jesus is the way
I am currently writing a book on missional Christology with my old co-conspirator, Michael Frost. This kind of work of necessity takes on a tone of personal quest—for I cannot but be deeply involved in the material I am writing about. I have always been fascinated by Jesus, and to be honest, I feel my connection to God as profoundly mediated through the prism of Jesus the Messiah. I see God as profoundly Christlike.
As I reflect on the meaning of Easter, I was drawn to those very dramatic passages in John 14-17
, which were given to the disciples on the night of his betrayal. I find this these scenes particularly poignant: Things have come to a head, the moment has come, Jesus is concentrating his language here because the time is short. And because of this, these passages have an elemental urgency about them. And then I come to that quintessential saying of Jesus in John 14:6 ““I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” And I realize afresh that this is exactly how I experience my connection with God—as a relationship mediated through my savior Jesus. This text is all about mediation; “I am the Way” describing Jesus in his mediatorial role between God and humanity; as the Truth he is the mediator of the revelation of God, and as the Life he is the mediator of the salvation which is life in God.
In spite of all the exclusivity bound up in this saying, I not only believe this to be true cognitively, and confessionally, but I feel the truth of this verse with my very bones. And in a strange way, I have known this long before I began to truly follow Jesus. It is as he says it is. He is the Way.
And it is from here we get our missional agenda.
Comments
47 Responses to “jesus is the way”
Leave a Reply
The Books
Affiliates
Recent Blog Entries
Recent Comments
-
the reason for god
- Amanda said: Wow, looks like an... the last thing to convert…is the wallet
- Richard Clarke said: The version I heard had...
- Andrew Park said: Money on a different...
- Andrew said: Relates directly to...
- Dan Lowe said: You know, if this was a...
- Amanda said: hehe, it's funny because...
- Lucy J said: Kinda reminds me of a...
- Eric said: The story goes that... the role of theology in faith
- Ed Magee said: thanks Janet, intersting...
- Janet said: "Are people looking for...
Wow, Alan…don’t know how you do it! I am assuming that this book is just starting and will be taking quite a while…although I am aware of what that can make me…will it be connected with your doctoral studies? Will stay tuned for the details
It certainly does make sense to go back to the beginning. I am right there with you feeling the truth of The Truth in my very bones as well! I will look forward to the day (year?) when it is published.
Be blessed during this Easter season, as always, brother.
Alan…thank you! Once Easter is celebrated…get writing, you and that Michael-man. We will wait…in His name. …blessings abundant! …Wes
we’ll need to start calling you Alan Barth Hirsch!
seriously I think Barth was right its not enough for Christian theology to say that Christ is God,true Christian thinking insists and acts on the fact that God is Christlike.
Thanks guys. Actually we have started and have a contract with a publisher. We are meant to deliver in August (here’s hoping!!) According to how we are wired, we are wanting to give the whole subject a missional boost.
And James, I couldn’t agree more. God is like Christ and in Him is no unchristlikeness at all.
Hate to point out the obvious:
Since Jesus is God it follows that God is like Jesus….
I’m new to this blog, but have been reading it regularly for a couple of weeks now. I always enjoy the thoughts expressed, and just wanted to say thanks for sharing! I’m always provoked to reflect on the great content here.
Same as Sarah, new to the blog but I appriciate what I read, thanks!
Do you people have any thoughts on why, and what it meant, that the first disciples said that they followed the teaching called the Way? I wonder if that could communicate better to non-believers what we live/do/believe than to say that we are christians? (which was a name given by non-believers, and today does not necessarily mean a disciple).
I ask this because if I say that I am a christian people ask me if I am a catholic or protestant. I then answer protestant, which for most people only signifies that the priest can marry… I am tempted to answer the next time that I am just a person following Jesus.
Anyways, would love to hear your comments on this.
Isaac, it is obvious but you wold be amazed at how much we miss the point historically.
Sarah and Espen, welcome. I hope you find a idealogical home here.
Espen, I tend to answer the same question with exactly that qualification…I am a follower of Jesus. But I love the idea of calling it The Way. they did that in the 60’s you know. I have a buddy (Johnathan Campbell) who wrote a book called The Way of Jesus. It was directed towards seekers in the new religious movements (New Age)
Hi Alan,
“The Way” as developed in the 60’s grew to become a quasi-liberal “christian” cult, blending elements of Arianism, Christian Science etc in their theology and emotional manipulation and mind control in practice… We also liked that terminology a few years ago and did a little research… so we chose not to identify our journey with that particular language
It’s annoying how many good descriptive names and phrases have already been corrupted… why can’t the cults leave some for the church to corrupt?!
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Hey CS, the problem is the the word Christian is now as corrupted in probably a host of similar ways. Christian Science, etc. But I take your point.
Shalom
A
Yeah Al,
we’re agreed on the corruption of “Christian” too. As you already noted in your response to Espen I reckon “follower of Jesus” is a much more helpful description if you genuinely want to engage in discussion with people.
Keep following brother…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Espen, I think it term resonates because Jesus called himself The Way…as Alan shared above. But I think that the corruption of “terminology” is another aspect of the whole “institutional” problem. We tend to look to “identify a product” we are “selling” instead of being identifiable as incarnational/missional ambassadors of Christ.
It occurs to me, Alan and CS, that the whole “Christian” identifier as “label”, rather than descriptor of active, observable lifestyle, is another form of innoculation against The Truth…I fear that we will not get past this until we get past using human “labels” as both identity and security that we’re running with the “in” crowd.
All the more reason to strip away the various names and labels and get back to being so radical that we are again given names that match our real identity…hmmm….
Blessings,
Alan,
I am happy to hear that you are writing a book on missional Christology. As mush as I teach on this subject I just get people looking at me cross-eyed. Trying to get Jesus back in the center of the church is a task. I hope you give us hints on your blog on what you are writing.
Happy Easter / Glad Påsk
From Sweden
Alan and all - we’ve already had 2 Easter worship services - 2 tonight in a couple of hours and 3 more tomorrow. My heart is on your side of the globe right now Alan - and it’s broken and rejoicing at the same time. Because of all the “weird” and “crazy” and “unusual” things I’m involved in globally it has openned up multiple religious and non-religious channels of communication. Easter is about Jesus - Christology through and through. Mercy, grace, sacrifice, incarnation, substituion, reconciliation and love. As far as I’m concerned it’s all Christology - everything else is window dressing. That’s why I love all the expressions of the church. I’ve recieved 2 emails today from very sensitive places. One of a young youth pastor who’s ministry is exploding in a very difficult nation - he was abducted, tied up, thrown in a trunk, a cell phone was put at his mouth to tell his family good-bye. That was just a few hours ago - don’t know if he’s still with us or not. Another email from another part of the world - and this one will be repeated in many times in the next 24 hours - a church was stormed, women, children, and men were beaten - some were kidnapped - a pregnant woman was stomped on and lost her baby - the story goes on. Knowing some of those people and watching them, and now helpless feels so unbearable. There is something about their Christology that is moment by moment unlike ours. I don’t have time to blog - but I can’t keep my mind on my sermon. Yep, I’m a mega-church pastor - some of us love God too and like Alan a lot, he’s had a profound impact on the whole body - just get over it! Like it or not if we all belong to Jesus - we’re all related - he’s the organic connection - not some guru, denomination, network, or brand. I wish I was in the trunk of the car with that young man of God. I’m 49 and he’s barely 20, I wish I could switch places with him somehow. You guys lift them up. I can’t give anymore specifics than that.
Thanks for all your reponses. And I agree with you Peggy. Those who followed Jesus was known not by their name or label, but by their actions (how they loved eachother etc)–just noticed that this is also mentioned in the Shaping of things to come p 140 (it’s where I have come in the book
In my (norwegian) translation, when Paul speaks in Acts 24:14
, it is translated “I worship the God of the fathers by following the Way, which they call a sectarian teaching.” If some of you have made some research on this, could this mean that the disciples did not consider them, or the church, as the Way, but that it was their teaching, which in essence would be the person Jesus (and not a creed)?
My question on if we should use the term “christian” also applies for me to the word “church”… Most people relate it with a building, and if not we use it for the assembly where we go Sunday mornings. So today it is a religious word. Would any of you know if the word translated as “church” in our translations is communicating approximatly what people would have understood with that word in the first century or if there are other words which would better translate it?
Bob, I am sorry to hear what is happening. I believe one day these things may happen in the West also. I think that this movement which is happening now of people leaving big hierarchical structures for then to enter into small family oriented structures is a movement of God, and that one of the benefits (among many) are better protection against persecution.
God og velsignet påske (to the swede), and blessed easter to the rest of you,
Espen
Espen, I think you’re on to it…Jesus is The Way. We are followers of Jesus. And the word “church” has the same problem. The church was the people…there were no buildings in the early days! The “ekklesia” were those called out to follow Jesus.
You are right on, Espen, in saying that the smaller, family/house “churches” offer better protection against persecution! Certainly this is the experience of the Chinese house churches!
In the church planting movement I’m working on we will leave the word “church” behind–because it has become a liability. It does not convey the truth–the word has been lost to us by misuse.
But, that is not a bad thing, either!
And Bob, I grieve with you over the horrors our brothers and sisters endure…and pray fervently that the Holy Spirit gives them the strength to live fully and die well, if that is their path.
Christ’s Resurrection is such a blessed hope in the midst of the Darkness.
Hallelujah! He is Risen, indeed!
According to my Vine’s expository dictionary, “Church” means assembly / gathering in Greek… more of a political than a religious term. Describing your meetings as gatherings of followers of Jesus would probably do the job.
Bob… wow. These horrors you describe are the context in which the New Testament was written, and remind me of the greatest power of the Easter message… Christ has conquered death and given us an eternal hope. Our physical life is not the end of the story. From the comfort where I live, the Easter message has a hazy focus… for your friends, the brothers and sisters of us all, eternal hope must be in sharp relief.
Jesus wept…
Well, I don’t want to split hairs, but I guess it is a political term…until it becomes a religious term. In the 1st century, it could be either political or religious…but in our time, I don’t know of any current usage of “church” that is not religious. I think it is helpful to think of the term “church” as coming to be used in order to differentiate from “synagogue” — these two being the “gathering” of God’s covenant people.
The problem comes when the term refers to the place where the gathering or assembly takes place, rather that those God has called to gather or assemble in Christ’s name. The former is institutional, the latter is relational. And this phenemon happened with both the church and the synagogue!
The church gathers for encouragement and prayer and teaching…in order to equip the saints for the work of ministry all the rest of the time.
Ok…I’m finished
Be blessed,
Call ‘em Christians or something else - call it the church or something else - all the good terms have been taken and used good and abused bad throughout history - especially in the past 100 years here in the West. Here in the West this is something we will struggle with - I think it’s good. But perhaps the new vocabularies need to be directed to the specific contexts and movements we find ourselves in, or our vocabulary will be a noose to our spiritual descendants and a broader context beyond our own. I do the same thing - but we want to define everyone else by our experience for good or for bad - we want to give vocabulary to the whole world - I think they may give the new global vocabulary!
Another challenge we face is connecting to the church globally - and I’m not speaking primarily from a Western context - but eastern and southern. The church has begun to connect globally outside the West and that will only increase. I’m excited about blogs like this showing up from the Chinese in China or Middle-Eastern Christians, etc. Wow, what are we going to learn about God from them! They may just hold the keys to our “savlation” more than we!
The words church and christian don’t have the same negative impact - if anything they have a connecting factor that give people hope in tough places so they don’t feel alone. Sadly, many followers of Jesus in tough places of the world think we are like them. When they talk about “church” and faith and following him - you see all the forms - house, simple, complicated, buildings, office spaces, third places - they don’t see to have the structure debate we do. It isn’t hard to understand why - they wouldn’t use the word - but their focus is on Christology - who is Jesus and what is he saying to me - right now.
OK - gotta go run - Haven’t heard anything on my friend - keep praying - I’ll let you guys know when I hear something.
Man, Bob moves in totally wierd and wonderful circles guys. You have to hear his story sometime. Remarkable man. One of my heroes!
Beautiful post … Jesus is The Way. We not only source our missional agenda from this reality, but also the entire context for a deep Christianity. said differently, without it, we are left searching quite aimlessly for a legitimate context for life and mission. Again, great post. Simple, yet profound beyond imagination.
“In spite of all the exclusivity bound up in this saying…”
I love that you brought this up, Alan.
Jesus is so divisive! He says, “You know, the Old covenant is not good enough anymore!” and, “You can’t get to heaven through being good!!”
~~Something strange happened~~ here’s the rest:
Or anything that we can do.
Love it, love it, love it.
“I am the [only] way, the [ultimate] truth, and the [eternal] life.”
As for terms… Well as it has been said already, terms will always be misused and be left with somewhat undesirable connotations.
And no matter what term is used (terms will always be used of course) a true believer is not defined by how they describe themselves, but the fruit of their lives. (And perhaps a church is the same — that is, a true church if it has fruit)
hey just a thought on God being very Christlike… i read this artical that says perhaps instead of telling people, that have many different views on who God is, that Jesus is God….
we should in fact be saying that God is Jesus… both statements are true but in the post-christian west people need to know the Christlikeness of God…
my 2cents anyway….
First, thanks for the video at the head o fthis… I’ve posted it over on the blog I moderate as well (emergingumc).
Second, to Espen… the reference to the Way is picked up in one of the earliest Christian non-biblical documents, called Didache, or The teaching of the twelve apostles. Scholars date this anywhere between 65-85 AD for the most part (some put some parts of it later). I don’t know of any Norwegian translations– but you could probably find a version online you could read.
The understanding of Way in that document speaks of two different possible ways of living in this world– the Way of Life (the way of Jesus) and the Way of Death (every other way). The first several chapters of Didache are all about teaching people how to follow what they understood to be the way of Jesus. You see some quotes familiar from the gospels, and some that are not. But the point is that this was about discipleship– about a total immersion into a way of life– both individually and as a community. It wasn’t about who is in charge and it wasn’t really terribly much about doctrine.
I don’t advocate Didache as a perfect example of a Christian community fully “getting it” in their context or for ours– but I do think what we see there is pretty indicative of a viable form of Christian missional community– one viable enough that this text, probably originally from Syria, was preserved in a number of later collections through several centuries to come all around the Christian world (including Rome, Egypt, North Africa and Syria in the next three centuries), and that it remained in several Canon Books well after Athanasius’s description of the canon in 367.
Peace in Christ,
Thank you Taylor, and it strengthens the case for that it is all about discipleship (though I find some of the elements in the Didache a bit legalistic).
Not a long ago I heard someone say that Jesus never asked us to build his church. He said He would do that (Mt 16,18). Our job is to make disciples (Mt 28,19).
For those who would like to read the Didache, here’s the link.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
That sounds harsh….
But I really do need to ask that very evangelical question…
“Where is it in the Bible?”
Where is it in the Bible that our meetings should include non-christians?
Thanks for bringing up the Didache, Taylor.
I think you will find no support in the Didache for missional style church - taking that to mean establishing a “church” in a “third-place community”.
No, I haven’t read it. However, there is no mention o non-believers taking part in meetings…
Well said Andy, all need to hear of the Christlikeness of God…but how accurate of a portrayal of God is that(God is Jesus) - we know that God is Father, Son, Holy Spirit (Trinity - how distinct are these persons) - The incarnation of the Son is so profound and the Father and Holy Spirit did not “put-on” flesh - and as Alan elluded to earlier - our connection to God is profoundly mediated through Jesus.
Bob - keep us posted on your friends!
Terminology is always difficult, but I think that being identified as Jesus’ people, those attempting to carry out his mission of love to the world, and letting the labels fall where they may would be OK. However, most religions seem to talk of a way or a journey or a path to god or some other spiritual goal so we inevitably will talk of “The Way” to God. But keeping the emphasis on the truth that God has come to us first will keep it in the proper context, I think.
Isaac,
I think Alan’s overall take on what helped early Christianity and Christianity in China to be multiplicative is generally on track.
This may be one area where I’d disagree a bit, however. I really don’t see early Christianity, either in scripture or in other historical sources, placing its worship in third places as an intentional missional strategy for reaching non-believers. The one possible biblical exception to that might be found in I Corinthians 14:23-25
– where Paul alludes to the fact that non-believers could presumably enter a worship service in Corinth and find themselves either bewildered by its chaos or convicted by its power– depending on how that church chose to deal with prophecy and speaking in tongues.
Rather, what I see is that early Christians undertook their evangelism and disciple making ministries primarily THROUGH ministry as disciples themselves. That’s what Didache points to– as early as the first century. Justin Martyr’s First Apology references this as well. So does Apostolic Tradition. And so does the entire (and rather voluminous) body of catechetical literature from the first several centuries.
First contact was far more likely to be made as disciples lived as disciples in the world– those who were being intentional about following the way of Jesus in all of their relationships. That way of life, and perhaps a bit of what they might proclaim themselves, would raise questions in others. Those asking questions might be invited to join in a ministry of compassion, and in time might be invited into a process of being more fully taught the way of Jesus.
What we see in Didache and other catechetical literature pre-Constantine is that the content of this instruction was both Christological (Jesus is our teacher and this is what he taught us) and practical (here’s how we live it). Jesus teaches us to love enemies– here’s how we do that. Jesus teaches us to pray and fast– here’s how. Jesus teaches us to care for the sick and needy– here’s how we do that. It was all about a way of life– and one that yes, had to be learned, because it was not the way being taught by the culture or by other religious or philosophical schools of that day (or ours!).
That teaching could take time. By the third century, the time would have normally been about three years– not just for fear of persecution (that those being instructed might be spies or something), but because it just seemed to take at least that long for most people.
And all that time, most of those experiencing this instruction would most likely never once have seen, much less participated in, a service of Holy Communion.
If you’re interested in exploring the issues of worship and evangelism in early Christianity more fully, let me suggest Alan Kreider’s book, “Worship and Evangelism in Pre-Christendom.”
Overall, the point is that in early Christianity, and in the Wesleyan revivals in England in the 18th century, and in China from what I know about it– the Alans (Hirsch AND Kreider) are right that worship was NOT the primary point of entry or first contact for non-believers– ministry by disciples was.
I’d add that this is the way Jesus did it, too. He didn’t invite people to cool worship experiences. He taught, ministered, and proclaimed God’s kingdom in word and deed and invited people to follow his way. His death and resurrection were both signs and instruments of the salvation he proclaimed throughout his ministry. Those who followed him couldn’t help but worship.
Peace in Christ,
I read through 1 Corinthians recently and it says, “So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in…” (v23)
I think it’s clear from this verse that Paul was making room for the odd time a few non-believers stumbled in. (Obviously before persecution really got started)
Taylor said:
“That way of life, and perhaps a bit of what they might proclaim themselves, would raise questions in others. Those asking questions might be invited to join in a ministry of compassion, and in time might be invited into a process of being more fully taught the way of Jesus.”
A bit of what they might proclaim?? And is the rest of what you’re saying actually what happened?
You know if there was one quote I could erase from history it would be Francis of Assisi’s “Preach the Good News everywhere, and if necessary use words.” AARGGHH!
Words are ALWAYS necessary. We know this from contemporary experience. How many people have come up to you and said, “Hey, friend, you walked in that door there like there is something really great in your life. What is it and can I have it too?”
The Good News must be preached vocally for it to be expressed at all.
I’m not sure the third century situation was entirely biblical - i mean, three years!! (there were some big heresies through that period). However, the person learning the right stuff would still have had a conversion. (Since the bible says things spiritual things are spiritually discerned - 1 Corinthians 2:14
)
You have kind of turned it around to agree with me while saying attractional style church is wrong. You’re right, it can’t be supported scripturally. I was saying that the missional idiom is similar that it changes the message, changes the format of our meetings to make non-believers more comfortable.
We’re not called, however, to make people feel uncomfortable. We’re here to offend. Jesus said he came to divide families.
You also said, “[Jesus] taught, ministered, and proclaimed God’s kingdom in word and deed and invited people to follow his way.” Yes he did, but I have to admit this smells like the social gospel to me. Jesus did not come to make their lives better - but it was His great compassion that compelled Him. I honestly see no parallels between Jesus ministry (teaching the word of God, Healing the sick, casting out demons) and missional church.
I keep hearing that we need to “love the unsaved”. Firstly, what verse is that? and secondly, what exactly should that look like.
I agree Jesus didn’t invite anyone to cool worship services. Which is why I think attractional church has missed the boat. However i see very little difference between that and what missional style church is.
This is getting very interesting. The majority of the members of the early church did not participate in a kind of itinerant ministry like Jesus and the early church planters like Paul and others. Therefore what did it mean for them to impact their communities and gain a hearing for sharing the good news of Christ? What did he do through them, so to speak? I suspect he empowered them to be good citizens and loving neighbors, etc. I would also suspect that Christians were known as people who gave themselves unselfishly to help the poor, etc. I’m not sure, but I think that most of the “preaching” was done first by the apostles, and then by the church planters and perhaps then by the evangelists and other leaders that God raised up within the local ekklesias. The majority shared their stories about Jesus’ impact in their lives, I think.
Mmmm… I think ministering in “third places” is a bit of a subset of the missional church, and most focus more on building relationships than having “services” in my understanding… although some do engage unbelievers in discussions about faith.
I don’t think the “seeker sensitive service” movement has borne a great deal of fruit overall, although some particularly gifted people seem to be able to pull it off.
I agree there’s a place for gatherings that are targeted on ministry to believers… although the house church movements do seem to pull in new people to experience the life of the community.
“[Jesus] taught, ministered, and proclaimed God’s kingdom in word and deed and invited people to follow his way. Yes he did, but I have to admit this smells like the social gospel to me.”
This had a bit of a thrash out on “the missional power of goodness” thread… well worth a read. Not exactly sure what you mean by “the social gospel”… I think different people have different definitions of this. It would be true to say you’re not really a disciple if you’re not doing the things Jesus said to do… loving your neighbor (and your enemies) aren’t optional extras of discipleship.
Hullo-o-o…
I have a little time to drop in and I’m confused - I’m wondering why a discussion about Jesus being the Way, ends up being a discussion about what “Christians” do when they meet and whether people who don’t believe should be included. Can I suggest we’ve lost our Way?
Elsewhere Janet has pointed out how our personal gifts and callings influence the perspective we address things from. On another thread it was suggested that discussion should be allowed to meander along whatever path it ends up following… That is fine if we agree we don’t necessarily want to actually address the issues that kick off the thread, preferring our own perspective on things. From my perspective that’s not necessarily a “discussion” it’s more of an opportunity for people to voice their own opinion on issues and avoid processing what differeing perspective other people bring… I don’t like the green vegetables so I’ll leave them and just eat potatoes and corn. That’s a justifiable decision based on personal tastes and preferences, but it’s not a balanced diet!
There’s nothing in Alan’s initial post that suggests to me we limit “Jesus is the Way” to our gatherings… in fact if anything the missional agenda he proposes is anything but that… That’s not to say that discussing our gatherings is not important or a vital aspect of “Jesus is the Way,” but it is only an aspect. Again maybe that discussion needs another thread?
If it was ever possible to remove quotes from prior history there are many I’d remove before getting to Francis of Assisi. The point he was making of course - and which is still relevant - is that talk is cheap, if there is no fruit. The church that is focussed solely on their own gatherings and their exclusivity, but has no fruit, is not preaching the gospel of the Kingdom - regardless of how close to the letter of the law it sticks in its legal definition of what constitutes “the gospel.”
There is an underlying concern that if the church in the west is not bearing fruit, then it is not truly being the church. Certainly attendance records are only one indication, but add to that the increasing influence of secular humanism, materialism, suicide and a whole range of other cultural indications that the values of the Kingdom are being discarded, and we’re kidding ourselves if we think the best option is to lock our doors and try to stop those we’ve already got from leaving!
The implied critique of the term “social gospel” is not particularly helpful either… the question is what fruit is there? We certainly are not seeing great inflowing fruit from the evangelical gospel either… or liberal or catholic, or whatever other prefix you care to attach. The Apostle Paul seemed less concerned about the prefixes and motivations, provided that the good news was being spread. I might also point out that “that very evangelical question… “Where is it in the Bible?” is not itself in the Bible! The desire to trot out our favourite proof texts, ripped out of their overall context in the Bible, in support of our own predetermined point of view is one of the very things Jesus challenged. His greatest challenges were directed at legalistic religious people, His embracing of the “unsaved” in His culture rather than the “self proclaimed as saved” seems like a helpful Biblical example to me.
The devil himself is quoted as quoting proof texts… the quoting of texts proves nothing apart from a good memory, if the text is not consistent with the entire revelation of the character and nature of God. For example, extracting a statement Jesus made about dividing families, with no broader context is a shallow interpretation frankly it’s manipulation to support a point that’s not consistent across the whole revelation! There are a whole raft of ways in which it is clear that God values families, fronm the genealogical focus of His mission to Jesus action on the cross of calling John to be a son to Mary. Clearly Jesus was applying a polemic to a specific situation and not simply saying that He came to divide families.
The fundamental issue is not whether we can quote texts from the Bible, but do you KNOW God - in the holistic and intimate way that the Hebraic concept of knowledge indicates - not do you know ABOUT God in the framework of the insipid, intellectual model with which we have been indoctrinated. We speak of theology yet in truth our knowledge of “Theos” is confined to intellectual concepts about God, rather than intimacy and relationship in God. The Bible is certainly the revelation of God… but IT is not God, and there is a difference.
The questions raised in the comment;
“I keep hearing that we need to “love the unsaved”. Firstly, what verse is that? and secondly, what exactly should that look like.
are unnecessarily abrasive. I wonder how an appreciation of the grace of God, who redeems each of us while we are still sinners, gets lost. I am compelled, by recognition of the depth of forgiveness extended to me, to extend that grace to others. The heart of the Father that is modelled in Christ motivates me to love. In this Easter season we are reminded, by images of a tortured Saviour impaled on a cross, what it means to love the unsaved, and exactly what it should look like.
“God so loved the WORLD that He sent…” is a good place to start. In turn the Son called followers to “take up your cross daily and follow…” and the Son also sent “Go and make disciples of all nations…” We who claim to follow in His footsteps are not simply exclusive “called out” ones, we are also by definition “sent ones” - that is a Biblical basis for understanding an apostolic sending of the church in mission.
Jesus is the Way of my worship as a Christian gathering…
Jesus is the Way of me dealing with my attitudes when I’m angry, happy, sad, confused…
Jesus is the Way of me relating to my wife and children in sickness and health, good and bad times…
Jesus is the Way of my loving people whether I feel like it or not…
Jesus is the Way of helping people in need, whether I think I should or not…
Jesus is the Way of my loving my neighbours
Jesus is the Way of fruitful life
Jesus is the Way of freedom from dead religion
Jesus is the Way of going to the world
Jesus is the Way…
Beannachd Dia dhuit
A Celtic Son
Well said (as usual) CS my Scottish friend!
I perceive, CS, that there is little point debating with you (as though the “emerging conversation” was ever really a dialogue) as my efforts to use scripture are countered with, “The fundamental issue is not whether we can quote texts from the Bible, but do you KNOW God.” Well, how can I argue with that?
It says, “Quote all the scriptures you like but if you REALLY knew God then you would see I’m right.”
It is a foregone conclusion.
Your appeal to fruit also is mere pragmatism. Will there be fruit if we are in the truth? Of course. However, the bearing of fruit doesn’t MAKE it truth.
I found your last two paragraphs a little difficult to follow (the last one is almost completely meaningless in practice).
All this leaves me wondering exactly what you thought was well said, Alan?
But I give up.
Goodbye.
hi isaac
not sure what post you were reading that didn’t make sense…? here’s my take on the two last paragraphs - having only just read this post again and not quite understanding how it got to this point; i hope it clears up the questions (CS feel free to rebuke me if i’ve misunterpreted your words)
CS’s comments on us being sent is, i think, bringing it back to your comment about mission - i don’t think he was saying we make it comfortable or uncomfortable (jesus’ words can do what they need for themselves without our help), rather, that we act as christ did and go to the people. christ, the living son of god, worthy of all majesty and worship, became one of us - came as a babe born in a stinky barn, was of average appearance and did a carpentry apprenticeship etc… therefore, if we are to follow christ’s example, we cannot fool ourselves into thinking we can sit around and expect people to come to us; we must go to the people jesus loves and love them as he does - this is the premise of the missional incarnational church. i fail to see how it can be argued that this is not biblical.
secondly, CS was bringing us back to the very start of this thread - jesus is the way - the centre of our faith. therefore, it figures that we looks to him to glean ideas as to how we might possibly do things.
maybe re-read the post and try to stand in CS moccossans- it would be shame to leave the thread like this. not sure jesus was keen on his followers smacking each other about - i do recall something about a new commandment to love one another…
blessings in christ
It seems to me that this blog is a poor environment for classical debate/argument. I can see how those who enjoy a good argument would be frustrated.
When we can neither see or hear each other’s body language or tone, and are usually not known to each other, dropping “argumentative” comments tends to stop whatever dialogue is active and diverts it…and weights down my heart.
I come here to understand the experience and perspective of others…and share mine, if I feel inspired to do so. When a good question is well formed and asked sincerely, it is received well and processed sincerely…and I am blessed.
I have to “fight” in so many other places and circumstances…it wearies me to experience it here. There are plenty of other blogs that have a more cutting give and take…this generally tends to be a more gentle site–we kid each other, but don’t try to jerk each other’s chain.
Iron needs to sharpen iron, but we need to do this in ways that edify and encourage rather than disparage and discourage.
I’ll stop while I’m still sad…so that I can circumvent the temptation to be sharp-tongued and reactive that goes with being angry…
Thank you Peggy. My thinking and “willing” have been greatly stimulated by the dialog and I would not wish it to be stymied either. Our pastor/elders and a few key leaders are reading “The Shaping” and beginning discussions about our mission. It is particularly good timing as we have been moving toward building for the first time in our history as a congregation (18 years old). We have been leasing up until now. I believe the leaders are open to what God’s doing and willing to change directions as he directs but there is also a sense of “if not this (the building we have been planning), then what?), with the accompanying anxieties caused by uncertainty. The ongoing dialog provided here is helpful.
Ah, Andrew…it is exciting and dangerous when “leaders are open to what God’s doing and willing to change directions”–My prayers are with you and the leaders and the rest of the congregation as they discern the “then what?” question.
The life of faith is the life of uncertain certainties…we don’t know, but God does! Persevere…hope you’re reading the thread on the established church.
Be blessed.
Isaac…
your withdrawal is a sad conclusion… certainly not what I would hope for. There seems little point in making a response to the comments you made, as it would seem like adding insult to injury. You are not the first person to find my writing unclear, I think the difference in he paradigms that you and I live with has added difficulty to clearly articulating what I mean to say.
I try not to live life from the perspective that anything in my thinking is a foregone conclusion. I try to approach God and His Word with a heart and a mind open to learn from Him, and come expecting to be changed in the process. I appreciate constructive critique (though I still have to take time to get over my initial emotional responses) and I do hope to apply truthful elements that come in critique to improve. I was taught to use the Scriptures in a sort of pick’n'mix methodology, to support my arguments, and it is only as I have journeyed in relationship with God that I have learned how far from the truth my selective quotations have been at times.
I pray for myself, for you and for others here, that we encounter peace in Christ in the journey of life in Him, especially in the face of challenges to the thought processes we all hold dear.
Beannachd Dia dhuit
A Celtic Son
Amen
Hullo-o-o all…
As I revisit some of my prior comments, in the light of Isaac’s critique, I fear I may not have communicated my point about the use of Scripture clearly enough…
I am a firm believer that the Bible is the foundation for all Christian debate, discussion and deliberation. There are certainly debatable issues regarding the accuracy of some of the elements that we have in our translations, however on the whole I believe that God empowered people to frame God’s thoughts in writing to empower us and future generations to recognise God.
The concern that I maintain is whenever we are quoting from the Scriptures, the statements we make need to be able to stand up to scrutiny, to be determined as presenting a point that is consistent across the whole of the revelation of Scripture.
I’m not averse to quoting a specific verse that frames a thought, providing that the thought is consistently shown to be God’s thought across the whole of the Bible.
What I have experienced - and was taught - was to use specific Scriptures to frame my thoughts on a topic, or to contradict someone else’s thoughts. The bottom line is not whether my opinion is right or someone else’s, but what is God’s thought. If we are bringing contradictory points, both using Scripture verses then to some degree we are both wrong, generally we are more concerned to make our own point than to hear the voice of God… if you get my drift.
A classic pentecostal MO is to quote an Old Testament scripture and then expound it in some way relevant to experience today, with no broader context. For example quoting Jer 29:11
preach on God’s great plan and destiny for people today, without reflecting verse 10, which speaks of 70 years of captivity, or more significantly of reflecting on it through the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ, and His fulfillment of the Old Covenant.
The Scriptures are a lens to see the world through, we don’t see it just as it is but the reality that God reveals about how it should be… The Bible enables us to check whether what we are seeing is consistent with the way that God sees… or are we seeing some other version of events? The Scriptures are all about God, but God is not limited to text on a page…
Analogies are limited but…
You can head out in any direction into the wilderness and without prior experience survive for a short period of time. Reading a map before going on a trip is helpful and may even be exciting, but it doesn’t actually get us anywhere. The map represents the topography, but it is not the actual location. The map is a scale representation of a much larger reality. The map indicates signs that help point you in the right direction when you come across them. You can head off without the map but it’s likely that you won’t get to where you intend. Read the map, take the map, head out on the adventure and follow the signs…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Thank you for this, CS…I battle this kind of scriptural misuse all the time–don’t we all? I appreciate your perspective, brother.
Blessings
Hi all, I’m on the hunt for a great book that describes the Way of Jesus. I want a book directed to unbelievers without assumtions or “church words”. My friend has returned from a 10 day buddist retreat, shes considering becoming a nun. She knows about Jesus as a prophet and teacher but not her Lord. As a man I have to be careful how I relate to this single woman so I’m thinking a book is a wise way to share some deeper thoughts with this pilgrim. Any recommendations? Peace, love and joy from another brother.
Bill, I didn’t want you to think that no one heard your request…I have been pondering.
Perhaps Matt’s site might be of help to you, or at least you could address your question to him, since he has significant experience with the buddhist worldview.
http//www.mattstone.blogs.com/
Be blessed as you pray for God to use to to reach this friend. My prayers are joined with yours.