You Might Be Misrepresenting God If…
n the spirit of that great theologian, Jeff Foxworthy, I present to you some rambling thoughts in my head, all completed by the phrase “you might be misrepresenting God”…
- If your message is not filled with hope, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you tell people that they need to come to you to understand the message of scripture, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you think that “being real” means talking more about the wind and waves in your life than about the One who calms the storm, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you think that people who don’t attend a Sunday morning meeting are outside of God’s covering and protection, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you think that sickness, financial problems, hurricanes, broken bones, auto accidents, and terrorist attacks are all tools of God “to teach you something”, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you think that a person can’t live above their circumstances and walk in peace and victory, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you think that someone is not being real unless they tell you they’re struggling with some huge temptation, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you think that the only legitimate types of prayer for a Christian are prayers of lament, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you tell someone who is experiencing the peace and joy of the Lord to “hang on, your turn is coming”, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you believe that only “properly authorized leaders” are capable of serving communion or baptizing others, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you believe that Christianity is best represented by a set of propositional statements and/or a systematic theology, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If your message does not lead to freedom, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you think that the Father doesn’t speak to his children in various ways, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you think that America is “God’s chosen country” and that everything America’s foreign policy represents is ordained by God, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you think that the Republican party is “God’s party, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you think that religion and Christianity are compatible, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you think that you can only “cooperate” in ministry and missions with people who have been baptized by a pastor in your same denomination, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you think that true Christianity is only represented by a particular denomination or systematic theology, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If your belief in Christ does not manifest itself in living the life that Christ commanded us to live, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you think that you are more capable of articulating what someone else believes than that very person is capable of doing, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you believe that sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, freedom to the captives, and walking to the lame were only for first-century “verification of the message”, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you think that the only legitimate way to articulate one’s belief in God is found in a 4th-century statement, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you think that our main responsibility in relationship to God is to study the Bible, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you think that “everyone needs to have a pastor”, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you believe that leaving the institutional church is what the writer of Hebrews meant when he wrote, “Do not forsake the assembling of yourselves together”, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you think that a relationship with God means that you will accept or reject certain styles of music, certain hairstyles, certain beverages, or hanging out with certain people, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you think that Jesus turned water into mere grape juice, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you believe that a particular translation of the bible is the only inspired version, you might be misrepresenting God.
- If you believe that one’s beliefs about baptism, bible translation, rapture timing, tongues, or a particular interpretation of Genesis 1-2 are absolute essentials to salvation and/or fellowship, you might be misrepresenting God.
November 25th, 2007 10:57
Steve,
Glad to see you writing again! But this looks like you’ve been reading my mail, or mind, or something. I think I’ve been frustrated at one time or another with somebody from almost every line you wrote on this, and quite a few of them in the last year! I posted on a thread on H2H last week, in response to a newbie who was promoting both the Pentacostal view that if you don’t speak in tongues you must not be saved, and the “Oneness” Pentacostal views about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I said there that you can love God and love your neighbor even if you don’t understand every detail of the relationships in the Trinity (Jesus is probably the only Man who ever fully understood it anyway); you can love one another even if you don’t know the exact order of events in the End Times. And according to Jesus Himself in John 13, loving one another is the real proof that you are one of His followers.
I have to go cook dinner, but I like what you’ve said here enough that I will try to link to it on “Postmodern Redneck”–guess it will be the start of my own “Wish I’d Written That” section.
November 25th, 2007 18:44
Holy Smokes! That about sums up my last year.
So strange how God works. I got done doing a post after a year of not doing anything and was checking links and here I am reading this post and…
…WOW!
November 26th, 2007 01:10
Just had to tell you how much I LOVE this before I start emailing out the link…
Well said Steve, well said.
November 26th, 2007 08:23
Fantastic, Steve. I was thinking of a similar post last week, but yours really hits the head of the nail.
November 26th, 2007 09:39
“If you think that religion and Christianity are compatible, you might be misrepresenting God. ”
I think I know what you mean here but could you elaborate?
“If you believe that sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, freedom to the captives, and walking to the lame were only for first-century “verification of the messageâ€, you might be misrepresenting God.”
I haven’t seen 1, 3, or 4 happen, but with God anything is possible. Have you seen any of these miracles personally?
“If you think that “everyone needs to have a pastorâ€, you might be misrepresenting God. ”
What if I believe that everyone needs to be pastor’d to?
“If you think that Jesus turned water into mere grape juice, you might be misrepresenting God. ”
Yeah I’ve never gotten this one either. Great list!
November 26th, 2007 10:39
Phil, thanks for the encouragement, bro. Not sure where this post of mine came from, but it’s out there now.
Michael, there you are! Wondered where you have been. Glad to see you posting again. Keep walking and let Him be the lifter of your head. He’ll not ever leave you or desert you, my friend.
Nancy, nice to see you here. Always weird for me when different blog worlds converge!
Glad you liked the list, too.
Bryan, always nice to see you, too. Your comments here and elsewhere are always a blessing.
Scott, I’ll post a separate comment to answer yours.
November 26th, 2007 10:48
Scott, ok here goes…
“If you think that religion and Christianity are compatible, you might be misrepresenting God.”
I think I know what you mean here but could you elaborate?
Religion is a set of rules and statements. Christianity is all about intimate relationship with the Father through Jesus. I have rules as a father for my son to obey, but those rules do not put my son and me in relationship with each other. Likewise with our Father. Make sense?
“If you believe that sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, freedom to the captives, and walking to the lame were only for first-century ‘verification of the message’, you might be misrepresenting God.”
I haven’t seen 1, 3, or 4 happen, but with God anything is possible. Have you seen any of these miracles personally?
I am not positive if I have seen them personally. But what I was getting at is the way in which biblical miracles are explained away. Jesus said that the message he came to preach included these things. But then many people look at the miracles he and his disciples did and say, “That was just to authenticate the message. Now that we have the Bible, those things have passed away.” I find that position to be unsupported biblically, and faulty logically. Those things weren’t merely for authentication of the message. They were part of the message itself.
“If you think that ‘everyone needs to have a pastor’, you might be misrepresenting God.”
What if I believe that everyone needs to be pastor’d to?
First of all, this is one of those where it’s very critical to notice that I concluded all of these with “might”. I would not presume to be so arrogant as to say that one is misrepresenting God. But there’s more harm than good done in many of these.
Second, what do you mean by “everyone needs to be pastor’d to”?
Depending on your answer to that question, my followup question might be “Can you support that from scripture?”
November 26th, 2007 13:21
I came to your blog via Nancy. I really needed to read this today. Not only did you step on my toes at times, but you really encouraged me as a fellow believer. Thanks for pointing my thoughts to Him.
November 26th, 2007 14:01
Steve,
So glad to see this post. As my son would say… SWEET!
This is just so right on. What a great synopsis.
Thanks brother. May the Lord richly bless you.
Iin Him,
-marty
November 26th, 2007 16:33
I have rules as a father for my son to obey, but those rules do not put my son and me in relationship with each other. Likewise with our Father. Make sense?
Sure, that makes sense. It’s just that your opening statement was a little vague. I mean, the Bible is “a set of rules and statements” and so much more. I think that Christianity and Religion can be very compatible, but as you pointed out, you did say might as did Rev. Foxworthy.
But what I was getting at is the way in which biblical miracles are explained away. Jesus said that the message he came to preach included these things. But then many people look at the miracles he and his disciples did and say, “That was just to authenticate the message. Now that we have the Bible, those things have passed away.†I find that position to be unsupported biblically, and faulty logically. Those things weren’t merely for authentication of the message. They were part of the message itself.
I agree that they were part of the message I just don’t think they were the most important part. You may not either. I guess I hold with the cessationists mainly because if people were as full of faith as I know some are then they would be performing miracles daily in front of crowds. I don’t see that happpening. That gives the cessationaists and the texts they use some credibility.
what do you mean by “everyone needs to be pastor’d to�
Depending on your answer to that question, my followup question might be “Can you support that from scripture?â€
Well we’re all like sheep and thankfully there are those among us with the gifts and talents to guide us when we need it. We don’t all need to be “pastor’d” all the time and pastors need not have gone to seminary and be ordained in my view to bring the gospel. After all we’re all of us ministers of the gospel. Some of us are just fortunate enough not to have to do a day job in addition. Does that rambling mess need scriptural support?
November 26th, 2007 19:48
For the record, I am not a cessationist. I have spoken in tongues for about 20 years, and I’ve walked (sometimes uncomfortably) in the gift of discerning spirits for 30-35 years. And, yes, I have seen some healings and some real prophecies.
I have two problems with the cessationist view:
(1) It puts human beings in the position of telling God how He’s allowed to operate–think about that for a while.
(2) Yes, Paul did say prophecies and tongues would cease; but he did not say WHEN. Any attempt to pick the time of ceasing is an assumption by the person picking. My personal view is that since all the spiritual gifts are given to meet the needs of the church in this world, they will cease when Jesus returns for His Bride.
November 26th, 2007 21:12
“If you think that religion and Christianity are compatible, you might be misrepresenting God.”
Religion is so much more than just a set of rules like the 10 commandments. According to Webster it is, “(1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance”
I had a foster daughter who thought that she was not religious, period. This was despite her believing in Jesus, reading her Bible regularly, believing in absolutes like “thou shalt not kill,” and going to church regularly. No matter how one diced it, she was religious.
MB
November 26th, 2007 22:38
“Religion” all too often boils down to things you Do–go to meetings, classes, give money, read the right books, follow the rules…for the really ambitious, get a seminary degree and join the clergy.
Christianity, the “Mere Christianity” of C.S. Lewis’ book by that title (If you haven’t read it lately, I recommend digging it out and reading it), is really about surrendering your life to God and by His help becoming the kind of person He wants you to be–it’s more about what you Are or Are Becoming. And then the things you do flow out of that. But the Doing without the Becoming only leads to more death. Read Matt. 7:21-23 and figure out who Jesus is talking to in that passage.
November 27th, 2007 08:50
Steve,
This is tremendous. I read it shortly after you posted it and wanted to comment then, but did not have the words to express my thoughts; still don’t, really.
You have beautifully articulated some things I have been thinking and praying through in my own life and ministry. I think I agree with all of them but just am not sure how they all need to work out. It makes my heart ache. Thanks, bro.
November 27th, 2007 09:54
If you think that meeting in a church building is more spiritual than meeting in an Olive Garden, you might be misrepresenting God.
November 27th, 2007 11:56
And that, Alan, helps articulate the difference between “religion” and “faith.” Faith understands every condition of the heart and every actions srpinging from those conditions takes place in the Presence of the Lord; doing “special” things to re-connect (the literal meaning of the roots in the word religion)with God (as if the connection has weakened or been lost), such as meeting in a particular “holy” place under the guidance of an appointed leader, fails the test of faith.
November 27th, 2007 18:08
Jesus loves us. Amen
November 28th, 2007 11:25
Steve, great post! That would be a month’s worth of “ifs” on my Ifs of Og site.
November 29th, 2007 10:27
Scott,
Sorry for the delay in responding. It’s been a busy week.
I agree that [miracles] were part of the message I just don’t think they were the most important part. You may not either.
Nope, I don’t. Nor did I even come close to saying so.
But the point is, if they are part of the message (i.e., if the Kingdom of God is really here and includes those miracles), then we should be teaching it. The fact that many people of faith (in your opinion) don’t doesn’t mean that it’s not something we should be doing. Many people of faith have a lot of faith, but don’t believe it’s part of the message, so they don’t even bother.
As to your defense of cessationism, let me point out a couple of things:
1. Cessationism is an argument from “silence”, so to speak. (”I don’t see miracles happening, so I guess God must have stopped doing them.”) There are no biblical texts that teach cessationism. Only a very small handful of vague ones (”when the perfect comes” = “when the canon is complete”??) that are used out of context to support it.
2. There is way more evidence in scripture that miracles came about as a result of faith. And it is even stated that Jesus did not perform many miracles in a certain region because of the lack of faith. So perhaps it is possible that many miracles are not being performed here in the west, even by people of great faith, because there is a tremendous amount of unbelief toward those things.
An interesting study I did one time was to look at every single example of healing in the New Testament and see how many times (I forget the percentage now, but it was actually quite close to 100%) the belief and faith of the person being healed is mentioned as a part of the reason for their healing. I think that is a profound amount of evidence that is conveniently overlooked in the cessationist position.
In other words, if someone believes that miracles aren’t a part of the message for today, then they shouldn’t expect to see miracles. Those who asked for miracles as “proof” of the message were often actually refused! In that sense, cessationism is actually a self-fulfilling belief system.
Well we’re all like sheep and thankfully there are those among us with the gifts and talents to guide us when we need it.
You have twisted my original point, though. The point that I was making is with regard to the teaching that everyone needs a particular person in their life (for life) as their pastor. In other words, your statement that I quoted here is not in contradiction with what I was trying to say. The point is that scripture never gives a picture of people following one particular shepherd…with the extremely notable and important exception being that of Jesus being our Shepherd. He is my Pastor. No one human being is given that position in scripture.
So from that standpoint, yes your “rambling mess” does need scriptural support!
One final point about pastors. “Pastor” is one of those gifts that is given with the stated objective of the building up, maturing, and equipping of the saints. I think it makes the most sense, then, to see this as a role in the process of discipleship that moves a believer to a point where they no longer need that person to play that role in their life.
I have often used the analogy that our current system of church is like expecting someone to attend the 12th grade over and over, year after year, without ever actually graduating.
November 29th, 2007 10:33
Tony, I’m glad it resonated with you, bro. You’re often in my thoughts and prayers. Keep your eyes on Jesus, and the rest will work itself out.
Marty, almost missed your comment there. Thanks for stopping by and for your response.
Alan, our time at Olive Garden was very encouraging and edifying to us. Thank you, my dear friend, for sharing your time and family with us in that way.
ded, exactly! Thank you for following up on Alan’s comment before I got to it. You are so right. I hope to get caught up on your blog soon, and begin participating there, too. What I have seen has been very intriguing, but I haven’t had the chance to absorb the depth of your thoughts yet.
Carey, amen!
Mike, enjoyed reading your blog, too. Thanks for commenting. I like your “if” questions!
November 29th, 2007 13:32
Great post and many helpful comments. But of course nothing is so good that I can’t find something(s) to quibble about!
# If your message does not lead to freedom, you might be misrepresenting God.
…
# If your belief in Christ does not manifest itself in living the life that Christ commanded us to live, you might be misrepresenting God.
It might be good to keep these side by side for a more complete perspective. If I regard my freedom (which is from the bondage of sin) to do as I please for my own entertainment, then I might be misrepresenting God. As a purchased servant of Christ, I am freed from the encumbrances that keep me from doing as commanded, but certainly not freed from those commands. And of course you, Steve, did not say I was. But keeping the two together helps to keep the perspective. For me, anyway.
# If you think that religion and Christianity are compatible, you might be misrepresenting God.
As you subsequently defined religion, this makes sense. Evangelical Outpost recently featured a more robust discussion of what is religion: a systematic recognition of how one is to relate to the Uncreated. Christianity includes that, altho of course Christianity is much more than a thought system. So I agree: the two are incompatible under your definition, but they’re not incompatible under all definitions.
# If you think that America is “God’s chosen country†and that everything America’s foreign policy represents is ordained by God, you might be misrepresenting God.
Just as you may be misrepresenting if you think that America is the cause of most evil in the world. Not suggesting that you do, but the absence occurred to me.
# If you think that the Republican party is “God’s party, you might be misrepresenting God.
Just as you might be misrepresenting if you believe Jesus would be more at home in the Democrat party. Not suggesting that you do, but this absence also occurred to me.
So, from me you get one line of praise and what, maybe 50 of quibbles. But be aware that I really do appreciate this post and will benefit from it.
November 29th, 2007 17:21
Fantastic list - I found it via Kingdom Grace.
Do you mind if I quote a few on my blog?
November 30th, 2007 11:22
You have twisted my original point, though. The point that I was making is with regard to the teaching that everyone needs a particular person in their life (for life) as their pastor. In other words, your statement that I quoted here is not in contradiction with what I was trying to say. The point is that scripture never gives a picture of people following one particular shepherd…with the extremely notable and important exception being that of Jesus being our Shepherd. He is my Pastor. No one human being is given that position in scripture.
I didn’t twist your original point. I think I was agreeing with the spirit of your original point. My original statement was that we all need to be pastor’d to at some points. That doesn’t mean that I believe it has to be one particular man, ordained by “the church”. I’m not a follower of any of the ministers in my church. We’re all of of followers of Christ. That’s as it should be and I think you’d agree. These men are fortunate enough (imo) to be able to act as a shepherd/pastor/teacher full time. I don’t think that’s a bad thing adn I’m guessing that you don’t either. I think we agree that the “cults of personality” that some churches have become are far from whast God wants. I hope that clears my mess up.
One final point about pastors. “Pastor†is one of those gifts that is given with the stated objective of the building up, maturing, and equipping of the saints. I think it makes the most sense, then, to see this as a role in the process of discipleship that moves a believer to a point where they no longer need that person to play that role in their life.
So when do you know that you’ve hit the point that you no longer need to be built up or equipped? I’ve always envisioned that as an ongoing, life long process. There will always be those that are more mature than I and those that I am more mature than. Those people will change throughout the course of my life, granted, but until the day I die I’m sure that that will always be the case.
Regarding cessationsim, I think that a fair amount of accusations of scripture twisting goes on on both sides to no one’s advantage. I’ve witnessed things in my life that I would term miraculous. Not on the “level” of blind seeing and lame walking, but certainly events where people were cured of afflictions wherein God played a large part. So on this matter I sort of straddle the fence. I’m not aware of dead folks walking or lepers being made whole in the present day, but I think that the greatest miracle is men like you and I coming to Christ. On that I think we agree and burning too many cycles on physical miracles and whether they happen or not is a waste of time. What you say about faith and miracles is certainly true, I’m just curious as to how we should teach about the miracuoous in such a way that it restores peoples’ faith in it.
November 30th, 2007 13:13
Perhaps, to keep us all honest, we should add one more. We may be misrepresenting God if our list of how we may be misrepresenting God contains more specs than logs.
December 1st, 2007 00:29
Craig,
Is that what you think this post is about? Be specific. Which ones do you consider to be specks?
I respect your freedom to disagree with what I write, but I have to admit that I’m not sure how to take comments like what you just said. I’d like you to clarify and be more specific if there is an area that you think I have crossed a line.
I’ll refrain from defending anything until I know what it is you’re talking about.
December 1st, 2007 00:40
Scott,
I guess your original comment about the pastor thing confused me, then. If we’re talking about the same thing, then I guess there wasn’t any disagreement to begin with.
What about statements such as “by this time you should all be teachers”? It seems that at least some biblical authors envisioned a point where their readers would move past just absorbing teaching and turn around and make disciples themselves. That’s the type of thing I’m talking about.
Maybe we should have a discussion about that, then, and you can help me understand what scriptures I’m twisting in my viewpoint. And likewise, you can show me your biblical defense of cessationism and how it’s not taken out of context.
That was really where our earlier discussion a couple of months ago was heading anyway, so maybe that’s the pick-up point for us? What do you say? A civil blog discussion from both perspectives, perhaps?
Listen, brother. I’m not trying to waste anyone’s time. My point is that if they are part of the Gospel message that Jesus came to teach, why are we brushing them aside and saying they don’t have relevance for today? Do we have the right to alter the Gospel message and make it less than what Jesus proclaimed?
Do I have all the answers about how or why it should be done? No. Not in the least. But I don’t think it is a waste of time, or needless burning of cycles to ask the question. Do you really feel that way about it, Scott?
December 1st, 2007 05:41
Spot on!
December 2nd, 2007 11:14
Steve, I’m glad you found your voice again. We’ve had some major crisis moments here the last few months, and I’ve had time to follow many blogs lately.
You stated:
“If you think that people who don’t attend a Sunday morning meeting are outside of God’s covering and protection, you might be misrepresenting God”
Why is it that we are so ready to add all this frosting to God’s cake? It’s so easy to decorate the cake with morning meetings, evening meetings, prayer meetings, women’s meetings, youth meetings, daybreak-noonbreak-coffeebreak Bible studies…that we never get to taste the cake. But we demand the frosting. And we insist that others eat it, too.
I think God really wants us to sit down with Him to share His cake. What do you think?
December 3rd, 2007 12:49
Steve
I apologize for not being clear. By specks and logs I’m not referring to the weight of any of the points you bring up. What I mean is the log in our own eye as opposed to the speck in our brothers. I’m not disagreeing with your post, and you’ve nothing to defend. I was trying to add what I had hoped was a helpful consideration that any list that you or I might compose to get brothers and sisters in Christ to think about areas where they may be misrepresenting God is more useful if we add an explicit item to the list that forces us to be self critical. Rather than being helpful, it seems I’ve only succeeded at annoying you, and again, I apologize.
December 3rd, 2007 20:35
craig v.,
You are so full of grace. It is easy to love the likes of you!
ded
December 5th, 2007 14:12
WOW! Thanks!
I’ll be linking here shortly and I can’t wait to read more of your stuff. It is SO rewarding to see a brother who “gets” Grace. Frankly, it’s also great to see a BROTHER Blogging! The ladies seem to have a corner on that–I understand the reasons, but all the same it is wonderful to see you here.
As the NIV puts it in Galatians, “It is for freedom that Christ has set [us] free.” As it says in one or the other of the letters to the Corinthians, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom (or liberty, depending on the translation you read)”.
Drop by my place at http://www.aLaymansThoughts.com and read some of the perpsective He has been giving me. There is also an “Audio” page where I have links to MP3 recordings of some of the messages He has allowed me to bring lately.
Grace and Peace, brother!
December 5th, 2007 18:07
Steve,
This is a good post, and I think it’s great to have this kind of a discussion, it makes people think, so please don’t take anything I have to say badly.
In reference to a couple of your previous statements
“What about statements such as “by this time you should all be teachersâ€? It seems that at least some biblical authors envisioned a point where their readers would move past just absorbing teaching and turn around and make disciples themselves. That’s the type of thing I’m talking about.”
Certainly we do learn and grow in Christ, and we should teach others what we have learned, but I don’t see how you would interpret this passage as saying you at some point learn all there is to know and stop growing. It is clearly saying you should eventually reach a point where you are a teacher to others, but it neither says no implies that you cease to need teaching yourself.
For example, My Grandmother teaches a bible study for young married women, and has for a very long time, as well as having been involved in teaching many other groups and events. She certainly qualifies as a teacher, but she still learns, still attends bible studies led by others, she would never consider that she had learned enough.
Secondly
“I have often used the analogy that our current system of church is like expecting someone to attend the 12th grade over and over, year after year, without ever actually graduating.”
I agree that the Church in America has some major issues, but what exactly are you saying we SHOULD be doing? There will always be something new for us to learn from the bible, and from each other. We need the church or some sort of gathering of believers. The bible is quite clear on this issue.
Finally;
“If you think that a relationship with God means that you will accept or reject certain styles of music, certain hairstyles, certain beverages, or hanging out with certain people, you might be misrepresenting God.”
While I certainly agree that people take what your talking about here too far (aka you have to drink certain beverages etc.) I’m not sure that this is
the complete story. For example I don’t think that God is very pleased with explicit lyrics to songs or explicit movies. How could you believe a person who claims to follow Jesus, yet sees nothing wrong with this. Falling into sin is one thing, but if you know and follow Jesus at all, why would you intentionally and willfully listen to something, purely for enjoyment, that you know he must hate?
December 5th, 2007 19:11
If you think that somehow you have an inside track to the mind of some supernatural omnipotent being, and somehow this purported creator is your closest buddy, you might be an obtuse self-absorbed naive dimwit who is misrepresenting the real random reality that is existence. Sorry, but you fail.
December 5th, 2007 20:06
Jaybones,
Sorry but when I look around the “random reality” steps aside and gives way to the orchestrated realty that screams out “there is a creator, an architect to all that surrounds us.” Perhaps if you lay aside any preconceived ideas you too could see this…
The “inside track” track is available to all who seek it.
-marty
December 6th, 2007 06:56
jaybones,
In examining the content of your comment, most folks would appraise what you have written as using insult and put down in a failed attempt at establishing the authority of your voice and adding impact to your message. You have probably experienced and resented as the rest of us, a frustrated teacher resorting to sarcastic verbal attack aimed at a student instead of a reasonable engagement of the student in substantive issues. Your writing sounds something like that. You provide an excellent example for all of us, in how conversation might be sent spirally downward into unproductive exchanges when people view attack as a means of achieving desired goals. In this example there is not only a metaphor for why people accept and pursue war; but more pointedly to this post, your attitude and expression is evidence of why we all need connection to the One you label “supernatural omnipotent being”. It is the renewal we have found in Jesus that enables us to pursue love as the basis for human exchange and is “the inside track” which you would demean. From our position within this “inside track” we are learning among other things that those who still trust anger and pain as life’s basic reality are not to be resented for their sarcasms. It is understandable and cause for compassion. They know not what they do.
December 6th, 2007 08:05
jaybones,
I edited your comment only to remove the bold from the entire comment. I think that your comment will come across a bit better if it doesn’t give the impression you are shouting.
I don’t know if you will come back to read the responses to what you have written, nor do I have any idea what response you might have expected to receive. However, I want you to know that your brutal honesty with your opinion is not being rejected here.
If you are at all sincere in what you wrote, I think that the approach you are taking actually weakens your position. I don’t claim to have any “inside knowledge” that is not freely available to all. I do believe that the Creator of all that we see around us chose to reveal himself to us in the person of Jesus, and that we can have that relationship which you appear to believe to be impossible.
However, I’m not entirely sure how that makes me “obtuse”, “self-absorbed”, “naive”, or a “dimwit”. Care to elaborate or explain your reasoning? Otherwise, it sounds like perhaps you have some “inside knowledge” that you find self-confidence in.
Or maybe we could frame it this way: Using the logic you have demonstrated in your comment, who is more “self-absorbed”? The one who thinks that his life is lived in relationship to someone greater than he? Or the one who thinks that people who disagree with him are “obtuse self-absorbed naive dimwit[s]“? I don’t mean that as insulting to you at all, but rather to point out the fallacy in your approach. We can have reasoned dialogue here, but it would better be served without name-calling.
December 6th, 2007 13:02
Amen
December 7th, 2007 16:32
hey steve, like many others it seems i just stumbled here and like this post. i’ve got a few good friends in boone - beautiful spot! bet you’re enjoying some good snow there as we are. i’ll be having a wee looksie around your site now.
so yea.
that’s about it.
yup.
that is all.
December 8th, 2007 01:57
very nice to read that not all “christians” believe in a theocracy that was developed long after Christ left the earth! if only all christians would read these and take them to heart… sadly, it seems they would probably discount it as blaspheming.
December 8th, 2007 14:12
I never agree on all points of any religion or belief. You really hit on a quite few key points though. Good to see that some people are not asleep.
I liked the post. Stumbled as well. Thank You
G
December 9th, 2007 23:51
This is quite an interesting article.
“If you think that religion and Christianity are compatible, you might be misrepresenting God.â€
When I read this, I see how different our faith is to the other religions of the world. Many see God as some super-ultra-merciless-unforgiving being who is out to kill the “unclean” sinners of the world. But Christianity is different. We are taught to show compassion, not hatred, and, as far as I know, our whole “group” hasn’t considered any scripture “wrong” in any manner.
December 10th, 2007 11:58
“But I don’t think it is a waste of time, or needless burning of cycles to ask the question. Do you really feel that way about it, Scott?”
Asking the question is good. Discussing it is also good. I do think the point can be belabored as it often is on sites like our Pyromaniacal brethren have. We go back and forth on “Miracles: do they happen or not.” I think I get frustrated because it often seems like devoting oursleves “to myths and endless genealogies” and promoting controversies. Again I’m not saying that you’re doing that here. We can discuss it as long as neither of us loses sight of what the gospel is all about.
“why are we brushing them aside and saying they don’t have relevance for today?”
Who’s doing that? I think that the majority of cessationists I know aren’t saying that they don’t have relelvance. They’re saying that the need for the miraculous has passed. Has it? Now that’s a point worthy of debating.
“Do we have the right to alter the Gospel message and make it less than what Jesus proclaimed?”
Again who’s altering the gospel message? Is the gospel message that God will heal the sick?
I’ll see if I can’t flesh this out a bit more on my blog.
December 10th, 2007 13:38
Scott,
Good to hear from you, bro. I haven’t been ignoring your email, but just haven’t had a chance to respond yet.
They’re saying that the need for the miraculous has passed. Has it? Now that’s a point worthy of debating.
Well, maybe we’re misunderstanding each other here, but that is actually the point I was trying to debate!
But more specifically, the question is not whether the need has passed, but rather whether or not they are actually part of the message itself.
Again who’s altering the gospel message? Is the gospel message that God will heal the sick?
That’s the question I’m posing. I’m not saying that anyone is altering the message for sure, but I’m asking. Jesus quoted Isaiah 61:1 in Luke 4:18 by saying:
Here, he only mentions sight to the blind, and therefore one could possibly gather that he meant spiritual blindness only. However, he does a huge amount of miracles, healing all kinds of sicknesses and diseases, tells his disciples that they will also do these things and greater things, etc. Furthermore, Matthew equates Jesus’ physical healings with Isaiah’s prophecy about Jesus bearing our griefs and carrying our sorrows. So, based on this evidence, is it part of the gospel message?
I gotta run right now, but I’ll try to take it up more later, or respond at your place.
December 13th, 2007 09:05
Good stuff
December 13th, 2007 10:31
Um, yeah, I just stumbled on this completely heretical list!
No, not really, that’s pretty outstanding! Kudos!
December 13th, 2007 16:26
Well done! I remember Moses striking the rock twice and losing his patience with the people. I think he misrepresented God, because God does not lose His patience with us. We should extend to everyone the same grace that has been extended to us. May we leave religion behind and follow Christ. Great post, very deserving to be found on stumbleupon. I give you a SU thumbs up!
December 14th, 2007 22:50
I like the post, and am generally amused by the claim “If you believe that Christianity is best represented by a set of propositional statements and/or a systematic theology, you might be misrepresenting God.”, which itself is a propositonal statement. It leads to quite a fun catch-22. Ah well, my goddess likes paradoxes, and your god certainly seems to, too. Hail Eris!
December 15th, 2007 09:51
Interesting post.
I am glad you say “might” be misrepresenting God as it is best not to be too dogmatic.
But who among us does not misrepresent God? Only one: our Lord Jesus Christ who is the “exact imprint of his nature” (Hebrews 1).
We see in a glass dimly - but someday face to face!
God bless
December 15th, 2007 13:45
What a great post! Thanks for sharing.
As some have expressed, I would caution a bit about not everybody needing a church (whether we’d like to call it institutionalized or not) and/or a pastor.
In one comment, you were referring to Eph 4 and that is totally right on. But the passage goes on to say “…till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God…”
So a gathering with pastor(s), teacher(s), prophet(s), etc is necessary until we come to that point. And here Paul is referring to the entire body of Christ. Therefore even if I as an individual grow to a certain point, the objective is still not met until the church (body of Christ) is at that point. So then even if I’m already “there”, I still need to in the gathering with pastors, etc. The purposes within that gathering may be different, but we need such gathering.
If not scripturally, but at least culturally in the West, most of us refer to this gathering as a “church.” so you may want to be sensitive to that fact when you use the word church (if I’m making any sense).
God bless,
Tak
December 17th, 2007 00:13
I liked the list, BUT I really enjoyed the response to jaybones!
I spent most of my life since age 15 (I’m now 36 years) searching- trying to figure out how to be saved, how to say the right prayer. Dear God, please forgive me for my sins and live in my heart. Oh, wait. Is it, forgive my sins and I accept you as the Savior? Or is it…..
It seems as though I was always trying to GET somewhere, or DO something or SAY the right thing. Those that had opportunities to guide me used a lot of ‘godtalk’ and larger than life witnessing that frankly, alienated me and pushed me further away from having a comfortable, enjoyable, and much needed faith. or faith filled life. or peaceful.
Based on experiences of my youth and early adult life, here are a few of the sarcastic style questions I would like to put to a few of the retreat leaders, youth leaders, etc. that have the privilege of speaking to groups and individuals about their faith and/or decided that their voice was important enough to be heard….or that I should be informed. (funny how people just know what you should be doing differently and it usually means doing it more like themselves)
I don’t know how to put this eloquently, so here goes.
People often mention, “God tells me” or maybe “It was then that God pointed me to the answer” or “the Lord God has spoken”. And it seems like the real wackos use about 3 or more terms to describe God. My aunt always begins a prayer: Lord Father God, and so on. Ok, that is not making anyone comfortable. She doesn’t need to change her prayer style of course, but if she wants to reach those in the room, she may want to tone it down a little. If she is not interested in connecting with the crowd, but only in the message of prayer at the moment…then I suppose it’s fine to begin that way. It’s just not the best approach for some crowds (if you are trying to connect).
Back to my original point-
1 Who hears God’s voice? And if it’s not God’s actual voice, then you may want to elaborate on that when you are witnessing or telling people how to connect with God. I think, wow, that’s great if you get to hear God’s voice and can personally take direction from the Lord. But for those of us who have trouble saying the word Christ outloud…..that only serves as further proof that we must be way off in our faith.
2 Does one have to experience a life threatening experience, extreme loss, or something way out there to feel God’s love? Or to receive God’s grace? I know my answer- but it’s taken me years to get past the horror stories I’ve heard from others. I attended several retreats when I was in my early twenties. I spent much of the time lost and lonely because I wasn’t experiencing God the way they were teaching it.
3 Why does it seem like the smalltown know it all evangelists (that’s my term for the once cocaine snorting, girl lovin’, bar hoppin’ wild uncle that’s now reborn, found the Lord and consequently, is now entitled to give everyone a rundown on their sins and projected chance of getting “in” to Heaven) have the answers to everything while the more I read the Bible, the more I reflect, pray, and spend time with peace-filled, loving, selfless people the more I understand that there is so much we don’t know.
Why is it these s.t.e.’s often lack the humility and dying to one’s self that it is almost impossible to recognize the light of Christ in them. Oh look, I can type it!
I just realized that it’s late, I don’t know the list or group of which I’m responding to, I don’t remember much of what I wrote, and I’m fairly certain it is below the level of discussion you all have.
The post must’ve struck a nerve- meaning I agree with your ideas and I’ve had such experiences that I felt the need to add my 120 cents to it.
I could’ve started my own blog by now.
The Not Really Bitter, but still not willing to let go of the annoying “Have you found God?” recruitment tactic Blog.
December 17th, 2007 13:23
This is an excellent list. Thanks for compiling and posting it. I know that I have struggled with different items listed at various points in my life and probably still today!
December 18th, 2007 18:55
Steve,
I LOVE it. You seem to have captured what so many are feeling these days.
December 27th, 2007 12:23
I stumbled across your site and found this to be an excellent list that is thought provoking and so very true.
January 4th, 2008 21:12
I Like it ! … thanks.
January 26th, 2008 21:46
Awesome post,stumbled to your stumble post,which brought me here,you put into type,exactly the way I feel. I thank you for that
June 27th, 2008 19:17
Interesting musings but no biblical defense. His ways re higher than ours. I agree with most of it but the Word is the issue
August 25th, 2008 14:01
If you stick to this list and the majority of the things on it you might be misrepresenting God. I think anyone who takes scripture from the Bible and tries to explain it away is misrepresenting God. You need to be careful because you are coming dangerously close here and we will all be held accountable for everything we’ve said while we are here, especially on behalf of God.
As for miracles being for those in the Bible and not us in our day, I’ve been a part of and seen too many to think that could be true, glad to see you feel the same way, or at least that’s the way I’m reading what you wrote…
August 25th, 2008 20:53
Overall a nice post but I have one small disagreement.
If you think that the Republican party is “God’s party, you might be misrepresenting God.
If there ever was a party that represented God it would be the Republican party. They are the party that pushes forward the most Christian platform in America. The Dems are giddy pro-abortionists that love to tax the successful and push a socialist platform. Doesn’t sound very Godly to me.
August 26th, 2008 23:41
To those who have taken issue with one or more of the points in this excellent list, I would like to submit one more:
If you have pursued God–not just said a cordial good morning on Sunday or good evening on Wednesday night, but have really sought hard after Him when it hurts–if you have endured the darkness of lonely nights and moments of unexplained silence in your pursuit of this dangerous God–if you have cried after God with your whole heart and pursued God with a passion–if after all of that, you can so easily take offense when someone dares to point out that God just might not fit into your box–I would like to humbly suggest that you might not just be misrepresenting God, you may be misunderstanding your own pursuit of Him.
The longer I seek Him, the greater He illumines my own deep need of Him–and my sin shouts so loudly I cannot hear yours.
September 3rd, 2008 01:14
Good day!
It is very informative and has a very good quality in it.
I like it…
http://www.Squidoo.com/MPI
mliragana.blogspot.com
Thank you very much for your time.
September 4th, 2008 09:18
Great list! Have enjoyed reading several of the articles- Keep at it. Have bookmarked this and will link it to my blog for others to read and think over.
Especially liked…
# If you think that our main responsibility in relationship to God is to study the Bible, you might be misrepresenting God.
I love and believe my Bible, but I like Jesus’ words- Blessed are you if you do them.
John Johnson
http://www.pluslife.wordpress.com
September 9th, 2008 15:46
Overall I think you do a nice job on this list which was no doubt inspired by comedian Jeff Foxworthy’s famous “You Might be a Redneck If…” routine. I would have been more careful singling out a political ideology and left it simply at “If you think your political affiliation is the one Jesus would belong to you’re misrepresenting God”. There are good servants of the Lord that come from all political stripes– Democrat, Republican, Independents, and my own personal small “l” libertarian point of view. I have voted for Democrats (with the qualifier that they MUST be pro-Life– any other view is most certainly incompatible with God’s own love of each life he’s created and lent his divine spark to), Republicans, Independents, and Libertarians.
Picking on Republicans- which as a lifelong professional direct marketing copywriter I am fairly certain was no accident- only serves to contradict the entire point of this otherwise outstanding thread. Something I’m sure was not deliberate but which will certainly result from this is that it will discredit you as politically biased, and potentially marginalize your entire blog.
Doctrine is a tough enough topic to tackle without the transparent injection of your personal political bias.
Just “keeping it real” (and writing as a fan) :P)
September 10th, 2008 09:42
Paul, I appreciate your comment, and your point has a lot of validity.
The only reason I specifically mentioned the Republican party is because I have not heard people make the claims about any other party that I have heard made about the Republican party.
Having said that, though, your point stands and it should have been phrased more neutrally.
Thanks for the input.
November 4th, 2008 13:45
This post may have been useful 20 years ago.
But the modern church has is far from being legally bound by the moral law.
Too much freedom is just as fatal as too much law.
Having seen both sides, this comes across a bit to liberal, emergent wishy washy.
Seek hard after righteousness
April 17th, 2009 10:00
Glad you said “might” each time. Most of your statements are spot on as the British say. God Bless you.