29 February 2012
Looking to resurrect this blog as a place to share ideas and thoughts. Many of us are readers and as we are processing our different thoughts and ideas that might arise out of our readings, we need a place to share with others. As ideas are presented, I want to encourage you to join in the discussion. I want this to be a safe place were we can learn from each other. In talking with a few of you, this seems like a needed forum and I welcome all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Here is a place to start: What do you think about this?
ReplyDeleteFrom Been Thinking About Mart De Haan 2/29/12
Have you ever wondered whether our knowledge of the Bible could be used like a handful of cut flowers? Is it possible that separated from their root and purpose, inspired proverbs, parables, predictions, stories, or letters could be used in ways that leave them unable to bear the fruit for which they were written?
Think for instance not only of the storyline of Jonah, but of what we remember about Joseph, the son of Jacob.
After comparing notes, my guess is that we’d agree that the most memorable moment happens when, in a surprise reunion with his brothers, Joseph tells them that what they intended for evil, God meant for good (Gen 50:20).
But what if we use this story only to remind ourselves that God can turn the awful experiences of our lives into an opportunity for our benefit? What if we even go so far as to see that the twists and turns of Joseph’s life reveal a God who knows the future; rules over circumstance; and cares for us far more than we ever imagined?
These are all important and valid points. But what if we stop here? Could a handful of cut flowers stop short of renewing our first love for the God who not only loves us, but our enemies as well?
Let’s take another look at Joseph in a way that links him closely to what we know about Christ. In the end, God uses Joseph to show compassion to his cruel brothers– even making them into patriarchs of the 12 tribes of Israel. Just as amazingly, in the end, the God of the Bible also useds Joseph to show compassion for the Egypt that would later enslave and torment the descendants of Joseph’s family– until their day of Exodus.
Has my imagination gotten the best of me? Or is the link real? All of a sudden it seems so important to see that just as God used the betrayal of Joseph to put him in a position to be the rescuer of his brothers and the whole land of Egypt (Gen 50:20), so the Father of heaven used the betrayal of Jesus to make him the Savior– not just of his chosen people– but of the whole world.
So I find myself praying this morning, Father in heaven, forgive me for using your Word like a handful of cut flowers, purchased at the price of your Son, for the sole comfort and good of myself and those I naturally love.
Here is a link to the original blog:
ReplyDeletehttp://beenthinking.org/2012/02/29/the-bible-and-cut-flowers/
When I first read this on Mart De Haan’s blog, I missed his analogy. Actually, I’m not sure if I see it even now. I thought he was going down the road of “removing them from their root (context) they are ornamental and will not last”, but he seems to be stating how it is not good to separate any part of the Bible, simply for our pleasure/comfort, from the whole of God’s story. I agree with this conclusion, but not the “assumptions” he makes along the way…ie God knowing the future and ruling over circumstances. I see much of Joseph’s story in Genesis as an example of what God can do through an individual who chooses God over self. I don’t see God controlling the circumstances of Joseph’s life, but working through them. I can “cut the flowers” of this story and claim that the bad circumstances in my life are God’s way of teaching/using me, but through the lens of my theology I see God using the circumstances (many I have brought on myself) to teach/use me. The difference may seem subtle, but the perspective this can have on one’s life is huge. The story of Joseph, without the context of a more complete God story found throughout scripture, allows us to make it about us. By removing scripture from its “root” and simply setting it out for display, we miss both its and our purpose.
I may have missed the analogy so bad, that De Haan and I are saying the same thing, but for me, scripture hangs on context. Without it (context) scripture can become very ornamental.
I am glad to hear you struggled with this post because I did also and thought I was missing something profound. I support you view that he may be talking about taking scripture out of context. If that is true, I still see a problem. Even “in context”, I am prone based on a lifetime of attending church, to get it wrong. Unless it is screaming wrong idea ( based on my recent learning/ changes, I will let it continue to be interpreted for me by my past understand. I am frustrated sometimes as I don’t even know what I don’t know! I miss the opportunity to go deeper because I accept or better said my mind sorts and files ideas in long standing slots. Given our busy lives and even when I have time, do I have the resources / knowledge to dig deeper? Unusually not! This is what I hope to gain from these posts- an opportunity to turn over scripture and concepts I’ve just accepted as truth.
ReplyDeleteI’ve always loved the story of Joseph as he reminds me of my self. He story is a great one to discuss the implication of the open view and really perhaps one of the easy ones. What I mean is, there is a clear way to separate the circumstance from choices. It is a story full of choices by everyone –just like real life. Not sure I would have been able to make the same ones he made- not strong enough. The fact the story ends well is “nice” and as you know often used to prove that God makes everything work out. Do you think that makes it “cut flowers”? All ends well- beautiful , neat and even smelling wonderful! Of course, the problem is now the flowers will die. So what do you do with that? One makes a decision to cut the flower to enjoy for a time knowing they will die. ( they served their purpose so it is OK?). So what do we do with that? God uses the flowers for His purpose knowing they will die- after all they did not chose to be cut.
So one might argue that God allowed the Jews to go to Egypt to be safe but in reality many suffered and died under slavery. Do you think God’s intention was for the Jews to remain in Egypt forever? Surely not, do what is that about? Even supporting the open view, I now have some serious questions. I guess this is the purpose of the blog! LOL
PS, another discussion we need to have is how Moses convinced the Jews to follow him- fascinating !
I agree with where you both are going. For me his analogy of cut flowers is nice but he doesn't go far enough. It's nice that he doesn't cut the flowers but he is so focused on those particular flowers that he doesn't see the whole garden. We have to view each passage in its own context but keeping in mind that it is just a small piece of the big picture. It seems to me that his conclusion (although he phrases it nicer than me) is that sometimes God punishes us so that he can show compassion to our enemies. He then ties that to the whole "God beat Jesus so he could save us" philosophy. What are the implications of a God who punishes the good to show compassion to the bad? Is this idea consistent with the rest of scripture? If it is can i worship this kind of God? In the end his flowers are too thorny for me. In fact he might have been better off cutting those flowers after all.
ReplyDeleteThat whole suffering thing is a huge concept I struggle getting my head around. I appreciate your questions and personally I can’t even begin to think about loving a God that punishes me “ just because”. I completely accept that my behavior has consequences. I accept there are God given and natural laws. For those I believe in cause and effect. Even when it appears God is punishing the “ good” people, I think we are misinterpreting His actions. I think we do that because it is how we might think and respond. When I reformed my idea of God’s character and moved to a different relationship with Him, the basis was that He is love and wants only good for me. Otherwise I am right back where I was several years ago feeling cold and removed. Boyd did a great sermon last week that focused on the American view of God. ( I am sure you may already know this) He stated we see it as a contract and salvation is a contract with make with God- say the prayer and seal the deal. That puts everything including God in a legal frame work. It is of course a convent- and that changes everything. Thoughts?
DeleteFor me the convent concept changed everything. God seems to work through convents throughout the OT and I see no reason to believe why this has changed on this side of the Cross. I view our relationship more as a marriage than any other analogy. Binding, built on trust, carrying expectations on both sides and yet only complete when all involved are active in making it so. He defiantly gets the wrong end of the deal, but the amazing thing is He doesn't see it that way. For Him, even I am worth the cost.
ReplyDeleteI can't understand how you could not feel cold toward God if you thought he was responsible for everything. It seems that so many people think that suffering (esp. physical pain) only came after the fall but it seems like God created in such a way that he chooses not to manipulate every movement of the universe which is the only way everything could remain perfect but if that was how he set it up than nothing would exist apart from God. So I guess I'm saying since Adam wasn't God that if he tripped and stubbed his toe (pre-sin) he would have suffered just like us. So I agree with your cause and effect theory.
ReplyDeleteI also liked Boyd's thoughts on salvation. The only thing I would add (probably because I am wrestling with this idea myself) is that western christians seem only to be able to focus on the individual's salvation. While I agree that the relationship with God is huge and its not about a legal contract, I also think we stop short if we only focus on the personal relationship and don't also think about salvation corporately and even salvation for all of creation. This is so foriegn to how I was raised that I'm not sure what this looks like exactly...
Wow that idea of corporate salvation is new to me. I had to Google it! I guess we are talking about: soteriology?
ReplyDeleteThe term “soteriology” comes from two Greek terms, namely, soter meaning “savior” or “deliverer” and logos meaning “word,” “matter,” or “thing.” In Christian systematic theology it is used to refer to the study of the biblical doctrine of salvation. It often includes such topics as the nature and extent of the atonement as well as the entire process of salvation, conceived as an eternal, divine plan designed to rescue lost and erring sinners and bring them back into eternal fellowship with God. Many regard it as the primary theme in Scripture with the glory of God as its goal.
Here is a quote I found- what do you think?
Continuing with quotes from Craig Van Gelder’s The Essence of the Church: A Community Created by the Spirit:
Defining salvation in individual terms is biblical, but it is not all that the Bible teaches. The Spirit of God is creating a new community as the body of Christ. While salvation is always individual in its effect, how it is to be offered and experienced is very corporate. To be converted to Christ is to be converted to his body, the church. The church is not a collection of self-selecting individuals who assemble to have their needs met. The church, as the creation of the Spirit, corporately offers salvation to individuals, but this salvation is accepted and experienced within a community.
I like that quote. So what does that look like and what does it mean for us (the church)? Here is what got me thinking about this. this is from Surprised by Hope by N.T. Wright (sorry for the length)
ReplyDelete"As long as we see salvation in terms of going to heaven when we die, the main work of the church is bound to be seen in terms of saving souls for that future. But when we see salvation, as the New Testament sees it, in terms of God's promised new heavens and new earth and of our promised resurrection to share in that new and gloriously embodied reality...then the main work of the church here and now demands to be rethought in consequence...But as soon as we grasp this- and I appreciate it takes quite a bit of latching onto for people who have spent their whole lives thinking the other way- we see that if salvation is that sort of thing, it can't be confined to human beings. When human beings are saved, in the past as a single coming-to-faith, in the present through acts of healing and rescue, and in the future when they are finally raised from the dead, this is always so that they can be genuine human beings in a fuller sense than they otherwise would have been, and genuine human beings, from Genesis 1 onward, are given the mandate of looking after creation, of bringing order to God's world, of establishing and maintaining communities. To suppose that we are saved, as it were, for our own private benefit, for the restoration of our own relationship with God (vital though that is!), and for our eventual homecoming and peace in heaven (misleading though that is!) is like a boy being given a baseball bat as a present and insisting that since it belongs to him, he must always and only play with it in private. But of course you can only do what you're meant to do with a baseball bat when you're playing with other people. And salvation only does what it's meant to do when those who have been saved, are being saved, and will one day fully be saved realize that they are saved not as souls but as wholes and not for themselves alone but for what God now longs to do through them.
The point is this. When God saves people in this life, by working through the Spirit to bring them to follow Jesus...such people are designed to be a sign and foretaste of what God wants to do for the entire cosmos. What's more, such people are not just to be a sign and foretaste of that ultimate salvation; they are to be part of the means by which God makes this happen in both the present and the future. That is what Paul insists on when he says that the whole of creation is waiting with eager longing not just for its own redemption, its liberation from corruption and decay, but for God's children to be revealed: in other words, for the unveiling of those redeemed humans through whose stewardship creation will at last be brought back into that wise order for which it was made. And since Paul makes it quite clear that those who believe in Jesus Christ, who are incorporated into him through baptism. are already God's children, are already themselves saved, this stewardship cannot be something to be postponed for the ultimate future. It must begin here and now."
Thoughts?
The parts that stick out to me the most from N.T. Wright is: “The point is this. When God saves people in this life, by working through the Spirit to bring them to follow Jesus...such people are designed to be a sign and foretaste of what God wants to do for the entire cosmos. What's more, such people are not just to be a sign and foretaste of that ultimate salvation; they are to be part of the means by which God makes this happen in both the present and the future.”
ReplyDeleteSo my question is what have we made salvation to be and why? I have long since stop believing it is all about saving souls for the sake of heaven. For me N. T. hits the nail on the head. (if I understand him correctly) We are “saved” for God’s sake. His creation is to be redeemed through His redeemed. How do we as a body of Christ get back to this? His Kingdom is advanced here on earth as we, His people, live out our salvation in tangible ways. These works are not our salvation, but a reflection of it. A reflection of Him.
As I digress to the corporate/individual salvation topic, it seems to me, as I read through the Bible chronologically(thx jlew), that as God is redeeming Israel (again for His sake[Gen 12:2, 22:18], yet they benefit) He does this corporately, but there is clearly individual accountability.[Numbers 25, Deuteronomy 4:21] How does this correlate to the here and now? This is the ‘community of believers” that I seek. United by Christ, accountable to God (at times through each other), and glorify Him with our very lives. It all seems so clear in my mind, but how do we live it out?
Wonder if I might take us in a different direction given it is Easter today? It is about the atonement of Christ. We had a very good discussion about it today. In summary there are basically two main concepts: PSA- Penal Substitution Atonement and Christ the Victor. At the foundation of these is the issue of original sin. Being raised a Calvinist, I overcome a great deal even to open my mind and heart to these issues- still complicated and difficult. But it fits very much in line with what we talked about earlier: the legal/ contract idea of God. So let’s talk about Psalm 51:5- the one quoted most often to defend original sin. ( I would also like to talk about atonement – but we have to start somewhere and I’ve found it best to “eat the elephant” one bite at a time. Thoughts- you want to discuss this?
ReplyDeleteI just started reading on the atonement so I don't feel like I have a very good grasp of all the views yet but look forward to learning together. As far as original sin I understand where you are coming from. It seems that most people don't even know this is an issue, it is just assumed. I stumbled on this while researching federal headship (the belief that sin is passed down to all humans through the seed of Adam. Jesus is excluded from this group because his father is God and not Adam.) When reading Psalm 51 I think a lot has to do with our presuppositions. If I read it already assuming original sin then that is how I will interpret it. However if I take that assumption out it seems like the sin he refers to could be his mother's sin. If his mother conceived him in sin (an affair), this would explain why Jesse didn't think of him when Samuel comes to annoint a King.
ReplyDeleteI have a couple of problems with federal headship. One, I believe sin is a choice and not a physical entity that can exist in DNA. Two, if Jesus was born without a sin nature and we are born with one than he had an unfair advantage and didn't experience everything like we do as Hebrew 2:10-18 states. btw I think this is an interesting atonement passage as well. Is the author saying that if Jesus wasn't just like us he couldn't make atonement for us?