Monthly Archives: November 2013

Entitlement V

26 Tuesday Nov 2013

Posted by in Christ and Culture, Christ and Economic, Christ and the Politico-Economic, Economics, Human Experience and Theology

≈ Comments Off on Entitlement V

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Selfishness is concern for self to the detriment of others.  Not all entitlements spring from selfishness.  With this said, my comments that follow zone in on those that do spring from selfishness.  To receive entitlements is really to take from others.  Note that I said “take” and not “receive.” There is no “giving” in this type of system. Entitlement states, “I deserve so someone take it from others and give it to me.”  Robin Hood is the hero of the poor: take from the rich, give to the poor.  The question for the poor is what attitude should I have?

This is a heart matter for a strong and tough person, a trusting and committed person.  These poor must to strong and tough because they are often exploited and they know it; they are also trusting and committed because they entrust themselves to the Lord Jesus and remain committed in that trust.  For these poor to refuse the entitled attitude of “I deserve it” they can look to the OT example of negative rights, as I noted in my earlier post on entitlements: what they might say, then, following this OT example, would be, “those rich will not (are not entitled) to oppress us.”  This brings in another set of people (the rich) and only seeks to remove the oppression done to the poor but does not seek to take things from the rich. Simply, the rich will not take from the poor and the poor will not take from the rich.

The OT clarifies, “You must not deal unjustly in judgment: you must neither show partiality to the poor nor honor the rich. You must judge your neighbor by righteousness” (Lev. 19:15; translation mine from the Hebrew, italics mine).  Look at how close Jesus repeats this Levitical principle but in different words: “Do not judge according to appearance but with righteous judgment you must judge” (Jn. 7:24).  Notice all the negatives (nor, not, neither) and how Leviticus and Jesus disavow judging people according to their socio-economic status.  Instead, both Yahweh (in Leviticus) and Jesus (in John) juxtapose their disagreement with this judging according to appearance (poor or rich or simply how someone looks) with how to judge properly, that is according to righteousness.  Of course, we must know what “righteousness” is to know how to judge.  It is clear from Scripture that righteousness, tsideqah in Hebrew, points to the teaching of the Law, the Torah, and also to Jesus’ complements to it.  And here, to avoid controversy, let’s assume that “righteousness” focuses on the moral elements in the Law and in Jesus’ teaching.  

But, if we look at people’s conformity to Jesus’ teaching and God’s law as the standard by which we judge, we do not simply see someone’s socio-economic status and conclude that they are entitled or disentitled.  We neither see the rich and say, just because they are rich, that they should give their wealth away (disentitled to their wealth) nor do we see the poor and say, just because they are poor, you should be entitled to more wealth.  And remember to be entitled (to other people’s stuff) implies taking from someone else, which then implies some measure of force.  

What is particularly dangerous about entitlement is that those who have this entitlement attitude understand themselves as holding the moral high ground.  But not having stuff and thinking you should have it and wanting someone to take it implies immorality, both in the force necessary to make this occur and in the envy that undergirds it. Simply “not having” does not produce moral currency (to put them on the high moral ground) that sets someone above “those that have.”  Look what comes together in this thinking: “I deserve, someone take it and give it to me, and having the moral high ground justifies coercion, force, or even violence.”  Following the example of our Lord Jesus, it is obvious that having the moral high ground does not put one in a position to take or engender an attitude of taking but, rather, to give and engendering an attitude of giving.  Jesus holds the absolute highest moral high ground there is.  Yet He deprives Himself of that lofty purity to come to earth to give Himself, making others pure: “He became poor so that we might become rich.”  

B. T. Scalise

The Church’s Rushed Openness in the Way of Intimacy

22 Friday Nov 2013

Posted by in Christ and Culture, Christian Ministry, Human Experience and Theology

≈ Comments Off on The Church’s Rushed Openness in the Way of Intimacy

Tags

, , , , , ,

Pastors, Christian Leaders, Professors,

We must stop rushing openness and intimacy in the church.  Human relationships go through a natural process during which we reveal ourselves more and more to those we know.  God does this too.  He did it over centuries and millenia during the writing of the Scriptures; God was slowing revealing Himself incrementally.  Jesus, too, revealed Himself to His disciples slowly over three years.  Why, then, do we promise people openness and transparency as an almost immediate expectation if people will visit our church? Why do we push those in our churches to feel as though they should be the warmest and most open people when visitors meet them? Or like the first night of the small group, each one in the group is expected to share their life story. We promise those who are visiting our churches that they will be greeted in warmth, in openness, and in love, to paraphrase one recent church advertisement I heard. I like these and think these sound wonderful, at least in theory.  But relationships don’t work like this and if we consider how Yahweh and Jesus incrementally revealed themselves in their relationships to those closest to them we will find that we are not mimicking either Jesus or Yahweh by rushing openness.  A large aspect of relating is gradual revealing and it is by this revealing that we cultivate intimacy.  But why is it that it feels so artificial when there is no gradual revealing but just a rushed open box? That rushed openness we expect out of our people creates the artificiality.  Friendship is childlike, it just happens organically and certain persons gravitate more towards some than others, but this “natural gravitation” does not prevent the general cultivation of love towards those who are not naturally attracted to one another.  Instead there is a particular love to those we reveal ourselves to and a general love in the Spirit for those who worship the Lord Jesus: we are one with them even if I don’t know them personally.

So this is the irony, in the church’s hasty desire to cultivate intimacy and openness among its members, the church is undermining the very foundation of that priceless intimacy: that is, a gradual process of persons coming to know one another through gradual revealing to one another.

Our churches should have authentic persons.  Forcing openness too quickly creates artificiality.  We must be true to Christ and true to one another.  God revealed Himself to us gradually and we are knowing Him more and more gradually through time as we relate to Him.  Rushing openness in those we oversee is intuitively unnatural, unlike how God revealed Himself, and stands in the way of intimacy.  Let us put on Christ and follow in His example, knowing we have come to know Him but that we incrementally know Him more, and so reveal ourselves as others reveal themselves to us, naturally, discerningly, and in its own time, not forced, not out of season.

B. T. Scalise

Multiple level Return on our Investment . . . for Christ?

20 Wednesday Nov 2013

Posted by in Christ and Culture, Christ and Economic

≈ Comments Off on Multiple level Return on our Investment . . . for Christ?

Tags

, , , ,

My wife posed a wonderful phrase tonight, “With God, we get multiple return on our investments.” This brought to mind the parable of the talents: it comes across striking (Matt. 25:14 ff.): why call the man who failed to invest his money wicked? Would you call someone who only saved the money loaned them—but did not invest it—wicked? Jesus spent significant time speaking on the dangers of money but the parable of the talents instructs how to handle money properly.  A talent was worth many years’ wages, on an average level job’s income.  In Acts 20:35, Luke cites Paul, who quoting Jesus says, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” So Jesus, in Matthew, tells us not to give the money entrusted to us by the Lord but to invest it so that we can multiply it.  But in Acts, Jesus tells us to give, and that giving would include money, because this giving is better than receiving.  But isn’t investing our money, so that we get a return, receiving? When we also recall that Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, says, “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal (Matt. 6:19 – 20),” we are further perplexed.

Is there a way to harmonize these teachings; there is. Some of the most voracious givers are those who steward their money well—mainly because they have the money to give because of their sound governing of it.  To have something to give as a regular way of life is to practice the wisdom of the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14 ff.).  And a way of life marked by regular giving enjoys the blessing of Acts 20:35 as part of every day life. And what is part of this blessing? No doubt it is the joy we receive meeting needs but not to be overlooked, which Paul makes clear elsewhere (Phil. 4:17), is that giving is one way we store up treasure in heaven (Matt. 6:19 – 20). Further, this very giving is not only giving to others but also, when done with a proper posture towards, giving to God (Matt. 25:40).

When we live for the kingdom of Christ, we get multiple return on our investment: we get fiscal return by wise investing (Matt. 25:14 ff.), that fiscal return enables a giving way of life so incurring that psychological and spiritual blessing of joy by meeting needs (Acts. 20:35), that same action of giving, when not done for the purposes of being seen and recognized and done for the glory of the Father, purchases for us treasure in heaven (Matt. 6:19 – 20), and we gladly then give to God (Matt. 25:40).  Is it not obvious why mis-stewarding money is considered wicked?

B. T. Scalise

What’s Wrong with the Way Christian Ministries’ Leaders often Treat their Workers? Part II

18 Monday Nov 2013

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on What’s Wrong with the Way Christian Ministries’ Leaders often Treat their Workers? Part II

Luke 22:24 – 27:

“A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves” (ESV).

Jesus offers an insightful point about how those in power and authority also gain the status of “benefactors.” It comes from the exercise of authority and “lording over others.”  But Jesus says this is not how it should be with fellow Christians (“but not so with you”). Let’s look at what “lording over” conveys.

Lording over is evidently connected to what authority means, which Jesus shows by speaking about them in the same breath: “lording over . . . those in authority.” Authority also means “right (clear from the Greek exousia)” and so “lording over” is someone’s right and as a result of lording over others (i.e., having servants or employees as part of their “right”) these overlords are likewise titled benefactors, i.e., those who benefit the people.  Doesn’t there seem to be a contradiction here? How is it that those who I have to serve I also think of as being my benefactor? Shouldn’t those being served, the “lords,” think of those serving them as their benefactors rather than vice versa?  Bear in mind that what Jesus has in view is not some free market system where we willingly choose to work for someone; it is better to think of how we have to pay taxes.  We don’t have a choice (beyond voting for our leaders but even democracy is a modern convenience unavailable at Jesus’ time) but we must pay.

I think the contradiction is that those served should be thankful for the servants to “lord over” but the reverse happens instead: the servants become thankful for their over lords.

Then Jesus goes on to show that the one sitting at the table is greater than the one who serves at the table.  In many contexts in the Gospels, it is Jesus sitting at the table.  But Jesus does not act like these “overlords.”  Instead the “great one, Jesus,” serves those he leads rather than exercising lordship over them.  The disciples share in the benefits of Jesus’ leadership because Jesus’ leadership aims to better the disciples, both by demonstrating how to live and by passing His teaching to them.

In short, Jesus works while the disciples receive rather than the disciples work while Jesus receives.  Jesus is the true Benefactor demonstrable by how He reverses what the overlords do: overlords use power and receive from their servants and gain the title benefactors but Jesus works and gives for His servants and so He is the true Benefactor of a more excellent way.

Is Jesus trying to convert His disciples thinking by, first, laying out that clearly the person who reclines is greater than the one serving but, then, by introducing the next point with “but” seeks to demonstrate how Jesus’ own example contradicts that logic? Jesus is great and so fits the imagery of the one reclining at the table but then Jesus demolishes the assumption that the “great one reclining” should be served by saying, “But I am among you as one who serves.”  Thus whoever wants to be great is both great and serving, not great because he is served, like overlords dominating their people.

B. T. Scalise

Women, child bearers & God, Spirit Creator: a harmony of creation

17 Sunday Nov 2013

Posted by in Creating, Exegesis and Interpretation, Theological Interpretation

≈ Comments Off on Women, child bearers & God, Spirit Creator: a harmony of creation

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

1 Peter 1:3 “. . . [God] who beget us again . . .”

Woman is not the birther in 1 Peter 1:3 but, rather, God the Father, the One after whom woman’s giving birth is patterned.  God, on the one hand, creates all things and so births all things whereas, on the other hand, women are the physical medium of this spiritual birthing.

Where is the spirit or who can say from where the soul arrives? No medical procedure will ever turn up some substance called the spirit or soul.  Only the Spirit births spirits; only the Holy Spirit births spirits of endless variety.

Humans think too lowly and narrowly about the nature of birth even if calling birth a real miracle.  Mircle, indeed, for as many humans have a spirit, there are likewise that many miracles.  Birth is an interruption in the flow of time and space for at this moment God intervenes, heaven meets earth, and a divine kiss happens with a new spirit born alive.  Women contain in themselves a unique presencing of God while He weaves His creational work of birthing a new spirit together with the woman’s body’s physical weaving of a new baby.

It is truly amazing that God does not fully override personality qualities of the parent when birthing this new spirit.  No, God incorporates, by means of genes and DNA, some personality qualities of the parents (parent spirits) into the newly born baby (newly born spirit).  What freedom is this that God partners with woman (and man) in making this new baby (spirit).  But all parents know that there is something different about their children, differnt from them.  What is this we see in these personalities of our children that are so different from our own? Are we not seeing a glimpse of God, the Orginator of all human personality?

Woman, giving birth, do a dance with the Divine, sub-creating with Him. Women are not the source of the new creation of lives but are bearers of miracles, coordinated with God, even as David said (Ps. 139:13):

For you formed my inward parts;

you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.

What’s Wrong with the Way Christian Ministries’ Leaders often Treat their Workers?

15 Friday Nov 2013

Posted by in Christian Ministry, Economics

≈ Comments Off on What’s Wrong with the Way Christian Ministries’ Leaders often Treat their Workers?

Tags

, , , , ,

What’s wrong with Christian Ministry’s “Employee/Employer” relationships. Have you every wondered why it is okay for Christian ministries to “employ” people without paying those people? This question should raise some eyebrows and maybe even more objections so some clarifying comments need laid out. First, the question above does not impugn genuine volunteer work. Any organization, church, institution, business, or government can ask for volunteers—no objection to that. But asking for volunteers for iterative or non-regular activities is quite different from structuring an entire institution around free labor as regular practice (volunteer work). Essential to recognize is that hoping for volunteers is very different than expecting volunteers by the framework of the organization.

For instance, imagine a ministry, Christians for God: This ministry runs its day-in, day-out activities by paid employees but also by non-paid occasional volunteers. Sometimes this ministry needs more work done after hours and so opens up extra work to the paid employees by offering both paid hours and accepting volunteer hours for the work. In this way, whether the workers get paid or volunteer is decided upon by the one who works, not by the one asking for the work. This is all well and good and might be the best situation. However, if the ministry cannot afford to pay these after hours of work, it could still ask for volunteers to get the work done so long as it is occasional, not obligatory, and not presented through manipulative “guilt-tripping.” Most people readily understand “volunteer work” as supererogatory—i.e., beyond the call of duty—but why is it that many Christian organizations turn what should be supererogatory (working without pay) into what is obligatory?

When a Christian institute makes working for free obligatory to work for them at all, the question all Christians must ask is, “How are you Christians, who run that institute, submitting to Christ by establishing a work setting that requires free labor you leading Christians?” No one is calling into question the nature of volunteer work or the hearts of the ones who volunteer. We are asking, “Is there something immoral and indicating non-submission to Christ for Christian leaders to expect free labor for themselves?” In most of these cases, how these Christians who work for such an institute get paid is by raising support. So others, not the leaders of the institute, fund these Christians. What is obvious is that those funding and those being funded are submitting to Christ; what is not obvious is how the leaders are submitting to Christ. These leaders get free labor for themselves, have authority over those working for free for them, and establish a non-prosperous business/institute that is not self-sustaining.

These leaders do not have the right to say that they pay their employees because using the language of “pay” implies producing a product or service from which income is collected in excess to the cost of running the institute/business. Further, really it is those are voluntarily funding the employees that could claim to “pay” these employees. It is better to say that these volunteer funders are simply funding these employees since they are not “paying” them as compensation for some service or product they’ve consumed.

Let’s pull this all together:

1) The volunteers (volunteer employees) for the institute are clearly submitting to Christ because they are freely willing to take on the hardship by raising support.

2) Those funding these volunteer employees are submitting to Christ because they are freely funding and not receiving a product or service in return.

3) Those leaders of the institute’s receive free labor because they are not paying the volunteer employees; these leaders receive free income from the produce of the volunteer workers (and amazingly, these leaders sometimes take salaries); these leaders get to have authority over the volunteer workers although not compensating these workers; and these leaders use their authority to continue to propagate an unsustainable and non-prosperous ministry model built on the back of “free labor” of willing devote Christians.

The Christian leaders get to tell the volunteer employees what to do, expect them to work for free for them, get to benefit from the produce (fruit) and money the volunteer employees produce meanwhile the volunteer employees do not share in those benefits, and perpetually uphold and so perpetually benefit from this non-prosperous and unsustainable model.

I might be confused but didn’t Jesus say, “The kings of the Gentiles domineer over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves (Luke 22:25 – 26) . . . and I am among you as One who serves (Lk. 22:27).

Next time I’ll unpack this in view of what I’ve said above.

B. T. Scalise

Reflections on Love

10 Sunday Nov 2013

Posted by in Human Experience and Theology

≈ Comments Off on Reflections on Love

Tags

, , , , , ,

To love is to allow choice.  Whether our understanding of God leans more towards sovereignty or freewill, most will agree that Adam and Eve had a measure of freedom that we today do not (likely) enjoy.  But what we no doubt have in common with Adam and Eve is the human situation: namely, we all have been in relationships where we are not given freedom by those overseeing us or relating to us.  To this we respond with frustration and usually the intuition that this “just isn’t right.”  Few would say that those who “control us” also love us. And even if we are convinced that this “controlling person” truly does love us, we will likely have to explain to others and carefully emphasize that that person does love us despite their inclination to try to control.  So what does this intuition and need to explain point to? That control is inherently unloving.  This is a strong statement but should this be doubted just remember, why that feeling that we need to explain how this person does love me although they (try to) control me.

For those of us focuses on God’s sovereignty in our theology, note that this intuition is not nullified by supposing that God controls and rules all things.  First, professional theologians who lean calvinistic—but not all see it this way—have developed what is called compatibilistic freedom.  There are two versions of it (and maybe more in more technical theology): 1) that we truly make choices and we would not make choices otherwise than the ones we make and 2) that we truly make choices but we could not make choices other than the ones we make.  Both of these ways of seeing freedom are a far cry from what most intuitively think freedom is.  The point of this paragraph is that even sovereignistic theologians have felt the strength of this intuition—and know  (appearance of) the implied ability humans have to make choices demonstrable in Scripture—to such a degree that they have attempted to “make compatible” freedom with sovereignty.

Therefore, that attempting to control is unloving stands across a great span of theological opinions. What we have done here is begin our theologizing (thinking about God) with our human experience.  So now, let’s take our human experience and bring it into conversation with Scripture: we are not trying to make Scripture support the point above so much as trying to find if Scripture does support it.  If control is inherently unloving, the Genesis narrative surely makes it look as though God gave Adam and Eve choice, even set things up to guarantee it.  God comes and goes (walking with Adam in the cool) and so is not “overbearing” by making His presence known at all times—even though He could do this should He have wanted to. Then, the garden is set up with options: so many trees to pick to eat from with God saying, “You can eat of any tree of the garden . . . .” This, of course, implies true choice, what philosophers call significant freewill. But the options are not limited to merely choices that would not risk relationship with God—said differently, not limited to merely good choices.  This is where I’ll speculate a bit: God is the author, yes, very definition of the Good.  Thus all things good are in the domain and rule of God.  Should God have limited Adam and Eve’s choices to merely good ones, this would have been a control designed to guarantee their compliance with His worship, without them even knowing that they could not worship Him.  Thus God also offered and set up an option of evil, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  Yes, God even permitted a tempter to enter humanity’s world: the devil.  God offered choices among the trees, offered choices between good and evil, and allowed an evil being to make evil’s case, to sell rejecting God, to show that there was really a choice whether to remain with God or not. With this said, the Genesis narrative poses circumstances that show design concerned with freedom of choice; and it is this freedom of choice He gives that is part of the foundation for humans to love.

Among human relationships, we must always ask, “Who am I trying to control?” “Am I telling myself that I am controlling for their good?” “Couldn’t God say this by setting up the garden with only good choices?” “And if God allows humans to have sweeping freedom in the garden, how can I steal freedom from another person—after all, if anyone has the right to control, it would be God not me?” The more we try to control, the more difficult cultivating love in our relationships will be.

B. T. Scalise

Entitlement IV

09 Saturday Nov 2013

Posted by in Christ and the Politico-Economic, Exegesis and Interpretation

≈ 1 Comment

Returning to the point that Paul was unwilling to command ‘giving’ let’s do a bit more unpacking: “. . . see that you excel in this act of grace also.  I say this not as a command . . .” (2 Cor. 8:7-8)  He then goes on to note that Christ became poor so that Christians can become rich and implies we ought to mimic this (2 Cor. 8: 9 – 10).  That he does not command this is no surprise since only several verses later St. Paul states, “Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor 9:7).  If Paul commanded it, the giving would be under compulsion; if Paul commanded it, it would no longer be gracious giving but obligatory paying–it would be difficult to call obligatory paying an “act of grace”  (2 Cor. 8:6).  The point is that we should give because we want to–not because we have to–and we must recognize that mimicking Christ requires such “willing giving.”  Everyone who names themselves a disciple cannot say, “But what if I don’t want to?”  Certainly we may feel like this from time to time but, in such cases, we pray, give thanks, and renew our view to our Master, the Christ, Jesus our Lord.  Notice, Paul’s logic: “for God loves a cheerful giver.”  And if God loves this and we love Him then we are inclined and desire to please Him (as our loving Father), approve cheerful giving (as God does), and enjoy seeing other do the same (just as God does and loves seeing us do).  It follows, then, that fellow Christians who are able to provide are not entitled to ignore the needs of fellow Christians.  But needful fellow Christians cannot covet and demand, only receive.  Those rich Christians are not entitled to give begrudgingly or out of compulsion, only freely and cheerfully “for the Lord loves a cheerful giver.”   Accordingly, those Christians who have not cannot compel those Christians who have to give–or else giving would no longer be giving (Rom. 4:4).  All of these Christians, whether Christians who have or those who have not, places them solely before the throne of the Lord Jesus: how should I act, as a Christian, as I relate to the Lord? This is the first and most important question inasmuch as the Greatest command has preeminence (Love the Lord with all mind, soul, strength).

Hebrews 6:4

05 Tuesday Nov 2013

Posted by in Difficult Texts, Exegesis and Interpretation, Hebrews

≈ Comments Off on Hebrews 6:4

Tags

,

Regarding Hebrews 6:4 – 6 Here are some textual points with interpretive inlays.  My translation below is from the Greek and clarifies, in English, the relationship of the verbs (participles) in this long sentence.
1) those participating in the life of God (v.4 – 5) can fall away
2) whatever “restore them again to repentance” means–personally I like the points about jewish culture and the temple practices, specifically returning to blood sacrifices rather than trusting Jesus’ blood sacrifice of Himself, at the time as the historical cultural backdrop here because the book is written to Jews likely in Jerusalem–once a full fledged rejection of the life of repentance based on the crucifixion occurs, there is no way to return to God because this was the only way to get to Him in the first place.  Sure, if we are Jews living in Jerusalem at 65 A.D. then our attempt to  be “restored to repentance” might be the action of bringing a blood sacrifice to the temple. But if we are secular Americans today, our rejection of the faith might look like a return to the party life, perhaps thinking this is the way to “make the most of life.”
3) Additionally on this last point, the question remains whether the person cannot ever return once they fall away; a quick reading of the text might suggest this; however, I think the text is more fully pointing to that while in this “falling away status” they cannot return to repentance.  Take this translation for this point, paying attention especially to the tenses (time) I have in parenthesis next to each bolded verb below:
“For to restore (literally, “to be restoring”: present) to repentance again—those who, to their own eyes, are crucifying (present) again the Son of God and disgracing Him (present)—is impossible in regard to those who once were enlightened (past) and tasted (past) the gifts of the heavenly realm and became (past) sharers of the Holy Spirit and tasted (past) the good word of God and the powers of the age to come.”  
I hope it is clairvoyant that the crucifying and disgracing is happening presently and at the same time as the impossibility of the restoring. So when presently crucifying again and disgracing Jesus they cannot be restored.  There is a time line here; this person is someone who had tasted and was enlightened but presently is disgracing Jesus and so it is impossible for him/her to repent.
“to restore to repentance again”: I would point out here that it does not say “to restore to repentance ever again”
“who once were enlightened”: the word “once” here could equally mean “at one time” or “once for all.”  Either way, there would not have to be a “new enlightenment” for a fallen believer to take up and accept and trust the knowledge formerly imparted by the Holy Spirit.
“to their own eyes”: This shows us that those who abandon the faith after first accepting it are saying that Jesus got what He deserved.  It is not that somehow Jesus is out there (metaphysically) getting re-crucified every time someone loses his or her faith.  The “to their own eyes” means in their attitude or according to their understanding.  This person would have believed in Jesus at some point and learned of Jesus’ unjust crucifixion at the hands of those who did not believe in Jesus and these thought He deserved to die. Think of this person standing with John and Jesus’ mother during the crucifixion, watching in sorrow. But when this person falls away he or she joins the side of the crucifiers, saying effectively, “I once was with those sorry about Jesus’ death but now I do not believe in Him and so, hand me the spear and give me the nails, I’ll pound them in
 and stab Him because He is only getting what he deserves.”
4) Some people use their theology to decide what this passage should say; I am trying to avoid that.  For instance, I generally believe in eternal security (that you cannot lose your salvation) but I am not so arrogant as to silence this text by making it fit my theology.  The word “fall away” literally means “apotasize” or “to commit apostasy” and so, unless we want the author of hebrews describing something that could never happen, but making it seem like it could, we should accept its possibility, even if it does not fit with the rest of our theology.
I would point out that, in day to day interactions, we might readily feel deceived or misled if someone we trust presented something to us as though it were a real possibility when it was not. Imagine this: “If you speed and get caught, you are going to jail.”  Then imagine the anxiety you would have once pulled over only to find out that your “trusted friend” was just making up a worse case scenario to get your attention.  We might credit this “trusted friend” with true care but the trustworthiness of that friend will be in question if their trustworthiness is not already downgraded from this one situation.  Simply, the use of hyperbole will not wholly satisfy the notion that our “trusted friend’s” tactic was on the level.  But, then again, who ever said God was safe or “on the level?”
5) This is one of the most difficult passages in the Bible to interpret so we should not feel too much pressure to have to agree with anyone but, rather, measure and think through the reasons for ourselves.  But do not just pick whatever version you might like best (this is basically to play god with God’s word: dangerous) but weigh the interpretations according to their convincing reasons and arguments.
6) lastly, the book of Hebrews is packed with threats about the possibility of losing one’s salvation (e.g., Heb. 10, 4, etc.) and so the real possibility of it occurring and being described in Heb. 6 would fit the broader context well. I do not find categorizing the whole Book of Hebrews as “sermonic” or “homiletical” as solving the problems these threats pose.  This categorization is designed to explain why all of the threats are just “hypothetical” and so cannot happen.  This is not convincing to me because of the terrible seriousness the threats impose.  And let’s forget the human author of Hebrews for the moment.  So God the Spirit says, “As I swore in my wrath, they [the disobedient] shall not enter my rest” (Hb. 4:3) . . . Let us therefore strive to enter that rest so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience (4:11).”  But really, following the “hypothetical threat logic” above I find unconvincing, the Spirit is saying by way of this, “I am only saying this to make sure you make it and do not fall by the way side even though I swore an oath not to let the disobedient enter it.”  So now God can swear and oath and not mean it; this is more trouble them its worth to affirm eternal security because if I have to pick which one is more central to God’s character and is more consistent with the Scriptures, I am going with God’s goodness (and inability to deceive or do evil) over eternal security ever time.  There would be no such possibility for eternal security, after all, if God were not good in the first place.
And for those who might find my citation of Hebrews. 4:3 objectionable because you might think that that text only applies to those from the book of Numbers (14, 20), I would point out that the author of Hebrews is citing that passage in Numbers in the first, then citing Ps 95 (which is citing Num) which holds out the fact that people can still not enter God’s rest due to disobedience, and then the author of Hebrews, frighteningly, applies those OT texts to the church.
B. T. Scalise
Technical Greek stuff here (so ignore it if its a bore!):
1) And for those Greek scholars out there, the difference in the aspect (following aspect theory) between the present and the aorist tense would still indicate a similar conclusion.  The emphasis of the present tense following aspect theory would be on its continuous, and so current, nature: “For to be restoring (continuous/imperfective aspect) to repentance again—those who, to their own eyes, are crucifying again the Son of God and disgracing Him (both continuous/imperfective aspect) . . . .” Even if the objection is raised that the aorist tense itself is only indicating aoristic aspect (or undefined) the author of Hebrews begins his list of verbal ideas describing this person (enlightened, tasted, became, tasted) with hapax which establishes some former time (hapax = at one time, once, once and for all) via this adverb rather than the verbs (ptcs) at all.
2) And for those who might be suspicious of my translation which differs at the beginning from almost all other translations, my transition resists displacing the true referent (subject: anakainizein, to restore) with the ambiguous “it”: “it is impossible . . .” is the typical way 6:4 is rendered but the “it is” is implied.  I, of course, do not disagree that “it is” is a completely legitimate translation.  Implying only the “is” after bringing the infinitive up next to the adjective “impossible” as in my translation (For to restore again to repentance is impossible) follows typical predicate adjective construction.  The Greek, moving the infinitive up would look like this: ανακαινιζειν γαρ παλιν αδυνατον . . . .” By doing this, the nominative element (in this case, anakainizein) is brought to the front and, following my proposed translation above, all of the accusative elements are grouped together