What if we truly believed it?
1 John 1:5
What if we simply believed the good news? What if we actually acted out our lives as if God really were good, trustworthy, faithful?
It cannot be that simple? Doesn't God have to extract some divine retribution upon us? God really just loves us?
But what if it were true...
...how would our lives change if it really was a fact that we had a spiritual Father who was absolutely overflowing with love for us! What would be different...
My pastor has said, on numerous occasions, in my hearing, that in all the years, and with all of the people that he has ever counselled, the issue driving all other issues in peoples lives; be it addictions, problems with relationships, emotional problems, etc; the root issue was simply a lack of trust in God.
If we don't really believe God is who He is, then our lives will reflect it; as well if we do believe...
5 comments:
Hi Steve,
Sorry to keep beating a dead horse. And here is my dilemma.
For those who may suggest that theology is overrated or irrelevant... This blog says that it's all about trusting God and who he is.
My question is WHO IS HE?
Isn't theology the only way to answer that?
Is he sovereign? Holy? Righteous? All powerful? Loving? Merciful? A blazing fire?
How do we access these concepts without theological investigation... propositional truth? Doctrine even!
The letters g-o-d are a place holder for our concept of God. It seems to me that the task of preaching, teaching, discipleship, and community is to help form that concept correctly, biblically, and profoundly.
To denigrate theology is to undercut our ability to do the very thing this blog and your pastor advocate, at least as far as I can see it.
Please help me get it.
Bill
May the beating of dead horses commence!!
(Don't worry, as long as you are having fun, so am I!!)
For starters I hope that I have nowhere denigrated theology. I don't think I have ever said or written that it is overrated or irrelevant (the opposite in fact), but if you point it out I will retract it.
What I do denigrate is a theology of propositional truths, and doctrinal statements...
Not that they don't have their place, it's simply that when God walked the earth, His primary methods of revealing His nature was through (in my opinion) firstly, actions manifesting His nature, secondly make-believe stories, thirdly questions, fourthly shocking statements exagerated for effect...
---
I just had this realization...
I guess I object to a God who is understood.
---
I think that when you say our task is to "form that concept, correctly, biblically, and profoundly," I deeply agree. But, I can't help but muse that most Christians seemed to emphasize correctly over profoundly, yet I think Jesus method was to do the opposite...
Does that help??
Dr. G's in the house!! I'm really glad you have started blogging; I agree with a majority of your views, and love that you stir the pot creating robust dialogue.
Propositional truth vs. Jesus; Paul vs. Jesus, Evangelical vs. Mystical, Answers vs. questions could be other ways of stating this? (I am an admitted answer giver) From the Biblical evidence, we see Jesus using a variety of communicative devices in his ministry. Mark 4 is a great example: The Parables of the Seed, Lamp, Growing Seeds, and Mustard Seeds all stimulate thought about the Kingdom. However, one must notice (as Dr. G states in his blog) Jesus also gives the answers to his questions. “In fact, in his public teaching he taught only with parables, but afterward when he was alone with his disciples, he explained the meaning to them.” (Mark 4:34 NLT) He didn’t always leave the disciples on their own to wrestle with God saying, “why don’t you go pray about that;” he often, but not always, gave answers (prop. truth?). “He replied, "This kind can come out only by prayer. " (Mark 9:29 NIV) We can deduce from this statement that certain demons can only be cast out through prayer; therefore this is true: prayer is needed to cast out certain demons, which makes a wonderful point in a sermon.
I think we can also derive a great deal of Jesus’ discipleship methods from the way his disciples handled issues in the lives of their disciples, since, one would assume, they would be reproducing His methods(?). I can’t imagine them saying, “We’ve got a better way to do this.” The disciples employed both questions and answers because that’s what Jesus did.
(1 Peter 1:13-15) “So think clearly and exercise self-control (1). Look forward to the gracious salvation that will come to you when Jesus Christ is revealed to the world (2). 14 So you must live as God’s obedient children (3). Don’t slip back into your old ways of living to satisfy your own desires (4). You didn’t know any better then. 15 But now you must be holy in everything you do, just as God who chose you is holy” (5); 5 wonderful points for next week’s sermon. Likewise, we know Paul gave his fair share of truth.
I think there’s another issue here, namely that questions create thinkers, or leaders, whereas, answers (prop. truth) create followers. I appreciate this idea, but I generally find thinkers have always been thinkers, leaders have continually led, while the opposites are also true.
What’s most important is that people have a relationship with the Living God, with and through Jesus Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit. Preaching, life-on-life discipleship, answers, and questions are all aimed at helping the individual with this task: to worship Him.
You guys are awesome. (truth)
PM, PK, where you at? I know you can type.
Hi Steve!
Hi Sean! Nice to hear from you.
Steve, you say, "I object to a God who is understood."
1. What do you do with: "“Thus says the LORD: “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, Let not the mighty man glory in his might, Nor let the rich man glory in his riches; But let him who glories glory in this, That he understands and knows Me, That I am the LORD, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight,” says the LORD.” Jeremiah 9:23, 24, NKJV.
2. If God cannot be understood, then is Allah God? Is an idol god? If we throw up our hands and surrender the ability to understand God, then what can we say about God that is true and certain?
3. Just because we cannot know God comprehensively -- and I do not know a SINGLE group in church history that claims we can -- does not mean we cannot know him truly. What we do know can be true and real and accurate and understandable and communicatable.
4. Do you create a dichotomy between Jesus and Paul? or Peter? or Isaiah? Do not the Scriptures agree? And even if the method of Jesus was mainly provocative (which I don't think it was but I'll grant for the sake of argument), certainly the disciples and earliest Christians strongly believed in teaching.
5. Finally, all truth is propositional, by definition. There is NO SUCH THING as non-propositional truth.
So... the horses continue to suffer!
I'll continue to check in at your blog, but I'll let this thread drop unless you really, really want it to continue. Thanks for making it possible.
Bill at www.maxgrace.com (shameless self-promotion)
1. I think there are two different ways to look at this. I think we can understand God the way we "understand" women (tongue in cheek!). Which is to say, we can know God as a person, but we will never really comprehend. I don't object to a God who is understood in the sense of "I understand where you are coming from;" I object to a God who is understood in the sense of "I understand how to solve this algebra equation." It is this second understanding that I seem to find as the goal of much that is called "theology," whereas it is the first understanding that Jesus seemed concerned with.
2. I think the second point gets answered above.
3. I agree. There is a great discussion to this effect in a Paul Newman film with the title (I believe) "Absence of Malice."
4. I don't create the dichotomy, but rather remark on its existence in people's understanding of God. Most of Western Christianity's concept of grace simply doesn't have a slot for much of Jesus teachings to fit into. (Matthew 7:21-27 for example) Our understanding of the gospel simply doesn't have a slot for the central message of Jesus. (Mark 1:14-15,38 you knew I was a Vineyard guy...) It is this that I remark at. I have quoted Jesus only to have Paul thrown in my face as a contradiction... It is not I who have created that dichotomy, yet the dichotomy is real. (All though, like you, I do not believe that this dichotomy is present in scripture, only in us)
5. What, then, are we to make of Jesus self-proclamation? (John 14:6) Either Jesus himself is a propositional statement, or there is more to Truth than simple statements about the Truth. I have heard it said that the Bible is the truth about the Truth, and that theology is the truth about the truth about the Truth. It is this that frustrates me. Theology when it comes from the person of Jesus is not in the form of propositional statements, but rather in Truth that can be tasted. It is not the truth about the truth about the Truth, but rather simply and wondrously God-come-near. In this we do not comprehend accurate statements that reflect the nature of things as they really are, but rather we are overshadowed, overawed, overpowered by a mystical and mysterious encounter with the Creator.
Post a Comment