This day, I offer thee a challenge. Below is a quote which I could almost guarantee a great number of you will disagree with. But anyone can disagree. I’m interested in why you disagree, which is a much more difficult question. Don’t leave your thoughts here (unless you really want to), read the whole post and comment over at The Crowded Handbasket.
Loving God is something different than loving a person and so, it is not a personal love. Loving God is acting in response to the Resurrection by loving others and that is how we in turn love God. When God comes to me, shakes my hand, and cares to sit down and get to know me and I God, on a personal level, my idea of the love of God will become more than an idea, but a personal engagement with a being. Until then, love of God is a once removed response to God by loving my neighbor, who I can physically and actually love. And perhaps God can love me through that
14 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
I really want to leave my comment here not there. I “know” you but not them.
The post is really quite sad. It reflects an unregenerate heart caught in the deception of the latest (but not really new) fad. I am gradually removing from my blog reader those that fit this category. They have failed to realize the fullness of God by reducing Him to a single word, “love”, which they then define. They have also reduced the concept of the Kingdom of God as simply demonstrating their definition of love to the marginalized (I specify the marginalized because they are quite the opposite when interacting with the evangelical, fundamentalist, etc.).
Ok - that’s all very hard but look at the author’s own confession. “I have never grasped the meaning of the notion that we can have a personal “love” relationship with Jesus. Or any personal relationship at all with God.” That simply doesn’t square with Scripture. So I have a choice here. Either my understanding of Scripture is wrong or the author hasn’t experienced true regeneration.
I’m going with the latter. I recognize one of the authors through another blog I used to read. These guys have an entire movement based on this heretical thinking of God. I’ve commented about them in my blog a number of times as well as on theirs. They lack even a basic understanding of Scripture (although they use it broadly) and reinterpret what they know through the “love lens”.
Rick, I understand your concern - and would share your sadness if this blog post was coming from the pulpit at your local church, but I guess I see this a little differently. It seems to me that this is instead someone wanting to discuss an aspect of the Christian faith that they are struggling with, and hoping to explore through discussion.
Now it sounds like you have more history with the author than I do (which wouldn’t be hard)and so maybe I’m being naive. But it seems to me I can either point at the parts of this person’s theology that don’t fit with my own, explaining to them why they are wrong, or I can instead discuss how I see things, expecting that they can teach me something and I can teach them something - and perhaps we have a conversation rather than an argument.
Rick,
“It reflects an unregenerate heart caught in the deception of the latest (but not really new) fad.”
That is being not only presumptuous, but rather obtuse. You cannot know my heart and cannot judge it. Christ is the judge of our hearts. THAT squares with Scripture. The notion of God as a God for the individual ego does not in any place unless we read our own modernist fantasies into the text.
You are totally unwilling to think outside of the box that you inherited that is not quite Scriptural in my judgment. The question I am raising is quite on par with the very notion of love of God and neighbor as expressed in Leviticus and Deuteronomy which Christ considered the greatest two commandments. We love God through action. It is an indirect love of God. This notion is also in keeping with an entire corpus of Western spiritualism that you would do well to consider before leveling such judgmental ad hominem.
I tend to get rather pitbullish when someone who has no inkling of my personal history in the Christian community and calls my character into question with a mere quote.
Geoff - I do not have history with this author but with some others that posted here and on their blogroll.
I agree with all that you said in terms of your intention but with the caveat that we really need to be in relationship. I have yet to see someone accomplish what you describe via the internet.
I see that Drew has replied while I was typing this. His reply reinforces the issue i have with the post and other posts by his blog friends. And it also reinforces the difficulty of having meaningful dialogue via the internet.
Geoff…I am not into criticing other church leaders…so I want to be very careful in what I say.
” The truth is, and this is quite evident in Scripture, that Jesus did not die “for me” or “for anyone” but died mostly as a result of screwing up the system and offending people who held the power. ”
I don’t think so. Jesus died for the world…and that includes me. I think at the least he has been careless in what he has said, and I suspect has written what he has to emphasise his point at the expense of clarity.
I also suspect that sometimes God feels very present, sometimes He does not.
Strangely though, I have been questioning our over emphasis on personal salvation as well…I think we have overemphasised it to the detriment of the concept that we are saved into the Body of Christ. Once we accept Christ, we become part of His Body.
Thanks Mark - I like what you’re saying here. I do think that Drew has a relevant point in reconsidering the individualization of faith - and I think that the post on your blog considers that really well. And I love your comment about “not criticizing church leaders” - it’s so important to be able to disagree and discuss without needing to denigrate.
Geoff - I was tempted to write to you privately but since I already stepped out publicly, I’ll continue until it no longer seems fruitful.
1) I was not writing to Drew, I was writing to you. Remember, you invited us to respond to Drew. I opted to not do that because as he rightly said, I do not know him. I only know what he wrote. In my second comment I reminded us (me) that I have not seen value in on-line debates with people that one is not in relationship with. Bottom line - I failed consider that Drew would read this and jump in. My bad.
2) Drew did not say, I have known the love of God but now that seems far from me. He did not say anything to suggest this was a journey of a regenerate person that was struggling at this point. Again, since I do not know him, I responded to you solely on the basis of what he wrote and how that fits a general pattern I have observed.
3) That pattern is humanism, liberalism, universalism, and even Buddhism (some Emergents and probably others). It skips the requisite step of knowing the love of God (or redefines it from the orthodox position) and jumps to love of others. I would contend one cannot truly love others without truly knowing the source of love. When man fell, our relationship with God was broken. That caused a break in our relationship with ourselves, each other, and with creation. Which leads to the critical point that Mark detected regarding the nature of salvation. This “love movement” is leaning toward missing the aspect of our personal rebellion, the wrath we deserved, the mercy God showed, etc.. The “new” approach is built on this redefined god = love.
4) The bottom line which I would not simply drop in an email to Drew but felt safe sharing with you is that the post in question does not reflect the life that flows from a heart that has been gripped by the living, loving, mighty, merciful, etc. God. It does not square with Scripture. It is the cry of one looking for answers but has yet to find them in Christ.
Net - based solely on what was written, the post is honest but not true and if it’s in there, I missed the hint that it was a bearing of the soul by one who knows the Truth but is currently in one of the “dark nights” that I’m sure all of us are familiar with.
No denigration or criticizing of Drew is intended, that wouldn’t help him. This was to you answer the question you asked. What and why do I disagree.
Rick,
Feel free to respond to me directly since I am engaged in this particular thread as well.
“I failed consider that Drew would read this and jump in.”
I am still here so you can ask me how I came to these thoughts rather than assuming the character of my relationship with God. Why not just ask me? That would be far more helpful.
“the post in question does not reflect the life that flows from a heart that has been gripped by the living, loving, mighty, merciful, etc. God. It does not square with Scripture. It is the cry of one looking for answers but has yet to find them in Christ.”
Rick, this continues to make a terrible assumption. You know nothing of my pilgrimage with Christ and it continues to make very false judgments. I would challenge you to use this as an opportunity to grow in your own faith through dialogue with ideas that are clearly contrary to your own.
You might start by recognizing that I have a very long history with Christianity and I have been through a lot of wrestling with my God and with Scripture as a Christian. You may also be interested, or not, to know that I, the writer of the post that you are judging must have been written by an “unregenerate”, am an elder at my church, have been through four years of seminary and earned two master’s degrees in divinity and theology, was as close to signing my name to be a pastor before deciding I was not mature enough to be a pastor at the time, have been involved in various forms of charismatic worship including the baptism of the Holy Spirit, I have even spoken in tongues even though I choose not to do so anymore, I have built houses with Habitat for Humanity, I was on chapel staff at my college, I have been to many Young Life events, I was baptized as a Catholic, I read the New Testament in Greek, I have published articles on religion, and so on. I am quite confident that I know my Lord and I consciously practice values of mercy and compassion in response to what Jesus indicated are the two greatest commandments.
I really would like to see you focus on the content of the post rather than follow your very inaccurate assumptions of the status of the author who wrote the very post that Geoffrey posted as a “challenge” here. I would like to hear your ideas about that, rather than see you continue to respond ad hominem.
Peace.
Drew - I have no desire to drag this out because as both you and I said, I do not know you. And as I said, I have not seen evidence that this kind of dialogue via the internet can be fruitful.
I can only restate what you posted, “I have never grasped the meaning of the notion that we can have a personal ‘love’ relationship with Jesus. Or any personal relationship at all with God.” which seems to contradict your most recent comment, “… I am quite confident that I know my Lord …”
I judged (as previously stated) the post not you. If the post does not reflect you, then GREAT! Then all we are left with is that the post is not well done (god knows I’ve made many less than excellent posts). If however you stand by what I quoted from the post rather than what you wrote in your comment, then there is a fundamental issue. If you mean both, I see these as contradictory and I don’t expect I will convince you otherwise.
That aside, you have adapted an unambiguous position that, contrary to your claim, I see as quite un-Scriptural, i.e., “this is quite evident in Scripture, that Jesus did not die “for me” or “for anyone” but died mostly as a result of screwing up the system and offending people who held the power.”
So I’m not sure what we need to discuss.
Issue is that if I believe what my post says, then your judgment is that I am an unregenerate Christian. That is the issue Rick. It is the judgment that you are making ad hominem that is the source of what is unhelpful.
Drew - as predicted this is going no where. You said I am judging you. I said fine, then if you know God as you said in your comment, then your post is wrong or at best unclear (“I have never grasped the meaning of the notion that we can have a personal ‘love’ relationship with Jesus. Or any personal relationship at all with God.”). To which you reply that I judged you ad hominem.
So we are full circle.
You tell me, do you know God or not?
Rick. I do know God and that’s not the point of the post as it is. So the question is “why” you disagree. Your answer is that the author is an unregenerate Christian. And that’s the problem.
Drew - it may not be the point of the post but your words were clear. You said you believe that we cannot have a personal relationship with God at all. Those are the words of an unregenerate heart or someone that is not clearly saying what they mean. I allowed you the latter but you refused to take it.
You are either quite stubborn to admit that your choice of words do not sync with your later confession (i.e., that you yourself know God) or you really believe what you say.
Those who do not know God are enslaved (Gal 4.8-9) unlike those who are now free. They are trapped in their passions (1 The 4.5) and ultimately objects of God’s wrath (1 The 1.8). Knowing God results in good works (Titus 1.16) and loving others (1 Jn 4.8).
The list of Scripture goes on. You may have been trying to make a point but in doing so you made a clear statement contrary to Scripture. The world does not know the Father but Jesus has made the Father known to to his own and continues to do so (Jn 17).
Your own words judge you, not me. Admit that you made them in error or stand by them in rebellion, your choice. Your post is not unclear. You reinforce the error with brash statements of Christ’s death on the cross being the result of “screwing up the system and offending people who held the power.”
I like some of the points you made in your post, i.e., taking what some approach as a ethereal notion of love and putting some substance to it. However, in doing so, liberty was taken that was incorrect. Your “pitbullishness” is causing you to stand by that to your own detriment.
The ball is in your court. I encourage you not to hide behind the “point of the post” and admit the error of the teaching you employed to make your point.
OK - I’m not sure that this is going to progress forward any further. It’s pretty clear that neither of you is likely to back down. So for the moment I’m shutting off comments on this post. If either of you want to continue the correspondence, then I’m happy to pass on email addresses with the other’s permission. 14 comments isn’t bad for a post I said not to comment on