As we begin to wind down our talks and discussion via the internet and blogging, I find it interesting the evolution or the continual expansion and contraction of my middle ground. Jesse and I have talked a bit at lunch about the conclusion of our topic. What is the conclusion? Are we supposed to have a conclusion? Is there a Kantian Morally Universalized right answer to our discussion? Are there winners with the right answer and losers who obviously don't see the strict call of Christ? Maybe. Maybe not. In response to this question we are obviously dealing with a power structure in itself, the power of rationality, the force of logic... to the victor goes the spoils!

With either side, there lies the ideal and there lies the reality. There lies the spiritual aspect of the Sermon on the Mount/and the reality of acting the Sermon on the Mount. We are asking questions like "does God change" in history? Do we irradicate the Old with the New? Is there condemnation of those who profess faith in Christ and still serve a violent regime? Or is there grace? Are there opportunities for those who profess the strict standards of pacifism and yet fail to be active? or is there grace?

There, lies the situation, that we are faced with in the present ie. Hitler is in front of you...you have a gun.... you can...what? or you could have stopped the regime from happening before it got rolling. But you didn't. You are faced with now.

Therefore can there be a conclusion to our story. In telling the story we are retelling the past and looking towards thre future, not knowing what to do in the present.

If we embrace a Theology of Weakness do we also give up our right to be right. To form a conclusive answer. How far do we take our Theology of Weakness?

Well... it is not hopeless. I pray that we continue to have the strength (in our weakness) to move forward and encourage those to ask these questions and come up with their own answers...but also allow grace for those who do not. Peace.