Ship of Fools: an overemphasis on personal salvation, and neglecting other teachings?

Thread: an overemphasis on personal salvation, and neglecting other teachings? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030223

Posted by w_houle (# 9045) on :

I have talked to a lot of people and they seemed to have gotten so stuck so much on what Christ is doing for you, and the whole salvation aspect, that really good aspects get overlooked. So what have you read that helps you get the stick out of your own eye?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

What do you define as good aspects?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

What "really good aspects" did you have in mind?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Well, there is that Douglas Adams summation of the Gospel - "nearly two thousand years after one man got nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if everyone was nice to each other for a change"

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, there is that Douglas Adams summation of the Gospel - "nearly two thousand years after one man got nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if everyone was nice to each other for a change"

Yebbut, Karl, on its own, and as a simple statement, that's not actually good news.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

What's in it for me if I am nice to others? [Disappointed]

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

Not to put words into the mouth of a shipmate, but I suspect we are talking about the whole feeding the hungry clothing the naked healing the sick bit.

Not that they need be mutually exclusive.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
What's in it for me if I am nice to others?

No... but what about all the times when I've not been nice to others? What if feel guilty about those, can I do anything (especially if I still find it hard to be nice to others).

"...how great it would be if everyone was nice to each other for a change" isn't good news; in fact, it isn't even news, it's just a rather limp suggestion that no one would be hung up on a tree for - at most, you'd just get laughed out of town for bringing a message like that. And it doesn't help anyone who's not nice to start being nice, or take away guilt people might feel about not being nice.

And it's a woefully innacurate sumamry of Jesus' teaching, a horribly reductionist view of "The kingdom of God has come near - repent and believe the Good News!"

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I take w_houle's post as a real thing, and generally agree.

I take Stejje's post as another facet of the same problem. It isn't a limp suggestion to start with others first. It is necessary.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

What I've read that has felt like it achieved that are the works of Rob Bell and Brian McLaren and Ryszard Kapuściński.

The obsession with desperate personal salvation and grovelling over Jesus when there's His work to be done is discouraging.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

It has often struck me that the whole "personal salvation" idea, if pursued to its extreme, can be very self-centred - i.e. it's all about ME and God.

Now I would not want to dismiss the individual relationship with God at all, as I think it is a fundamental part of the Gospel. But I would never want to divorce it from the communal aspect (i.e. living and worshipping together as a Christian community) nor from the social action ideas of doing Christly things and seeking to build God's Kingdom on earth.

It would be a caricature to say that Evangelicals only focus on the personal and spiritual while liberals major on the social and political aspects of our faith. Nevertheless that division often has a ring of truth to it. And, while some Evangelicals have recognised a broader understanding of "the Gospel", my limited experience is that many liberals shy away from talk of personal spirituality or salvation. YMMV, of course.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

And yet there's the paradox that I only see evangelicals getting their hands dirty with social action.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Are you then suggesting - and this is a genuine question - that liberals talk and theorise about social action but don't actually do it? Like "champagne socialists"?

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I take w_houle's post as a real thing, and generally agree.

I take Stejje's post as another facet of the same problem. It isn't a limp suggestion to start with others first. It is necessary.

Yes, you're right. My objection's not with that as such; part of it is to do with the specific phrasing Douglas Adams quote, reducing the whole of Jesus' teaching to "how great it would be if everyone was nice to each other for a change"; I don't think Jesus was calling us just to be "nice" and the wider point that I saw the OP as suggesting (and I apologise if this was not intended) and which I have seen on the Ship before, that "putting others first" is preferable and more Christ-like than seeking one's salvation. Because:

1) I think Jesus was calling us to be a whole bunch of things - loving, primarily - that include but are not limited to "nice". It also makes it sound as if what Jesus was saying was basic courtesy and common sense: part of the problem was that the attitude Jesus was trying to teach was about as far from basic courtesy and common sense as can be; welcoming sinners and all that, accepting people who were far from "nice".
(I would also point out that Jesus wasn't always "nice".)

2) Making "be nice to each other", "love one another" the entirety of Jesus' message, rather than a core part of it, holds out no hope for anyone who isn't nice to others, who for whatever reason has got into a way of life that is destructive to others. Simply telling them to stop is not remotely helpful and I don't think Jesus came to do that.

3) There is no grace in this for when I'm not nice/loving to others. I was once complaining to a friend how rubbish I was at a particular video game. He told me to "play better, then". I think he was joking, but I didn't know how to play better. And I think that's part of the problem with making "love each other" the whole of the Gospel - if you're already feeling guilty about how un-loving you are (and I can be a real selfish bugger), then there's no hope in that, no good news at all.

4) It springs, I think, from a misunderstanding of salvation that is often perpetuated (sadly) by preachers and evangelists from my tradition. Salvation is not "getting my place in heaven without regards for anyone else". I can't see anything in the Bible that suggests seeking one's salvation is anything other than essential: Jesus is called "Saviour"; when the Philippian jailor or the crowds at Pentecost ask what they should do to be saved, no one tells them that's a bad thing to seek. Salvation is about me and God, but it's allowing God's love and forgiveness to overcome my selfishness and widen my view to encompass others and learn to love them as I love myself.

5) "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins", especially the first bit of that. Saying it's all about being nice/loving each other gets that the wrong way round. My love is faltering and weak even at its best. If it was just about that, I would be in a hopeless situation. God's love is greater and it begins with that. From my experience of being loved by God, I learn to love others. I can only "start with others first" when I know I am loved. Is this selfish? Quite possibly. I rather suspect it's human, though.

6) Our relationship with God is central to Jesus. Now, this cannot be divorced from our attitude to others; as the Bible says, how can I say I love God when I don't love my fellow-Christian (or anyone else, for that matter). But the commandments are to love God and neighbour - both.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

The obsession with desperate personal salvation and grovelling over Jesus when there's His work to be done is discouraging.

I dunno, maybe such things exist. But in my experience the focus on Jesus (not grovelling, sheesh! Love, gratitude, pleasure?) is what actually FUELS the outreach/social work.

I've done any number of things for Jesus that I'd never do for money. I expect most Christians have. Just as most parents have for their children, and so on.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Are you then suggesting - and this is a genuine question - that liberals talk and theorise about social action but don't actually do it? Like "champagne socialists"?

I just don't see liberal Christians involved in up front, visible, church social activism at all in my city. Which doesn't mean that they aren't in other ways, behind the scenes, influencing policy, playing their left hands under the table. I know that the Quakers are, to what degree I don't know.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by w_houle:
I have talked to a lot of people and they seemed to have gotten so stuck so much on what Christ is doing for you, and the whole salvation aspect, that really good aspects get overlooked. So what have you read that helps you get the stick out of your own eye?

It's an odd coincidence, but I was leafing through a workbook written by Jim Packer a couple of weeks ago. He certainly merits being called one of the Big Beasts (historically) of the reformed tendency in Canada.

But his introduction was that in moving in protestant (reformed) circles in N. America, he was a bit alarmed by the focus on the personal relationship aspect to the exclusion of much else. hence the booklet, which was for a course of bible studies on "Knowing God". That's not the same as some of the other stuff other shipmates are discussing, but I think he would at least agree with you in your analysis of the problem.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

The obsession with desperate personal salvation and grovelling over Jesus when there's His work to be done is discouraging.
I dunno, maybe such things exist. But in my experience the focus on Jesus (not grovelling, sheesh! Love, gratitude, pleasure?) is what actually FUELS the outreach/social work.

I've done any number of things for Jesus that I'd never do for money. I expect most Christians have. Just as most parents have for their children, and son.

You, Ma'am, can do know wrong by me, as I hope you know by now. Regardless. Because you have sacrificed your life in His service, saying and meaning all the right things in response to my knowing that. You could have done none other and it is truly nothing.

I give 1% of my time and ... never mind the quality, feel the width! (Old London Jewish tailor joke).

You do it in love, gratitude, pleasure which is easy for you. You would say. You couldn't grovel to save your life. I say.

My quantitative 1% comes out of a bit of each of those, not a lot, and duty and need including trying to find a way to swim with exclusive socially active charismatic evangelicals.

I see and hear a lot of gushing about Jesus, a disproportionate amount it feels, compared with being His hands, eyes, arms, knees, ears, voice, feet, wallets.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

This next week's Gospel Lesson speaks to this in so many ways.

While it seems Jesus telling poor people they will eventually be taken care of--and we all want to identify with Lazarus, the real message is addressed to the five siblings of the rich man--you have Moses and the prophets telling you to take call of the poor. Lo and behold, we are the five siblings of the rich man.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It has often struck me that the whole "personal salvation" idea, if pursued to its extreme, can be very self-centred - i.e. it's all about ME and God.

I think, particularly in the US, everything we do is filtered thru the lens of individualism. This is true as well, perhaps even especially, of American evangelicalism.

I read one biblical scholar who was skilled in koine Greek exegesis, had been writing commentaries and studying the NT for decades, recount how some 20 years into it, it suddenly dawned on him that all the 2nd person imperatives in the book of Hebrews were plural (i.e. "you" means the church). He had been reading/ interpreting them all individually (i.e. "you" means "me personally"). When asked for an explanation of how someone who was an expert in the language could make such a rather fundamental mistake, that was his explanation-- that individualism is just so interwoven into our cultural consciousness that we read everything thru that lens even when the evidence to the contrary is right there in front of us.

All of which to say: yes.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And yet there's the paradox that I only see evangelicals getting their hands dirty with social action.

That's been my observation as well, but I think that's just because those are the circles I run in.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And yet there's the paradox that I only see evangelicals getting their hands dirty with social action.

Anti-social action more like. Turn back prosocial policies and directions. Take us back to traditional Christianity whatever that is.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And yet there's the paradox that I only see evangelicals getting their hands dirty with social action.
Anti-social action more like. Turn back prosocial policies and directions. Take us back to traditional Christianity whatever that is.

In my experience, that's more the stereotype than the reality. But that goes to the point that it's all about the circles you run in, which can then form the lens thru which everything is interpreted thru.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

no prophet's flag is set so... I can't can't parse the litotes from the apophasis verging on prolepsis there.

Conservatives might be doing the right thing for the wrong reason - damnationism - and doing it badly, as it 'converts' no one and sitting very broken people in a circle and asking them to comment on obscure texts makes herding cats look worthwhile, but they're doing something.

[ 19. September 2016, 21:37: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Martin60
I can't can't parse the litotes from the apophasis verging on prolepsis there.

Get well soon, sounds painful. (Whatever this means)

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Martin60
I can't can't parse the litotes from the apophasis verging on prolepsis there.
Get well soon, sounds painful. (Whatever this means)

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I can't can't parse the litotes from the apophasis verging on prolepsis there.

Have you tried prunes?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, there is that Douglas Adams summation of the Gospel - "nearly two thousand years after one man got nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if everyone was nice to each other for a change"

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Yebbut, Karl, on its own, and as a simple statement, that's not actually good news.

It really does seem doubly unjust if that's all it was about.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I can't can't parse the litotes from the apophasis verging on prolepsis there.

Have you tried prunes?

Secateurs, more like - I'm sure this is horticultural. [Devil]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I can't can't parse the litotes from the apophasis verging on prolepsis there.

Have you tried prunes?
Secateurs, more like

Ouch!

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I think it's time to nip this tangent in the bud, and return to the subject of the thread.

Alan
(helping out the Purg hosts)

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Martin, I do wish you'd stop trying to make me out as exceptional. IME there are a heckuva lot of quiet Christians out there who are doing what they profess. They are deeply in love with Jesus and they live that out in their interactions with the people around them.* And they don't go on about it, which puts them way ahead of me.

Do you really run into so many hypocrites?

* running the food pantry; taking in international students; doing free photography for those who can't afford to pay; pulling weeds; caring for children; watching other people's kids/elders without pay or making a big deal of it; cooking for the sick; lending stuff to neighbors, including non-English-speaking neighbors; making phone calls and filling out paperwork for those who can't do it themselves; hosting meetings and cooking for events (again, at own expense); listening and counseling; offering emergency housing to those in need; giving money or things; doing pro bono work in their area of expertise, which could be anything from law to plumbing

The above are pulled from a two-minute survey of the Christians around me I know who love Jesus, are mostly not professional church workers, and who would classify themselves as ordinary people, i.e. not particularly spiritually awesome. I'm fairly sure a lot of them would say "When did we ever see you hungry, Lord, and feed you? Or ..." just as in the parable. They do this stuff without reflecting a whole lot on it, or so it appears to me. It just happens. And very quietly.

I'm wondering--are you maybe thinking of Christians as a group, i.e. "there's a lot of hot air being blown about personal devotion to Jesus in Christian media, but at the same time I don't see a comparable amount of publicity for people being involved in public activism"? Because I think the only way you're going to get a semi-accurate handle on this is if you take individual Christians you know personally (not through the media) and measure their profession against their (probably untrumpeted) actions. If you get a major mismatch, it's time to call hypocrisy. But that's not what I see among the great majority.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It's the hypocrisy of grandiosity, even your language - not you - about people being deeply in love with Jesus. You're real. That language isn't for me. It's a total turn off. Trying to do anything, trying to be a functional part of Jesus' body in any meaningful way is incredibly hard. As you demonstrate. Nobody else I know does. Nobody. There is a total disconnect from that language to living if it were true. Christians generally, overwhelmingly aren't making enormous, effective, sacrificial efforts. I don't see it anywhere where my eyes fall, including in the mirror. I hear swelling words, in hymns and praise and prayer and of knowledge. I see nothing much. I hear no reports of anything much. Lots of meetings. Lots of seminars. Men's breakfasts. Prophecy weekends. 24/7 prayer. Weeks away for men only. $30 a head concerts for the building fund. $30 a meal fine dining for men with a speaker. I've got to go elsewhere and testify what miracles I've seen. And I will ...

It's the claims Lamb Chopped.

I just watched a Yemeni child die on the BBC. I didn't want to. I felt I had to. I owed that child my utter uselessness.

That's an extreme of what I see, hear, know.

Keep up the good, hard work.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Martin, from things you've said, you're trying. There are others on the Ship trying. I listed a dozen or more people I know personally who are trying.

And nobody is forcing you to use language that makes you uncomfortable. If we were meeting IRL I'd have trouble saying "I love Jesus" and not blushing. Heck, in the culture I live in, it's an open question whether bride and groom will work up the courage to kiss at the wedding!

Look, the ads for 30$ prayer breakfasts are a turn-off to me, too. Though the closest I've ever gotten to seeing precisely how one operates in real life was at the Martin Luther King Jr. Day prayer breakfast where the money went to fund scholarships for inner city children at parochial schools. My group was there to sing as part of the free entertainment, and we knew the people involved in running it, and I can be sure it was not a scam.

I don't run with the prophecy breakfast types, and can't say anything about them. I do get annoyed with the constant "pay for food" meals at our church, and yet I must admit that 90% of them are in aid of scholarships, paying for funerals of poor people, missionary service, and the like. And the people doing the cooking are volunteers, and so are those serving.

The thing about watching Yemeni children die--

Okay, somebody has to bear witness, and that may be your calling. But I confess that my own reaction is to turn the television firmly OFF and go and find a way to DO something about it, even if it's just a small donation, a prayer, or dealing with a need here and now, so that someone else is freed up to go deal with that and then. I just don't see the point of inflicting helpless suffering on myself that benefits nobody else. My emotional distress is useful only to the point that it results in some sort of action or benefit to the sufferer. Otherwise it does nothing but dishearten me and cause me to sit around and mope when I might be serving somehow.

Look, you've told any number of stories about meeting with broken, pain-laden, even violent people who share their neediness with you and presumably with others in the group present. Where are these meetings taking place? I had gathered at least some of them were at church, whether in service or in a special group. If so, somebody's organized that. Somebody's been willing to open the doors to a very uncomfortable group of people and make them welcome. Whoever that person is, he or she is trying. And chances are it's not the only area of life where he or she is trying. Just the one you know about.

I'm just bothered because you sound so discouraged, like you think the whole Christian church international has gone to heartless hell in a handbasket. We really haven't. It's just most people don't take out ads, bulletin announcements, etc. to publicize their latest acts of service.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, there is that Douglas Adams summation of the Gospel - "nearly two thousand years after one man got nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if everyone was nice to each other for a change"

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Yebbut, Karl, on its own, and as a simple statement, that's not actually good news.
It really does seem doubly unjust if that's all it was about.

Church history would have given us a darned sight less to have to apologise for if it had been, though.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, there is that Douglas Adams summation of the Gospel - "nearly two thousand years after one man got nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if everyone was nice to each other for a change"
Yebbut, Karl, on its own, and as a simple statement, that's not actually good news.

You can say that about anything, on its own, as a statement. But it's pretty good news to people who are being shat on if people actually start being nice to them instead.

It may not be particularly good news to the people doing the shitting that they ought to stop.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Sorry Lamb Chopped. You're right. Not because you're right, but because you've earned the right. And you are right. It's just so thin. I don't mean to discourage and be in need of encouragement.

I just want to see mountains fall in the sea.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Well, I'll join you in that. See my sig, which I've had forever!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You can say that about anything, on its own, as a statement. But it's pretty good news to people who are being shat on if people actually start being nice to them instead.

It may not be particularly good news to the people doing the shitting that they ought to stop.

Sorry, Karl, but you have completely misunderstood what I was saying.

It is not good news to anyone, and particularly not to those at the receiving end of the boot, to be told 'wouldn't it be lovely if everyone were nice to each other for a change'. It's even less good news if the person saying it, ended up being executed for it.

It only becomes news if either everyone does suddenly start being nice to each other - that didn't happen then and hasn't happened since - or if there's some more news that comes with it. That has to have something to say to those at the receiving end of the boot when they haven't got any particular reason to imagine that that state of affairs is ever going to change. To be good news, it's got to remain good news even though the excrement is still cascading onto your head.

Posted by w_houle (# 9045) on :

Sorry it took so long to get back,
really interesting stuff, and good points made, and another facet of this was things I seen on the way home today: I am surrounded by what I would think were regular, nice people when in the real world, but in the world of their car it is something totally different. they cut each other off and tailgate as revenge, fingers and foul(fowl) language flies everywhere. It seems that empathy drops as RPMs go up. It's times like these where we need to remember that salvation kept us off the brink, but it's the teachings that bring us home

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, there is that Douglas Adams summation of the Gospel - "nearly two thousand years after one man got nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if everyone was nice to each other for a change"
Yebbut, Karl, on its own, and as a simple statement, that's not actually good news.
You can say that about anything, on its own, as a statement. But it's pretty good news to people who are being shat on if people actually start being nice to them instead.

It may not be particularly good news to the people doing the shitting that they ought to stop.

But the point is (in addition to what Enoch said) Jesus did make it sound like good news to those doing the "shifting upon", given the stories of sinners and tax collectors flocking to him in the gospels. So it must have been more than "stop hurting others (or else)"; there must have been some element of "here's a better way than shitting on others", and, I would suggest, "You are loved even when you shit on others," with the hope and intention that knowing they were loved by God might help them to stop hurting others.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
What's in it for me if I am nice to others?

And where would we be everyone felt that way?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You can say that about anything, on its own, as a statement. But it's pretty good news to people who are being shat on if people actually start being nice to them instead.

It may not be particularly good news to the people doing the shitting that they ought to stop.
Sorry, Karl, but you have completely misunderstood what I was saying.

It is not good news to anyone, and particularly not to those at the receiving end of the boot, to be told 'wouldn't it be lovely if everyone were nice to each other for a change'. It's even less good news if the person saying it, ended up being executed for it.

It only becomes news if either everyone does suddenly start being nice to each other - that didn't happen then and hasn't happened since - or if there's some more news that comes with it. That has to have something to say to those at the receiving end of the boot when they haven't got any particular reason to imagine that that state of affairs is ever going to change. To be good news, it's got to remain good news even though the excrement is still cascading onto your head.

If the shitting continues, then besides pie in the sky, what's the Good News?

That's what underlay my "Has God failed again?" thread some months ago. My understanding is that the Kingdom of God is a place where the shitting stops. And Jesus said it was amongst us, and therefore his church should a place where there is no shitting. Unfortunately history has shown it to be a veritable hotbed of dysentery.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, there is that Douglas Adams summation of the Gospel - "nearly two thousand years after one man got nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if everyone was nice to each other for a change"
Yebbut, Karl, on its own, and as a simple statement, that's not actually good news.
You can say that about anything, on its own, as a statement. But it's pretty good news to people who are being shat on if people actually start being nice to them instead.

It may not be particularly good news to the people doing the shitting that they ought to stop.
But the point is (in addition to what Enoch said) Jesus did make it sound like good news to those doing the "shifting upon", given the stories of sinners and tax collectors flocking to him in the gospels. So it must have been more than "stop hurting others (or else)"; there must have been some element of "here's a better way than shitting on others", and, I would suggest, "You are loved even when you shit on others," with the hope and intention that knowing they were loved by God might help them to stop hurting others.

I suspect that in many cases the "sinners" were actually the shat upon.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I've always believed that there are too gospels; one for the weak, the disenfranchised and the "shat upon". That gospel is that you're not forgotten, that no matter how much everything is telling you that you're shit, you're not. That - in some mystical way - things are going to change.

That gospel is the one which inspired black people in their seeking towards freedom. That's the one where they could believe that they were living in Babylon but that there was a promised land on the other side of the Jordan. A promised land that, of course, it took many generations to actually realise. At the root, it is an aspirational message of perseverance for those in trouble.

The other gospel is the one for the strong, the powerful, the self-righteous and the wealthy. That gospel sounds harder so few accept it: stop being those thing, they're not helping you and they're not helping anyone else. Take off the coat of wealth it is eating your soul.

It seems to me that a lot of the time the gospel doesn't sound like good news because the wrong people are hearing the wrong message: the fat and wealthy hear that they're loved and wanted and, no don't worry that you are living in comfort whilst people die. The weak hear that they need to forsake the little that they have.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

To some extent I think you're right, mr cheesy. But I think it's a little more complicated than simply dividing people into the "weak" and the "powerful" and saying Jesus spoke a message of love to one and a message of warning to others. Tax collectors were pretty powerful, in that they could extract money from people on behalf of the Roman state; yet they're among the people Jesus gets condemned for eating and drinking with, for welcoming. Off the top of my head, Jesus' interactions with the Romans (the true powers of the day) were broadly positive.

I wonder if Jesus is more interested in condemning systems and powers that oppress people - whether we see those people as weak or powerful - rather than the people themselves? He offers salvation to all people, however "weak" or "powerful" they may be. To those who are weak and oppressed by those systems and powers, he offers the promise of God to break those powers and systems and relieve their oppression. To those who seem powerful by colluding with them, yes he warns them that those systems will one day topple and that the people currently colluding with them are damaging themselves and others in the process. But I think he also offers them a message of salvation and, yes, love: that if they repent and see what they are doing, they too can be free from the power of those systems and powers.

To the weak, this salvation is freedom from the oppression that they suffer. To the "powerful", this salvation is the realisation that they are in fact being destroyed by the systems they're colluding with, as well as destroying others, accepting the "better way" God shows them in Jesus.

And I think the cross, resurrection and ascension work with that, albeit in a strange way: Jesus breaks the power of those systems and powers, not by fighting against them but by seeming to submit to them. But he demonstrates God's power over them by rising again, showing that they won't have the final word but God and God's life-giving power will. Again: hope to the weak (the systems and powers may seem to be squeezing the life out of you, but God's power will prevail); salvation to the "powerful" (God will break and overturn the systems you are part of: choose another way).

Where I think you're spot on is that the church has too often got the messages the "wrong way round" and seen the Gospel as an endorsement of power and authority. I think the over-emphasis on personal salvation above anything else, of "booking your place in heaven" is one part of that; but I suspect it runs through most/all Christian traditions in one form or another.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I would put the division in the Jesus dealt with people elsewhere (though the lines may coexist at times).

The main division to me is whether people were considered in or out of the Kingdom - which, in the Gospels, can be equated with the people of Israel. To those who were perceived as excluded (Gentiles) or on the margins and scraping by (the tax collectors and other "sinners") His message was "I accept you as being fully part of the people of God, God accepts you as His children". To those who thought themselves well and truly inside the Kingdom (the Pharisees, the religious leaders, the "respectable people") His message was a much starker "if you're not living upto the standard God expects of His people you're out".

The line converges with the rich/poor or weak/powerful division because by and large a) wealth and power are synonymous, so that's largely the same division anyway, and b) there was a perception that wealth/power (at least if honestly obtained) were the result of the blessing of God and a sign that you're accepted in the Kingdom, conversely those who are poor/weak were not blessed by God and so may not be accepted in the Kingdom.

Jesus of course totally overturns that idea of what blessing means. "Blessed are the poor".

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

And of course it's got nowt ter do wi' the 'afterlife'.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

"So what have you read that helps you get the stick out of your own eye?"

Donald Reeves is not bad for starters.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0