ecently, I linked to a thought-provoking post by Bill Kinnon called “The People Formerly Known as the Congregation“. Understandably, there have been some mixed reactions to this post, and it has sparked something of a small phenomenon around parts of the blogosphere. There have been other “Formerly Known” posts written, all with varying degrees of controversial thoughts.
I haven’t been mentioning them here or linking to them, mostly because it didn’t seem to fit the flow of this blog to continue discussing it. This blog has a very eclectic audience, and I have been making a concentrated effort this calendar year to address a wider variety of topics.
However, today I read a “Formerly Known” post that literally stopped me in my tracks. In fact, I read it while sitting at a computer in a computer lab at the University, and was honestly afraid I would break down crying right there in front of the students. It affected me that much.
Please be aware that the post I am about to link to may not strike you the same way. It may offend some. There’s a great preamble to the post that addresses this already, so I won’t make a big deal out of it.
But I would strongly encourage each of you to go read this post. We can discuss it here, or you can discuss it over there. Either way, I would love to get some thoughts on it from my readers.
Why did it move me so much? Well, I’ll let you read it first, and then I’ll share my thoughts either in the comments here or in a later post.
Please go read “Formerly Known” by Brother Maynard (not his real name) at Subversive Influence.
Until next time,
steve 
A very sad picture indeed. Like a husband desiring an uninterested bride. I know that this is an accurate picture of many “congregations.” But I also know that there is a vibrant church all over the world who are a bride intoxicated with love and adoration – so much so, that she has laid down her own life in order to take up the heart of her Bridegroom – to love like He loves. (Most are found in the 2/3rds world).
The congregations this word speaks of has become a missionfield. I once heard a man named Graham Cooke say, “I’ve been called to reach Christians for Christ.” Thank God that there are missional thinkers like him reaching into this missionfield.
Sarah,
I agree with you. Brother Maynard’s post seems to make the Western world the whole world.
Steve,
In the short time that I’ve been reading your blog, I’ve developed a lot of respect for you. The fact that this post made you weep calls me to be cautious or at least to ask in advance for your forgiveness for my insensitivity. As I read it, Brother Maynard’s post is pure sentimentality. It strikes me as the words of a modern Cain lamenting that his worship is not accepted as that of Abel, the old church, and doesn’t see the deadly side of his own envy. No doubt, I’ve missed the whole point.
I would weep, too, because unfortunately, this hits close to home. It is certainly a call to return to my first love. Thanks, Steve, for pointing out this post. There are many cups of cold water to be given today!
Craig and Steve,
I thought the same word…sentimentality. As I pondered, I recognized the call to holiness in the heart that wrote it. I also wondered if my own heart was trying to escape conviction. Yet, something in the post felt condemning to me. It raises a question for me. What does it mean to speak to a sinning brother using the truth in love?
Craig, I’m open to your thoughts, brother. You don’t need to apologize if you disagree with me. And to be honest, I don’t want you to respect me only if you agree!
But really, I’d love to dialogue with you about what you’re seeing in it that I’m not sure I see.
You said, It strikes me as the words of a modern Cain lamenting that his worship is not accepted as that of Abel….
I’m not sure I understand what you mean here. I think that Brother Maynard is actually saying quite the opposite. From his perspective, he feels like the church (“old church”, I guess, as you put it) had left its first love and replaced its original God-given purpose with programs that function fine with or without God.
In some ways, as a general principle, and not specific to every single congregation, I have had the same thoughts. I have been in too many churches where I honestly felt like God wasn’t present, but everyone was acting like He was. (Of course, God is present everywhere, cf. Psalm 139, but I think you know what I mean.)
Did I misunderstand you?
Please know that this blog is a safe place to disagree and to voice that disagreement. We often have discussions here where I and others disagree with each other.
I only ask that we (I and any of my readers, not only specifically you and me) give one another the benefit of any doubt, and that we always seek to maintain unity of fellowship, even while we disagree (sometimes even strongly) with each other. That has worked quite nicely for almost two years here.
ded, you wrote: Yet, something in the post felt condemning to me.
Are you able to put your finger on what it was? I think I can understand the general idea you’re getting at, but wondered if you had more specific thoughts.
I think ded puts it well when he asks about speaking the truth in love. If I visit a congregation like the one you describe (where people are doing ‘Christian’ activities but we suspect Christ has been left out) how should I address the problem? I could, of course, just stand up and blast away at the shallowness and hypocrisy. When would that cross the line between speaking the truth in love and merely condemning? I’m anxious to hear more from ded on this.
My remark about a modern Cain may have been a bit of an overreaction. What I was reacting to was the idea that the church used to know God, but now doesn’t. This sentiment, in my view, is not really edifying. It’s rooted in a kind of envy for the old days (if only the church could be like it was). It doesn’t really look at the flesh and blood congregations we see in the New Testament. In turn, it misses the mark in trying to understand the flesh and blood congregations that exist today. By longing for what I think is a mythical past it becomes deadly (it condemns rather than edifies). I suspect that the weeping it calls for amounts to the sort of weeping that makes one feel better but doesn’t really change anything.
I would agree that many Christians in the Western world suffer from a materialism and shallowness that can choke a real relationship with our Lord. I weep for them and I weep over my own sin as I wrestle with the same temptations. I weep the most for those who think they know Christ but don’t. I want to see God remove the scales that blind so many, myself included, to what’s really good (to him). I don’t think pure sentimentality will ever rise to that height.
Craig, do note that I haven’t yet explained why I felt like weeping when I read the post.
By longing for what I think is a mythical past…
I’m not entirely sure this is what that post was doing, though. It’s not striking me as nostalgia so much as comparing what we have revealed about our relationship with God to what we actually seem to be living out.
Obviously, there are always dangers in generalizing. I’ve crossed that line sometimes unwittingly on this blog by making general statements about this or that model of “doing church”.
But sometimes, I think it’s helpful to look at the big picture before drilling down to the nitty-gritty of it. Know what I mean?
These “formerly known” types of posts are big-picture ideas. These are real people trying to put real words down about real feelings and reactions.
There are two extremes in the “telling the truth” spectrum. One is the danger to say “all churches fall into this trap” and the other is to say “this is the way it’s been, it’s the way it is, so get over it”. It is the latter extreme against which I continue to push.
Sarah, welcome to the blog.
Sorry I didn’t welcome you sooner. Got sidetracked in responding to the other comments here.
I agree that there is a vibrant church alive in the world. I’m just not convinced that a lot of people in America would recognize it if they saw it
kkmhmom, you wrote: It is certainly a call to return to my first love.
I think that’s probably a bit closer to the intended thought, rather than a longing for some thing of the past.
Steve,
I’m curious to see your comment on why it made you weep. I’ll save my comments for then. Good link, however.
OK, I’ll budge.
The reasons that I wanted to weep when I read this were very similar to the same reasons Craig says that he weeps.
But even more than that, I wanted to weep because I saw so much of my life in that post. I was there. I lived and breathed so much “religion” in my life that was not anything remotely related to life in Christ.
I “served” God, but for my own gain. I “ministered” on behalf of God, but not by His power. I “pastored” in the name of God, but not for His glory.
And I have known many others who did the same. I’ve seen things done in the name of God that were 180 degrees opposite from what God actually told us to do.
I’ve seen programs and ministries and heard sermons and read books — all claiming to be in line with Jesus, and yet they contradict the very teachings of Jesus himself.
And I weep because we don’t even seem to realize it. So much of the church in America seems to be content with “a form of godliness but denying its power”.
And for many years, we exported that “church” to the rest of the world.
I stood on the streets of Ukraine mere months after communism collapsed and the former USSR opened up to receiving the gospel. What had been planned as a clandestine missions trip suddenly became an endeavor out in the open because of new freedoms that existed behind the former Iron Curtain.
And in the midst of that freedom, what did we do? We encouraged the churches there to embrace the structures that we believed were part and parcel to the Gospel message. And we stood on a street corner directly opposite from “those dangerous charismatics” and tried to sing and preach louder than them so that people would hear OUR message.
We weren’t so concerned about introducing people to Jesus. No, we were more concerned about exporting “our way” of doing church.
Oh, there was lots of good that was done. God’s very gracious that way. But we were more excited about the buildings that we were seeing built to house these churches who had flourished for 75 years without them than we were about the towns we visited who had no Christians at all.
And here in America? We have leaders bragging about how big their church is. We have leaders striving to be the largest. The best. The biggest.
For God? Well, of course, that’s what we say it’s about. But really? I’m not so sure.
And many just silently go along with it, thinking this is what God actually desires.
But meanwhile, what if Brother Maynard is right? What if God really wants relationship with His people, rather than big programs and arena-sized spectator-filled “worship services”?
When I read the Bible, I see an overarching story of relationship. Not just individual relationship, but a relationship between God and the body He has chosen.
And I see so many of the words Brother Maynard penned as reflections of the words of God so many times in the Old Testament. Begging Israel to come back. Expressing his frustration and disappointment that they have failed him over and over again.
He sent prophet after prophet to tell them. But did they listen? No. He sent his son to tell them. Did they listen? No.
Are we any different? Is the church in America any different? I’m not so sure.
And when I read that post today, all of the emotion that goes with seeing so many expressions of church that seem to have little to do with the God we see revealed in Jesus…..it made me want to weep. And still does as I pen this comment.
There you have it. I return the discussion to you all for your critiques, contradictions, and comments.
There is reaction and upon reflection, response.
Upon reflection, I think the condemnation I felt was all my baggage.
I do not think Brother Maynard intended to condemn. I received the piece as an open letter to Christians and read his remarks personally. The creative writing piece he used sounded to me like the manipulative tactics I have associated with some church organizations that use the guilt button to achieve compliance. That I can feel such things when they are not so intended is a measure of my lack of maturity.
Yet, being in a state of immaturity is nothing for which one ought feel shame as there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus. (Once aware of immaturity, one more fully enters by an exercise of will into more of Christ.) Brother Maynard’s piece, upon reflection, strikes me as an Old Testament Prophet’s call to an Old Testament, apostate Israel. Is the church of today such a harlot? Does it need a beckoning call such as Brother Maynard’s? Harlotry is to be expected, unfortunately. It has never ceased to exist. There have always been and will always be those who honor God with their lips but their hearts are far from Him. I have been in the past such a person. May Brother Maynard’s call bring the fruit of repentance it seeks.
I learned through this, that the marks left on my heart from a misrepresentation by some of the Gospel of life in Christ are still with me; and I continue in my own selfish love of me, making me susceptible to hearing accusation against me which is not there. It also, underscores for me that many today (the audience I think Brother Maynard intended) of those who purport to preach Christ are, in fact, slaves of a tradition of incomplete understanding and self-righteous action.
I do not weep for these. Perhaps this is evidence of my hard heart, but Jesus said the pure in heart will see God. I interpret that to mean additionally, that the impure in heart will not see God. Those who speak of God without knowing Him seek and get what they want, the approval of men.
May those who are in Christ be revealed and expose those who are false through comparison.
ded,
Thanks for sharing more of your thoughts and reflections here.
Immaturity is not a word that I would associate with you, though, my brother.
May those who are in Christ be revealed and expose those who are false through comparison.
Amen!
If it’s from a Christian but not like Christ, it’s immature.
8^)
Wellllll, alright. I’ll let you have that one, Ded
Steve,
If I may, I’d like to humbly add a few things. I can surely see where ded is coming from about the condemnation. I’ve spent the last year dismantling the “guilt button” and it is not easy. I learned that I was using the church as my identity, when the truth is that my identity is in Christ alone. So what I felt when I read the piece yesterday was a certain conviction that He has work for me to do…be it only a few people…but He has issued the call to bring cups of cold water to those that He has placed squarely in my path.
I used to be a card-carrying Bible thumper, but I know now that it has much more to do with living for Him and doing His will than it does with how much I know. I hope as the day wears on that my heart will become much softer and that I can weep with you more deeply for the people….just like someone did for me years ago when my eternity was at stake.
Thank-you for sharing this.
Because He lives.
For those who were interested in how to speak the truth without condemnation, you might be interested to read Brother Maynard’s follow-up post: The Dream of the Former.
He envisions this post, not just as a follow-up to his previous post, but to all the “Formerly Known” posts out there.
Perhaps this will show that there is not so much condemnation in the truth as there is constructive possibilities.
I would also humbly submit that perhaps we sometimes mistakenly interchange “conviction” with “condemnation”. The latter does not exist in Christ (praise God!!), but the former is a work of the Holy Spirit.
Good discussion, all. Feel free to continue it.
Steve, as I read the piece I felt that I could appreciate the burden that motivated the article, but I was troubled by a couple of aspects of the way it was written.
I think it is a very grave and serious thing to employ the “voice of God” in writing or speaking. I know that this is often done with the best of intentions but honestly I think it is a bit presumptious on our part to do so. Even if it is just a literary device it has a way of presenting itself on par with divine revelation.
Secondly, the whole tone of the article seems to circumvent the omnipotence, eternality and omniscience of God. I am sure Bro. Maynard did not intend it in this way, but I just can’t imagine God speaking to man in the plaintive voice of one who is abandoned. He could certainly do so if He wanted to, but every time the Bible records God calling man to repentance it was done so authoritatively.
Thirdly, “The being formerly known as God” has chosen to identify Himself through His word. He does not change and His reality and identity are not determined by our faithfulness (or lack thereof) to worship Him as He has called us to do.
Forgive me if this seems strident and nit-picky, I certainly don’t intend for it to be that way, but I think there are better ways to express the thoughts the writer had in mind.
Gordon, I can certainly appreciate your thoughts and I appreciate you sharing them here. I don’t think your points are invalid.
Unfortunately, I’ve got to get into a rehearsal, and will not have time to engage with this until much later in the day (unless someone cancels on me).
Thanks for sharing, though, bro. Your thoughts, even if in disagreement, are always welcome here!
There is much food for thought and growth here. I probably did miss the heart of Brother Maynard’s post. When I read it, I had a strong negative reaction and have been struggling to discover why. Part of it is the point Sarah made. I’m sensitive to a view of the church that limits God’s work to what we see in middle class America. I also may have felt some of the things that Gordon brought out. Of course, some of you may say, “Craig, you were convicted by the post, repent and believe!â€, and that’s fair enough.
Steve,
It helps to know what really moved you in the post. Your account of your experiences in the Ukraine brought tears to my eyes (and like you, I have to be careful because I’m at work). Let me use another example to clarify a little where I’m coming from. Suppose a man falls madly in love (his first love) because he has found the woman of his dreams. He dates the “most wonderful woman in the world†and after a few months they get married. At first, married life is great, but then things begin to unravel. He finds that the woman he married is not as wonderful as he thought. She has annoying habits that he didn’t notice when they were dating. He finds that she doesn’t really understand him the way he assumed she would (in short, she doesn’t worship him). There are times when he looks at her and wonders what happened to the woman he loved. They argue over nothing. They grow apart. He loses his job and finds the love of his life has become his accuser. He looks for help and winds up in the office of a rather arrogant Presbyterian minister. The minister says, “You need to go back to the love you had when you first married.†The young man drops his head in despair because he knows that the women he married never really existed in the first place.
Steve,
I believe Brother Maynard’s post is a prophetic word and prophetic words do not touch everyone in the same fashion. Nor are they meant to. Some my think it is a hammer. Some may think it is a sword. Some may think it is a fire. Some may be upset. And others may feel little if anything about the words.
As I read the comments here and on Subversive Influence, I would have to say that the word seems to be effective.
That was a beautiful post. Thanks for linking to it.
Craig,
Nice analogy. I can see very much the Christian who is maturing start to see Christ as the man saw his wife. I’m not the person my wife married and she is not the I married. We put forth our best efforts to woo one another. So to has the church with unbelievers. Except what they are offering is marriage to the church, not to Christ.
Look at the life of an average evangelical Christian, compare it to the words of Christ and you’ll see that people are interested in church life not Christ life.
Maynard’s words will be misconstrued no matter. If he was authoritative(sp?) in tone then people would gripe that God isn’t that harsh. How do we know God wasn’t loving in some of his rebuke and pleas to come back to him? Because it isn’t in the Bible?!? Do we seriously think we have every single message he has ever spoken in the Bible? That is quite arrogant and presumptios of us as well. And even if we did, who’s to say God couldn’t use that approach now? (No offense, Gordon.)
I seriously doubt that Maynard meant for his words to be compared to Gospel or even taken as prophetic however. It was a post on a blog.
Steve,
Seriously, I hear you on seeing yourself in that post. I thought maybe he had read my journals or something.
Man, I want to move to Boone and have community with you. Any openings at the college for an admissions counselor?
Mike, no offense taken, but I think perhaps you have misunderstood some things I said.
First, I believe everything God does is loving, whether it seems to be to us or not. God is love and everything He does is an extension of who He is.
Second, I did state that God could certainly speak in that if He so desired. He is God and can do anything He pleases.
Third, I did not say the Bible contained every message God had ever said. I only said that in the instances in the Bible where God called people to repentance, He did so in a manner of authority.
The more I read the article, the more I appreciate Bro. Maynard’s heart, but the more also that I come to believe that perhaps he has superimposed his own feelings toward the church upon the voice of God. That is ground that certainly calls for great caution.
Mike,
I hope you come to the mountains at least to visit.
Except what they are offereing is marriage to the church, not Christ. Very true in too many cases.
Gordon, I am in complete agreement that folks who take poetic license with God’s nature, do so at the peril of reflecting God poorly. Even so, children will often render their parents in their artistic expressions. Are we as adults relating to God any different? Our imaginations are from God and imagining Him beyond what we are told in Scripture is going to happen. Perhaps, better that we are fascinated with Him than with the world and release our imaginations to Him completely, eh?
Mike,
That’s an insightful application of my story, better than what I intended. The question then becomes “When I discover that I’ve fallen in love with churchianity rather than with Christ how do I burn for Christ?†It won’t do to try to recapture the passion I had when I started, because that passion was misdirected.
My point was a little more general (and probably a little too obscure). The young man, in my example, doesn’t mature and that’s why he can’t make any use of the minister’s advice. Without growth, the only option available to him is say, “I made a mistake. She’s not the person I thought she was.†I would suggest that this is even true of our relationship with the Lord. He isn’t who we thought him to be (he’s much more, but that’s another subject). If we don’t mature, we will soon find ourselves saying, “I made a mistake†or worse, blaming our disappointment on the church.
DED, we do indeed tend to render our parents artistically (although given my limited artistic abilities, my parents are probably appreciative that I don’t do that
).
However, I think the major difference between our physical parents and our heavenly Father is that our physical parents do not speak by divine fiat. I believe there is a boundary there that should be observed and respected.
We can certainly imagine things about God and I am sure we all do. But we know that God does not want us, through our imagination, to try to concoct a physical representation of Him. Would He want us to speak from His person?
I don’t know.
His thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways are not our ways.
I respect your carefulness. In imagining things about my heavenly Father (I have always had a very active imagination), I am guided by His word: He is better than I can imagine!! And of course, He is higher than we. Yet, nonetheless, like a little child I approach Him, trust Him and even imagine Him, though not in a physical form.
No one has seen Jesus in the flesh for two thousand years. Yet, artists have rendered many pictures of Him in various styles and in various contexts and poses. Good or bad? Preachers expound on His Word, the red letter ones, often stating emphatically what it means and does not mean. Is there a place where exposition and exegesis overlap and some imagination gets mixed in? We may wish it were not so, but doesn’t it happen?
Good or bad?
I guess what I am trying to form a basis for is a place to say, I recognize and believe in respecting the holiness of God and His authority as you describe. Yet, Jesus called Himself a “friend” and “brother” to us. I know both of these were conditional in context, but that doesn’t alter what He stated pointedly. And if He is in the Father and He and the Father are one, are we a friend and a brother to the Father?
To even begin to allow the wonder of that to sink in and affect my heart, I must use my imagination. If I do not try to embrace those words emotionally, they remain a theological construct only, which bounces around my intellect with no outlet or understanding.
Would He want us to speak from His person? Do we not, in a very small measure, since He lives within us when we seek to be an ambassador for Him as per II Cor. 5 and we reach with love in our hearts toward a lost person? Do we not when we are overwhelmed with compassion for a broken, hurting soul and we speak words of comfort because we have been comforted by His Spirit as per II Cor. 1? Are we imaging what God would say and then so speaking or are we speaking from His person?
I agree with you that Brother Maynard missed the sound of the Father’s voice in how He imagined God speaking.
However, the very fact that you could then speak so clearly in contrast about the Father’s authority was evidence to me of Him in your heart.
I guess my point is, you held your position based on Scripture that God speaks authoritatively about sin, not wimpily as a wounded and rejected lover. Yet God has many facets in His heart revealed in Scripture. I think our authority as believers is to speak genuinely of each of these from our experience of them. Given that as a parameter, might we expand the things we say to others, Christian and lost, to include the fullness of His passion? And if we answer yes to that, how then shall we do it? Do all who know Him have the mental capacity to know every possible Scripture reference and apply such in each of the circumstances in which life comes at us?
I had no idea I was writing to this point, but here it is, I would say Gordon, you do speak from his Person. We all do, sometimes without even realzing how or when. Walking in the Spirit is not an intellectual exercise. If it were then those of lesser IQ cannot do it. Shall we say that is at an IQ of 70 or below. should we up that a little bit since people below 80 are usually poor readers? I know we hear the absurdity of such a notion. We should never speak our will and call it God’s, period. But we are speaking from His person resident within us, when we speak His words in the proper context, always. It is the expression of our hearts living in Christ.
ded, I have no problem with what you are saying. In fact, I would agree with your last paragraph completely. And I rejoice to think that God would deign to consider me His friend.
There is no doubt that God speaks in many ways and in many voices, sometimes the thunderous call to repentance, sometimes a still, small voice.
You are correct that we speak on behalf of God regularly. Any time we teach, preach, witness or in any other way share the truth of God’s Word, we are speaking on His behalf. I would even go so far as to say that the Spirit may move us to say certain things to someone as a means of encouragement, correction, etc.
I see a distinction, though, between speaking on God’s behalf as a messenger and impersonating the “voice” of God to convey our own thoughts. I believe this is what Bro. Maynard did and this was my point in my comments.
Your point is taken. Yet, Brother Maynard professes Christ and speaks his mind.
I guess we eat the meat and spit out the bones?
8^)
Apologies to all for my rampant mistakes above and its length. I hit “Post” when I meant “Preview.” Ya’ll got the unedited version!
ummm — why is this so hard today to get right?
Brother Maynard professes Christ and speaks his mind. It is unclear whose “mind” I meant. Brother Maynard’s!
Gordon and ded,
I suppose the issue for me would be am I faithfully speaking what I believe (however fallibly) God would say or am I using God to provide an atmosphere of authority around what I want to say. Judging this may be quite difficult and that’s why I tend to agree with Gordon’s note of caution. As I read Brother Maynard’s original post as well as the post on the dream, it seemed to me there was more of the latter. If that’s unfair to Brother Maynard, I apologize. The dream, even more than the original post, seems to me to be contrived. It would be like me describing an imaginary dream where all of God’s people gather together and realize that we Presbyterians had it right after all. Everyone joins in, we have a wonderful worship service and at the end, God blesses the whole thing.
Yes, ded, I do not doubt Bro. Maynard’s profession of Christ or his sincerity in the message he is trying to convey. I do appreciate the burden he is obviously feeling towards lukewarmness among God’s people.
Gordon, you wrote:
His thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways are not our ways.
And yet, we are told that we have the mind of Christ.
I think there’s a danger on both sides of this issue. I respect that some of you think Bro. M. overstepped a boundary. Personally, I don’t see it that way, but I can understand why some of you do.
However, the danger in the other side is assuming that God is so transcendent that we can’t possibly know what He’s thinking.
Isaiah 55:9 comes the closest to what you said here, Gordon, as far as I know. But it doesn’t say that His ways/thoughts are not our ways/thoughts. It says that they are higher than our ways/thoughts.
I think that’s a difference worth noting. Because that does not make something other, but rather something greater. Not unknowable, but even greater than we might be able to comprehend.
With regard to God speaking authoritatively and not plaintively, I would simply point to the book of Hosea as an example. There, God uses Hosea as an illustration of his heart toward adulterous Israel.
ded,
“Our imaginations are from God and imagining Him beyond what we are told in Scripture is going to happen. Perhaps, better that we are fascinated with Him than with the world and release our imaginations to Him completely, eh?”
What a profound answer. Thanks.
Steve, I don’t recall saying that we cannot know the mind of Christ or that God is so transcendent that we cannot know what He is thinking. We learn this, though, through His word and by His Spirit.
Very simply put, I don’t think we should superimpose our feelings about what is right or wrong with the church (or anything else, for that matter) upon the voice of God. There were some very sweeping generalizations made in this article that would call for one to sit in a seat of judgment in order for them to make them justly and accurately. Only God has the right to determine whether or not one’s worship is vain/hollow/empty. Bro. Maynard made that assessment himself and then assumed the divine voice to declare it.
Gordon, I apologize if I misunderstood your point. I took your closing remark about “His thoughts” as apparently saying something you didn’t mean to say, and I was attempting to show that the statement from Isaiah is balanced out by New Testament revelation.
Given that apparent misunderstanding on my part, I think it’s fair to ask what did you mean when you alluded to the Isaiah quote?
No problem, Steve. I was not directly quoting Isaiah, obviously, I was trying to make the point that I made in my last comment. That is, for someone to speak as God, they must be able to know exactly what God would say or feel on a given issue. Now, concerning different acts and concepts, I think we have already established that we are in agreement that one can know the mind of God through His Word.
Many of the things Bro. Maynard addresses are not as much actions as they are motives and attitudes of the heart. He would have to sit in God’s seat of judgement in order to be able to make those statements accurately and authoritatively. Thus, I said he made some broad generalizations that it is only God’s right to make. In other words, only a perfect, omniscient God can see what is in the hearts of men. We are not perfect and omniscient and so when it comes to judging the hearts of men, God’s thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways are not our ways.
Is that any clearer than mud?
Gordon, out of curiosity, would it be at all possible (and I’m not saying this is what happened, at all…I’m talking theoretically) that God would reveal something of this type of prophetic nature to someone to speak to the church at large? And if so, what should our response be?
See, here’s where I think we need to be careful. Some have dismissed Bro. M.’s post with the objection that it is written in first person from God’s viewpoint.
That may, or may not, be a valid concern. I agree that anything spoken on behalf of God should be weighed carefully.
But what about the actual points raised in the post? Are they invalidated by the literary device?
For example, take the following statement:
You set aside an hour for “worship,” and call it a “service” to sit, stand, sing, pray, listen, gulp, and leave. If you’re serving me, I’m sorry to say I’m not always that blessed.
Let’s rewrite it a bit outside the first person voice of God:
We set aside an hour for “worship” and call it a “service” to sit, stand, sing, pray, listen, gulp, and leave. If we’re serving God, is He blessed by what we do?
I’ve changed the assumption at the end to a question, and removed the first person voice of God.
Is it a fair point to make? Do we not label our time together in church as “worship” and call it a “service”? And if so, is that consistent with what God has revealed to us already?
If it’s not consistent with what has been revealed, then what are we to make of it? Are we to think that we don’t know how God feels about it?
See, here’s the rub: What was the way in which the People of God have always been given to determine whether something spoken on behalf of God was truly on behalf of God?
With regard to motives and determining them, how was it that Peter was able to determine the motives of Ananias and Sapphira? It wasn’t because Peter could read it in the Bible. Right?
So when you say, [Brother Maynard] would have to sit in God’s seat of judgement in order to be able to make those statements accurately and authoritatively, on what basis did any prophet, apostle, or any other person ever have for speaking about the motives and heart of anyone else?
Finally, with regard to this statement:
Now, concerning different acts and concepts, I think we have already established that we are in agreement that one can know the mind of God through His Word.
If “we” have established that as a fact, I missed it somewhere, brother!
I would continue to contend that we can know the mind of God through His Spirit. I have trouble accepting the use of “His Word” as a substitute for “His Spirit” in these statements.
And I would still contend that the statement “His thoughts are not our thoughts” is not an accurate portrayal of what has been revealed. I realize you were not quoting Isaiah directly, but since the entire statement is identical to Isaiah’s with the substitution of the word “not” for “higher than”, I’m curious what foundation you have to assert something different than Scripture on this point.
I love you, brother, but you’re not getting off that easily
Steve, I do not think that all of the points in post are invalidated by the way the post is written. In fact, I have repeatedly said that I appreciate the burden that is behind the post.
I think making the alteration that you suggested concerning worship “services” would be a great step. It changes it from a statement that I believe only God can make to a question that we should ask ourselves continually. In fact, I have both preached and blogged about this very thing, “Is God blessed by our worship?”
I’m still going stick by my guns and say that we know the mind of God through His word, by His Spirit. In several posts, I have noticed that you tend to take the other position, elevating the speaking of the Spirit to a level of almost equal authority with Scripture. The problem I see with that is that the interpretation of the “Spirit’s” leading is that it is highly subjective to the thoughts, feelings and desires of the one who claims the Spirit is speaking to them. I do believe that the Spirit of God can speak to us, but I think His primary channel is through scripture. I would go so far as to say that I think the Spirit’s voice is probably for the sake of guidance, comfort and direction more than it is for information. I believe when we hold the Bible, we are holding the complete revelation of knowledge that God wishes for us to have.
Our differences in this area are probably going to be rooted in the continuation/cessation debate. I don’t know that we really need to reopen that can right now.
As far as my statements about God’s thoughts, are you suggesting that sinful man with limited knowledge and biased justice can have thoughts that are equal to God’s judgement? That is why I say, and continue to say, God’s thoughts and ways are not our thoughts and ways. The key word here is, judgement, to which God reserves the right.
I’m probably missing something obvious, but Isaiah 55:8 explicitly states “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.†Verse 9 then goes on to state “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.†Even verse 9, it seems to me, is emphasizing more the distance between God’s thoughts and ours rather than the continuity.
Gordon, I think you are correct that we don’t need to open that can in this context here
Fair enough.
Craig, I stand corrected. I was trying to find that statement, and somehow, I only found verse 9 with the different wording. That was my mistake.
However, since you pointed it out, I’ll point out the context of that statement anyway. I think verse 7 sheds light on who God is speaking to:
Let the wicked forsake his way
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
And let him return to the LORD,
And He will have compassion on him,
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD.
Whose way and thoughts are being contrasted with the Lord’s?
Steve,
I’m curious as to why you left out verse 6.
I’ve written and set aside at least 4 or 5 responses now… maybe 6. They tended to get long and quote scripture and a whole bunch of other things I think maybe I shouldn’t say.
I will say how grieved I am that some people are missing the entire heart and point of the message so utterly. Obviously in this thread, this comes mostly from Gordon. I’m not writing scripture, yet the substantial response to the message is to pick apart the words and the form and say almost nothing about the message that isn’t related to form and to my motivations, judging me as being in err for sitting in judgment… or something along those lines. You say that the “wrong” form doesn’t invalidate the message, but that’s not at all the impression that the comments give.
I will also commend Scot McKnight’s recent post on false dichotomies in which by coincidence he uses the Word/Spirit argument as an example. I made several notes as I read through the whole thread first, one of which, fairly early on, was “cessationism” which I saw later you acknowledged. I see no basis for much of a conversation about how God might speak today with that variance between our presuppositions, since in your view God has already said all he intends to.
Basically, what I wrote is “for him who has ears” which is another way of saying it’ll speak to those who need to hear it, or to whom the Spirit quickens a response and speaks to their hearts. I don’t think the Spirit has quickened the critical responses. If you don’t feel that God is saying (or can say) anything to you through it, please just say “not for me” and move on. Maybe it’ll come back later, maybe not. So it is with many situational addresses, including all of the NT epistles and the letters to the 7 churches in Revelation. Would the church at Sardis be upset that the letter to Smyrna didn’t fit them exactly?
I think I’ll just leave it at that, I’m having trouble composing something that doesn’t come off harsh etc. I wanted to weigh in here, but I also don’t want to degrade the good conversation you’re having. I think Steve captures most of what I’m saying very well, and right now he’s doing a much better job of engaging than what I could.
Bro. Maynard, I have stated repeatedly that I appreciate the burden you have that motivated the post. Steve and I have been discussing for some time several of the concerns you raised. I share many of the concerns which you mentioned. I have not mentioned those concerns because I do not have issue with them. As I said in my first comment, I am somewhat troubled by the manner in which you chose to present them.
I never judged you. I simply said that the voice of the article was from one who sits in judgement. We cannot presume to speak on God’s behalf in that matter.
I think the contents of the fourth paragraph of your comment validate the concerns I have raised. You seem to imply that those who are critical or disagree with what you have written do not have the Spirit-given ability to hear or appreciate what you have written. Please consider the import of your words. Is this what you were intending to say? Is this not elevating what you have written to a level of divine inspiration?
Brother, I bear you no ill will or bitterness. Please do not take what I have said to be personal judgement against you. I do not know you and have no right to judge what is in your heart and I have tried very carefully to avoid doing that. I have only tried to articulate my concerns about the ramifications of man speaking in the voice of God.
Craig, I’m not sure what you mean about verse 6. Does that shed any more light on the meaning of 7 and 8, other than to confirm that the Lord is speaking to those who are not already in a relationship with Him?
Gordon,
Thanks for clarifying.
Concerning my fourth paragraph, I was not trying to say that my words (and I’m very clear about whose words they are, even if others aren’t) are not above criticism. What I was trying to say is that the harsh critical tone from some quarters is not, I think, born of the Spirit.
It isn’t to say that people unable to find value in what I wrote can’t hear the Spirit, but that perhaps he isn’t saying anything to them about it. No judgment upon that either way, maybe it just isn’t for/about them, so of course he wouldn’t say anything to them about it.
I’m a bit confused about how you have the Spirit talking to people about the matter, yet would argue cessationism. I don’t want to get into that though — it hasn’t been resolved through logical debate for the past 100 years, so I doubt we’ll achieve that here ;^)
If I understand you correctly, your entire reaction to what I wrote is therefore
I don’t know if this is a fair representation of your sentiments at this point, but if so, whether or not it was your intent, I’m feeling a bit dragged through the mud to get there. To say that I write from the POV of someone sitting in judgment but stipulate that you don’t think I am is a bit of a funny line to me. Probably stems from the discomfort with the 1st person language. As a writer, sometimes one gets wrapped up in an artistic kind of temperament which makes it difficult to separate criticism of the art from that of the artist. I’m probably a little sensitive on this, but I think if you reread the thread you’ll see how I could feel personally criticized, even if that wasn’t the intent.
As for the concerns about the divine voice, I believe they’re rooted in the cessationist debate; as a cessationist it makes perfect sense to me that you (and others with that POV) would be concerned. As someone who believes God continues to speak and it’s up to us to sort out with the help of the Spirit which words are his and which are not, I think you should be able to see why I (and others) would not have an issue with it. That said, I think the discussion can’t really go further without a can opener.
For the can of worms, I mean. Oh, and POV=”point of view”, just in case that’s not a common acronym to some ;^)
Gratia vobis et pax,
Brother Maynard,
Thank you for your contributions here. I think you have summed up very well what Gordon and I have talked about here: namely, that the cessationist will by default take issue with your POV and that the continuationist will not.
I appreciate the time you’ve taken to read this thread and respond.
Gordon, last night we finally watched “Facing the Giants” on DVD. As I recall, you had recommended this movie when it first came out. However, after watching it, I’m very curious as to why so much of that movie didn’t ruffle your cessationist feathers, so to speak.
Care to offer your thoughts on that, assuming that you remember specifics about the movie?
I realize it’s off-topic for this thread, but since it’s my blog, I’m giving my blessing on the tangent
And don’t worry. You’re not being baited or set up. My question is very sincere and honest.
Bro. Maynard, I think you have summarized my position accurately. My point concerning judgement is exactly as you described it, relating to the first-person pov. I am sorry that you feel dragged through the mud as that has certainly not been the intent of my comments. I have tried very hard to keep my issues focused upon what is written and not upon the writer. If I failed to do that I do apologize.
Steve, I am not sure to what parts of the movie you are referring. Could you be a little more specific?