In the gospel of John, we see the evangelist uses of dualailty quite often with light and dark, good and evil, etc etc etc. You get the idea.
But have we taken this dualism too far?
Is the kingdom of God a left or a right?
is the kingdom of God liberal or conservative?
is the kingdom of God modern or postmodern?
Is the kingdom of God emerging or not emerging?
Is the kingdom of God catholic or protestant? MB or Baptist?
I was talking with this sunday school lady the other day at Dan's church, and Wing and I started to debate the whole issue of the Kingdom of God and her answer was," The Kingdom of God is the love of God in the hearts of men."
I have many more thoughts, but I'll just leave it here and let the discussion begin.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Too Generous of an Orthodoxy?
I just read this from "Generous Orthodoxy" and I was wondering what your thoughts are on it and what your thoughts are on my thoughts
"In this light, although I don't hope all Buddhists will become (cultural) Christians, I do hope all who feel called will become Buddhist followers of Jesus; I believe they should be given that opportunity and invitation. I don't hope all Jews or Hindus will become members of the Christian religion. But I do hope all who feel so called will become Jewish or Hindu followers of Jesus." p.297
I've only quoted one paragraph from a chapter on "Incarnational" so please feel free to read it because it is most likely out of context if you just read this.
Anyways, before you guys turn me into the church heretic, here are my thoughts:
This passage brought up a few older thoughts of mine which I shall mention as we go along but I find myself agreeing with this paragraph to some and most degrees. The first thought of mine it brought up was from a sermon. In the middle, the pastor mentioned that there are a number of Jews in Israel that acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. When the person who met them asked if they consider themselves as 'Christians', they said no and said that they were Messianic Jews or Jews who had found their Messiah. With this in mind, I don't think all people should have to convert to Christianity AND abandon everything they use to know.
My thought on this came from me thinking about why I like studying religious studies in the bathroom yesterday before class. I find studying religions interesting because you can see how people live when they consider something to be true. Some questions for myself that arose from this included: What if Christianity was false, would I still have all these changes in my life? What if say, Islam was true, would I convert? What if I saw changes in a Buddhist's life that I did not see in my own life, would I see what they have that I do not have?
These made me think of if I converted, would I toss everything that was good about Christianity out the window. Say if I became a Muslim, would I use similar techniques in prayer as I did in Christianity. I think it has to do with human nature. When we get older, it's harder to change habits and it's like uprooting a tree and planting it somewhere else, it becomes increasingly difficult as the tree gets older.
My final thought comes from C.S. Lewis who said religions are like doing math. There is only one correct answer but some are closer to the right answer than others. Maybe it is not wise to throw out everything Buddhists know about meditation and abstaining from worldly things. Maybe we should take a page from the Muslim playbook about praying often (as they often pray more in a day than we do).
So if you feel like it, read the chapter, it's pretty good (I haven't finished it though, I just wanted to write this down before I forgot). Builds on what Bell says in Velvet Elvis about how all people are saved but how they have not all yet accpeted salvation.
One final thing I forgot to write down is a quote from Bono.
"And I learned that religion is often the enemy of God, actually. And religion is this sort of -- religion is the artifice, you know, the building, after God has left it sometimes, like Elvis has left the building. You hold onto religion, you know, rules, regulations, traditions. I think what God is interested in is people's hearts, and that's hard enough."
Perhaps religions as we know them are more man made than we want to acknowledge and maybe we don't need everyone to be Christian in the sense of doctrines and church buildings but maybe just to believe in Christ and to be saved. And perhaps just holding onto the two greatest commandments, they won't need all the unneccessary junk we have (i'll let you decide what you think junk is as we all have a different opinion). But let us not wipe out complete cultures without sensitivity and replace it with the North American version of Christianity that may not work in their communities. (not everyone has bread and wine to spare ;-) )
But my thoughts end here and they are incomplete. Please continue with them.
"In this light, although I don't hope all Buddhists will become (cultural) Christians, I do hope all who feel called will become Buddhist followers of Jesus; I believe they should be given that opportunity and invitation. I don't hope all Jews or Hindus will become members of the Christian religion. But I do hope all who feel so called will become Jewish or Hindu followers of Jesus." p.297
I've only quoted one paragraph from a chapter on "Incarnational" so please feel free to read it because it is most likely out of context if you just read this.
Anyways, before you guys turn me into the church heretic, here are my thoughts:
This passage brought up a few older thoughts of mine which I shall mention as we go along but I find myself agreeing with this paragraph to some and most degrees. The first thought of mine it brought up was from a sermon. In the middle, the pastor mentioned that there are a number of Jews in Israel that acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. When the person who met them asked if they consider themselves as 'Christians', they said no and said that they were Messianic Jews or Jews who had found their Messiah. With this in mind, I don't think all people should have to convert to Christianity AND abandon everything they use to know.
My thought on this came from me thinking about why I like studying religious studies in the bathroom yesterday before class. I find studying religions interesting because you can see how people live when they consider something to be true. Some questions for myself that arose from this included: What if Christianity was false, would I still have all these changes in my life? What if say, Islam was true, would I convert? What if I saw changes in a Buddhist's life that I did not see in my own life, would I see what they have that I do not have?
These made me think of if I converted, would I toss everything that was good about Christianity out the window. Say if I became a Muslim, would I use similar techniques in prayer as I did in Christianity. I think it has to do with human nature. When we get older, it's harder to change habits and it's like uprooting a tree and planting it somewhere else, it becomes increasingly difficult as the tree gets older.
My final thought comes from C.S. Lewis who said religions are like doing math. There is only one correct answer but some are closer to the right answer than others. Maybe it is not wise to throw out everything Buddhists know about meditation and abstaining from worldly things. Maybe we should take a page from the Muslim playbook about praying often (as they often pray more in a day than we do).
So if you feel like it, read the chapter, it's pretty good (I haven't finished it though, I just wanted to write this down before I forgot). Builds on what Bell says in Velvet Elvis about how all people are saved but how they have not all yet accpeted salvation.
One final thing I forgot to write down is a quote from Bono.
"And I learned that religion is often the enemy of God, actually. And religion is this sort of -- religion is the artifice, you know, the building, after God has left it sometimes, like Elvis has left the building. You hold onto religion, you know, rules, regulations, traditions. I think what God is interested in is people's hearts, and that's hard enough."
Perhaps religions as we know them are more man made than we want to acknowledge and maybe we don't need everyone to be Christian in the sense of doctrines and church buildings but maybe just to believe in Christ and to be saved. And perhaps just holding onto the two greatest commandments, they won't need all the unneccessary junk we have (i'll let you decide what you think junk is as we all have a different opinion). But let us not wipe out complete cultures without sensitivity and replace it with the North American version of Christianity that may not work in their communities. (not everyone has bread and wine to spare ;-) )
But my thoughts end here and they are incomplete. Please continue with them.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Discussion Topic: Restoration
I Was sitting with Andrew and Wing today at the SUB during my break and somehow the word "restoration" came out. I'm sure each of you have your own definitions and feelings towards the importance and where it stands in your journey.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Boxing Day Gift: Continuing on with TULIP 2
I want to pick up with Unconditional election since I didn't elaborate enough from last time.
Unconditional election for me also means that there is technically no human obligation for us to fulfill in order to receive salvation from God. Hence the term "saved by grace, not through works". Hence this is extremely important or else we cheapen grace. What is mercy without grace, what is salvation without grace? What is Jesus without Grace? It is through Jesus that we are 'elected'.
L = Limited Atonement
Why is atonement limited? As stated Jesus came to save all people, he died for all people. So how come there are still people that are forgiven in Hell and in Heaven? I still have more questions to ponder about this point:
Did Christ die for all the sins of some men?
Did Christ die for all the sins of all men?
Limited Atonement also concerns into the issue of Free-will, like the whole issue we had during the discussion of 1 Peter back in October.
I = Irresistible Grace
I think I associate myself closely to the general given definition of irresistible grace. The basic definition of this doctrine is that God is sovereign and can overcome all resistance when he wills. Specifically saying, this irresistible grace is already given, we can't really reject it. God has given it to us. So God supreme takes away our what resistance we have to denying his grace. It might sound like God is forcing people to believe, but in some way, I believe free will still exists in people selecting God or not.
P = Perseverance of the saints
Once saved, always saved. I should make a correction to that. Once correctly saved (meaning they placed their faith in Jesus correctly) they would not fall away. I'm actually quite hesitant about this point, although 2 months ago I would affirm it so convincingly. Questions like: Who justify as being correct and believing in the right things?
I seriously have a disliking of doctrine. For one, it takes the best news ever of the gospel and add so much baggage to it. TULIP in this example just highlighted somethings I am questioning, yet some parts I do continue to affirm because they seem appropriate.
I was talking to my dad the other day about some of these points, and to the core he said ," You're just questioning the love of God and how come there seems to say that it is impossible to have a loving God and a just God." I agreed. He pointed out, "look at our relationship, as father and son, we are just like that to God, children. He loves us as our parent, he disciplines like our parent, yet his love doesn't change. However, God himself as a father would also give people who refuse him their choice as well.
Is really hard to describe that kind of relationship with our languages. I think that's why is hard to put into words and hence we get these wordy doctrines. God's relationship with us is described as a Groom to his bride, as a father to his children. I mean, go to your parents, and ask them why they love you. I don't think they could explain it themselves above the point that "you are my child". Or how about one day turning to your spouse asking, "why do you love me?", hopefully they won't just say because "you're beautiful", or "smart", or "you're nice"but because true love is really indescribable. (this is pretty awkward coming from a family studies guy).
To be honest, I have no desire to understand all this doctrine. I believe I've been called to love God and love my neighbour, to simply demonstrate and then to testify.
Sweet, I'm done with the TULIP thing...
Oh and please welcome Sarah to our blog!
Unconditional election for me also means that there is technically no human obligation for us to fulfill in order to receive salvation from God. Hence the term "saved by grace, not through works". Hence this is extremely important or else we cheapen grace. What is mercy without grace, what is salvation without grace? What is Jesus without Grace? It is through Jesus that we are 'elected'.
L = Limited Atonement
Why is atonement limited? As stated Jesus came to save all people, he died for all people. So how come there are still people that are forgiven in Hell and in Heaven? I still have more questions to ponder about this point:
Did Christ die for all the sins of some men?
Did Christ die for all the sins of all men?
Limited Atonement also concerns into the issue of Free-will, like the whole issue we had during the discussion of 1 Peter back in October.
I = Irresistible Grace
I think I associate myself closely to the general given definition of irresistible grace. The basic definition of this doctrine is that God is sovereign and can overcome all resistance when he wills. Specifically saying, this irresistible grace is already given, we can't really reject it. God has given it to us. So God supreme takes away our what resistance we have to denying his grace. It might sound like God is forcing people to believe, but in some way, I believe free will still exists in people selecting God or not.
P = Perseverance of the saints
Once saved, always saved. I should make a correction to that. Once correctly saved (meaning they placed their faith in Jesus correctly) they would not fall away. I'm actually quite hesitant about this point, although 2 months ago I would affirm it so convincingly. Questions like: Who justify as being correct and believing in the right things?
I seriously have a disliking of doctrine. For one, it takes the best news ever of the gospel and add so much baggage to it. TULIP in this example just highlighted somethings I am questioning, yet some parts I do continue to affirm because they seem appropriate.
I was talking to my dad the other day about some of these points, and to the core he said ," You're just questioning the love of God and how come there seems to say that it is impossible to have a loving God and a just God." I agreed. He pointed out, "look at our relationship, as father and son, we are just like that to God, children. He loves us as our parent, he disciplines like our parent, yet his love doesn't change. However, God himself as a father would also give people who refuse him their choice as well.
Is really hard to describe that kind of relationship with our languages. I think that's why is hard to put into words and hence we get these wordy doctrines. God's relationship with us is described as a Groom to his bride, as a father to his children. I mean, go to your parents, and ask them why they love you. I don't think they could explain it themselves above the point that "you are my child". Or how about one day turning to your spouse asking, "why do you love me?", hopefully they won't just say because "you're beautiful", or "smart", or "you're nice"but because true love is really indescribable. (this is pretty awkward coming from a family studies guy).
To be honest, I have no desire to understand all this doctrine. I believe I've been called to love God and love my neighbour, to simply demonstrate and then to testify.
Sweet, I'm done with the TULIP thing...
Oh and please welcome Sarah to our blog!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
