Group Discussion
So, I've just started reading a new book. "Everything Must Change" by Brian McLaren. I've only read 3 chapters, but have already run across an idea that bears further consideration and discussion. . .
In the Bible, Jesus uses a metaphor on many occasions. The one referring to the Kingdom of God coming to earth. (For those of you who aren't really religious, just stay with me till the end. I promise it's interesting.) I've read another book of McLaren's that discusses this, and after much consideration, I have to say that I agree with him: "Something is wrong with the way we understand Jesus and the 'good news'. Something is missing." People often assume this Kindgdom of God message is about how to escape this world. However, I've come to believe that it is instead about God's will being done here on earth. Mainly, God's dreams coming true for this earth.
I don't think God's dreams include us preaching to people about how to be "saved" (from hell), or that he wants us segregating ourselves in our churches and with our Christian friends in order to be "separate from the world". I think God wants us living in the way Jesus demonstrated: Caring for the poor. Befriending the marginalized and excluded. Being a voice for justice and peace. Coming up with new solutions to old problems. This is how Jesus lived, how he brought God's Kingdom to earth, and how he encouraged those he knew to carry out that dream in their day-to-day lives. I think the whole "good news" or "gospel" message of Jesus is as simple as that. Learning to live a life of love, kindness, peace and justice, and helping others to do the same. That is what he came to teach us, and that is why he is our source of hope. He taught us a way of living that brings God's dreams into reality.
This was a new, and incredibly uplifting idea to me. What do you think about it? What sort of questions does it bring up for you?
In the Bible, Jesus uses a metaphor on many occasions. The one referring to the Kingdom of God coming to earth. (For those of you who aren't really religious, just stay with me till the end. I promise it's interesting.) I've read another book of McLaren's that discusses this, and after much consideration, I have to say that I agree with him: "Something is wrong with the way we understand Jesus and the 'good news'. Something is missing." People often assume this Kindgdom of God message is about how to escape this world. However, I've come to believe that it is instead about God's will being done here on earth. Mainly, God's dreams coming true for this earth.
I don't think God's dreams include us preaching to people about how to be "saved" (from hell), or that he wants us segregating ourselves in our churches and with our Christian friends in order to be "separate from the world". I think God wants us living in the way Jesus demonstrated: Caring for the poor. Befriending the marginalized and excluded. Being a voice for justice and peace. Coming up with new solutions to old problems. This is how Jesus lived, how he brought God's Kingdom to earth, and how he encouraged those he knew to carry out that dream in their day-to-day lives. I think the whole "good news" or "gospel" message of Jesus is as simple as that. Learning to live a life of love, kindness, peace and justice, and helping others to do the same. That is what he came to teach us, and that is why he is our source of hope. He taught us a way of living that brings God's dreams into reality.
This was a new, and incredibly uplifting idea to me. What do you think about it? What sort of questions does it bring up for you?
posted by Danielle | 9:08 PM
32 Comments:
It is interesting that you are studying this because my own thoughts were revolutionized on this topic several years by a study of what Jesus and the other New Testament writers actually say about the kingdom of heaven. Kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God are used synonymously in the scriptures. I have found it most useful to look at what is actually written about it. Before studying this, I tended to think this phrase was talking about heaven, such as when you die and go to heaven. However, it is actually talking about God's rule and reign on the earth, as you mentioned. It helps to systematically look at each reference and record what you learn about the kingdom of heaven in each passage and you can see this for yourself. Don't just take Brian McLaren's word for it:
Here are the places this phrase or its synonymous terms are used:
Matthew 3:2; 4:17; 5:3,10,19,20; 6:33; 7:21; 8:11; 10:7; 11:11,12; 12:28; 13:11,24,31,33-43;44-52; 16:19; 18:1,3,4,23; 19:12,14,23,24; 20:1,21; 21:31,43; 22:2; 23:13; 25:1,14,34; 26:29
Mark 1:14,15; 4:11,26,30; 6:23; 9:1,47; 10:14,15,23,24,25; 11:10; 12:34; 14:25; 15:43
Luke 1:33; 4:43; 6:20; 7:28; 8:1,10; 9:2,11,27,60,62; 10:9,11; 11:2,18; 12:31,32; 13:18,20,28,29; 14:15; 16:16; 17:20,21; 18:16,17,24,25,29; 19:11; 21:31; 22:16,18,29,30; 23;42,51
John 3:3,5; 18:36
Acts 1:3; 8:12; 14;22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23,31
Romans 14:17
1 Corinthians 4:20; 6:9,10; 15:24,50
Galatians 5:21
Ephesians 5:5
Colossians 4:11
1 Thessalonians 2:12
2 Thessalonians 1:5
2 Timothy 4:1,18
Hebrews 1:8; 12:28
James 2:5
2 Peter 1:11
Revelation 12:10
I like to look at these things for myself so I can formulate a theology in line with truth. I find that I really understand something more fully when I study it myself. See what you find here and compare it with what you read.
This is an interesting topic to discuss. Let me know what you think after looking at this, and see if you agree more fully with Brian McLaren, or if you differ on any points.
Melinda
Several of us from around the blogsphere are reading "Everything Must Change" together and discussing our thoughts. We've just begun, but we've set it up in a way where it's never to late to participate.
If you have any interest, you can visit us at:
http://readingforchange.wordpress.com
The best book I've ever read on this topic is "The Gospel of the Kingdom" by George Eldon Ladd. Ladd condenses the central focus on all the passage - the central focus of Jesus' ministry, the mystery and motives involved in the Sermon on the Mount and the parables, what doctrines are involved, and what demands this all places on us.
Melinda
I will look up the passages you suggested. I went back to McLaren's book (The Secret Message of Jesus), which introduced me to this idea about the Kingdom of God on earth. He lists many of the same scriptures.
I will also check into the Ladd book. It's always good to look at what several people have to say on a topic, in order to develop a more rounded view.
Thanks, Sis!
Very much so! I am glad to be able to discuss these ideas with you. So often, we don't even evaluate what we actually believe. It is so important to keep scripture as the focus. There is much these emerging writers, such as Brian McLaren, have to contribute and many valid arguments, but at the core is a need to go back to the Book itself and see what it actually says. I started doing this for myself when I saw so many Christian writers in conflict on various issues. I decided I had to search for myself and study for myself. How could I claim to be a follower of Christ if I didn't know what He actually said and did? How would I know how to follow, if I didn't know where He was going?
I found a great video which is about 7 minutes long which addresses strengths and weaknesses of the emergent church ideas. It was part of a Desiring God conference--associated with John Piper's church (one of our favorite writers). Maybe viewing it can further discussion of ideas:
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=e27a7c00e0462fad0873
I also added this link to the family email discussion--some of the older generation shy away from blog sites :)
Melinda
Thanks for the video link, Melinda. :)
While this man makes some good points, I don't feel he is correct in his some of his assumptions. The emergent church that I participate in DOES base it's beliefs on the Bible, they just interpret it differently. There probably are those who are part of the emergent church who don't believe/adhere to the Bible, but that is just part of the "conversation".
What this man in the video seems to miss is that the emergent church is made up of people with all kinds of different beliefs and practices. We have all been lumped into one big group by title, and therefore it does seem like an organized movement, but really we're just a bunch of different groups trying to work together and build on our similarities, despite the fact that we also have differences. We want to hold on to our differences, but we also want to work toward the good that is found in our similarities. There has been discussion on emergent blogs about how we're just setting ourselves up to be labled and boxed in by working together, but hopes are that that won't happen, or at least can be moved past given time.
What an interesting "group discussion" is going on here. I am enjoying sitting back and watching and reading.
This is part of a running conversation that began last summer as you shared with me what you were reading. It is amazing to me that our new pastor, while being completely reformed and Biblically based, is challenging people to get out of the pews and meet the needs of the poor--taking God's love and grace to those outside--opening our doors to those in need--both physically and spiritually--making the love of Christ evident in our daily lives.
I have every confidence in your heart and your spirit (both Danielle and Sean) that you will search diligently to know God and follow Christ into a more meaningful walk with Him.
Having lived a long time, I've seen the pendulum swing too far one way and too far the other. Those who diligently seek will find! To those who knock, it will be opened! I'm glad to see you both seeking and knocking keeping in mind that this life is so brief and eternity is the majority of our existence and what we do here is preparation for eternity with Christ, that banquet hall into which we cannot enter without the covering of His blood, for our righteousness is but filthy rags, and we need His Righteousness to cover us. Apart from Him, we can do nothing.
Love and hugs to you both!
xo
Momma
I agree that the guy on the video does gloss over the differences, because there are so many it is almost impossible to define the emergent church. What is important about all this, and how it relates to the kingdom of God and our original topic, is that God's kingdom, as it advanced on earth, is comprised of many different types of people who have been brought into God's kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ. If we do not listen to a group comprised of mostly the next generation, we miss out on a tremendous chance to grow and discover where we have drifted away from biblical Christianity and into hypocrisy, and what it is we are doing that is driving the next generation away from our traditional forms of worship. Is time to change some of those traditions which are just that, tradition, and not biblical Christianity? The next generation is always the hyprocrisy police, and we would be wise to listen.
Melinda
Dani,
What a fine world this would be if we all lived like Jesus did. However, the problem is we can't and we get the cart before the horse on this one. The WWJD (What would Jesus do) movement has a modem of truth to it, but it misses the entire point of the Bible. The Bible is all about the redemption of God's people and out of that redemption comes obedience to God's commands (or His actions). A more appropriate acronym would be WHJD, what has Jesus done. Our actions and obedience are a response to what Jesus has done for us. We love because He FIRST loved us.
The current evangelical movement away from the Biblical gospel, led by Joel Osteen and others, has watered down the gospel to one of obedience and
abundant living while at the same time not acknowledging our sin and the existence of hell. This is somewhat a more user friendly gospel, but it begs the question, "What are we being saved from?" Did Jesus die on the cross to amend our already happy and prosperous lives? No, He died on the
cross to pay for our sins which would have caused Him (Jesus, our judge) to send us to hell.
"The gospel (The Biblical gospel) is the power of God unto salvation." "How can they hear without a preacher?" We ARE to be salt and light in the world
so the world can see how God has changed us. Changing ourselves first leads to pride and then eventually to burn out and despair because we cannot maintain the "Christian Life" on our own. Focusing on how Jesus lived reduces him to a good example or at best a prophet. He is first and
foremost Our Savior. None of us like to acknowledge our sin or to hear about death and hell and eternal damnation, but unfortunately, that is the Biblical gospel. However, acknowledging how much we have been forgiven causes a natural response of gratitude and obedience and a desire to be like Jesus.
Love,
Uncle PJ
First, the world would most definitely be a fine place if we all lived like Jesus. And, although it certainly can't be perfect, it can most definitely be better. I think that is what Jesus called us to, and I think that is what the "good news" of his message is all about. Here is how I feel my beliefs fit in with Jesus' life, message, death and resurrection:
As I understand it, Jesus' death and resurrection renew the covenant that God began with Adam, and re-established with Abraham, which was "to be a blessing to all people (or creation)". Not only that, but Jesus' sacrifice allows for the communication between God and people to continue. This was God's original dream for ALL people at the beginning - for them to be a blessing to the rest of creation, and to always have a relationship with him.
When that didn't work (because of our selfishness) God decided to flood everything, and eventually pursued his dream again, with just a small group of people this time. . .Abraham and his decendants. When that also went bust, he sent Jesus, not only to stand in for ALL people for ALL time so we could continue our relationship with God and renew the covenant, but also to teach us the way of living which was part of God's covenant.
And, that is where Jesus' life and message fits in. His message and example was all about living in a way that blesses others, as the original covenant intended. This is how God's Kingdom comes to earth, and how his will is accomplished. How his covenant continues.
So, for me, ALL aspects of Jesus existence are tied together and vital to promoting God's Kingdom. Without getting too specific on what all evangelical movements are out there, from my experience, those of us who are not in the popular church scene, but who consider ourselves "believers", are just trying to seek and grow and find common ground on which to encourage others to make this world a better place.
I'm not sure I've related my thoughts well here, but it's the best I can do. :)
The beauty of Jesus coming to establish a new covenant is that when we enter into a relationship with Him we actually obtain, through His grace and the Holy Spirit, the ability to live as we ought to live and as He has proscribed. Before we enter into this relationship with Him, we don't have the desire or the ability to live in a way that continues to bless others. After entering into a relationship with Him, when we continue to empty ourselves of ourselves we can be a blessing. But, the old self keeps trying to make us be continually obsessed with our own needs and wants. We must keep our minds set on the things of the Spirit, and our focus on Jesus to walk in the Spirit.
I think the problem with the traditional church that is causing many of the younger generation to be disillusioned with the church has been that we have been so focused on having our facts all straight (for instance, a few of the phrases you used I could have taken issue with because the wording wasn't exactly right about covenant theology)(but you acknowledged you were doing the best you could to explain difficult concepts, so I extended grace to you because I love you), but then with all the knowledge packed in there we have walked away from our study of the Word and have lived lives that don't look at all like the life Jesus lived. Do we care about the poor? About the hurting? About the disenfranchised? About the lost in other countries? If we all were in a relationship with Him, and were actually taking hold of God's grace in order to walk as He walked, the world would be heaven on earth and Christians would not be accused of hypocrisy. Unfortunately, we don't always avail ourselves of His free gift of grace, and we let the old self rear its head, and we act in selfish ways that discourage those around us, and the younger generation, especially, says, "Can these people, who claim to know so much, actually really be Christians at all?"
The kingdom of heaven advancing on earth should have the evidence of more and more Christ-like behavior by the members of the kingdom. You are supposed to know us by the fruit of our actions. If we don't display the fruit of Christ-likeness more and more throughout our lives, maybe we'd better evaluate whether we have truly entered into a relationship with Christ or not. I think this is what this movement is asking--are you really in a relationship with Christ, as you claim to be, if there is no evidence of it? And, this makes the whole issue of what the kingdom of heaven is vitally important.
Melinda
I would like to pose a few questions in the name of good discussion:
What about those people who are living in the way Jesus taught (by caring for the poor, seeking justice etc), but who wouldn't consider themselves Christians? Are their efforts beneficial in promoting God's Kingdom, or do they have to make a declaration of faith in order for their actions to have any true meaning?
My point, in asking these questions is not to have an argument, but to encourage thoughtful discussion about possible answers, and what their impacts might be.
Also. Thanks for the scriptures, Melinda! There is definitely a pattern there which supports that Jesus' goal was bringing the Kingdom of God to earth. :)
That is an old question rephrased, I think. Can God use a non-Christian to meet His goals here on earth! Definitely. God can use anyone and anything simply because He IS God!
Do their good deeds get them into the Kingdom of Heaven? Check this one out: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6,7. Then, He turns right around and says: "If you love me, you will obey what I commnand." John 14:15 and continues in 14:23 "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me."
I have heard your Dad say he has seen people who act more "Christian" in a bar than some he has seen in church.
Unfortunately, hypocrites are not new either! I think Jesus mentions them again and again when referring to the church men of His day.
Can we escape our human condition in this life? I think not! We have to be careful of "throwing out the baby with the bath water," which I think you are being very careful NOT to do! Hurrah for your generation who seems to be calling people back to truly living the Word.
http://criswell.files.wordpress.com/2006/03/3,2%20APastoralPerspectiveontheEmergentChurch[Driscoll].PDF
Here is an interesting article by Mark Driscoll which discusses some of the things left out by the GodTube video. It gives a thorough discussion of why this issue is so important regarding the kingdom of God and its advancement on the earth by looking at the emergent church and the need for the dialogue that is currently happening.
Sorry, it's not a direct answer to the above question posed by Danielle, but I felt she was very right that some aspects of the emergent church were glossed over or skipped by the GodTube video, and I knew that there would be something that could do better justice to the issue. A friend who is a Campus Crusade staff member told me about this article.
Melinda
Danielle, I was impressed by your article when I first read it. I did not comment because I don't feel knowledgeable enough to do that. When I was your age I usually read a book a week, most of them were religious oriented. When I went to work full time and had a family of four children to raise, help put through college, that search slowed way down. I quit reading books so much and only had time for a meditation/devotion time with my Bible to start each day.
That gave me more of a sense of peace, and strength to meet the day. However, I always started with a prayer for God to open my eyes to discover His truth He had for me.
I was in a class yesterday that described spiritual growth as the process of becoming more aware of God's presence in your life. That's exactly what happened to me during my "quiet time"
I can share my own opinions and experience. That is several years ago I felt a strong urge to follow the example Jesus told about in Matthew 25: 31 - 48 where the Son of Man is separating the sheep from the goats. Those who fed the hungry, clothed those who needed it, and cared for those sick or in prison and so on were rewarded. They inherited the kingdom of heaven but those who ignored the needy were sent to eternal punishment.
It has been my guide since on how I determine where to spend my donations, and it should be my guide on how to spend my time. I'm need to work on that part.
I'm sorry that I didn't answer sooner. I can only share what has touched my life. God bless you in your search
These are not new ideas. Same stuff that late 19th Century theologians were teaching. They thought that we were building God's kingdom here on earth. WWI made them all take stock of what they were teaching as the kingdom seemed to be coming apart a lot faster than it was being built. Karl Barth was profoundly influenced by dealing with sin and it's effect on the world. McLaren et al are just re-hashing some of the same stuff. What they do bring to the equation is getting away from platonic thought creeping into biblical theology, but their logic leads to basic 20th century modernism. Another good author in the thought line is Rob Bell and his book "Velvet Elvis." All this is good reading for folks recovering from ultra right wing fundamentalism. But always test it against the what the scriptures actually say and not what a system of thought has to say about it.
This post has been removed by the author.
Melinda-
That WAS an interesting article, and I have seen a lot of the things he mentions taking place in discussions among the Emerging Church. However, my hope is that everyone will remain unified in those things which they hold similar about their faith, rather than breaking off into separate groups.
Anonymous (Aunt D maybe?)-
Thank you for sharing your personal journey of discovering what it means to be a follower of Christ. Making a decision like that really does have to be personal in order for it to hold such a place of importance in your heart, as it seems to with you.
I especially liked the description of spiritual growth that you shared from you class. Thank you for your sincerity and openness!
USAF Chaplain-
Thank you for your comments and suggestion! I recently read an account that mentioned WWII and other events in history as being the instigators for post-modern thought. Re-thinking old ideas is a good way of promoting growth and change (hopefully positive), especially in a world that needs those things so desperately.
I'm not sure if you knew this, but my husband is in the Air Force too. He's a captain as well, and is working as a Registered Nurse at Wilford Hall. He was showing me the "Velvet Elvis" book online just last week, saying he wanted to read it. We'll have to be sure to, now that you have recommended it!
Hey congrats on your husbands promotion. I came across your blog when your husband was going to COT and I was trying to find any info about it before I went. It's been nice to check in from time to time and see how his career has been going, since we entered about 3 months apart. As for the Emerging church stuff, I'm really intrigued with the emphasis on social justice in terms of living as Christ taught us. Giving a cold cup of water in Jesus' name and such, as long as that mission doesn't dismiss our need of being made whole in Christ through the forgiveness of sins. You know that whole forrest for the trees thing. Like I said before, I dig Rob Bell's stuff. His church is http://www.marshill.org/ I think you and your husband would like his sermons. They are free on the website and you can download them to your ipod.
Danielle,
Glad you enjoyed this recent article. About the comments on post-modern thought, I have read, even among secular professors, that they believe this began to happen early in the 1900s, especially as related to Europe's experience of WWI (the War to End All Wars!). What they experienced, all going into the war thinking God was on their side, and then seeing millions die and no one really win, began to reshape their thoughts about God and they turned their backs on him, and on certainty about him.
I think the anonymous comment was UnclePJ, not Aunt D. My own journey of faith is similar. Now, having researched and read and established the reliability of the scriptures, I cannot get enough of digging into them and studying and applying them to my life. There is so much there, and I will get to the end of my life without hardly even getting to scratch the surface.
And, I love the chaplain's comments that this is all about the wholeness that comes from forgiveness of sins. What Christ did for us on the cross in the center and most important act in history.
Melinda
You're right about WWI. I remembered incorrectly what I read. I went back to check, and it mentioned how WWI first began the post-modern dialogue, followed by more dialogue after WWII. Then, it went on to discuss how the mistreatment of the Native Americans and the blacks, as well as how the impact of our poor environmental decisions have kept that dialogue going as a means of finding solutions for the messes we keep making.
I think it is really revelatory that this postmodern belief system in Europe, and their cynicism as a result of all the death they've seen on their continent from war after war (esp. WWI) has resulted in a population which is only 3% Christian. And, this was the seat of "Christendom"!
And, that is probably the point. Most times people turn their backs on God through disillusionment because the view they had of God was flawed in the first place, usually a man-made imagination of a god in their own image. Then when he doesn't act according to the box they have put him in (for instance: we must win because our side is the "right" side, then we don't win, so it's god's fault, and I am now mad at god, or decide he doesn't exist) they become embittered at the god who was actually a god they had imagined, and not the God he really is at all, according to his own description of himself in his Word. That is the problem. If we don't take the time to read his own Words and observe and study and see who HE actually says he is, how can we know him?
This requires effort and digging and pausing to contemplate his reality in our lives. If we don't worship the God he actually is, we're idolaters, even though we may have slapped the same name as the God of the bible on the god we invented in our minds in our own image. This inventing of a false god to meet our own selfish expectations has been going on since the beginning.
I don't know if this is making sense, because it's difficult to explain, but I think this is the root of postmodernism. God, the real God, was always and is always in control and sovereignly, benevolently controls the history of the world for his own good purposes, which we often don't udnerstand. But, God's plans didn't fit into the preconceived notions of people's minds as to what their imagined idea of god had to do in the given situation, so they turned their backs on who they thought god was, not him in reality, not ever really knowing him in reality.
the above was posted by Melinda
So basically what you're saying is that because of these tragic historical instances, people began to realize their idea of who God is was wrong, so they started searching to find where they went wrong and to learn more about who God really is. Thus, post-modernism was born.
If that's what you're saying, I'd have to say that I agree with that concept. That is how Sean and I got started on this path. Various events in our lives and in the world made us question our ideas about who God is, and we began looking into those ideas to establish their truth. In the end, our idea of God has been re-defined. For us, it has been a very good thing.
Danielle
I sent you an email earlier but will just add on some thoughts to your blog. As I mentioned, I definitely don't feel knowledgeable enough to comment on a lot of this information. I am thrilled though that you are looking at what is best for you and Sean and what you can believe in with all your heart. Regardless of what others believe. I think that is most important. As mentioned, I think the most intersting show I saw on the History channel (with today's TV I notice we watch a lot more of the History and Discovery channel :) about how the books of the bible were selected. I was surprised about the process and criteria used to select the books but even more surprised about where the rejected books went. I believe religions are connected. The God I believe in is very big and multi-cultural and likes giving us a lot of choices and then sitting back and watching us choose based on the experience and knowledge we have already obtained. It is how we learn and grow and become better, wiser people. I also believe God has a great sense of humor. I think he tries to find different avenues to speak to people. Since we are all different, he seeks for the best way for each of us to hear him and beleive in him. Some of the people that I know - that most resemble Jesus are atheists and hindu and muslim and yes - some christian. They just have a genuine love in their heart and gentle kindness. Loving Kindness. Continue your journey girlfriend and believe what you need to believe. Life is to short to not be passionate about what works best for you. Love you. Melodie
That's exactly what I'm saying, but to clarify one point on postmodernism being born. Postmodernism being born primarily in rejection of the god of their own imagination--if that is what he is like he is not true (which of course he is not, since it was a god of their own imagination and not truly God), there is no truth and everything is relative (to condense it way down).
Here is how I think this happened to bring us to the point we are in America:
Why do most people in our culture have a false god of our own imagination that is not the true, accurate God of the bible?
First: because we have no unified American church (which has its pros and its cons) this has allowed groups to go off on all sorts of weird tangents over the four hundred years the church has been developing here in the U.S. Hence, no unified ecclesiastical body of knowledge, training of pastors, preaching, etc. In American, we preach and believe false doctrines which are not believed by any nations outside the UK and the US, for instance.
Second: Because of this uniformly bad training a bad explanation of substitutionary atonement was given. That God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. because we were in need of reconciliation, is the message, but this wasn't preached. The atonement was taught wrong. You never ever saw the love of God in the message. God's redemption of us through Christ was motivated by love, not wrath. Jesus willingly laying down his life was not taught. He was presented as a victim. The fact that the deal was cut before the world existed was never mentioned.
Third: More evidence of not actually understanding the real message if the bible: The American church is mainly Arminian—we think we choose Christ, not the truth that we were chosen in Him before the foundations of the world. This seriously muddles the message and tones down God's grace.
Fourth: Because of this, we shied away from the biblically accurate terms and descriptions and explanations. We didn't know them ourselves so couldn't explain them to our children and as a result we do not come out of our churches knowing: What is the point of Christ's blood needing to be shed? Why is this important? How does this effect my life every day? The point was not made clearly by the previous generation of preachers, teachers, and parents.
In our I'm okay, you're okay culture we don't realize we are in need of redeeming. We must realize we can't redeem ourselves, we can never be good enough. Christ has to redeem us--it is a free gift.
These are the theological underpinnings to this current situation in the American church The blame is with the previous generations not preaching the message accurately, uniformly across the country, in the training our pastors have gotten, and because of this we have taken the NT completely out of context, like walking into the middle of the foreign language film of the bible without any subtitles—this previous generation of preachers have left out the OT message that sets the scene for the NT (that phrase borrowed from an online discussion I heard).
Now, I will add some other things we have done wrong, which are not theological per se, that I am hearing over and over from your generation.
We have excluded the younger generation from the life of the church. We have excluded them from all adult life, by and large. They haven't felt part of the club by our age segregation of them, our withholding things of importance from them by assuming they cannot understand (an insult to their intelligence) and that all they want is fun in our church activities rather than meaningful, life-changing ministry(an insult to their character), our neglect to answer their questions honestly (often because we ourselves didn't know because the preaching and teaching was so bad), our failure to learn to communicate with them in a way they can hear.
We do not treat our teens like adults—when in Jewish culture it is assumed that at age 13 you are capable of being treated as such. In every other culture in which my family has lived and ministered (Russia, India), the kids are right there with the adults, part of the life of the church, singing, sharing testimony, hearing the adult sermon, participating in the service.
Every single young person I know who has grown up in the church was hurt by someone in the church in a significant way which was not ever dealt with in a biblical way. The older person never asked their forgiveness, indeed, never seemed to ever know or show that they'd done anything wrong, and often had the support of an entire adult group in doing this—the hurt of the child/youth often laughed off as an insignificant thing. As a result the young person never was able to move beyond that hurt and be prepared to offer forgiveness to the offender. So there is an undercurrent of hurt and bitterness in their dealings with the church. There is a reason they call most Christians hypocrites. I can give examples if necessary.
What the younger generation noticed in the scriptures, they did not see us doing. We focused on one part of Jesus' message, to the exclusion of the others. We hammered on sexual morality, for instance, without also focusing on concern for others, missions, care of the poor, kindness toward others, lack of materialism (give up all you have and follow me). And, we never seemed to be able to apply Matthew 18 to ourselves in settling differences and conflicts within the church.
The issue of the lack of significant activities in our church for teens and single adult. We have treated them like life doesn't begin until marriage, and until then their issues, needs, concerns are insignificant. They are getting married now at older and older ages, and so between 13 or 14 and the time of marriage, often at least 12 years, they are a non-person whose concerns are viewed as trivial.
So, when you add personal insult to crummy, non-biblical, inaccurate teaching and preaching you get this mess which WE, my own and previous generations, have made of the American church. The younger generation's reaction to either take a vacation from church entirely, or to form their own groups that want to rectify all these abuses, is the natural result of our actions. My generation had better come to the table prepared to repent before your generation, to ask their forgiveness, and to then rectify our wrongs.
Melinda
My comment above was in response to what Danielle posted at 10:26, not to what Melodie posted just a few minutes before me.
Melinda
This comment is in response to Melodie's post of 10:59
We live in a marvelous age. We can find so much on the internet! I have found it most helpful in this discussion about how we got the scriptures, how the books were chosen, why some were excluded, etc. to go right back to the primary source documents themselves, rather than relying on what any scholar, or teacher, or movie, or the History channel, or secondary source says about it.
Calvin College has what is called "the ethereal library" which is an online source that contains complete the writings of all the early church (patristic) fathers and all the writings in dispute as well. I'm sure other colleges have these online also. You can also find the Nag Hammadi texts (which are quite interesting to read) which are the newly found documents that everyone keeps talking about. Because of the internet, all of these documents can be read by anyone. What I have read so far, myself, from the primary documents (translated into English from the Greek) has been highly illuminating.
There is also an excellent translation of Eusebius' history of the church which was written for Constantine, which you hear talked about much, and which is much distorted in the Da Vinci code. Paul Maier has an excellent translation directly from Eusebius' Greek transcript out which you can purchase and read for yourself, rather than relying on second hand sources. I have a very marked up copy of this history. I went to hear Paul Maier lecture up at the University of Michigan about this topic after I had read his translation of Eusebius.
Doing this research on my own, without the filter of any secondary source and their bias has been the best thing I have ever done for my faith. The core of my faith in the scriptures stands up to the scrutiny of thorough investigation. Of course, this all takes an incredible amount of time, but, for me, it has been time well spent.
You and I have never discussed any of this, so I wanted to let you know that all this stuff is out there translated into English, right from the original documents, which are in Koine Greek. Thanks for bringing this up. It is time consuming, but worth it to look at the origin, primary documents themselves. My goal is to get more proficient in Greek in order to be able to read the originals, and not have to rely on translations into English.
Love you--Melinda
Hi you....well bummer. History repeats itself. You have always been the best looking, wiser, brighter and smarter of the two of us.... I am not sure I will learn Greek so that I can try to do my own biblical translations :) But I will trust what you discover. Please share it with me. Have you also looked into the actual process they used to select the books. Example: why Mark, Matthew made it into the Bible but other popular religious manuscripts of the time did not? That was what the history channel story focused on. I have gotten a book from the library to look at and see what it says (aligns or not with the history channel). What other information can you share and point me toregarding the selection process? Thanks Nina... x0 Melodie
I agree. No Greek for me, but I would be interested in hearing what you discover. :)
Well, I sure don’t agree with your assessment that I am the best looking, wiser, brighter and smarter sister! I think all the evidence is to the contrary on that one! I would be happy to share my conclusions with you (both), even though my research into more and more details of church functioning, etc. , is ongoing (and that is what I’m focusing my college degree work on). Since I do work at home, I am able to allot more time to this, as I schedule my research around the job of teaching my kiddos. Danielle, this group discussion page is getting ready to get really long!
I have been studying this for the past 5 years, as time allows me to study. My focus is cyclical because during our home school process, the freshman and sophomore year of high school we spend studying and learning about the time period of ancient history on up to and through the Reformation. We study and examine all of the historical sources together. Therefore, in our cycle, I am about to begin going through all of this again with Katherine, which gives me a refresher, too. That fact, and the space limitations here, only allow me to give you the highlights (which may be all you want).
The book Eusebius: The Church History translated by Paul L. Maier really is the most helpful in examining the process because the first three centuries of the church WAS the process of deciding, from everything that was being written, what exactly made for scripture. I know The DaVinci Code represents the selection process as taking place at the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.), but this is a distortion. The selection had already taken place throughout the course of the first two centuries, as the church weighed and sifted everything that was being written—and a LOT was being written. No edict was issued from Nicea as to what comprised scripture—it was more of a theological conference for a creed accurately stating the stance of the church on the Deity of Christ. About one hundred fifty years later another council met at Chalcedon to further define the Deity of Christ. And councils continued and do continue to meet. Our list of books of the New Testament actually comes from a personal letter one pastor was writing to another several decades after Nicea, a scrap of which survives. He was recording a list of the books which had been agreed upon for 100 – 200 years.
You have to keep in mind how very different the church was in the first three centuries from how it is now. People were widely separated because of how difficult travel was, even though the Roman roads and ships were excellent for the time. Letters by apostles and people writing in association with them that were written were specific to groups of people they addressed, while also having application to the entire church. However, the entire church didn’t actually receive each individual letter. The letter was read aloud, to the people to whom it was addressed, and those who could afford to make copies or have a scribe make them a copy wrote and copied these letters. These copies were circulated.
Therefore, spelling and copywork type errors exist in all these copies, as you would expect. I have been in an experiment where the teacher read out a long New Testament passage and we all copied as he read. We then turned in our copies and the same types of errors of copying were found as are found in these early copies—words run together, spelling, dropped words, etc. By comparing the many copies we easily come at what the original said.
Tens of thousands of copies of each letter or gospel that came to a church, in all of the various locations, were made of the ones which were deemed to be authentically inspired by God—this is why we have so many abundant original copies of these. People copied the letters and copied copies and sent them by courier to other churches, who made copies, etc. Authorship by an apostle, or by one working with him, being one of the criteria, but not the only one—apostles of the first century included a bigger group than we usually think of, as about 15-16 men are listed as such in the New Testament. The ones which were not written by an apostle, or by one directly associated with and under the direction of an apostle, and/or not deemed as being God-inspired (perhaps just a letter from one pastor to another of no significance to the entire church, or from one pastor to a church, or not by an apostle, or from someone not in agreement with what the apostle had written in the letter) were not copied as much at all. If you can only afford limited parchment, you save it for the important stuff—the one right from the apostle.
When you read these other documents that weren’t copied much because they didn’t meet the criteria, it is similar to reading a Christian or Christian-related book today. The ideas are interesting and you learn a lot, but there is always a glaring factor that reveals it is not God-inspired. For instance, I really like Clement of Rome’s letter to the Corinthians and there is a lot to learn from it, but some errors of fact concerning a local legend (the phoenix) in the letter show this is not a God-inspired letter, for instance. Most of the Gnostic documents from the Nag Hammadi findings read like they were written by someone on a bad LSD trip. When you study the culture of the Greeks in which all of these people are steeped, you see these Gnostic writings are much influenced by the Mysteries of Eleusis, a temple cult in Greece, and, hence, not Christian doctrine but are an attempt to make Christianity be about Greek doctrine pertaining to their deities. It very apparent they were not God-inspired. Though far out to read!
This is why so few fragments of these other documents survive, while we have tens of thousands of the copies of the ones deemed God-inspired, and why we just found some fairly recently, along with the Dead Sea Scrolls—the Nag Hammadi finding near Alexandria. Alexandria, Egypt was like the Harvard or Cambridge of the age—the best library of documents of all sorts in the entire world was kept there. The conditions were dry and this kept parchments well preserved. Many intellectuals gathered there. And, just like Harvard or Cambridge today, you would find documents of everything—agreed upon orthodox Christian writings on down to everything in opposition.
Eusebius is fascinating to read because you see this selection process at work as pastors agree and disagree over documents, and you learn how they came to agreement. The gospels and Acts were immediately accepted—approximately written 45 – 65 A.D. Mark is believed to be the earliest gospel written first (45 A.D.)—dictated by the apostle Peter to John Mark—the same John Mark (also just called Mark) you read about in Acts and the epistles in those footnotes at the end of the letters. It is probably the mysterious Q you hear about, not some other missing document. Matthew & Luke use Mark as a source and probably wrote ten years later, but because they are eyewitness accounts they differ in perspective. Matthew being the apostle Matthew, though some scholars try to make it out as otherwise, the historical record is certain. Luke being the physician who traveled with Paul and whom you also read about in Acts. Luke’s gospel is the most Greek/Gentile in nature because he was not a Jew and his gospel was written after extensive research from many, many eyewitnesses to Christ’s ministry and life. Throughout the book of Acts, also written by Luke, the different letters were written by Paul to various churches. You discern this through examining each of these letters and the circumstances that led to the writing of the letter in Acts. John wrote his gospel much later in the century with the purpose in mind of explaining how we know Jesus in God in human flesh, since the Deity of Christ was the fact that had to be settled, and he also wanted to tell the events the others had not included in their accounts—Jesus’ early ministry, for instance. John’s other writings were written around this time, too: 85 – 95 A.D. Both John and Paul got writing done because they were in prison for being part of the “cult” of Christianity. Christianity being considered a cult because Christians did not worship Roman gods, but claimed there was one God, and worshiped him—an unknown God to the Romans.
Anyway, it eventually became necessary to have a list of which of the documents were authored by apostles and their associates, and were God-inspired because there were so very many letters and documents out there, and centuries were passing. The few letters who don’t have immediately evident authorship were disputed into the 100s, the ones that the entire church agreed on were the bulk of the New Testament—especially the four gospels and Acts--and were already settled in the first century. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke (and later John), and Acts immediately accepted, and the other gospels floating around were immediately recognized as not God-inspired because all of these people, the authors, were still living and could verify. No official list was made that had official church sanction until centuries later because it was commonly agreed on fairly early. Everybody at the time knew these other documents did not have the significance that the God-inspired documents had. For instance, while I like my book by John Piper, I do not consider his words to have the weight of scripture, though he may be talking about scripture. Same thing then. Some of the epistles took longer to agree on due to limited geographical availability--one region of the church had the letter, not the others.
This is the other reason it was necessary to have the list of authentic documents. Not all churches had access to all the documents—remember the distance apart and the means of copying and that the Roman empire went from Judea to Britain by the mid-100s. If you only have part of the New Testament, you don’t have the whole story and your doctrines and beliefs can easily tilt off in a direction that ends up not being in balance with the counsel of the whole. For instance, keep our two parents in your mind. Imagine if you only got counsel from one and never from the other. In fact, you don’t even know one of them at all. You would be a far different person, only having received the counsel of one, not the counsel of the whole (both of them). Another for instance, if you read Matthew’s gospel only you get a very Jewish centered gospel, whereas if you read Luke’s you get a very Gentile centered gospel. Reading both lets you see that the gospel is for the entire world—not Jews only, but every one else, too. What Paul advises the Corinthians might not be a problem to the Philippians because they don’t have the priestesses of Delphi in such close proximity influencing their worship services since everyone in Corinth grew up steeped in those practices, but if you don’t have that letter to the Corinthians you don’t have the most extensive section teaching specifically about the proper use of spiritual gifts in the church, and about settling disputes in the church.
This is really long, but is very, very much condensed from what I could go on and on and say. But, sums up in a brief, simple way (hopefully :) ) the selection process and how we arrived at what we’ve got. It has been fascinating for me to study these cultures and this history, and to read these documents, and I am really, really glad I did it. Thanks for asking. If you want to ask me any questions about any of these specifics, or feel I've left out anything you wonder about, or wonder about anything that happened later, just let me know, and I'll see if I can address that. Studying this has been the best thing I have ever done academically, and has solidified my confidence in the bible.
Melinda
PS. About what was done with the manuscripts which were deemed not God-inspired.
Men who were especially gifted at writing, and who had access to the whole of the scriptures (not just a few of the books, but not the others), would write letters explaining why one or the other of the other writings were in disagreement with the counsel of the whole. They would often write these at request of someone who had read a copy of one of these, and who wondered, or would write at the request of a church in an area where there was a dispute about one of these disputed documents, so they would have the benefit of the counsel of the whole. Remember, no printing press until the 1400s, so not having access to what the whole of the scriptures actually said was a problem for a while. You can also read these on the ethereal library site.
Melinda
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home