-
Website
http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/ -
Original page
http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2009/01/adventist-way-rape-pillage-and-plunder.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a huge crowd of witnesses to the life of faith, let us strip off every weight that slows us down, especially the sin that so easily trips us up. And let us run with endurance the race God has set before us.
2 We do this by keeping our eyes on Jesus, the champion who initiates and perfects our faith.* Because of the joy* awaiting him, he endured the cross, disregarding its shame. Now he is seated in the place of honor beside God's throne.
3 Think of all the hostility he endured from sinful people;* then you won't become weary and give up.
4 After all, you have not yet given your lives in your struggle against sin.
5 And have you forgotten the encouraging words God spoke to you as his children?* He said,
"My child,* don't make light of the LORD's discipline,
and don't give up when he corrects you.
6 For the LORD disciplines those he loves,
and he punishes each one he accepts as his child."*
How many offensive phrases could be found in there? Sin? Sinful people? Racing imagery? Competition? Discipline?
Perhaps sensitivity to semantics is playing directly into the enemies hand - we water down truth for fear of appearing different.
I hope I didn't hurt the "enemy's" feelings by actually calling him an enemy. ;-)
Often times I wonder if the real people who are offended are not those on the "outside," but those who have been on the inside their whole lives, are laissez-faire about their spirituality, and just want an excuse to water-down our message. I am not saying that our ways of evangelism are perfect - I know they are not - but let's not go overboard.
And doesn't the person who comes to our meetings, church, etc., have some level of expectation that certain "lingo" is going to be used (ie., "Welcome to our church: we're 'Christians.'")?
Let's be honest with ourselves: those who are truly interested in spiritual matters will not be offended by the word "Christian." If someone is offended by that word, I doubt they will ever join up with us, no matter how we package it (unless we want to change the contents of the package altogether).
1 So get rid of all evil behavior. Be done with all deceit, hypocrisy, jealousy, and all unkind speech.
2 Like newborn babies, you must crave pure spiritual milk so that you will grow into a full experience of salvation. Cry out for this nourishment,
3 now that you have had a taste of the Lord's kindness.
4 You are coming to Christ, who is the living cornerstone of God's temple. He was rejected by people, but he was chosen by God for great honor.
5 And you are living stones that God is building into his spiritual temple. What's more, you are his holy priests. Through the mediation of Jesus Christ, you offer spiritual sacrifices that please God.
8 And, "He is the stone that makes people stumble, the rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they do not obey God's word, and so they meet the fate that was planned for them.
9 But you are not like that, for you are a chosen people. You are royal priests, a holy nation, God's very own possession. As a result, you can show others the goodness of God, for he called you out of the darkness into his wonderful light.
11 Dear friends, I warn you as "temporary residents and foreigners" to keep away from worldly desires that wage war against your very souls.
12 Be careful to live properly among your unbelieving neighbors. Then even if they accuse you of doing wrong, they will see your honorable behavior, and they will give honor to God when he judges the world.
~1 Peter 2 (few verses)
Can one find any offensive language there? Is there a clear delineation by which we must live? When I see pastors not wanting to admit they are Christians, how can we claim to hold anything of value to the world?
This reminds me of something that Jesus said to Laodicea:
"I know all the things you do, that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish that you were one or the other!"
To me it is important that I make Jesus relevant to the culture of today - how does he come across in both the modern and post-modern world? How can we make Him relevant to the needs which are most predominant in people's lives today?
Jesus was flexible in how he treated others - why cannot we be just the same in our conversation with those around us? I am personally very sympathetic to some of the questions which are raised by secular people relating to the validity of scripture and I do not think we have any integrity whatsoever if we are speaking in an 'unknown tongue' to those around us today.
The other day I was delighted to hold conversation with a berobed Hare Krishna young man. What a delight it was to find that he too counted Jesus as his friend, but more so that he considered him to be one of the great avatars of all time. I understood his language because I myself had studied yoga for years. I was familiar with the Gita which he was selling - having read it on countless occasions - even after beocming a follower of Jesus.
So we discussed some of the remarkable accounts about Jesus found in the new testament and I was able to lead him gently to that spiritual Gospel of John; which tells of the amazing avatar in the first fourteen verses. For him a seed had been sown in my field, while I in turn had sown a seed in his field. How blessed we are when we seem able to reach across the chasm of religion and culture, and 'talk the talk and walk the walk' in which others are familiar.
Shawn has highlighted a question which is as relevant today as it was long ago, where Christians were called followers of 'The Way'. Perhaps we too may need to change the words which describe who we are. Modern media tells a frightening story of the terrible harm done to Jews and Muslims by Christians. Perhaps we may need to make our point more clear; that we are followers of the Jesus who existed long before Christianity came on the scene . . .
Today the post-modern mind is once again questioning the part which language plays in both our culture and our thinking; and has developed a distrust for the symbols which tell others about ourselves. I believe we need to constantly explore the meaning of the words we use, so that we still have an answer for those who are willing to enquire not only into the nature of God, but the history of that man who walked and talked alongside the lake of Galilee. Perhaps like the woman who touched Jesus' robe, we need to explore anew the literary fabric of the robe which we touch daily and which tells us so much and yet can still be so elusive to those who would long to reach out to him - such as my young Hari Krishna friend . . .
Thank you for your thoughtful reflections. Perhaps I overstated my point a little too much. I do think, when it comes down to it, that we need to "package" our message in the right way. I try to be very sensitive when I'm talking to non-Christians/non-Adventists.
However, I think to some degree, we think that some people are more sensitive or offended than they actually are. It is we, who have been in the church all our lives, who get tired of the same jargon, the same prophecy seminars, the same symantics. We are the ones who are offended more than others, mainly because we've become bored of these things, and perhaps become a little stale in our Christian experience. This is a large generalization, I realize, but one that seems to have a great deal of truth for many of us.
I realize that Christians have done some terrible things in the name of their faith throughout the centuries. This cannot be denied. But it seems funny to me that the same individuals who weep and gnash their teeth because an Adventist evangelist won't fully disclose his associations on an advertisement, are the same people who want us to mask the fact that we are, indeed, Christians. What happened to full-disclosure, authenticity, transparency, and all that? Won't the Buddhist, the Muslim, the Hindu, feel duped if I don't call myself a Christian to begin with, but later on down the road they find out that this is what I am?
There seems to be some inconsistencies.
I am also here in the UK, where much of the religious talk is no longer comprehended. My guess is though that people will be quite comfortable to talk about Jesus as a man who said and did remarkable things. He will always remain popular. But I do wonder whether they want a Christian agenda attached to Jesus. There is just too much to that agenda which is certainly no longer appreciated today.
But the man Jesus? That is another story altogether. I recently read a comment by Marcus Borg where he said that today in the USA there are more and more young people attending secular colleges and universities where a course on the historical Jesus is offered. I believe there is much fascination for Jesus amongst young people, but little for the church. I wish more universities and colleges in the UK offered such short courses.
Which makes one ask the question; is the current mode of church communication not a little outworn with people who are exposed to the contemporary media. Where people are a little ignorant of the harm the church has caused over 2000 years there seems to be more receptivity to Churchianity. I'm speaking about the third world here of course.
But hey! Here's something interesting. Marcus Braebrooke,in his book 'What Can We Learn from Hinduism : Recovering the Mystical' tells an interesting story:
"When I first visited Gobind Sadan, a Sikh interfaith community on the outskirts of New Delhi, some eighteen years ago, the receptionist told me how she prayed every day that she would have a vision of Jesus. When we went back in 2001, the same woman shared with our group the vision she had had quite recently of Jesus, as a luminous figure standing beside her, who assured her of his love and blessing. The woman remains a devout Sikh."
I would be very interested to hear the conventional Christian's take on that one. Do we feel uncomfortable with the idea that someone can long so much for Jesus that he or she is gifted with a vision of such a nature and yet remain in his or her own faith. I would not mind betting my last (rather rotten) British pound that most Christians will feel most uncomfortable at the thought that someone else can feel comfortable with Jesus and yet not want to join the Christian church.
It tells me something about the church . . .
I very much appreciate your thoughts. The story of the young woman in India is very interesting. I certainly would make no judgments upon her experience. If Christ has revealed Himself to her, then we should be grateful. I am wondering, on the other hand, if this woman has access to a Bible.
That Christ would assure her of His love is wonderful. On the other hand, I am not sure that this is all there is to it. Certainly Christ has a lot more to reveal to us than this! And that is precisely the point: if a person is to respond to Christ and seek to follow Him, he or she will ever strive to learn more about Him, and seek to follow Him in every area of his or her life.
What it boils down to is that if we submit ourselves to Christ's authority, then every area of our lives must come in submission to Him. We cannot say, "I want to follow Christ, but I don't want to follow Him when He says, 'Love your enemies.' " This is just one example.
Another example is the reality that Christ had a lot to say - both in the Gospels, and in other parts of scripture - about His people, the church. And one cannot accept all of Christ, and not His bride. It would be like saying, "I like this Shawn character, but I cannot take his wife." Some may try to do that, but if one wants to align himself or herself completely with my passions, then he or she will have to become passionate about my wife as well. We are inseparable.
Christ was quite clear that he had other sheep "which are not of this fold." But many of us stop there and fail to read the rest of the verse: "Them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice and there will be one flock and one shepherd" (John 10:16). This is not arrogance, but a recognition that Christ desires to bring all of His sheep into one flock.
On the other hand, we have to understand that our "personal" salvation is not the issue, in the end. That God loves a Sikh in India is not the issue. Her salvation is not even necessarily the issue (nor is any of ours). If a person responds to a kernel of love from God, then we ought to celebrate that. But the real issue is responding fully to God, for His sake. If we are in the business of making God look good, then it would seem to me that we would seek to follow Him in all areas of our lives and that we would strive to set the record straight about His character. And, though I have not studied Sikhism extensively, I would venture to say that there are some misrepresentations about God in that religion, and I am not sure how someone could come to a full knowledge of Jesus and remain satisfied with portraying such things.
Thanks, again, for the healthy discussion.
I think it is important to recognize that many of those from the East who look on Jesus as one amongst many avatars (or incarnations of God) are fairly advanced in their exposure to a historical/critical understanding of the gospels. They are well aware of the numerous issues found in both the synoptics and the gospel of John and as a consequence they are not inclined to take the gospel writers at face value on all counts – especially where Christians claim that they are the only interpreters of the life and meaning of Jesus. The gospel of John with its deeply spiritual content is especially familiar to those who take an interest in Jesus.
This is quite contrary to the approach of evangelists in the west, who remain silent on these scholarly issues when endeavoring to gain converts – in spite of their advanced training in the subject. Not so for many Hindus; there is much published work (albeit some of it is of a rather patchwork nature) by prominent Hindu thinkers. Although embracing a historical/literary approach they will nevertheless accept the divinity of Jesus without hesitation – which is often quite the contrary in the west – see for instance such writers as Bishop Spong, Funk and Borg amongst numerous other scholars. Likewise much of the Old Testament would definitely not be accepted at face value, although the high spirituality of the prophet Isaiah, Jeremiah and some of the minor prophets will often be quoted by Hindu academics.
One of the outstanding commentaries on the Bhagavad-Gita was authored by Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, a professor of Eastern religion and ethics at Oxford University and then president of India from 1962-1967. He made great use of the gospel of John in his commentary, however at the same time he did not understand Jesus as being in any way the property of Christianity, but saw him as being ‘one amongst many’. Radhakrishnan’s book is well worth reading if you wish to gain an insight into Hindu thinking related to Jesus.
So yes, certainly they do look at Jesus within the context of the gospels, but it is freely admitted that they must be interpreted through the lens of the perennial philosophy of the East. In that way they are quite comfortable with the Jesus whom the East has claimed as their own.
Reading between the lines I detect that you would have them interpret Jesus from your own background which I would understand is based on Judeo-Christian roots and which is the rich heritage of just over two thousand years. That is not the way of the Hindu. Many discover Jesus and make use of his or her, own rich cultural roots to interpret the Biblical account. E Stanley Jones, a Methodist minister who befriended the Indian upper classes and was a friend of both Nehru and Gandhi did his best to contextualize Christianity for India in his seminal work The Christ of the Indian Road. The book became popular in India and the west and eventually sold over 1 million copies - wikipedia. Once again, the book is well worth the read.
Thank you very much for the book recommendation. I will definitely check it out. I understand where you're coming from.
Blessings to you.