people make idols of individual freedom and of the market–and demonize government. On the left people make idols of sexual expression, racial identity, and the State—and demonize religion and love of country.

Biblical faith sees all of these as good things, but relativizes them before God and his love and grace. All things were made good (Gen 1), all things are fallen (Gen 3)-yet God through Jesus is redeeming all things.

(Tim Keller)