Are we our brothers keeper?

[FollowHim]

in Genesis 4:9 we read;
Then the Lord said to Cain,where is Abel your brother?
He said,I do not know.
AM I MY BROTHERS KEEPER?

1] are we our brothers keeper?

2] in what way are we?

3] is this a duty or an option?

4] how much or to what extent do we do this?

5]are there any boundaries to this?

6] do we risk losing fellowship over this issue?

Guardianship is taking over protection of another who is incapable of it themselves through age or disability.
Our guardianship is over Christs body, the church and keeping its holiness and purity, exercising discipline, encouragement and direction.
Our personal obligation to individuals is as the Lord places this on our hearts.

A good example of this is my wife who has a single lady in her 80's who is borderline coping, with carers 4 times a day who went into hospital and got released but no one knew to where. After tracing her down to a care home, it looks like contact will be made. I would describe this as showing love and reaching out, not guardianship. I have obligations over the care of my mother and keep up contact with her situation and care in the care home she now lives in. If things go wrong I will intervene. Going to hospital, escalating diagnosis of problems has been necessary. The boundary between these layers of obligation and legal requirement are important to recognise and respect. Some situations allow direct intervention, while others ban it.

Take a simple issue. Can the care home restrict access to biscuits with tea in the afternoon because she is putting on weight?
The answer was no, because it is up to the resident to make this choice, as they are competent, except with no longer term memory retention, if offered she will eat, even though it is not good for her. On the other hand a doctor can prescribe medicine to treat a problem, but this does not extend to diet. You may think this does not apply more widely, but it does.

Churches often kept a register of attendance by members in the past. If there was a problem, the church would find out why. In a supportive way this could be seen as an early warning system for help, while for others an intrusion into their freedoms. Certainly from the 1980's this practise stopped. In house groups we try and keep up with everyone, and pray for issues that are occurring, because God answers our prayers. Again this is showing support, in a free way, and helping to address concerns as they crop up.

Some of these changes may well reflect a working class community becoming more middle class and afluent, where crises were not a family being unable to eat or liable to be homeless, but family trauma and needing someone to talk to, which is less structural and more relationship support.

God bless you

 

[John Caldwell]

I don't wish to be contentious but I have the feeling that we are trying to make a sermon of something that is not there. All I am saying is that Cain was saying he is not responsible for what his brother does or does not do. If you want to make up something to preach about looking after each other, there are numerous passages in the New Testament that address this in context.

Very good point. When we try to expound on one verse (like this one) beyond explaining what is stated we end up using Scripture as an illustration for what we want to say. How many of us guys have "expounded on" Proverbs 27:15-16 for our loving wives?

 

[John Caldwell]

Cain is in scripture for several reasons and perhaps that could be several threads worth of discussion.
Here it us safe to say that his envy,and jealousy, were not given as an example of love fulfilling the law.
On a message board you might see from time to time a disturbed individual who gets worked up into a frenzy over a poster who posts different than he does.
He can get so obsessed that although he cannot get close enough to Christian to physically strike him down and commit physical murder,instead he will try and fabricate things to commit slander,and bear false witness against that person.
He tries to murder the persons good name publically , so that in his own mind,he can substitute himself and what he offers,instead....just like Cain and Abel.

I disagree that we can go that far with what is offered in Scripture of Cain, but I agree in principle.

I am a moderator on another forum. Sometimes I see people who have agendas against anyone who disagree with them. They try to defeat them rather than disagree as Christians. They try to harm a person rather than discuss doctrine that is in dispute. Some are known for hatred. Jesus explained that hating someone is the same as murder. It is of the same spirit. Christians do not (or, I should say, should not) interact that way. We take the "slap" and turn the cheek. The world, on the other hand, seeks vindication.

The world says to look out for yourself, to seek justice for yourself, to demand others appease you for wrongs they have done. Scripture, however, says that we are our brothers keeper. It is better to take the slight, to feel the sting on one's cheek and turn the other, to give not only our shirt but our coat. It is placing the other person's needs above our own. This is what Christ did on the cross. And this is what we are to do as well.

The answer to the OP is yes, we are our brothers keeper because we are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves.

 

[marksman]

???
Do you think Cain was trying to edify his brother when he killed him?
Does the narrative not become instructive?
Was Cain motivated by love of his brother?
Do you think that envy, or jealousy might have been involved?
Was Cain addressed by God because he did a good thing?

Are you asking these questions because you don't know?

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

"FollowHim


Guardianship is taking over protection of another who is incapable of it themselves through age or disability.
Our guardianship is over Christs body, the church and keeping its holiness and purity, exercising discipline, encouragement and direction.
Our personal obligation to individuals is as the Lord places this on our hearts.

A good example of this is my wife who has a single lady in her 80's who is borderline coping, with carers 4 times a day who went into hospital and got released but no one knew to where. After tracing her down to a care home, it looks like contact will be made. I would describe this as showing love and reaching out, not guardianship. I have obligations over the care of my mother and keep up contact with her situation and care in the care home she now lives in. If things go wrong I will intervene. Going to hospital, escalating diagnosis of problems has been necessary. The boundary between these layers of obligation and legal requirement are important to recognise and respect. Some situations allow direct intervention, while others ban it.

Take a simple issue. Can the care home restrict access to biscuits with tea in the afternoon because she is putting on weight?
The answer was no, because it is up to the resident to make this choice, as they are competent, except with no longer term memory retention, if offered she will eat, even though it is not good for her. On the other hand a doctor can prescribe medicine to treat a problem, but this does not extend to diet. You may think this does not apply more widely, but it does.

Churches often kept a register of attendance by members in the past. If there was a problem, the church would find out why. In a supportive way this could be seen as an early warning system for help, while for others an intrusion into their freedoms. Certainly from the 1980's this practise stopped. In house groups we try and keep up with everyone, and pray for issues that are occurring, because God answers our prayers. Again this is showing support, in a free way, and helping to address concerns as they crop up.

Some of these changes may well reflect a working class community becoming more middle class and afluent, where crises were not a family being unable to eat or liable to be homeless, but family trauma and needing someone to talk to, which is less structural and more relationship support.

God bless you[/QUOTE]

Guardianship is taking over protection of another who is incapable of it themselves through age or disability.
Our guardianship is over Christs body, the church and keeping its holiness and purity, exercising discipline, encouragement and direction.
Our personal obligation to individuals is as the Lord places this on our hearts.

A good example of this is my wife who has a single lady in her 80's who is borderline coping, with carers 4 times a day who went into hospital and got released but no one knew to where. After tracing her down to a care home, it looks like contact will be made. I would describe this as showing love and reaching out, not guardianship. I have obligations over the care of my mother and keep up contact with her situation and care in the care home she now lives in. If things go wrong I will intervene. Going to hospital, escalating diagnosis of problems has been necessary. The boundary between these layers of obligation and legal requirement are important to recognise and respect. Some situations allow direct intervention, while others ban it.

Take a simple issue. Can the care home restrict access to biscuits with tea in the afternoon because she is putting on weight?
The answer was no, because it is up to the resident to make this choice, as they are competent, except with no longer term memory retention, if offered she will eat, even though it is not good for her. On the other hand a doctor can prescribe medicine to treat a problem, but this does not extend to diet. You may think this does not apply more widely, but it does.

Churches often kept a register of attendance by members in the past. If there was a problem, the church would find out why. In a supportive way this could be seen as an early warning system for help, while for others an intrusion into their freedoms. Certainly from the 1980's this practise stopped. In house groups we try and keep up with everyone, and pray for issues that are occurring, because God answers our prayers. Again this is showing support, in a free way, and helping to address concerns as they crop up.

Some of these changes may well reflect a working class community becoming more middle class and afluent, where crises were not a family being unable to eat or liable to be homeless, but family trauma and needing someone to talk to, which is less structural and more relationship support.

God bless you

Thank you for a positive and instructive post of Christian love and watch/care that is on topic, and helpful.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Are you asking these questions because you don't know?

The questions are asked in reference to earlier responses given. In answering each question, you answer your own question..post36

 

[marksman]

The questions are asked in reference to earlier responses given. In answering each question, you answer your own question..post36

Post 36 was your post, not mine.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Post 36 was your post, not mine.

Yes it was. Which poster was it addressed to?
It looks like those questions were a response to someone.

 

[John Caldwell]

Yes it was. Which poster was it addressed to?
It looks like those questions were a response to someone.

It was addressed to marksman:

I don't wish to be contentious but I have the feeling that we are trying to make a sermon of something that is not there. All I am saying is that Cain was saying he is not responsible for what his brother does or does not do. If you want to make up something to preach about looking after each other, there are numerous passages in the New Testament that address this in context.

???
Do you think Cain was trying to edify his brother when he killed him?
Does the narrative not become instructive?
Was Cain motivated by love of his brother?
Do you think that envy, or jealousy might have been involved?
Was Cain addressed by God because he did a good thing?

 

[Jay Ross]

Perhaps, we should consider that in this second encounter with God, God again offered salvation to Cain, but Cain did not recognise God's words as an offer of salvation, because he did disobey them. God still offered salvation to Cain, irrespective of the sins that Cain had committed, but it was Cains choice as to whether or not he responded to them. while sin was crouching at his door to entrap him.

So often we focus on the "sins" in view rather that on God's redemptive grace on display.

Shalom

 

[marksman]

Yes it was. Which poster was it addressed to?
It looks like those questions were a response to someone.

Don't know.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Now we see that we are our brothers, keepers.

If professed brothers drift into doctrinal error, how far do we go to pull them out?