I would like to share an insight that I must admit does not come from my own ingenuity (which should come as a surprise to no one). I have my friend Rudy Tan, a British Christian, to thank for this one.
Why should I be interested in God when God is associated with people who don't like me?
Let me repeate this one more time so that my Christians friends will not miss the point.
Why should I be interested in God when God is associated with people who don't like me?
That was Rudy's response when I asked him why so few young people in his country were interested in church. I was rather shocked when I walked around one day asking young people where I could find a particular church and most of them looked at me like they didn't even know what a church was. According to Rudy, there is a huge generation gap between the older people and the younger people in British society. Young people are viewed as wild, rebellious, and destructive-not the kind of people that dignified church folks would like to have around in the Lord's house.
I realize it may look like I am flip-flopping on this one, but I really do believe that churches should provide a way for young people to express themselves in ways that are meaningful to them. The issue, though, is much deeper than the style of music and the way the preacher dresses. The issue is a matter of the heart.
Let me repeat one more time what unchurched people are telling us church going folks:
Why should I be interested in God when God is associated with people who don't like me?
Now let me add a little of my own insight...(yes, it does happen from time to time)
How could I like someone without seeing good in them?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Welcome to the current generation's philosophy. Why should I do something that isn't popular? It's funny that the mentality is to shun anything popular, but in doing so there is a new popular culture that everyone follows. I will stick my neck out here and say that there is a much larger underlying problem. Through pop culture and the lack of fathers in the home, kids are growing up with no back bone more and more. They simply aren't willing to stand for something that may leave them standing alone. However, I'm not excusing the church from trying to reach them on their level.
Pete
Pete,
Pete, I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure what your response has to do with what I am saying. What I am saying is that we Christians need to change the way we view the lost. We are commanded by Jesus to love everyone, but how can we love someone (much less like someone) if we don't see any goodness in them?
Elijah. Your response is exactly what I was expecting,
Romans 3 is a description of man in his natural state apart from the grace of God.
Would you say that fallen man is entirely incapable of doing what is right (which would be goodness)? If so, you may want to read John 1:9 and Romans chapter 2 (Some gentiles by nature do what is right). These verses would be barely scratching the surface of what I am trying to say. I'm not saying that good works are enough to save, nor am I saying that the goodness in fallen man is good enough to meet God's perfect requirements. What I am saying is that the belief that only Christians are capable of goodness is neither scripturally nor experientially credible.
Aaron,
I understood exactly what you're saying, but I took a look a little deeper into the problem. You see, we can see that there is a problem and try to fix it, but unless we understand why the problem arose, our fix will simply be inadequate. It's much like noticing that your front right tire is very worn and needs replacing, but when a mechanic looks at that, he understands that the underlying issue is the alignment of the car being off. First we must understand them, then we can adjust our approach.
Pete
P.S. Elijah, I'm having trouble understanding how you can say that there isn't good in everyone. Being a creation of God, that sounds an awful lot like you're saying that God made something that is without worth. I don't believe that He does that.
Also I would like to point out that the first 11 chapters of Romans are inducive- purposefully raising exactly the questions that you are asking. Chapter 12 on is how Paul addresses the issues raised. That's at least, how the scholars approach it, and I have to agree with them on this one.
Elijah,
I actually believe that the first 11 chapters are the "leading argument" or the "questions" and the following chapters are the "answers". Sorry, it's what I've been taught and it makes sense to me. YMMV
I think you stated it well that even you're very best does not cut it without Christ. I would agree that even your best WITH Christ does not cut it. You are every bit as undeserving as you were before with the only difference being that you have been forgiven. That is unless you lead a perfect life now that you are saved. It hasn't worked that way for me though. I think that the "goodness" in people that we must see is their inherent ability to love once they have been shown love. Everyone has the potential to be a great Christian once they have been shown the grace and love of God,understand it, and accept it. The "good" therefore is their potential to have a life/world changing relationship with God. I think that is what God himself sees in "them" and that is what we must see if we are to love.
If you don't see that Jesus ever struggled to approach sinners, it's probably because he didn't. He DID however, change his approach so that it would be more effective to the audience and I think that is the essence of what Aaron is trying to say. Jesus was a genius of knowing his crowd and was a very adaptive speaker. A broad approach that says each sinner can be reached and taught in the same way is foolish in my mind.
Oh well, I'm chasing rabbits now.
Pete
Thank you Pete and Elijah. This is the discussion that I have been wanting to have.
Elijah, I do not dispute that man in his natural state is totally depraved. What I am contending for is that God has left no man to his natural state. The Bible says that Jesus is "the true light which lighteth every man coming into the world." Jesus also said, "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to myself." God's grace is present everywhere drawing people to Himself. This is why even Gentiles outside the covenant can "by nature do what is right."
Paul is not contradicting himself. Romans 1 gives one side of the story (fallen man is wicked), Romans 2 gives the other side (some do what is right by nature, even those outside of the realm of special revelation), Romans 3 tells us that all, whether Jew or Gentiles are sinners, and have not obeyed the law perfectly,
Romans 4 emphasizes that God has provided righteousness apart from works, and Romans 5 emphasizes that Christ's obedience is far more effective in justifying "all men" than is Adam's sin to condemn "all men". (Read Romans 5 carefully, you may find a few surprises)
Ultimately, all of us are responsible for the light that we have. We do not have to see ourselves as the only ones who can "by nature do what is right" to maintain the essentials of the Christian faith. Yes Elijah, I agree. No one can be good without God. Even the "goodness" that I maintain fallen man is capable of can only be because of God and His loving grace.
Elijah,
I agree that the Gentiles in Romans chapter 2 were saved by grace through faith, but, have you thought through the implications of this? Paul is referring to Gentiles outside the realm of special revelation. He is not referring to Christians living under the New Covenant. Is God somehow less merciful after Easter than He was before?
Also, I think you are playing scriptural gymnastics by interpreting John throught the lens of Paul. The "If I be lifted up" passage should be taken in its own context, not imposed upon by an outside passage that has its own context.
It's been fun discussing this with you. I appreciate you reading my blog. Friends?
Agree to disagree.
Elijah,
Thank you for your question. Now we are getting somewhere. Yes, I am sure that Paul is not referring to Christians living under the New Covenant in Romans chapter 2. He is describing those outside the realm of specific revelation.
Notice he says in verse 14 "for when gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law unto themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts." This could not possibly be a reference to Christians under the New Covenant because we have a revelation of the law. Not only are we aware of the Law on Mount Sinai, but we also have the Law of Christ specifically revealed to us (as in the Sermon on the Mount).
Paul is referring to Gentiles under the Old Covenant who did not have the law (unlike the Jews) but they obeyed the law anyway. (Notice he said, they did so "by nature") Based on verses 7-9 of the same chapter, I would agree that these Gentiles were saved by faith on the basis of what Christ would do for them in the future. So, they were not saved without Christ. They were, however, saved by their faith which was expressed in the moral lives that they lived. These same Gentiles would have certainly believed in Christ had they been given the opportunity (but, hence, they couldn't because Christ hadn't come yet).
The question is-can such an arrangement be made today for those who live outside the realm of specific revelation? Aka..those who have never heard. The Bible doesn't give a definitive answer on this, but it would be very strange if God were less merciful after the cross than He was before, especially in the light of the fact that Jesus is the propitiation "not only for our sins (the Church), but for the sins of the whole world."
Post a Comment