Quote from "Why The Christian Right is Wrong"...
"If the church is to be saved, it will be(sic) have to be recovered. By this I don't mean to say that we can turn back the clock to some nostalgic, nonexistent moment when everyone agreed on the nature of God, sin, and salvation but rather to a time when membership in The Way required no creeds and only one simple confession: Jesus Christ is Lord.
Impossible as it seems today, when so many defenders of the faith stake out theological positions and then defend them like a gunfighter, the essence of the Christian faith did not begin as a set of beliefs about Jesus but as response to Jesus. The first followers were not part of a school of thought but a beloved community, formed in response to a beloved teacher who opened the heavens and revealed a God whose unconditional love astonished them. It was a God they had never met, revealed by a man they could never forget.
I think it's more often then not that the shaping of my faith is done by what others will think if I'm not that way instead of my simple reaction to what Christ has done for me.
From a Mars Hill Bible Church Podcast...
"A character is defined in a story by what he does, not by what he thinks of himself."
This is just a good reminder to take a step back from my life and evaluate it by the life I am leading, not simply by the life I think I'm leading.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
that's a great reminder!! thanks! i take back the jerk comment from 2 posts down...
The point is great, and a great reminder indeed.
The first quote, however, is laden with logical fallacies, and biblical ignorance.
Still I love the conclusion you come to.
What logical fallacies and biblical ignorance do you see here?
1. "Jesus Christ is Lord" is not a simple confession. For a Jew to be able to say that they would have to understand the following theological concepts:
- God is One (the shemah)
- The Messiah/Christ
- The Trinity (at least on an elementary level, remember that the shemah was the highest confession for a Jew. An elementary understanding of the Trinity would be paramount to a Jew making this statement)
- This doesn't even begin to cover what a person would need to understand today to make a confession like that
2. Entire books of the New Testament were written for the sole purpose of defending theological positions. For space sake, I will reference only 1 John.
- Written to defend the full deity/humanity of Christ
-Defended like a gunfighter (it called the opposing teacher anti-christs)
- It drew a clear line in the sand for what makes a Christian by setting up a theological base of what it means to "confess" Jesus as Lord
3. The first followers of Jesus were part of a school of thought
- The followed and discussed the teachings of Jesus
- They DEVOTED themselves to the apostles teaching
- 2 Peter chap 1 considers growing in knowledge as the second most important thing to add to your faith.
4. Hardly any of the first believers actually met Jesus. therefore, developing a theology of who he is what he taught was of the utmost importance.
- He revealed himself to roughly 500 people after his resurrection
- Thousands of people were new believers
I will expound upon that last point. Since most of the new believers had not met Jesus, and since most of the Gentile believers new nothing of the Old Testament (the monotheistic God of Isreal) they couldn't simply "respond to Jesus". Rather, they had to respond to what they were taught about Jesus (a set of beliefs about God, Jesus, the Scriptures, etc.)
If a simple confession were needed, there would only be five books in the New Testament (the Gospels and Revelation). Yet at the same time, find me a simple confession about Jesus in those books.
Jake, I like what you wrote, and was convicted by it. I just saw so many holes in the first quote. I liked Bell's quote.
Well, while I hesistate to respond to your comment, for I fully recognize your biblical knowlege superiority, I feel that I must since it is my blog.
I think you may be missing the point of the quote. Even without the context of the chapter surrounding it, I think you could still see that his point wasn't that theologically speaking "Jesus Christ is Lord" isn't a loaded statement, but it is a simple confession. I made it when I was 8 years old. I didn't understand the trinity. But I understood that I wanted Jesus to be the head of my life. That is a pretty simple concept. That what I was entering into wasn't a contract of theological dos and don'ts, but a relationship of grace and forgiveness. (If you want, I can go into the Shemah and how it isn't so much a trinitarian statement, but a statement about the reality of Nature's God as apposed to the natural gods that man had created, but I don't think I need to) I think it could be safe to say we disagree. I feel that it's simple. You feel it's not. And I'm okay with that. But I don't think it's biblically ignorant.
Secondly, the fact that letters (of the NT) had to be written further proves his point. There isn't a time we can go back to when everyone agreed on everything. Even the first christians had to be straightened out. But I will point out that apart from Luke and Acts (which were most likely written to be historical accounts and not theological defenses) and whomever you attribute Hebrews to, every single new testament book was written by someone who knew Jesus personally. Had met him. Had reacted to him. Even though Paul's was a brief experience, it was powerful none the less. So the very "gunfighter" in them was created by an encounter (or encounters) with the real, human Jesus.
The point I believe the author is making is that the church has made it increasingly more difficult to become a part of the fellowship then it was ever meant to be. We will never agree on everything. Some of the smartest and greatest theologians disagree on calvinism and armenianism. But we can all agree that the answers to the world's problems isn't going to come by us trying to do better, but for us to get to know Jesus more.
1. I wasn't missing the point of the quote. I actually enjoyed the point of the quote very much: our faith is about responding to Jesus not building a theology about him. I love that.
2. The Shemah is a multi-faceted jewel. It is predicated by Moses' wonderful narrative of Creation, Fall , and the Promise of Redemption (repeated for roughly 3 entire books). What you described was Moses motive for penning it, which most orthodox scholars agree with. The motive and the content are not one in the same. And as you really pointed out, you can't have one over the other. So I would object when you say that it is "no so much" a Trinitarian theological treastie. If it were not so, it would not have been the "statement of faith" for the Jews, to the extent that James references it in his epistle.
3. I concede that "faith" in the Lord Jesus Christ is supossed to be simple enough not to need a depth of theological understanding to have such faith. When, however, faith is under attack, either by one's own questions, or false teachers, then theology substantiates it. Which leads to...
4. The NT books written defending theological positions spit in the face of the author saying:
"today, when so many defenders of the faith stake out theological positions and then defend them like a gunfighter"
I would say this directly spits in the face of 1 John, which camped out a theological position and defended it like a gunfighter. And again, I agree with you that many of the NT writers personally knew Jesus. That is why they built a Theological Position for all the new believers, who had never met Jesus, to respond to.
Now as far as the church making it hard for most people to be part of the fellowship than it ever has been. WHAT?????
Jesus was killing on the spot new believers for deceiving. The "First Believers" set such a high standard for Gentile believers that Paul had to fight them publicly about it. And when is the last time you saw a church "expel the immoral brother"? Personally, I have never been at a church that it was hard for me to be part of fellowship. That is what I dislike about McLaren and most Emergent Church folks. I have never experienced the judgemental, hard to join church they talk about. I just haven't. Jonathan really helped me understand that that church does exist, and if I ever spent in the Bible Belt, I would agree.
But I didn't grow up in the Bible Belt. I'm a West Coast kid, who first stepped foot in church at 17 and have never felt judged, and only felt chalenged at 1 church. I don't like striking generalizations like "the church has made it increasingly more difficult to become a part of the fellowship then it was ever meant to be" becuase it is a generalization that is both untrue to the entire church, and ignorant of how jacked up the first believers were. Especially in how much they failed at being inclusive.
It's been too long brother, I'll call you. Let's get a beer soon.
WHOA this blog is getting way to theological for me! Jakes quick post a funny youtube video.
Both of you guys are great.
I will apologize for accusing you of missing the point. Please accept my humble apologies.
Can you clarify what you mean by the motive and the content aren't one in the same? I don't want to put words into your mouth, but what I think you are saying is when Moses wrote it, he meant it to say THIS but as time went on, it became something else. Even James reference of it was to say that this theological statement alone isn't the point. Even demons know God is one. It's not a reference to any type of trinitarian statement. Being the "statement of faith" for the Jews doesn't make it a trinitarian statement more than a part of their historical context. So maybe clarify, because I fail to see the correlation.
As far as theology substantiating faith, I think we are saying the same thing, just differently. The problem that the root of the quote was getting at is that people replace a relationship with Jesus with theology about him. I agree that if you are going to be a disciple, you are going to have to have some theology. It should truly come though, as a response to Jesus and not ammunition for his army.
I guess as far as defending positions, it would depend on the position they are defending. I'm not going to defend my position on the rapture or free will or gay rights to the point of a gunfighter. I will, however, defend the word of God. I took the statement of the author to mean that there are certain theological positions that people "stake out" for themselves, not rooted upon a love of a savior but a love of being right and having the ammo to prove it. If someone says that they follow Jesus, but he isn't God (or THE God as we are more likely to come accross here in Nevada), I think we have a right to defend it with the same ferocity as James or John.
(and p.s. Jesus didn't kill any deceiving believers. I know what you're saying, but it wasn't Jesus)
If you read my comment, I never said that the church is making harder than it has ever been. I said they are making it harder then it was ever meant to be. I'ma gonna get personal man, but think about it for a second, even you didn't want me to take a leadership role in Doxa for some reasons. Now take your logic behind that (and I'm not saying it was bad) and multiply it to the bad a thousand times, and that's what some churches are like here in america. There are some churches that go to abortion clinics and yell at the women making bad choices. There are some churches that split over the style of music. There are churches who think it is more important to buy plasma screens for the lobby then lunch for the homeless. Maybe you haven't seen them, but I have. I agree my generalization isn't true for every church. But it is true of some churches. And I think, overall, it is true of the church in america. It's why books like, "Jesus yes, Church no" are so popular (The Forgotten Ways comes to mind) It's why Ghandi says "I like your Jesus but not your christians. They are so unlike christ" when the very nature of the word christian MEANS little christ.
Wanna grab a beverage after work tuesday.
Ryan - you crack me up.
Moses' reasoning for writing the Shemah is to do as you said, to explain "the reality of Nature's God as apposed to the natural gods that man had created". Now just who is "Nature's God"? The Trinitatian God of the Old and New Testament. Just becuase Israel didn't know it was a Trinitarian statement, doesn't mean it's not Trinitarian, or that it only became Trinitarian after Jesus came. Jesus, and the New Testament authors shed light into the deep theological reality that was always there. That's my attempt to clarify.
As far as defending positions. The author you quote makes a generalization (more on those in a bit) that it is nearly, and I quote, "impossible" to understand faith as a response to God when position defending is taking place on a large scale. My point was that this statement simply wouldn't make sense to the apostles, Paul of whom constantly told his disciples to "contend for the faith". Since the NT books are in large part examples of defending the faith, it seems silly to call understanding Christianity as a response to God impossible when "defending the faith" is prevalent. The author does not make the clarification to the things being frivolous, as you did in your previous comment. The author made a generalization, and thus sounded quite silly.
In reference to the church making it harder: While you did say "than it has to be" you either subconsciously, or unintentionally made it seem worse now than it ever has been by using the word "increasingly". This is an interesting use in words since it implies a perspective into the entire workings of the church in general (I will assume that we are only referring to the church in America based off the title of the book) that cannot be obtained unless one is a researcher devoted to the subject, or God. Another reason I dislike generalizations (which the emerging church loves), only God could make them, and I would assume, based on his ability to see all, that this would prevent him from making generalizations at all.
Also, I found it a tad bit disturbing that you referred to murder as a "mistake".
Tuesday's fine, I will call you.
Actually, I think it would make a lot of sense to the original authors. After all, it was Paul who wanted people to stop worrying about staking out the theological position of circumcision and start concentrating on Jesus. I think it's THOSE types of positions that the author is concerned about.
If YOUR subconcience takes "increasingly" to mean EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, then I guess I'm sorry. Otherwise, I still stand by my god-like generalization.
Matt, before you respond, go to my brother's blog. He doesn't really blog anymore and read his last post. He posted it over a year ago. I don't know if you remember, but Joey is a church planter in baltimore. I think you can see his frustration when the focus of the church is taken off of Jesus and put on other things. It's a little incoherent and not very eloquent (sorry joey) but I think you'll see my point.
Maybe the author's quote was full of logical fallicies and biblical ignorance. Whatever, I honestly don't care anymore. But I do care that the people I love see Jesus in me because of an authentic relationship with him and not some set of beliefs I hold fast to for my own glory.
Post a Comment