I have a problem with some kinds of Christian evangelism. Especially the kind that invites people to take Jesus “as your personal Lord and Saviour”, to have “a personal relationship with Jesus”. It makes our Lord sound like a made-to-measure suit. What’s wrong with a one-size-fits-all Jesus? As the character Cheryl says in Douglas Coupland’s novel Hey Nostradamus!: “Nothing makes a person less special than conversion – it universalises you.”
And this “Jesus” you take as “your personal Lord and Saviour” and with whom you have a “relationship” – who is he? Is he the challenging and disturbing figure who stalks the pages of the gospels? If so, fine, but I rather suspect that he is often a figment of the believer’s imagination, a projection of the kind of saviour that meets one’s felt needs and desires, a kind of invisible life coach or genie, rather like Casper the friendly ghost. An old hymn speaks of a Jesus who “walks with me and talks with me”, but, really, who sets the pace and does all the talking? I wonder if, at bottom, this relationship is rather one-sided, even narcissistic.
Here are three further flaws associated with this approach to the gospel. One is the way it often targets people in their vulnerability and exploits their guilt. But as Bonhoeffer rightly insisted, Christ meets us in our strengths as well as our weaknesses, and though of course we are all sinners, knowing that is the consequence, not the precondition, of grace.
And the focus of this approach is all wrong. It asks the question, “Do you want to be saved?”, which actually panders to human self-centredness. The proper question to ask is “How can God be glorified?” Moreover, you see a lot of Christians who are concerned about their relationship with Jesus when what they ought to be concerned about is their relationship with other people – and not as potential converts but simply as fellow human beings to whom they should be kind.
Finally, there is the way this approach markets the gospel like some sort of therapy that will make you happy all the time. But it won’t. For not only does faith lead us into experiences that the mystics called “the dark night of the soul”, it also calls us into costly acts of sacrifice and confrontation with abusers of power, both personal and political. The true gospel should carry a Government Health Warning; conversely, some kinds of Christianity should be prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act.
How did Jesus himself speak to people? He simply said, “Follow me!” (i.e., get behind me – and keep up!). More specifically, he said, “Take up the cross and follow me.” Ouch! And, of course, there is the New Testament language of “discipleship” – literally, of being a “learner” (so pay attention!); and also the language of “imitation” – of becoming like Jesus in attitude, character, and behaviour. “Bible-believing” Christians, of all people, should be both content and eager to keep to this model of becoming and being a Christian.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 30 comments… read them below or add one }
Richard 02.07.11 at 1:50 pm
A great post, Kim and I’m with you 95% of the way. There are a couple of things that bother me:
1. I’m not convinced that the language of “do you want to be saved?” should be consigned to the dustbin. If we expect the Holy Spirit to convict people of sin, we’ll also expect them to want their salvation. But being saved ‘from’ is only part of the story — the next question that has to be answered is ‘What are you saved for?’ That’s the bit that very often gets missed.
We need to recognise the dangers of overdoing the personal language — and I’m sure we have done that in the protestant churches. But I wouldn’t want to lose it. ‘My’ salvation is a part of ‘our’ salvation, indeed the salvation of all creation. If we could recover that grand vision, we’d be less inclined to think of Jesus as a personal therapist.
Kim 02.07.11 at 6:32 pm
The problem, Richard (as I know you know), is that the language of “taking Jesus as my personal Lord and Saviour” comes heavily freighted with a an almost invariable set of assumptions. For example, I think it’s fair to say that people who use this language think that the associated question “Are you saved?” is unproblematical, in that, for them, it goes without saying that universalism is a false doctrine. Or again, that the associated question, “When were you saved?” is also straightforward, and precludes the answer, “At about 3 pm on Good Friday.” These folk are looking for a time when you were “born again”, a good biblical phrase commandeered, deployed, and distorted by certain kinds of evangelical Christians. Indeed I suspect that most Christians who use this kind of language think that whether or not other people are going to be saved is not only a worthwhile question to ask put the principal motivation for evangelism. Part of the inspiration of my post is the view of great missiologist Lesslie Newbigin that this is, in fact, a futile, indeed an arrogant question to ask, because it is not “our business. I do not believe,” Newbigin states, “that we have a mandate to settle those questions. We know from the teaching of Jesus that one thing is for sure - that at the end of time there will be surprises…. What then is the point of missions?” he asks. “That I think brings us to the very heart of the matter… And the answer is I believe, quite simply, is the glory of God.”
Again with the “conviction of sin” - not only are certain kinds of sins almost always in the minds of Christians who use this language, but the discourse of sin is used almost to the exclusion of suffering. However, Jesus, it seems to me, was not very interested in people’s sins, and certainly not in ferreting them out, let alone with then working his way up to some Sinner’s Prayer, a quite ridiculous dynamic; no, what preoccupied Jesus was people’s pain, not their sin, and with people’s sin primarily as it lay behind the infliction of pain. And, of course, the discourse of sins is almost entirely absent from the teaching of Paul, who spoke of Sin as a power, and its apocalyptic exposure and conquest in the life, and especially the death and resurrection, of Jesus.
And as for the language of “salvation”, of course, but in its full semantic range, including healing, deliverance, and liberation, and in the context of systems and structures of sin and oppression.
But there is no need to go on. I know we are on the same page here. However, we will soon be hearing from DH, and maybe Earl, who are in a different library.
Doug 02.07.11 at 6:45 pm
I’m with Richard on this one and also I would add that what we are “saved for” includes “eternal life” aka “He that has the Son has life. He that has not the Son has not life.”
Kim, Paul had no discourse on sin? What are Paul’s comments on the “lust’s of the flesh” all about but a discourse on sin? I understand that Paul mentions sin as a power and it is but it goes way more beyond that in his discourses. Way more.
“However, Jesus, it seems to me, was not very interested in people’s sins, and certainly not in ferreting them out, let alone with then working his way up to some Sinner’s Prayer, a quite ridiculous dynamic; no, what preoccupied Jesus was people’s pain, not their sin, and with people’s sin primarily as it lay behind the infliction of pain.” If Jesus was not interested in sin then why would He tell the woman caught in adultry “Go and sin no more.”? Also, look at all of the Baptisms, John the Baptist stating to repent and Jesus confirming it by stating no greater person born of woman than John the Baptist, etc., etc.
Mendip Nomad 02.07.11 at 8:47 pm
Doug, I will agree with to a very limited extent. I too think that Kim possibly underplays the amount of discourse on sin in both the Gospels and in Paul’s letter in order to make the substantive point of the argument. But, and it is a big but, the reality is that the gist of the argument does seem to ring true, at least to me. Jesus, it seems to me, if you read all the Gospels, does not obsess about sin. Rather he is concerned with the repairing of the relationship between God and God’s people. Of course Jesus tells the woman to go and sin no more, he was hardly likely to say “go, and sin as much as you like!” But the reality of the encounter is that the woman is in a powerless situation, and she is a pawn in a game being played in order to trap Jesus. Jesus’ focus in that episode is therefore those who have the power: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” The crowd of sinners want the woman condemned to death for her sin while the one without sin, who is entitled by his own statement to enact that punishment, instead places himself alongside the sinners in not condemning her, sending her away not with a focus on the sin itself but with a command to make right her relationship with God. Which suggests, actually, that Jesus focus is not on sin, just as Kim says.
As for Paul, well there too I’m with Kim. In all the letters Paul wrote Paul’s key focus is not sin and condemnation but the grace found in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Paul clearly says that we are dead to sin. This does not mean that we do not sin once we are clothed in Christ, but rather that sin does not own us. Paul uses sin both as a power and as an act, but his clear focus is on its ability to have power over us, and how through God’s grace seen in Christ’s sacrifice we are reconciled with God and no longer slaves of sin but of Christ. Paul’s gospel is a gospel of grace, of redemption, and of love. As for the “lust’s of the flesh” stuff, I haven’t studied all of the letters in depth, but I have studied Romans with an excellent Pauline scholar who is clear that in Romans 1, where Paul talks of many activities, Paul is talking not of sins but of reaping what is sown, that such activities are the outcome of having not followed God not the sin themselves. And more importantly he is using them as part of a rhetorical argument in which he is building up to Chapter 2, which makes it clear that we have all, Gentile and Jew, fallen short. And that we are redeemed (whatever significance you attach to that word) through God’s grace and love as seen in the death and resurrection of Christ. Again, the focus is not on our sin but on God’s grace.
Basically that’s probably a little bit too much of ramble just to say, Kim may underplay the sin but it’s done legitimately in a rhetorical argument that certainly seems to be heading in the right direction.
To put it another way. In the Methodist Worship Book, it is common that after corporate, and it is important that such a prayer is corporate not personal, confession there is absolution, in which the worship leader says, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. This is his gracious word to us: ‘Your sins are forgiven.’”. The congregational response to this is, “Amen. Thanks be to God.” I think that while it is important for us to remember our (corporate) sins, but I am also convinced that the message of Christ, and the Gospel of both the Four Evangelists and Paul, is a focus on the last parts - we are forgiven, now let us give glory to God in response. And in doing so others may know the grace and love of God and give praise as well.
Richard 02.07.11 at 10:20 pm
With me on this one, Doug? I don’t think so! With the additional comments that I goaded out of Kim, I think he’s as near spot on as makes no difference.
Doug 02.07.11 at 10:28 pm
…and the only way to repai ones relationship with God is TO deal with the sin. With your references to Paul you fail to mention in addition to the “Grace part” all of the many times Paul uses Faith in conjunction with that. I don’t deny that sin is both a power and an act but one cannot diminish the fact that the lust of the flesh deal with both the power but ALSO the act itself. Also, just because Paul mentions that all have sinned and fallen short that does not mean that due to Grace that ones sin is overlooked outside of ones repentence. “What shall we say then? Shall we continue to sin that Grace may abound? God forbid! How are we who are dead to sin live any longer in it? Also we are forgiven by repentence and have a relationship woth God through confession “If we confess our sins He is Faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us of all unrighteousness.” “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and Believe in your heart that God has risen from the dead you shall be saved.” If these are “not a focus on sin” then I don’t know what is. Grace/Faith/repentence all go equal hand in hand with each other. Christ’s death and resurrection made Grace available to all and it is entered into by ones Faith in Him, His death and His resurrection.
Richard 02.07.11 at 10:57 pm
Please, Doug. Resist the impulse to rattle off a disagreement (complete with texts) and try to engage with what’s actually been said.
Doug 02.07.11 at 11:10 pm
I know this is your blog. However, why not? Isn’t it important that we as Believers follow what Scripture says and that we try to under the Power of the Holy Spirit follow that as well? I’m only pointing out that while I too agree Jesus didn’t “obsess with sin” and Paul didn’t as well, one cannot diminish the responsibility of ones sin as laid out by Jesus, the Gospels, Paul or Scripture for that matter.
Tony Buglass 02.07.11 at 11:52 pm
“If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and Believe in your heart that God has risen from the dead you shall be saved.” If these are “not a focus on sin” then I don’t know what is.
No, it isn’t. It doesn’t actually mention sin. It mentions salvation. Yes, salvation is from sin, but the focus is on the salvation rather than the sin. Or is that too subtle for you?
Nobody here is denying the existence or reality of sin. Nobody is denying that it is a power which can and does diminish the life that God wishes for us. But the central focus is not sin - it is God in Christ, and his life-giving grace. Why do you persist in playing the minor key which God has already majored?
Paul F. 02.08.11 at 12:50 am
I would add to Richard’s comment that we are “saved for” the new creation, after God has uprooted all evil and restored the entire cosmos. The last dozen chapters of Isaiah, Rev. 21-22, and Romans 8 — the most neglected chapter of Romans — all spell this out quite clearly. As do the parables of Jesus.
It is the despair of Hamlet’s most famous speech that animates the thinking of two many Western Christians: this world is f-cked, irreparable, and the best we can hope for is Jesus to take us away from this place, or more accurately, for our immaterial souls to “shuttle off this mortal coil” and be with Him forever (hello Plato, sayonara “resurrection of the body”!)
As for the relation between grace, sin and repentance, I sure hope you’re wrong, Doug. I hope there isn’t something I have overlooked that I have to do in order to be saved.
PamBG 02.08.11 at 1:13 am
We all read the bible differently.
I had a patient today tell me that I wasn’t a Christian because I don’t have the gift of tongues. She asked me if I’d read Acts, pretty much convinced herself that I’d never read it and then commanded me to read it in order to save my soul.
Every time she said “Read Acts! Read Acts!” I could have said “Read 1 Corinthians 12! Read 1 Corinthians 12!” and we could have stood there admonishing each other for quite awhile. (It would have been lousey pastoral care, but still.)
So, in the end, I got her to pray for her own recovery and she also prayed for my salvation. What else could I do since I obviously couldn’t pray for her as I’m obviously not a Christian.
(Yes, I know Earl and Doug already suspected that one.)
Richard 02.08.11 at 7:17 am
Before the next time you meet, learn the Lord’s Prayer in Welsh. Then she’ll know that you have the gift of tongues and must have been saved by her prayers. That’s bound to make her feel better!
Seriously, it sounds like you handled that one really well.
Tony Buglass 02.08.11 at 9:23 am
Even better - if you an get hold of Maurice Casey’s new “Jesus of Nazareth”, he does a reconstruction of the Aramaic Lord’s Prayer; you can tell her the Lord has given it to you in the words and language that Jesus himself used. That has to score a few extra brownie points.
Yes, I know the Welsh consider their language to be the language of heaven, but I think Jesus’ own words might just top that…
Richard 02.08.11 at 9:23 am
You reckon?
Tim 02.08.11 at 11:25 am
There’s always a balance to be preserved between ‘God so loved the world’ on the one hand and ‘the Son of God loved me and gave himself for me’ on the other. At different times in the church’s history, different groups and traditions have emphasised and over-emphasised one or the other. Methodism, and Anglican evangelicalism, had their birth at a time when Christianity in Britain meant mainly joining the crowd in church on Sunday, but the personal conversion element in religion was largely missing. Hence the joy on the part of the early evangelicals when they rediscovered the wonder of God’s love for each individual and of the experience Paul described as ‘the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord’.
I’m alive to the dangers Kim is talking about (especially the nice tame band-aid Jesus who bears little relationship to the person we meet in the gospels), but I don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, either.
Kim 02.08.11 at 12:45 pm
Speaking of water: my post implicitly takes a shot at the “swimming pool church” - you know, the one where all the noise comes from the shallow end.
Doug 02.08.11 at 4:22 pm
To have a proper relationship with God we DO need to repent. Grace/Faith/repentence all go hand in hand. God did it all by making it available all we have to do is just Believe and repent.
“…God in Christ, and his life-giving grace.” which is entered into and received by Faith and repentence. “Without Faith it is impossible to please God.”
Tim, thank God I don’t believe in the “band-aid Jesus”.
Paul F. this world IS messed up. That is why Scripture says “Heaven and earth will pass away but My Word shall never pass away.” Even Revelation 21:1 talks about this.
PamBG 02.08.11 at 5:46 pm
Even better - if you an get hold of Maurice Casey’s new “Jesus of Nazareth”, he does a reconstruction of the Aramaic Lord’s Prayer; you can tell her the Lord has given it to you in the words and language that Jesus himself used. That has to score a few extra brownie points.
A friend’s daughter was doing her PhD on something having to do with Aramaic. I could have her teach me the correct pronounciation (although I’m not sure if anyone knows it).
Paul F. 02.08.11 at 8:12 pm
Doug, I’m fully aware of Rev. 21. In fact, I even referred to it in my post. “A new heaven and a new earth” is exactly what I am talking about. This is why discipleship and doing good unto others makes sense in the interim — through us, God is putting the world back together again. All of this is redemption, all of this is reconciliation. It’s not about my “soul”, which the Jewish worldview didn’t have much room for and the Bible doesn’t say much about.
Thanks for the clarification on what I need to do to be saved. I’m gonna try to summon up the energy to have faith and repent, and if I can’t, I guess I’m screwed.
Doug 02.08.11 at 8:25 pm
“I’m gonna try to summon up the energy to have faith and repent, and if I can’t, I guess I’m screwed.”
Well Paul, it isn’t all you but by the power of the Holy Spirit that can help you make that decision. How about John the Baptist and Jesus’s confirmation of him being “greaest among those born of women” in there statement “repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand”? or “Without Faith it is impossible to please God.”? or “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and Believe in your heart that God has risen from the dead you shall be saved.”?
“if I can’t, I guess I’m screwed. ” Well Jesus DOES say “If you confess Me before men I will confess you before My Father in heaven. If you deny Me before men I will deny you before My Father in heaven.”
With regard to the “soul” the Bible DOES talk alot about. “What is worth to gain the whole world but loose your own soul?”
It is discipleship, doing good to others, doing those things which God in His Word says to do and not doing the things that God’s Word says not to do. I agree with God’s redemptive work but I also believe there is something about the soul at the same time that is not contradictory in any way. God’s Kingdom is a “present/future” Kingdom not a “present only” Kingdom.
When one looks at all of these many and other verses on the subject matter we have discussed here it is way more complex then how you are describing it. Jesus and the NT clarified the proper worldview in relation to soul, afterlife, resurrection from the dead, etc. When one looks at the rich ruler/Lazarus in relation to afterlife one can see the confirmation of this as well.
I’m glad you appreciated the clarification that I stated from God’s Word.
Bob Gilston 02.08.11 at 9:25 pm
“I’m glad you appreciated the clarification that I stated from God’s Word.”
Doug - Is that a satisfaction that Paul F now has better understanding, or are you heaping sarcasm on to sarcasm? I don’t know you well enough to decipher which is which.
Mendip Nomad 02.08.11 at 9:43 pm
Doug, there is no Hebrew (and therefore I would guess Aramaic) word for soul. The closest is the word nephesh, which is derived from the verb naaphash which means to take breath or to be refreshed. And there is no concept in Judaic thought that matches the dualism of body and soul - one simply is not possible without the other - Adam’s body before God breathes into it is simply dust, a “soul” without a body is simply breath. The words of Jesus as they would have been said in Aramaic could as easily have been understood as “but lose your own life”. It is the Greek transcribing of Jesus’ original Aramaic that gives the idea of soul. And actually I think that makes the idea that we are redeemed even more profound - it is not simply our souls that are saved, but our lives!
And as for Jesus’ descriptions of the end times and judgement check out the sheep and goats, which involves no need to have even recognised “the king” only to have genuinely loved your neighbour as yourself and so, in the process, have loved God. Where is the confession of sins, and of Christ as Lord and Saviour, in that story?
Doug 02.08.11 at 10:06 pm
I wasn’t being sarcastic and I didn’t take Paul’s statement as such as well. On the blogoshphere it is so very difficult to recognize sarcasm because no enflection (spelling?) can be recognized. So I typically only take the words as they are on the page and don’t assume anything. For we all know what happens when people “assume”.
Thanks for the additional question and I’m glad you “gave me the benefit of the doubt” on this one and I’m more than happy to assist you in “helping you understand me”.
Let me do state an additional clarification for proper understanding of my position:
God’s Kingdom is a “present/future” Kingdom not a “present only” Kingdom nor a “future only” Kingdom as well. I will say that I can’t wait for God’s Kingdom fulfillment in the future when we as Believers will “see Him as He is”. However, that “future part” should in no way distract us from our responsibilities to God’s Kingdom while we are on this physical earth. Nor should we look at God’s Kingdom as solely this earth alone as well. Hense the “present/future” nature of God’s Kingdom.
Paul F. 02.08.11 at 10:32 pm
I see we are mostly on the same page regarding the Kingdom of God, Doug. The only point I was trying to make is that, in the fullness of time, none of us are going to heaven. Heaven is coming to us, with our fully glorified, resurrected bodies, down here. “Pie in the sky” piety is plaque on the church’s praxis.
It’s best that none of us be too prescriptive with the details about the future, but that is how I believe Scripture fleshes it out, and how our best NT scholars (Wright et al.) elucidate it.
Doug 02.08.11 at 11:04 pm
Well, I’m am not a big fan of NT Wright sch0lar and I know many other scholars who are just as good as NT Wright who have slightly different view of the “future Kingdom” than yourself. However, NT Wright’s discourse on the proof of Jesus from the Resurrection of Jesus is fabulous.
Where I may disagree with you more is that I believe that this earth will be destroyed and a new heaven and new earth will be created/fulfilled in the future. Scripture does stated “..caught away in the clouds and so shall we ever be.”
I’m glad we agree to a great point on this. I think many who lean “toward my side” are misunderstood as being “future only” when that is in fact NOT the case. Evangelicals in the super majority hold to the view as I have presented it. Hopefully this will give you a better understanding of the Evangelical view and how it is not so much outside of your view (although it is to a point). The fact is one should not believe that Evangelicals don’t focus at all on discipleship when in fact they do.
Paul F. thanks for this wonderful discussion. If you have any further inputs on this I would be excited to here them from you. Love this discussion. Paul F., the more we talk and it is heated on the front end it always ends up being more position in the end. I personally believe strongly that is how the Holy Spirit works. Hopefully, this will help you, if you haven’t I hope these type of discussion will help you make that decision, repentence by Faith. (I’m sure you have but just “care about you and the basics”)
Mendip Nomad, I disagree with you. I mentioned the Lazarus/Rich ruler afterlife story of Jesus and there are so many other passages which totally contradict your view of the afterlife and Salvation. Also, assume for the sake of argument, that the Jewish understanding of soul is like you say, that doesn’t mean they had the correct or proper understanding of the soul. Remember they had limited knowledge and limited understanding with Jesus not even around in OT times. The fact is there is no period of time where us as humans are not alive. “Absent from the body is present with the Lord.” (for those who are Believers). So in conclusion, there is no period of time after one physically dies where we are solely in the grave and that alone, if one looks at Scripture propely.
PamBG 02.09.11 at 1:10 am
Well, I’m am not a big fan of NT Wright sch0lar and I know many other scholars who are just as good as NT Wright who have slightly different view of the “future Kingdom” than yourself. However, NT Wright’s discourse on the proof of Jesus from the Resurrection of Jesus is fabulous.
LOL! I love this. That’s precisely the problem with the whole of popular evangelical theology: Never mind the kingdom, never mind repenting of the aspects of life that are really difficult to repent of. We’ll just concentrate on saying a theological mantra that Jesus is my Lord and Savior and we’ll hope for a spiritual heaven.
No need to really change anything, then. Fast-food discipleship. Do you want fries with that?
Paul F. 02.09.11 at 1:16 am
“Evangelicals in the super majority hold to the view as I have presented it.”
No, they do not. Perhaps American Evangelicals do, but globally, Evangelicals do not believe that God is going to destroy this present earth, which shows me that we are actually much farther apart than I thought on this matter. All of a sudden, being a good steward of the environment is absolutely pointless.
“Hopefully this will give you a better understanding of the Evangelical view and how it is not so much outside of your view (although it is to a point).”
I would actually consider myself an evangelical, but that means different things depending on the geography. I am definitely not what passes for a popular evangelical in America.
N.T. Wright, among others, is a self-described evangelical. I’ve pretty much laid out his view: we are awaiting a new creation, when heaven and earth are joined together, and God’s Kingdom is fully on earth as in heaven. I don’t deny that we depart to “be with the Lord” after death, but that is the hors d’œuvre, so to speak. Resurrection and new creation is the main course, but many Christians have completely ignored the main course and focused on the hors d’œuvre.
“The fact is one should not believe that Evangelicals don’t focus at all on discipleship when in fact they do.” I didn’t say that. I said Christians across all traditions are guilty of a “pie in the sky” fire insurance piety that makes discipleship an afterthought.
My comments about striving to choose to believe and so forth were sarcasm. I’ll trust my salvation to the mercy of God and leave it at that. Or, to borrow from Merton, I’ll stop taking myself seriously.
Mendip Nomad 02.09.11 at 12:29 pm
Doug, I had a feeling you’d disagree with me but the conversation is worth the disagreement. I am currently studying for a theology degree as part of my training for ministry and these threads give me a chance to “vocalise” my thoughts, in part to see whether I agree with them, let alone anyone else. I come from a very different background - rural low-church Anglicanism, radical-liberal ecumenism, and Wesleyan Methodist sacramentalism. Until I arrived in Cambridge I had little experience of spending time with those of a clearly evangelical background and what I had seen were quite self-serving stereotypes. Some of my best lecturers here are of the evangelical tradition (both British and American), as well as many good friends - interacting with them, learning from them, debating with them is a blessing and a joy.
I also have to say, based on my experience so far, that in the British evangelical tradition as I have come across it Paul F’s view of the coming Kingdom (as opposed to the Kingdom here) is the majority view, though certainly not the only one.
Doug 02.09.11 at 4:46 pm
Paul F., just because God will “create a new heaven and a new earth” doesn’t diminish our responsibility to the earth even if God may happen to destroy it. God’s call to be “good stewards” is not contingent of there being a point except for us to be obedient to God’s command.
Also, my view doesn’t diminish the importance of resurrection and new creation at all. You are making those “zero-sum-games” on those issues.
“I said Christians across all traditions are guilty of a “pie in the sky” fire insurance piety that makes discipleship an afterthought.” No one is making “discipleship an afterthought”. The whole concept that Evangelicals include in focus of “Be ye Holy even as your Father in heaven is Holy” is a good part of discipleship. The view that Christians are guilty of “pie in the sky” and not focusing on discipleship is really a gross overgeneralization in reference to the broader focus of Christians like myself have.
So in conclusion: 1) Responsibility to the environment and being a good steward of creation is of high importance not due to the “point” but due to being obedient to God in the creation. 2) My view doesn’t diminish the concept of the resurrection and new creation in the future in anyway. Having eternal life is infinite and includes afterlife as well as the resurrection from the dead as well of equal importance so no “zero sum game” 3) mentioning my view of the afterlife and/or heaven doesn’t diminish the importance of discipleship and following God “Be ye Holy” while on this earth. “If you love Me you will keep My commandments”. If those things are not part of discipleship I don’t know what is.
St.James 08.10.12 at 8:40 am
personal lord or master is in the bible.
Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? “to his own(2398) master” he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
Rom 14:4 Sú tís eí ho krínoon allótrion oikéteen “Toó idíoo Kuríoo” steékei eé píptei Statheésetai dé dunateí gár ho Kúrios steésai autón
G2398
???????
idios
id’-ee-os
Of uncertain affinity; pertaining to self, that is, one’s own; by implication private or separate: - X his acquaintance, when they were alone, apart, aside, due, his (own, proper, several), home, (her, our, thine, your) own (business), private (-ly), proper, severally, their (own).
“Toó idíoo Kuríoo” - “to his own lord”
personal (oxford dictionary) adj. 1 one’s own; individual; private.