My, my, I had quite a few interesting responses yesterday. Not too many "Oh, wow, me too" comments, though, so I feel a little like a moron. I guess it's time I accept the truth. It's liberating admitting your worst faults. A few said they weren't afraid of me. I should revisit the thought and clarify that it was more likely a fear of dealing with me than an awed, reverent sort of fear. A fear as in "Oh, no, here she comes and she's got that look on her face... run!"
Well, here I come and I have that look on my face.
Not really.
Today's the day I'm supposed to talk about spiritual matters. Something's been rolling in my brain the past few days and I have to let it out. Prepare for disjointed ideas that didn't even originate in my head.
We went to Parkside Church in Cleveland when we were visiting family over the weekend, as is our practice. If you are ever in the Solon, Ohio area on a Sunday you should stop by, they have a great ministry.
Pastor Begg was talking about the way we relate to and tell others about Jesus. He pointed out that Jesus never shook sinners by the shoulders and warned them of eternal damnation. When Jesus talked about Hell, he spoke quietly to his own disciples who already followed him and had no reason to fear. Jesus spoke of Heaven to sinners. To those who were lost in sin he was a cheerleader, to those secured by faith in him, he gave the solemn warning.
Why do you think that is? Pastor Begg's only point was to say that we are going about sharing our faith irresponsibly if we think that the way to lead someone to Christ is by shaking our finger in their face and foretelling their doom. But I've been thinking about it and came up with a couple reasons why Jesus might have taken the approach he did. I'm fairly sure he warned his people about hell because he wanted us to take our job as his ambassadors seriously. But why did he focus on Heaven with those that had yet to trust?
First of all, if you're just angry that I have the audacity to speak of Hell, let me first say that we all are aware there are consequences for actions. It is the way of this world. When wrong is done to someone, justice has to be meted out. Those who break the laws do not get a free pass from punishment, and if they do, we all feel that injustice has been done. And if you are proceeding with the thought that you have never done anything to break the laws of the land (or you haven't been caught anyway) than you must consider that if there are laws made by man, how much more appropriate would be the laws of the Creator, and how much more sensitive would a being of perfection be to sin than those of us who are used to it?
All of that being said, I come around again to say that Jesus apparently didn't feel that it was necessary to cajole people who didn't know him about eternal fire. He wanted them to know about everlasting life and peace instead. He wanted them to know they were loved enough to have someone pay the price in their place and live eternally at his own expense. Why? I think it's really important to God that we choose him for ourselves. He won't give us every proof, every documentation of His good intentions and promises of forever because if He did, then we wouldn't be making a choice of our own free will. Just the same, he doesn't want people to trust him because if they don't they'll be sorry. He wants them to trust in Him for the sake of his love.
Speaking from experience, AFTER a heart is placed in the hands of the Savior, the proof, the faith, the documentation surfaces. There is no way to explain this to someone who doesn't know it from living it. When a tiny step is taken toward God that is humble and acknowledging of wrongdoing, God covers the distance left in between that soul and everything they ever needed.
Either you know exactly what I mean, or you're doubtful. Or confused. All of us simply must know this: God is love. And the soul who trusts in Him will never be ashamed.
It was written in His book just that way so many years ago. And it's still true, and the truth stands so firmly above all that would rage against it here below.
As Pastor Begg summed up, so shall I: "Trust God, and get going."
Interesting timing on this post. I just experienced one of those "Hell Houses" that insisted they weren't trying to scare people to Jesus (also I think they borrowed Satan's outfit from an old Carman video). I found the whole experience horrifying on many levels. Interestingly if you go the website for the event, you won't find anything about the gospel or even that it is religious in nature...which makes it even more of an "irresponsible" method of evangelism. (www.whatisthe99.com)
ReplyDelete<3 G
I completely agree. I hadn't thought about it that way before, but as he said that I knew he was right. The only thing it changes is my level of guilt in not being willing to evangelize in that manner.
ReplyDeleteCool...thanks for sharing. very good points shared, and this is encouraging.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean about it changing your level of guilt?
ReplyDeleteG
Just that I don't have to feel guilty for not wanting to evangelize that way, G.
ReplyDeleteYou write: "When Jesus talked about Hell, he spoke quietly to his own disciples who already followed him and had no reason to fear."
ReplyDeleteIt is a nice narrative you create, or iterate, having heard it first in Cleveland - but it seems to be contrary to scripture. Some specific examples include Matthew chapter 11 which has Jesus speaking to the multitudes about entire cities being brought down to hell. In Matthew Chapter 18, with a child sitting on his lap, he fear-mongers, stating graphically in a voyeristic torture-porn sort of way a la the Saw movies, it is better to gouge out your eye than be thrown into the fire of hell. In Matthew 23:15 Jesus talks of hell with crowds and disciples present; again in Matthew 23:33. In Mark 9, Jesus talks about cutting off one's own hand and foot and gouging out one's eye, again with a child on his lap, to avoid hell. It is unlikely that it was just Jesus and the Twelve and this little unattended child in the house - it was likely a gathering. In Luke, Jesus appears to tell his disciples to evangelize by using examples of towns that are going to burn in hell. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16) seems to have been told for the benefit of the Pharisees who were present.
In short, if your premise is invalid and your conclusions are therefore unsound, what drives the desire to create one's own theology about how Jesus prosyletized.
People today aren't perhaps as easily sold on tales of eternal bliss or a hereafter. In a world of marketing and false advertising and many unfulfilled promises, is it likely that fear tactics sometimes simply work better or are more efficient. Though one may debate the emphasis of the gospels and the epistles letters, the textual evidence seems in favor of scare tactics: Hell is spoken of with more regularity than heaven, or at least with more detail. If today' s evangelical church is guilty of scaremongering, then are they only following the epistle and gospel writers' examples? Liberal Christianities drift away from evangelizing about Hell, and perhaps because of this they don't really "win converts" but rather acquire like-minded Christians who drift over to them. But are they following false prophets? It seems Christianity propagated (created?) the mother-of-all scare tactics - eternal torture. Previous significant religions did not have this. Perhaps many people in the past weren't sold on unproven promises either.
You write: "When Jesus talked about Hell, he spoke quietly to his own disciples who already followed him and had no reason to fear."
ReplyDeleteIt is a nice narrative you create, or iterate, having heard it first in Cleveland - but it seems to be contrary to scripture. Some specific examples include Matthew chapter 11 which has Jesus speaking to the multitudes about entire cities being brought down to hell. In Matthew Chapter 18, with a child sitting on his lap, he fear-mongers, stating graphically in a voyeristic torture-porn sort of way a la the Saw movies, it is better to gouge out your eye than be thrown into the fire of hell. In Matthew 23:15 Jesus talks of hell with crowds and disciples present; again in Matthew 23:33. In Mark 9, Jesus talks about cutting off one's own hand and foot and gouging out one's eye, again with a child on his lap, to avoid hell. It is unlikely that it was just Jesus and the Twelve and this little unattended child in the house - it was likely a gathering. In Luke, Jesus appears to tell his disciples to evangelize by using examples of towns that are going to burn in hell. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16) seems to have been told for the benefit of the Pharisees who were present.
In short, if your premise is invalid and your conclusions are therefore unsound, what drives the desire to create one's own theology about how Jesus prosyletized.
People today aren't perhaps as easily sold on tales of eternal bliss or a hereafter. In a world of marketing and false advertising and many unfulfilled promises, is it likely that fear tactics sometimes simply work better or are more efficient. Though one may debate the emphasis of the gospels and the epistles letters, the textual evidence seems in favor of scare tactics: Hell is spoken of with more regularity than heaven, or at least with more detail. If today' s evangelical church is guilty of scaremongering, then are they only following the epistle and gospel writers' examples? Liberal Christianities drift away from evangelizing about Hell, and perhaps because of this they don't really "win converts" but rather acquire like-minded Christians who drift over to them. But are they following false prophets? It seems Christianity propagated (created?) the mother-of-all scare tactics - eternal torture. Previous significant religions did not have this. Perhaps many people in the past weren't sold on unproven promises either.
Soooo sorry for the double post.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the post. I'm just going to jump right in. :) Jesus didn't consider Pharisees "sinners" because they claimed to be righteous, so that's the way he treated them, pointing out their hypocrisy. I'm not counting those times.
ReplyDeleteI cannot think of one single instance that Jesus talked to a person that was broken by sin and needed his grace where he tried to scare and shame them out of hell and into heaven. THAT is what I'm condemning in modern Christianity. (I think I'm a little late anyway, it's a fad that appears to be blowing over for the most part. At least in the circles I know of.)
I also am not saying that Christians should deny Hell. It's a biblical truth and to accept God's whole Word we must accept it. I'm only saying it's not necessary to use the existence of hell as a reason to convert people, because Jesus didn't do it that way.
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify, and thanks again for posting.
So, Maude, is the problem more about using hell as a tactic, for lack of a better work, for individual evangelism, rather than about "preaching hellfire and brimstone" in a broader setting?
ReplyDeleteMabel
(I've tried not to be anonymous but this blogger thing has me befuddled)
I meant for lack of a better word
ReplyDeleteWhich message is that, in case I get the urge to listen to it on the website?
ReplyDeleteAlso, what are some examples of Jesus talking about heaven and being a cheerleader to sinners? (Or even just some references, since you've studied it more recently).
G Mabel
Thanks for your reply. I don't mean to press, I just find the degree to which christianities vary to be confounding. The Bible is professed by so many to be the word of God yet it seems so open to such vastly different interpretations, often by many proclaiming to be true christians, often supporting all sides of a single argument, that I remain curious as to what societal and psychological and other factors go into an individual choosing a certain interpretation. Because make no mistake, it appears you have choosen an interpretation, and an interpretation in this case that seems contrary to what is recorded in the gospels.
ReplyDeleteYou write: "I cannot think of one single instance that Jesus talked to a person that was broken by sin and needed his grace where he tried to scare and shame them out of hell and into heaven. THAT is what I'm condemning in modern Christianity."
Were you meaning to say Jesus never spoke individually to a sinner about Hell? Were there not people in Jesus's audiences who were broken by sin and in need of grace to whom Jesus, as evidenced by the examples I provided, spoken to in graphic terms about Hell? If this is what you are condemning in modern christianity, then you appear to be condemning it in Jesus. Additionally you say Jesus didn't consider the Pharisees "sinners". I disagree. If we are all sinners, then that is what Jesus thinks of all of us - it is obviously not all he thinks of us, but on what theological grounds can his view of people be complete if not including our sinful nature, especially if, as you have alluded to earlier, even the most minor sin is viewed as in infinite offense to him, based on the degree to which he is holy.
I have a hard time thinking of a story recorded in the gospels in which Jesus comforts a sinner with stories of eternal bliss (John 14 might be a good example, but Jesus appears to be preaching to multiple disciples here). When it comes to individual interactions the Jesus of the biblical gospels seems to heal people or prevents them from being stoned and tells them to go and sin no more. Historical texts of the Marcionites, Ebonites, maybe even in the Gnostic texts of the time, have a Jesus you describe - but I'm somewhat certain that you might believe that God choose not to allow these writings to be included into what later generations assembled to be the canon of Scripture.
Simple questions: Do you believe Jesus preached Hell the the multitudes? Did he appear to do this nearly as often as he spoke about Heaven? Did Jesus, with children on his lap, talk about chopping off hands and feet and gouging out eyes as illustrative of things less tormenting than the eternal tortures of Hell?
Thanks for your time. I remain interested in examples recorded in the gospels of individual interactions between Jesus and a sinner where he preached eternal happiness (or some iteration) or even the necessity of belief.
Finally you say: "I'm only saying it's not necessary to use the existence of hell as a reason to convert people, because Jesus didn't do it that way." I know many christian families who tell their 5 year old children that they will be sent to Hell, separated from their families forever after they die, as a way of instructing their children in the faith - it is not done at the expense of telling them of Heaven, but I don't think one can ever speak of one without the other being close behind, the two concepts in christianity are so intertwined as to be nearly impaled the one upon the other.
Jesus spoke of hell to those who thought they had no reason to fear it, and of heaven to those who knew how hopeless their situation was. He shook things up, so to speak. He condemned those who were convinced of their own righteousness, and showed compassion to the prostitutes and tax collectors and beggars. As much as we would like to, we will never be as good ministers as Jesus was. He was perfect, and always knew exactly what to say. You couldn't catch him in an "aha!" moment. Not true of the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteThe Prodigal God is an excellent book if you are interested in learning about the two groups of people that Jesus ministered to, and how he ministered to them differently.
Hey, Mabel, the message was on Mark 9:42-47. I don't remember the name of it, but it was July 18. This part was actually just a side note he was making. His point was making a plan to eradicate sin from your life. (Anyone else who is interested you can find it at "Truthforlife.org.") There were actually A LOT of really interesting points he set forth, this was just one that I wrote down. And yes, I am speaking specifically about one-on-one relationships with people who are honestly searching for answers. Maybe there is a place for hellfire and brimstone, but I'm skeptical that it accomplishes anywhere near as much as Jesus accomplishes by his love playing out through us.
ReplyDeleteAs to my anonymous friend, I find I'm a bit ADD so I am just going to answer your direct questions for now and maybe if I miss something you can ask me again.
AND as I don't feel qualified to answer any questions, I will let the quite capable Word of God do it. :)
Jesus spoke about hell mostly to his disciples. Sometimes there were crowds surrounding them that were listening, but when he was one-on-one with a sinner who either didn't know who he was or was coming to him for answers, he was tender, patient, and his words were of forgiveness and new life. The example Pastor Begg gave was the woman at the well, who had been living in outright sin. He offered her living water. (John 4:1-26) I cannot think of one instance anywhere in the gospels where Jesus shamed or warned doom to someone who really needed him and knew it.
The reason I say that he didn't consider the Pharisees "sinners" is because that's what he said. Of course they were sinners, but Jesus treated them according to what they claimed, and warned them frequently that their hypocrisy would bring them to ruin. I am thinking specifically of how Jesus referred to the Pharisees in Matthew 9:13, saying that he came to call sinners, not the righteous. (Saying that since they already thought they were righteous, he couldn't do anything for them.)
And no, I'm afraid you are confusing two different instances. Jesus never talked about chopping off body parts with a child in his lap. You are thinking of the passage in Mark 9 when Jesus is teaching his disciples. Another time when Jesus is speaking to his disciples, he tells them that they have to learn to come to him as a child, who's faith is true and simple, and he calls a child to him as an illustration.
But you are right in saying that Hell is as true and real as Heaven. But as Pastor Begg pointed out, God is not happy about Hell. He doesn't want anyone there.
That's the reason he sent his son.
Maude, not to split hairs, but doesn't Jesus refer to the child he took in his arms in Mark 9:36 in verse 42 as if He were still holding that child in His arms? It reads as if it's all one conversation, and that the kiddo is still there in verses 42 and following.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I couldn't tell from the website if the messages are listed by the date they were preached or the date they were broadcast. My mom would probably know. She hearts Alistair.
Mabel
Mabel, I got to thinking after I went to bed that I probably should have cross referenced that before I said it. I got back up and discovered that in one of the gospels it does appear that those two things happened in the same sitting. So I got back up to come correct myself, but you have beaten me to it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not clear as to why this was a problem though. If the child was under 4 he had probably wriggled away by then and was sampling some rocks or being chased by his mother and if he was over 4 he probably thought the idea of cutting off a limb was pretty cool. :)
At any rate, I was mistaken and I apologize. Now I can go to bed.
(Part 1)
ReplyDeleteThank you for having a thoughtful blog, and in particular, your openness about exploring this issue with me and others. Specifically I'm quite happy this gives me a chance to review the story of Jesus at the Well. During some undergraduate years, a University I attended had a beautiful sculpture of this scene, done by Croatian sculptor Ivan Mestrovic. Numerous theology lectures were had at the benches surrounding this piece.
This is how I recall and review the story of the Samaritan women at the well, with the help of some college notes found in a file drawer. It might be important to recall that in chapter 3 of the gospel of John, John the Baptist has just announced Jesus as being the bridegroom of Israel (ie the Jews). The next story in John's gospel is the whoring woman at the well. The traditional Jewish reading of the Hebrew scriptures is that the Jewish people were continuously whoring after other gods. And now Jesus comes face to face with a Samaritan, a heretical Jew and hence a figurative whore, who is also a sexual whore in regards to her marital infidelities. In this public place of gathering water, probably one of the few places women of the time were allowed to socialize, and perhaps engage conversationally with guys, Jesus engages her and asks for a drink. The Samaritan women innocently points out he has no bucket. Jesus then offers spurting water. (The term "living" water having at that time referred to water that spurted forth from the ground - but also, as nearly everything else in the gospel of John, it has a double meaning. It likely has triple entendre meaningas well, considering.) After offered by Jesus, the women asks for the spurting water that Jesus speaks of. She does not recognize yet Jesus to be the (Deuteronomistic) Messiah and asks Jesus for his spurting water - what is she asking for? Jesus seems to read her correctly - he changes the subject to her infidelities. Jesus makes a comment to her about her private life in a public place. The intent may not be to shame, but it appears to be the outcome. And can one separate the outcome from the intent in someone who can read minds and knows the future? She has been scolded for her marital infidelities. She does not acknowledge this but switches to asking about religious infidelities. ("Our fathers worshipped on this mountain, though you people say that Jerusalem is the place where one must worship." - Context: this was one of the main differences between Jews and Samaritans, Jews felt proper worship and animal sacrifice occurred only in Jerusalem, and Samaritans felt worship could be done elsewhere.) Jesus then goes on to explain that salvation will not be just for the Jews. It suddenly becomes Jesus who is promiscuous. He has announced that he will no longer be solely faithful the the Jews. The whoring of the Jews for other gods is replaced by the whoring of God Incarnate after all peoples. The whoring women's scandal becomes insignificant.
(Part 2)
ReplyDeleteOk, you say "when he was one-on-one" with a sinner who either didn't know who he was or was coming to him for answers, he was tender, patient, and his words were of forgiveness and new life. ... [That you] cannot think of one instance anywhere in the gospels where Jesus shamed or warned doom to someone who really needed him and knew it."
So, the Samaritan women does not (knowingly) come to Jesus broken in sin, does not engage Jesus, does not confess her sins, does not acknowledge to Jesus her sins after they have been brought up to her out of the blue, changes the subject away from her marital infidelities, questions the rights of Jews to confine worship to Jerusalem (justifying her own worship practices), and leaves thinking Jesus is the Deuteronomistic Messiah. And we have here in this story you choose as an example: Jesus engaging her, Jesus (disingenuously) asking for water knowing he's about to offer it to her, Jesus pointing out her sins to her face unprovoked, Jesus offering some vague and double meaning words that she seems to misunderstand, and Jesus threatening to out her practices to her husband. Does Jesus point out sins tenderly. Is "Go, call your husband, and come back here."? - a tender discussion of sin, or an attempt to make public and more shameful her actions? Is Jesus patiently listing her multiple forms of infidelitiy? Was Jesus's litany of this woman's sin "words of forgiveness and new life"? I grant there were also words of forgiveness and new life (one sentence), and that he was patient with her - but this is certainly not the whole picture. A cherry-picked Jesus may be kinder, gentler, more approachable - but in this case you offer as an example, it seems not to be scriptural.
I don't know how to address your assertion that Jesus "couldn't do anything" for the Pharisees due to their righteousness.
I'm glad you somewhat concede to biblical readings depicting Jesus speaking of mutilations with children present.
Does Jesus speak of hell as often as heaven, often with multitudes and children present? Is there another example of someone in the bible coming to Jesus broken in sin in which the conversation is largely about forgiveness and new life, tenderly and patiently, without being adulterated or overshadowed by other attributes? Of which Jesus are there more examples? Is highlighting one aspect of Jesus, and stating that other aspects are not present, a form of confirmation bias?
This walk through the gospels has thus far been entertaining and enlightening. I am encouraged people speak of this openly.
I appreciate your honesty in your posts. I'm going to be just as honest in my reply, and I hope you will take it to heart.
ReplyDeleteI love the sculpture you are referring to. In particular - I think it gives the observer a good view of what really happened during the encounter between Jesus and the Woman at the Well. Notice Jesus, hand outstretched, face and body leaning toward her with a look in his eye that not only is blunt with honest but also filled with hope for what he can offer her. Notice her stance, head down, most likely at the end of herself, wondering how she spiraled down to this level and concerned that there will be no forgiveness from God who is holy and cannot look at sin. Jesus knew to be there, he knew that she would be ready to hear his offer. He points out her sin. He brings her to say it, because there cannot be forgiveness and redemption without humble confession of sin. The Bible never gives any indication that Jesus is throwing her sin in her face. In fact, it is because of his great love that he brings it up. Because she knows it's wrong, and she is ready to turn from it and be saved, if only there were a savior. There's no doubt in my mind Jesus was smiling as she ran to tell the town about who she'd found. There's no doubt in my mind that he shed tears of joy for the change that was brought about in her life that day.
I'm troubled by the way you perceive Jesus, I must be honest. You seem to have biblical grasp, but it's as if your perceptions of him come from watching "Jesus of Nazareth" or something similiar. Jesus is Jesus, there's only one of him, and the Bible says that he never changes. (Hebrews) When we read something that comes from another language, culture and customs, it's easy to try to fit him in a mold he doesn't belong in. The church has been just as guilty of this as the unbelieving world at times. Jesus is love. He is hope. He is peace. He is truth. What he did puts us on the spot, his sacrifice for our sin requires a response from us, and our nature doesn't like that. But that doesn't make him any less. Making him solemn and crabby in your mind can cause you to take out of context everything he said and did. When he spoke of gouging out eyes and severing limbs he was using an analogy to demonstrate the effects of sin, not encouraging self-mutilation. He probably said it with a bit of a smile and everyone laughed. You must remember that this was a time and culture that violence was a part of life. Little children routinely saw people executed, mistreated and were forced at an early age to accept the harshness of life.
I guess my major point for you to consider would be this - I truly began to understand how different Jesus was from the accepted norm when I started to really study the Gospels - just the gospels themselves, comparing them all as one and getting deeply into the culture and meanings of everything he said. I truly believe that your questions rise from a misunderstanding of the character of Jesus. I am encouraged that you are asking questions and seeking answers, and that you are honest in the way you approach the Bible. I encourage you to dig deeper. I cannot answer every question, but I have never had a question that the Bible could not sufficiently answer, and after 28 years, I know by now I'm not going to come up with one. (And this comes from a questioner. I encourage you to read the post "My Story" from June.)
Thank you again for your posts. I look forward to hearing more from you in the future.
a few references that can go with this:
ReplyDeletetitus 3:3-5 (refers to Jesus as kindness and love)
colossians 3:12 (how believers should act)
romans 2:4 (God's kindness leads us to repentance)
2 timothy 2:25 (using gentle instruction with opposition)
Christ's coming is surrounded with the words "good news" and "joy" many times in the gospels, particularly luke 1 and 2. Jesus' message is also proclaimed "the good news of the kingdom of God" throughout luke. of course we don't ignore hell, but the focus of the message is on Jesus and his gift of love and grace in regards to our sinful hearts. true salvation isn't about being scared of hell, but rather recognizing the problem of our sin and that Jesus is the only cure.
(Part One)
ReplyDeleteIn your comments for this blog entry you state that you would feel guilty if you did not evangelize in the manner which involves Hell and the pointing out of sin. As evidenced by your chosen example (Samaritan Women at Jacob's Well) and the examples I provided Jesus evangelized using Hell and by pointing out of sin, in addition to speaking of eternal life. You have chosen a way of evangelizing you like better, and now you cherry-pick verses (at the specific de-emphasis of other verses) to support your chosen evangelization style, a style specifically not depicting the entirety of Jesus. Are you changing Jesus to assuage your guilt? Welcome to Post Evangelical New Age Evangelization.
The description of the statue you state you love I think provides an example of your willingness to read into (eisegesis) something aspects that you want to see in it. You write "Notice Jesus, hand outstretched, face and body leaning toward her with a look in his eye that not only is blunt with honesty but also filled with hope for what he can offer her." Is his hand outstretched to her? Is he leaning toward her? Can you discern a look in his eyes? You write a beautiful narrative of this sculpture, but at the expense of what. I would argue at the expense of accuracy. One's desire to write creatively ought not trump truth, in my opinion. Even if the sculpture clearly displayed all this, it would still be an interpretation of the gospel, not the gospel itself. You additionally assert that the women at the well confesses her sin, acknowledges her wrongdoing, and is ready to turn from her sinful martial infidelities. Does John actually record any of these things? Does she even recognize Jesus as the Christian Christ, or does she leave thinking he is a Deuteronomistic Messiah, coming to establish an earthly military kingdom, Davidic stlyle? There is no indication by John that the women at the well is anticipating the Christ as a Christ of Salvation, it is not in her thought-world as a Samaritan. At the end of your first paragraph you state that "there's no doubt" in your mind that Jesus "shed tears of joy for the change that was brought about in her life that day." Your ability to be absolutely certain about what you can read into the bible is astounding. But I would agree to this: that the picture you have in toto of the Women at the Well, is largely in your mind. At the expense of accuracy.
(Part 2)
ReplyDeleteI have never seen all of "Jesus of Nazareth" - maybe 20 minutes at a friend's place, and various 5 minutes here and there on television. Please, please explain how you have interpreted that my Jesus is informed by this miniseries, perhaps after re-reading my previous two part post. If my previous post which incorporates some upper level collegiate theology and dovetails a significant amount of information about the culture of the Ancient Near East in any way reminds you of the television miniseries "Jesus of Nazereth", then I look forward to maybe seeing it at some time. You accuse me of making a Jesus to fit a mold when I feel I have illustrated that it is you who are doing this by cherry-picking certain verses and ignoring or de-emphasizing others AND by clearly reading into the text that which is not there. And you have done this with an admitted desire to not feel guilty about your evangelical stylings hovering in the background. I never said Jesus encouraged self-mutilation (I feel you are really reaching here) - it is biblically recorded as being said by Jesus (in multiple gospels) to illustrate that it would be better to suffer these torments than the torments of hell. If you believe he said this with a smile, you again are creating a Jesus unsupported by biblical text. My Ancient Near East Studies are not up on how people perceived violence but I find your assertion suspect. If you info otherwise please direct me toward it. Violence and maiming and infection in a world without modern medicine would likely have been taking MORE seriously, for it more often had more serious effects, namely death. If violence and torture were talked about with smiles (as you assert Jesus did) and was just part of life and was accepted, then what's the big deal about Jesus being lashed and scourged and crucified? It happened all the time, a new Messiah crucified every week. No biggie.
If I may be so bold, you retreat, as so many New Age Evangelicals, to Jesus is Love, Hope Peace, all things Nice That I Can Think Of, but if you believe that Jesus is God, then Jesus is also Jealous, Wrathful, orders Genocides, allows for the rape of young virgins of foreign lands, and outlines ways to effect abortion (Numbers 5), and demands animal sacrifice, and is pleased by the smells of burning flesh. I actually find your efforts admirable, but not biblical. I respect that you really study the gospels that have been included as part of the Christian canon.
I am still open to an example of the Jesus you initially described in a scenario in which someone broken in sin comes to ask forgiveness and he speaks only of eternal life. There are many examples of Jesus preaching hell and discussing sin. Is it fair to give more weight to something that is difficult to find examples of (even though it makes us feel better) than to something of which there is plenty of examples? As pointed out by seth'swife in a comment to this blog entry, there is biblical support to evangelize that way you want to, but it would be best to not change that into a what-I'm-doing-is-what-Jesus-did kind of thing. Particularly in a blop-post titled "The Way He Does It." In an odd way it minimizes Jesus.
(Also, to clarify, I am the same Anonymous that you "completely agree with" on your blog-post "Character Flaws".)
If I continue to respond I am only going to be saying the same things I've already said and others have said. The Bible is only understood and revealed as a person places their faith in Christ and receives His Spirit to help them understand. His Word will not make sense without the aid of the Spirt it.
ReplyDeleteIt's not cherry picking and such as you have accused. I'm sorry you feel that way. It's understanding the Bible as a whole, seeing the big picture, putting it altogether as a puzzle and seeing the beautiful and wonderful picture it creates only with the Spirit's interpretation. But the waters don't part until you step in.
Thank you all for your comments, it's been a good discussion!
Will you speak falsehood for God,
ReplyDeleteand lie on his behalf?
Do you presume to do favors for Him,
and make his case for him?
Will it go well for you when he finds you out?
Or do you think to fool him as you fool men?
Will he not expose you
if you hide your bias?
Will his majesty not terrify you,
and dread of Him overwhelm you?
(Job 13:7-11)
How do you know it is the Holy Spirit that is helping you choose an interpretation of the christian scriptures and not a demon? If the Bible requires the Holy Spirit for understanding (as you emphatically claim), can the Holy Spirit cause understanding without the Bible? If yes, then why the Bible in the first place since it yields such vastly differing interpretations by many people all claiming that their interpretations are derived from an indwelling of the Holy Spirit?
I didn't just accuse you of cherry-picking, I demonstrated it. My simple questions, nearly begging for an example of what you claim is present in the scripture, remain unanswered (dare I say dismissed). I feel it would benefit both of us if an attempt to answer them was further undertaken. I invite you to consider doing so. If I am not understanding scripture, as you imply, because I don't have the help of the Holy Spirit, I can only assure you that it is presumptuous to assess another's relationship with the spiritual. If my failure to understand is due to an unawareness of certain historical cultural aspects that might benefit my understanding, could you please recommend some Ancient Near East scholars that you are familiar with that I could turn to, so that my faith-walk can progress.
The Job passage I quote above was chosen with some thought. I'm certain you are familiar with it. It is Job's response to his friends who are all trying to tell him that what the Lord has allowed to happen to him is for the best. Job is accused of blasphemy by his friends. He is told that the Lord allowing for his wife and children to be killed and his health to deteriorate are blessings, that the Lord has the right to do and allow for these things to happen. Job wont hear it. His friends say that the Lord is merciful, just, right. Job says this is bogus, that he is not only just those things. The Lord delays a while, but finally vindicates Job by agreeing with him; he tells Jobs friends "You have not spoken rightly of me, as has my servent Job."
Your must recent comment suggests you would like to end this thread. It has been a helpful thread for me, and challenging, thank you. I will not continue if that is your desire. I would ask you to consider your comment that if you continue to respond you "will only going to be saying the same things". I will also consider the issue of the Jesus you present as being a pale, modified, partial picture of the fuller Jesus presented by the gospel writers, and presented throughout the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, until you produce evidence to the contrary.
(As to your being a descendent of the Belle of Amherst - your Post Value on the Blogosphere Exchange just increased. I have referred to Shel Silverstein's comment before, but his comment regarding the fact that their exist some books that you just want to hug applies to my only half-read but heavily dog-earred copy of the collected poems of Miss Dickenson.)
Well, not exactly a descendent - since she never had children, but a descendent of one or more of her siblings. I love her ideas and depth, I just get hung up on her style. Sometimes it just doesn't sound right "musically," but I'm learning to appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean by saying that perhaps this is a good place to stop is that what I am trying to say – that faith in Christ ignites a life that can’t be described to someone who hasn’t experienced it is by its very nature “unverifiable.” Something that can only exist by faith cannot be proven or “tried out” beforehand. I absolutely know the difference between demonic influence and the Spirit’s because the Spirit is within me, and ALWAYS stays in tune with God’s Word, and because Satan has no original ideas. (Not to say that a new believer has this ability – it comes in proportion to knowing the Word.) There will be two kinds of people responding to this. Those who say “That is SO wonderfully true” and those that say “That’s ridiculous.”
That’s why Jesus can appear so different to different people. Because on the one hand he is the Almighty God (like the passage you quoted from Job) that demands perfection by his nature and cannot tolerate sin, but to the one who in humility seeks forgiveness because of what Christ did in his death and resurrection he is SO loving, SO gentle, SO patient and kind that it is literally beyond description.
Some Scripture to study that uphold these truths:
Romans 8 (on the work of the Holy Spirit in a believer and the changed relationship between a sinner and Christ upon faith) (You could also study Romans 3 and even 4-5 as companions)
Luke 10:17
Romans 8:28
1 Timothy 4
James 3:15-17, 4:7
2 Thessalonians 2
Ephesians 6:10-18 (all of these are in reference to recognizing and/or defeating the power of demonic influence)
2 Timothy 3:14-17 (the power of the Word of God, its sufficiency)
caveat lector, for the normal reasons, but also because I really don't mean to write such long comments.
ReplyDelete(Part One )
Yeah, I agree about some of Emily Dickinson's poems not hitting the ear quite right musically. I think some of the scholarship on hear suggests she was doing this intentionally - she seemed to take out a syllable right when a melody was naturally starting or coming to a close, so as to jar the reader to consider the idea being expressed right at that point. Some think this technique backfires. Others hold that all of her poems can be sung to the tune of "Gilligan's Island". I think both interpretations have truth and we lose sight of the totality of Emily Dickinson's genius when we try to trump one interpretation with the other, failing to acknowledge the contributions of both.
Your views on the Holy Spirit and understanding scriptures seem circular to me. What allows one to verify that the Spirit is in tune with God's Word when you assert it is the Spirit that is required to understand God's Word in the first place? The construction implies an external referent. I am unable to wrap my mind around that. One known alternative is that people make assertions about their beliefs and then ascribe those chosen beliefs to the Holy Spirit guiding their interpretation. And how do you know that doesn't apply to you, when, I imagine, you are certain it applies to others?
A third response to the assertion in your second paragraph (in addition to the responses of "That is SO wonderfully true" and "That's ridiculous") is "As a christian infused with the Holy Spirit do you have the abilities to help someone see that this is true?". [There are many additional responses to this question, and the typically christian (and human) desire to falsely dichotomize such issues is disheartening.} The Holy Spirit knows exactly what it would take to convince someone of it's truth, yet fails to deliver in so many instances, and to perhaps halt a rebuttal, even fails to deliver in many appropriately intentioned, appropriately humbled individuals.
I will review the verses you recommend in time. I do notice that only one verse out of like 200 is from the the biblical gospels. I feel in the long run this will amount to a if-you-just-read-the-entire-bible-the-way-I-choose-(or believe am directed)-to-read-the-bible-then-you'll-understand-it-the-way-I-understand-it sort of argument.
(Part Two)
ReplyDeleteI do maintain many of your comments have been off topic and far from the focus of your original post, and I will take some credit for that. For clarification, let me iterate the questions I raise in list form, the ones I feel you are eluding:
1) Can you provide an example from the gospels of the Jesus you describe - one showing an individual broken in sin coming to Him (or I'll concede Jesus going to the individual) and Jesus speaking primarily of everlasting life and peace, unadulterated by talk of Hell, or behavior modification, or addressing of sin? [My understanding of another episode, that of the Pericope Adulterae, perhaps the most famous passage in John, is that the sinner, having not come of her own freewill to Jesus, is neither told of eternal peace and happiness nor offered forgiveness, but is simply told no one has the right to judge her and is offered wise humanitarian advise about activities that are causing herself and others harm.] If you cannot provide such an example, I would appreciate why an example not existing in the gospels is not important to your characterized portrait you provide in you post.
2) Did Jesus speak of Hell to the multitudes (or I will concede, merely with multitudes present), and speak about the graphic violence of Hell by means of allusion (self-mutilation)? And therefore did Jesus' words of Hell reach more people than his words of eternal peace and life? And did he tell his disciples to preach by way of using examples of towns that are going to burn in Hell (Luke)? Where else does Jesus give examples of how to evangelize? [These questions all apply to Jesus' style, as that is what you are initially making assertions about.]
3) Upon reflection, do you think you are reading anything into the Ivan Mestrovic sculpture of Jesus at Jacob's Well? Do you see any implications of this to how you read the Biblical gospels? Were you familiar with this sculpture prior to this blog-post? You have suggested John records that the Samaritan women at Jacob's Well confesses her sin, acknowledges her wrongdoing, and is shown to be ready to turn from her sinful infidelities. Does John record these things in his gospel?
I do feel this thread is winding down, I hope a pleasantly challenging vibe has been felt throughout, as it has on my side of the screen. To bring a sense of closure I would enjoy the above questions (1 through 3, plus the danglers in paragraph two of this comment) addressed directly.
Considering your writing style being pleasant and informative, with glimpses of insight and meaning that sneak up on the reader (though I keep my reservations regarding the fictive elements presented as truths, e.g. reading into biblical gospels and statuary) - but considering the positive aspects I think I maybe kind of sort of might consider the possibility of hesitantly making a short book recommendation. "Jesus the Son of Man", by Lebanese American writer Khalil Gibran, may (or may not) be of interest, if you haven't already read it.
This conversation has reminded me of pretty much the same question that came to my mind during a Bible study on Colossians during med school- at the time I was thinking of it in terms of why my legalist college seemed to think they were right about everything and everybody who disagreed with them was wrong-- if we as Christians have the same Holy Spirit helping us interpret the Bible (as well as in other aspects of our lives), how is it that so many "good Christian men" (and women, but that's very unbaptist of me to say) can differ so very much on matters of interpretation?
ReplyDeleteLook I figured out how to not be anonymous! But why doesn't my picture show up?
I'm going to be honest with you. I enjoy a good debate, and I'm a pretty deep thinker, but you have to realize that I am trying to process all of this with a 6, 4, and 2 year old and a 3 month old. I don't mind doing that at all, but as I must be concise in my answers as I give them in the midst of pure chaos in moments I should be doing something else...it would be helpful if the poster were concise in his questions... :)
ReplyDelete1. I never said Jesus didn't address their sin. I never even said that he never mentioned hell, although I can think of no such account and I know the Bible pretty well. It was usually people such as a woman caught in adultery, or a sick person that he made well. He generally said something like "Your faith has saved you, go and sin no more." That's the same thing he said to me years ago. I know that to be a fact. I know him to be a real person by his Spirit that most certainly resides in me, and if you had known me earlier in my life you'd have a hard time denying there was a change. There has never been an instance in my life where the Bible did not provide the clear answer or the clues to find the answer.
2. Already answered that.
3. I might be reading into what HE saw when he made it. And as I'm a novelist I see the story between the lines and highlight it, not to say that my interpretation is exactly the way it happened, but to put pieces together and make the meaning more clear. I have no idea if Jesus was in that position or if she was exactly the way I suggested. I only know what the Bible says, but I don't just look at that passage to know the details. I look at the character of Jesus, and to do that, I rely first on the Spirit giving my spirit life, and second on the words of God before me that I have "known from a child" as Paul said to Timothy.
And as for the book suggestion, I'll keep it in mind. It takes a pretty special work of nonfiction to pull me away from novels, but I'll set it on my mind's shelf to check out at some point. :)
Gwen, I don't remember doing anything special to get the picture to show up, besides entering it in the uploader. Hmm.
ReplyDeleteI think we all at different points in our faith accept teaching that is stretching what the Bible said pretty far. You and I certainly went to school in an atmosphere where they took some pretty big leaps in order to control behavior. I assume it was the same at your college. There's always that human tendency to take something God said and make it work to my advantage. Of course I've been guilty of that, sometimes without even realizing it. The only way past that is to know God, and the only way to do that is to know his Word and his Son by way of his Spirit.
Anonymous, (If you want a better name than that you're going to have to give me one...)I just saw that I said "I never even said that he never mentioned hell" and I do realize I said that at first and then made the clarification that I couldn't recall him saying that.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your time. Some of what you've outlined I will let roll around in my head as I endeavor to re-read the gospels in the chronological order in which they were written (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) attempting to see the character of Jesus evolve progressively via the different gospel writer's accountings of the events in the life of Jesus.
ReplyDeleteOf note, the book I recommend by Kahlil Gibran, is a fiction book (fictive non-fiction if you like). Your reflective passage on the Mestrovic statuary triggered it in my memory. The basic premise is many short chapters each from a first person perspective, each chapter representing one of the individuals Jesus met in his lifetime. Most are written as if each character is reflecting on a experience they had with Jesus 10 to 15 years prior. Except for the last chapter, written by a "man from Lebanon" 1900 years later, in the voice of the author himself. It is a very peaceful book.
-D.
Look what I found today. Timely. Discuss.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/deeper-walk/features/22386-the-jesus-paradox
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete