Just Who Owns Whom?!
I just finished Brian McLaren's, A NEW KIND OF CHRISTIAN this morning. I enjoyed it. I dabble in writing narrative myself, simply for my own enjoyment, and was fascinated by McLaren’s struggle to write good narrative and plot.
I was challenged by the final chapter in which McLaren talked about how emerging ministry and theological education might actually look in the future.
But, there were points at which I was disturbed. One of the most uncomfortable of those moments was when Dan, picking up on a theme Neo had already introduced, recounts his own opportunity to address a young adult group that was mostly college students. On page 140 a young woman ‘wearing a lot of earrings’ praises Dan. She says, “You are the first pastor I’ve ever met who admitted that Christianity didn’t own God.”
Later she says, “…whenever I get to know individual non-Christians…I am completely convinced that I find God already there….It’s clear to me that God doesn’t limit himself to working in Christians’ lives. We try to serve God, but we don’t own him.”
This girl starts out with a powerful truth. Christianity doesn’t own God. Right on, babe!
It’s God who owns.
The message of Jesus is clear. He says, “You did not choose me but I chose you…”
"I AM the way and the truth and the life..."
John’s Gospel has Jesus telling Nicodemus that no one can see God’s Kingdom unless he is born again. Jesus defines that other birth as a purely spiritual birth that comes directly from the Spirit. No human act or thought can create that birth: "The spirit gives birth to spirit." That birth is manifested in human beings when they look upon the Son in the way that the Israelites looked on the serpent in the desert. It is built on the assertion that everyone who doesn’t believe in the Son is condemned already.
So, yeah, Christianity doesn’t own God! He’s not ours. We are His! Without Jesus we can do nothing. No one can.
I fully understand that the modern gospel is flawed. But, the notion that there is no other name under heaven by which one must be saved is not modern. It is Apostolic. It’s what early believers died for.
Christian belief that resonates in the emerging world doesn’t have to be of the postmodern world. It needs to converse with that world, but it can’t be consumed by it. Jesus is THE way, truth and life. And, mission to the lost will always have to include the assertion that He alone is the Word who has become flesh and made His dwelling among us.
We must encounter him as a subject, not an object. But, we must encounter HIM personally and live in relationship with HIM!
We are HIS. He is not ours.
posted by bill Sloat at 9:02 AM
29 Comments:
This was McLaren's first attempt at a narrative, and I thought it showed a bit. His next two novels show good development of his skills though.
McLaren does seem to push the issue of Jesus, but so far, he has always reeled it in before it falls off the edge. I have heard him clearly state (in a book I believe) that Jesus is the only way to heaven.
His question would be "Is Christianity the only way to heaven?" Did Jesus come to start a religion? I think that is his provocative question.
Bill
An awesome post. I have not read the authors that are being spoken of. Actually I had not heard of them before. Thank You for expanding my horizon.
I have never been at ease with organized religion. It is just that I have never known what the options are. I still don't. I know that there is more than what I see or live and I want it.
I recently read Why Men Hate Church by David Murrow. Much of what he says I can relate to and agree with. I'm trying to change things (ME) but it is difficult.
Have a happy Thanksgiving
Sorry for the intrusion. Obviously people think of the salvation question but there is more. Does God work to fulfill his mission in nonchristians and if so what can we learn. This article http://www.allelon.org/articles/article.cfm?id=204 is very interesting in that regard. Usually when we think of God working through nonbelievers it is usually to punish and there is no "good" in the nonbeliever. The prevailing idea is that there is nothing good we can learn from another religion.
On a similar note I was discussing assimilation (as in assimilating new people into the church) and my brother made this comment. "From a mission perspective, "assimilation" sounds eerily similar to "extraction", McGavran's word for how missionaries in the past (and present) bring a new convert out of their old setting into a "Christian" one, simultaneously cutting them off from all their non-Christian family and friends. This forms a "conglomerate" church that isn't formed along natural lines (an artificial community?) and isn't effective in winning those they leave. Does this also describe the American church? Why assimilate them into a community of strangers? Why not bring the gospel into the community they already have? "Churches" (meaningful communities) already exist everywhere. We just need to plant the gospel into them. Seen this way, church planting isn't needed, but gospel planting is. And isn't this what the newer forms of church are doing? Instead of asking the non-Christians to assimilate to them, they are assimilating into the non-Christian environment. Isn't that what Jesus did?" I found this to be a powerful statement.
Sorry for steering this slightly off course but this is another element of the question.
Brian,
Good point:
"His question would be "Is Christianity the only way to heaven?" Did Jesus come to start a religion? I think that is his provocative question."
This is worth discussing. Emerging Church issues force a very serious examination of the doctrine of the church.
Depending on your definition of the word 'religion,' certainly Jesus didn't come to start a religion.
But, we do know for certain that He came to start a CHURCH.
Certainly Jesus came to start the church. I have no doubt. The question is what is the nature of the church. The church is a band of followers with a leader (pastor) who has brought them together to journey together.
I hadn't given it much thought, but having had good conversations with a Catholic friend, he would often ask (really without asking) why I didn't recognize the authority of the Catholic church.
While I don't hold any ill will toward the Catholic church, I have to admit that obviously I do not recognize her authority over me or over our church.
So what is the boundaries for a church? This is just conversation and off the top of my head so don't hold me to it.
A church (rather than "The church") is band of Jesus' followers, typically led by a leader/pastor/apostle. They journey together to help each other in that journey and to help new people learn how to make that journey. They must be careful not to identify any other god as their god. And they must be careful to not allow sexual immorality to be "OK" within their community.
But where does the authority end? I don't think a church should be totally independent of every other church. But how do they relate?
What about churches that have heretical doctrines about Jesus himself being God?
Thanks Tom for your comment. Feel free to join the conversation. Tom has a blog at http://braintwitch.blogspot.com/
Brian,
Right on! I believe the accepted definition of the 'church' is grossly perverted today. And, I am in the midst of a long-term struggle to, as the postmoderns say, deconstruct its meaning.
Here's something I discovered that has started me--only STARTED me--on a new path of understanding. The standard definition of the Greek word translated 'church' is that it, the word 'ekklesia' means something like, ' a called out people.' And, that is a literal translation of the Greek word. But that definition misses the point and is very misleading.
The Greek word is the word that translates the Hebrew word, "qahal," which is the word for the Israelites as a community or worship.
In Matthew 16 when Jesus says that He will build His church, he was almost certainly using the Aramaic equivalent of qahal. What He's really saying, as I understand Hebrew, is, "I will but my own community of worship."
Just how we are to deconstruct our understanding of church and live in that community today is a question I continue to ask myself.
Tom
You bring up a good point with your comments. Reggie McNeal, in "The Present Future" refers to starting churches wherever the people are: McDonald's, Barnes & Noble, game stores, etc.
I found that to be an interesting thought (my traditional background resurfaces here), and I have seen the possiblity of reaching the community with that.
I frequent a local comic/game store here in town. The Gospel needs to be planted there. It is a natural community of people (mostly guys, 13-40 in age) that have comics, heroclix, magic and other things in common.
But it is hard for people to take their faith to these places. People are taking their faith to school and work now; a big step from the past, but still a ways to go.
Thanks for the post, Tom.
I doubt Brian would disagree with what you wrote here. There is nothing about Brian or the emerging church that would be inclined to deny the uniqueness of Jesus for salvation. I think the passage you quoted was more about how broadly that salvation in Christ might be applied, e.g. when we find the Holy Spirit at work in the lives of people who don't claim the label "Christian" for one reason or another. (I know there are times when I would rather not... especially after I watch people like Falwell or Robertson on TV.)
Or to put it another way, saying that "Jesus is the only way to heaven" and saying that "Christianity is the only way to heaven" are two different things. It is possible to affirm the first without affirming the second.
Peace,
-Mike
Gandalf/Mike,
I understand the distinction between believing in Jesus and Christianity.
And, I acknowledge that I have more reading of McLaren to do. However, the girl's statement seems to suggest to me that Jesus can be in those who don't repent and believe specifically in Him. It seems to suggest that their spirituality can be respected as a path to righteousness.
And, that's not the message I see in the teaching of Jesus. HE brings communion with the Father. By GRACE.
Nicodemus, the man on whom Jesus unloaded the teaching about being born again was a very spiritual man who was open to the idea that salvation could come from a path other than the one that was generally accepted in his religious world.
And even he needed a geniune spiritual birth--at least, according to Jesus.
I reread your post Bill and some of the comments. It is a great conversation! A couple of things came to mind.
1. This is a piece of fiction by McLaren. The girl doesn't necessarily represent McLaren's view, and in fact, you find Pastor Dan in fact not swallowing everything that he is told. He struggles with it. He disagrees, but he isn't overly happy with his own conclusions either.
Different reviewers have quoted Neo from the book and said, "Here is what McLaren believes." McLaren has said to be careful about that.
2. I don't find it that hard to believe that Jesus is working in the lives of non-Christians. The Apostle Paul on Mars Hill says, "the unknown god that you worship, let me tell you who he is." The Holy Spirit is working among non-Christians. It is the same God who brings rain to both the good and the bad. Paul says in Romans, "People are without excuse." Is this a saving knowledge?
The interesting thing is we might find ourselves contradicting ourselves here. The person who says "The Prayer" and then lives like hell, or even who never lives beyond themselves (though they go to church) has their salvation questioned (at least by me) because there has been no fruit.
But the person who has never formally known Christ, who only deals with what they do know, we might consider that they do gain entrance into heaven.
Here we find the paradox of salvation. It is the easiest and the hardest thing you will ever do.
That certainly isn't meant to be any kind of definitive answer.
Bill, Mike is our newest church planter in the Chicago area.
Brian,
I’m pleased to see that my post has generated a good conversation. That was my aim.
And, yes, McLaren’s work is fiction and that presents some problems when we try to determine exactly what it is that he’s trying to say—if, in fact, he’s trying to say anything. He may not even be saying anything in the passage I cited. He may be hoping to do what he has done, i.e., to start a conversation.
However, in the case of the girl: She was responding to what she heard Dan say and, Dan highlighted her response and didn’t recount his reply to her that she misunderstood his meaning. Nor did he tell us that she got it wrong. He allowed her declaration to stand unchallenged, as a comment worth considering. And, for those reasons, I suspect that McLaren actually was making that point.
I’m certain that I need to read more of McLaren’s writings. Certainly, I’ll be able to put the passage in better context as I read more.
You said, “I don't find it that hard to believe that Jesus is working in the lives of non-Christians. The Apostle Paul on Mars Hill says, "the unknown god that you worship, let me tell you who he is." The Holy Spirit is working among non-Christians. It is the same God who brings rain to both the good and the bad. Paul says in Romans, "People are without excuse." Is this a saving knowledge?”
Good comments.
Certainly God is working among non-Christians. He was working in the life of Nicodemus in John 3. He was working in the life of Paul up to the time Paul decided to consider his acts of righteousness under the Law as ‘rubbish’ (Phil 3:8).
So, if you find a person who practices Wicca who appears to be seeking truth, certainly the Holy Spirit may be working in his/her life. But, if so, He is convicting of sin and leading that person to an understanding of who Jesus really is.
The point I’m trying to make is that the only way to have an authentic experience of God is by following Jesus. That is a matter of grace. It is encounter with God that can take place only because God initiates it.
I know I’m splitting a hair with you, but the distinction is important.
I say, ‘Amen’ to Paul on Mars Hill. But, I do it with the understanding that Paul’s proclamation was motivated by the fact that, as Acts 17:16 says, “he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols.’
Please let me know where you think I’m off base.
Oh, and thanks for the 411 on Mike.
Part of the problem with splitting hairs when it comes to "God hairs" is I'm not sure we have the technology. At least though, it is a worthy conversation. God works in mysterious ways.
Bill said, "So, if you find a person who practices Wicca who appears to be seeking truth, certainly the Holy Spirit may be working in his/her life. But, if so, He is convicting of sin and leading that person to an understanding of who Jesus really is."
Let me reframe your example. A man who has become a good friend to me and has even mentored me in some areas of my life is an elder in the Latter Day Saints Mormon church.
In my mind, what I'm hoping the Holy Spirit shows Cal is not where he is in sin (not recognizing Jesus as part of the Godhead, let alone missing out on a delicious latte), but instead, building on what Cal already knows. Through our conversations, he is not far from the truth (at least as I know the truth.) We have built a mutual respect and appreciation for each other which allows us to openly discuss theological issues (as well as politics and culture) without fear of reprecussion.
It was M Scott Peck who said that he could never have accepted Christianity if had not been a buddhist. Buddhism taught him paradox.
I'm sure there are religions that lead away from the truth. And I'm sure that there are practices that the holy spirit convicts as sin. And I don't know hardly anything about Wicca, but with my friend Cal, I'd rather build on what he knows rather than tear down what he knows.
Be careful here. I once heard of a man who was climbing a ladder. At least he was going up, so his friend encouraged him...the problem was the ladder was leaning against the wrong building. Some things you can build on and somethings built on bring only disaster.
Bill,
I think you may have slightly overstated your case when you said: "...the only way to have an authentic experience of God is by following Jesus."
I completely agree with what you said right after that, about any experience of God we have coming as a gift of grace and not through our own efforts. But do you really think that it is impossible for someone to experience God without being an explicit follower of Jesus? That would seem to contradict the whole idea of natural revelation (i.e. Romans 1:19-20 & 2:14-15) and common grace. I would tend to say that people experience God all the time, whether they recognize him in the experience or not.
Just my .02
Thanks for having me here at the blog.
-Mike
Brian,
Your approach to your LDS friend is as nearly perfect an example of how New Testament witness was practiced as I've encountered. And, it will be the successful paradigm in the emerging world.
As I'll write here soon, I believe we need to deconstruct the modern/Reformation view of Jesus and find an understanding that is more biblically balanced. In doing so, we will easily understand that your approach to evangelism is the one that matches God's revelation of Himself.
Gandalf,
Re: "But do you really think that it is impossible for someone to experience God without being an explicit follower of Jesus?"
No.
What I do believe is that any experience of God that a human being has must be a function of God's grace. As Paul quotes the OT, "no one can seek God...there is no one who does good."
AUTHENTIC experience, which results in a genuine relationship with Him, is one that comes from Him and into our hearts.
It is a joy and blessing for me to have you join in our discussion. Please, contribute every thought that comes to your mind.
As we consider God working in the lives of those called "lost" we need to remember Acts 10 and Cornelius. Cornelius was a God seeker but that wasn't enough. If it were God would not have sent Peter.
After Peter spoke to Cornelius and his household they believed the message about Jesus. It was by faith in the Name that they received the Holy Spirit. It is the presence of the Holy Spirit in someones life that determines whether they are "accepted" of God and part of the family. The baptism that followed was the public declaration of what God had already done.
To discuss what rules and doctrine one must follow to be a follower of Jesus or a Christian is interesting but the bottom line is the presence of the Holy Spirit is the only thing that matters. Acts 10:44 - 49.
I know these verses don't sit well with many but God put them there.
you might want to check out the Barna group. They conducted a survey in Oct 05 about who claims to be a Christian, born-again etc.
It is interesting how we define these.
phil,
You said, "To discuss what rules and doctrine one must follow to be a follower of Jesus or a Christian is interesting but the bottom line is the presence of the Holy Spirit is the only thing that matters. Acts 10:44 - 49."
Strong statement there!
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that it is doctrinal belief that saves. And, I'm certainly not saying that it is 'rules' (or one's own notion of 'righteousness') that saves. And, I do acknowledge that it is the presence of the Spirit in one's life that identifies a person with Christ.
However, I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say, "the bottom line is the presence of the Holy Spirit is the only thing that matters."
It seems to me that the sending of the Spirit is an act of God which He does as an act of His own mercy and grace. It is not something that we can earn.
It seems to me that the bottom line in terms of human action is repentance. John the Baptist, Jesus and the Apostles all began their proclamation of truth in a message centered on a call to repentance. And, I believe that our ultimate responsibility is not to wait for the presence of the Spirit, but to change our minds and begin to live a repentant life.
Am I misunderstanding you?
I also agree that the Holy Spirit is a sure sign of salvation, but I was wondering about Phil's invoking Acts 10. Who doesn't like that? (Not specifically) And are you implying that "speaking in tongues" is evidence of salvation? I'm not opposed to speaking in tongues, but I don't find it evidence of salvation. Even if Acts 10 sounds like it must be, other Scripture makes clear that it is not.
Bill
This is my understanding I hope it clarifies rather than muddies the water.
God likes to use familiar and physical things to help us understand spiritual matters. Jesus told Nicodemus tht he must be born again. Jesus was using physical birth toexplain what happens when we are brought into the body of Christ.
Romans 8:9 says if you don't have the Spirit of Christ you do not belong to Christ. It is like being pregnant, either you are or you are not. Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith. He is the one who impregnates the believer with the Word. He is also the Word, which is the Seed of I Peter 1:23. The Seed combines with the egg, our faith. Romans 10:17 says that faith comes by hearing the Word. The only work we can do that brings about the new birth, our union with Christ, is to believe, John 6:28 & 29. Saving faith can not come without the Word. It starts with God is developed by God and is brought to completion by God. What of free will? We can reject "hearing" the Word which God places before us, Romans 1:18-20. But to those who seek Him He will provide a way as He did with Cornelius. Bottom line as I understand it is you either have the Spirit of Christ and are born again or you don't and are still separated for Christ. It is all about Jesus.
Brian
I do not believe that a person must speak in tongues to be born again. That position is taken by some. Who doesn't like the passage you asked? Hopefully things have changed. As I was yet young in the faith I asked the meaning of this passage and met anger and hostility from some and from others the comment " it doesn't mean what it says". I did my own research and study.
I believe God used the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues in Acts 10 because it was familiar to Peter and the Jewish believers with him. The purpose was to demonstrate Gods acceptance of the gentiles for salvation. This spiritual gift is manifested more openly than others making it the ideal one to be used to show the presence of the Holy Spirit in the gentiles lives.
Rob,
Well said.
I'll be entering an explanation of why I think John's account of feetwashing in chapter 13 signifies the incarnation.
Thanks for making the discussion so lively.
bill
Phil,
When I first entered the Illinois Conference, which was around 1985, there were a lot of criticism and even some outright hate of speaking in tongues. Through the 90's this dissipated and I would say now (but this is only my conjecture) most in the Midwest Region would say tongues is a gift for today but not one most of us have or practice.
You also said, "You are either pregnant or you aren't." I would disagree. You can certainly point to passages, such as the now classic John 3, which sounds as if you are either in or you are out. But the book of Matthew is filled with much more muddied versions.
What we find is that you are known as a Christian "by our love" and "by our fruit." The claim of whether I have the Holy Spirit or not, which I would say is certainly given to those who are "in" is not the standard to which people are held.
So my argument is that you could have a "life-time elder" who is showing no love and no fruit who might find his soul in danger though he fully claims to have the holy spirit, and you could have a death row murderer who is beginning to feel "strangely warmed" and begins to reach out with both love and fruit, though he does not fully understand Christ or the Holy Spirit, who may find his soul in danger of salvation.
Though there are many flaws with my current understanding, I don't see it as a line to be crossed, but as a direction. Are you following Jesus Christ?
You could believe all the right things, read your Bible every day, go to church whenever it is open, tithe to the penny and still be a hateful, awful person who does all of it because of obligation (Pharisee). Or you could be an outspoken critic of the hypocrisy of the church, who has lately been intrigued by the teachings of Jesus and has oddly felt some compulsion to do some kind things for people.
It may not be about crossing a line, because the first guy is much farther along "the line" than the second guy, but the second guy may be in a much better position with Christ.
In the original post the question is "just who owns whom"? As you spoke about those things visible to us I agree that it is impossible for us to say that this one is saved and that one is lost. Even visible gifts like teaching, preaching, speaking in tongues, etc. can be faked and manipulated for personal gain. Thus I agree that we must continue to abide to seek etc. Much of what is pawned off as Christianity isn't.
We don't own God in any respect. We are owned by Him. Yes He gives us assurance that we are His. Yes I feel our life is a journey to get to know Him. My understanding is that the deciding factor in whether I am saved or not is not my opinion but God's. So I do believe there is a specific point in time when this happens. I don't think it has to happen exactly the way I have always been taught. I gave up a long time ago judging whether a person was a "Christian". As a pastor I teach love, committment and most of all trust God He is always right.
I really like this blog it helps me think through what I believe and why. We may see different sides of the same topic but God is big enough to handle that and I think the mosaic is beautiful.
Brian,
Excellent last post! thanks.
Phil,
It sounds like you are wrestling with much of what you have been taught and have heard in teh church about who is "in" and who is "out". Great! I have been there and it is so freeing to come to a place where we can start to see peopel through the eyes of Christ. keep asking the questions, digging and sifting through the thoughts ans words of others and enjoy the journey.
I have recently wrote out this sentance to remind myself about the journey we are on in life. "Sometime we get so focused on the destination that we forget to enjoy the journey." so please enjoy the journey, I finally am starting to and it is so refreshing and enlightening.
I do have one question about this "Who Owns Whom" IF, as I have been reading the posts, we are owned by God, then where does our free will come into play in our decision to accept his grace and mercy offered to us through Jesus Christ. If God owns us then we have been "bought" and there is no choice. I am afraid of how this sounds, this sounds, to me, like predestination but I could be seeing your words wrong.
I like to believe, and I could be wrong, that God created us in his image and has given us the freedom to choose our destination. If not then we are wasting our time teaching "The Gospel Message". if this is the case that God owns us then I can find a new vocation and sit back and allow time and God to move people onto his agenda and there is no need to "Go and make disciples".
Phil,
Could you clarify, just a little more for me since I am one that has muddied the water more than helped to clear them, what yo mean by "God likes to use familiar and physical things to help us understand spiritual matters". I see the parables and and other teachings of Jesus used this way in the Gospels, but I'm not so sure of the naritive sections, especially in John. I was going to wait to say this ntil I saw more of where everyone was coming from and others thoughts on the Incarnation image in John 13, but it's hard for me to kep a secret so here it is.
I find it hard to believe that John has masked the imagery of the incarnation in something like this because of how he opens the first chapter with a very clear and undeniable imagry of the incarnation. this is so clear and straight forward that I don't think that there is any reason for his to try and restate it in such an obscure way.
Again I will say I think this is a strech to the nd purpose of the text. Not that I don't like the possibilities of what you've seen there but I'm afaid thta there is so much we would set ourselves up for by finding such imagery for every word in the Bible. next someone will be writing a book called "The Bible Code" ... oh yea, someone already did that.
The story of Nicoddemus is very clear of the truth that Jesus was teachign this Pharisee. Jesus' message wsa not masked in an action but was a teaching using an earthly birth to describe a spiritual birth. this was done through his words and not by setting the scene.
I can see the washing of the disciples feet as an example of the incarnation because it expresses what Jesus said in Matthew 20: 25-28
"Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Yes if this is what you are talking about by the incarnation then I agree, but if there is some tie to Jesus removing his outer garments first to illustrate the incarnation, then I have a problem because at the conclusion Jesus tells us to do likewise, and I don't think I'm capable of becoming incarnate, at least not yet ;-) I'm almost there but haven't arrived, maybe tomorrow.
Phil,
I hope you don't think I'm picking on you. I do like what you are bringing to this discussion. I find it very important, at least for me, to be able to see what others are thinking and question them. I'm not in anyway saying you are wrong, you may be very right! but I just want to voice my thoughts and ideas, even sometimes playnig the devil's advocate, you never know :-) By dialoguing this way I am encouraged to continue to explore my ideas and thoughts on these types of subjects and ony when someoen is not afraid to take some ridicule or criticism can we all grow and sharpen one another. So go ahead and ridicue and criticize me all you want!!! keep up the good work! thanks!!
Rob
1st free will.
Free will does not mean that we are the equal of God nor that it is a bargaining chip by which we can manipulate and control God. God gave to Adam and Eve and thus to us the right to choose to listen to and obey Him or to close our ears and ignore Him. In Deut. 30:19, Joshua 24:15, Acts 13:46 we see examples of people told to make a choice. We have the same choice each day as to which voice we listen to. Jesus paid the price for all sin "buying" everyone from sins bondage. It is also refered to as a pardon. Just because you have been pardoned doesn't mean you have to accept it. You can serve your sentence. To sit back and do nothing would be to deny our gifts, to deny our calling, and to be disobedient to Jesus commands.
God uses familiar things:
Consider marriage which everyone thinks they understand. God refers to Israel as His wife, and the church as His bride. The marriage relationship is talked of a great deal throughout scripture. It isn't marriage but our relationsip with God that is being addressed Ephesians 5:32. The entire physical world is a reflection of the spiritual that we might understand God. Jesus talked about mountains, trees, rivers etc. When preaching I use the things the people know to express spiritual truths I could not explain otherwise.
It is all about Jesus not us.
Everything Jesus did and said was to help us understand that a physical man was truly God. What then can we be when we become one with God?
Phil,
I'm not sure how it was perceived that I was comparing us as equal to God. We are far, no very far from equallity with God. we were created by him, therefore we could never be equal to him.
Yes, Jesus did pay the price for our sins. yes, even though the price was paid we still need to pick up the "merchandise" so to speak. there is no bargainning or manipulation to this end. either you accept that the "bill" has been paid or you don't. this doesn't change the fact that it has been paid. I totally agree with you on this.
I also agree that Jesus, the prophets, the Apostles, and every other Bible writer used what we know to convey the message of Salvation. I do have an issue that the message was hidden in the writings, with the acception of the apocalyptic writing of Revelation
It sounds to me like we agree on a lot of thoughts. Even though I'm not a Rick Warren fan, I have used his opening sentance to "The Purpose Driven Life" several times "It's Not About You" it is all about Jesus.
If anyone hasn't noticed yet, I'm a very strong advocate of the Jewishness of the New Testament and the need to understand the Jewishness of the New Testament writer to truly understnad their message.
an example of this is in the statement that Jesus makes to His disciples about the time or day of his return. the imagery is similar to the words used in the beginning of the wedding ceremony of the Jewish people of Jesus' day. They understood the concept of "the Watch" and the wording of the bridegroom "No one knows about the day or hour, only the Father". this was said to the bride when the groom came calling on his future bride to let her know that the house they were to live in, after the marriage waws complete, was starting to be built. (On the Father's land, none the least). It was part of the excitement that families looked forward to, the day the bridegroom sneaks to the house, like a thief in the night, to steal his bride away. it is incredible to see that Jesus is using this imagry to discribe his return for His Bride the Church!
there is so much more and I'm just starting to explore the Jewishness aspects that have been dropped from Christianity since the enlightenment "that the Jews killed Jesus" in teh early history of the Christian church and therefore we need to drop all Jewish understanding of the Word of God, what a great loss for teh Chirstian world!
rob,
I'm with you entirely on the importance of appreciating the 'Jewishness,' or as my Hebrew prof called it, the Semitic background of the New Testament.
Post a Comment
<< Home