South Africa is a very Christian country. You see it everywhere. Like every “good South African”, I also grew up Christian. Whatever that means.
The typical impression of Christianity that most outsiders seem to have, is that Christianity is obsessed with the afterlife and the supernatural, and rejects science. I suspect this is especially the case in “first world” countries lacking the context in which Christianity is particularly valuable. In such cases, it seems the issue of “supernatural miracles” often becomes the main litmus test to separate “Christian” from “non-Christian”.
I grew up with a love of science, and a knowledge of evolution, despite it not being taught in schools. I didn’t even realise most South Africans didn’t know about evolution. I’m still not sure how common such knowledge is. My circle of friends isn’t representative of the average South African. One group of my friends saw the problems with modern Christianity and have rejected it long ago, another group are literalists. To both groups I’m rather weird, I bet.
Many turn their backs on Christianity when they see how broken it has become. For reasons probably related to my personality, my past, my friends and my family, I did not want to just turn my back. I wanted to build some bridges. I more gradually deconstructed and reconfigured my meme complex. This endeavour took quite a lot of time, but has led me to discover a “good Christianity”. This is what I’d like to share, but it will take time.
I often start believing, very naively, that this “good Christianity” is much more common than I ever thought. Hopefully this is largely true in denominations with well trained ministers/pastors/preachers. The majority of theologians are surely very aware of the good in Christianity? Maybe I was just slow to realise how common such knowledge is. Maybe I had merely blinded myself to the good by focusing more on the problematic elements. This happens really easily in Europe (I lived in The Netherlands since I was 8 until I was 13), where one notices cultural differences much more than cultural similarities. Christians do the same, they focus on the differences, rather than the similarities. They are often unaware of the context in which Christianity originated, so they do not know how to translate it to our contemporary context.
By only really being exposed to the “good guys” (reading and meeting), it becomes too easy to forget what is really out there. If I ever forget what a bad state most of Christianity is in, I need only interview most of the “Christian” societies registered at the University to find out what the emphasis of their ministry is. I need only turn on RSG (an Afrikaans radio station) at particular times of the week to remind me. Every now and then there is a good guy on the air, but usually, all too often, you get to see what a poor excuse for compassion and caring and making a difference Christianity has become. Also, even among the good guys, the bad parts of what Christianity has become has an incredible impact. I’m probably just much better at turning a blind eye to the bad these days. Other people see more clearly? (Don’t worry, I have not forgotten my past. I will eventually write some more about that.)
The very relevant thing is this: the bad parts make a very big impact, especially on members of congregations. Give people stuff that is for the “greater good” as well as stuff that’s “for the individual”, and they latch onto the “individual” stuff. Even if the preacher has solid theological training and knows what it is all about, communicating the good stuff to a congregation with set views, is much harder than you think. The typical individual only wants to hear that they are okay. As long as they get to go to heaven, all is right with the world…
Afterlife obsession.
Our obsession with the afterlife probably stems from institutionalised, money-driven Christianity, where that kind of threat and concern was extremely potent in controlling and milking the masses. This is not the original Christianity. Jesus was not obsessed with the afterlife. Of course, many people know all kinds of Bible passages that supposedly refute this statement. The typical “Bible-knowing” Christian is extremely well trained in quote-mining. (This possibly includes me? 
) I bet the Discovery Institute can quote-mine in their sleep. It is not a challenge, it is not a skill, it is a reflex. (See Cectic on quote-mining.)
Anyway, the point is, the perspective and the worldview with which you approach the Bible has a huge impact on what you read there. With a particular institutionalised perspective of what Christianity is supposedly about, you end up seeing what you want to see. (The same probably applies to me?) Take Mark 10:17 (NIV):
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
Most people immediately assume he is talking about the afterlife. That is our modern understanding of the concept of “eternal life”. However, this was written nearly two thousand years ago. To understand an old question, you need to understand the culture in which it was asked. Real Live Preacher translated this question to the following:
“Good teacher, what must I do to find favor with God and to receive the joyous, timeless kind of life that comes with that favor?”
Or how about John 3:3 NIV:
In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”
With an afterlife-centred perspective, you’d interpret this to mean “enter and see heaven after I die”. With a “your kingdom come, on earth, as it is in heaven” interpretation, this verse becomes about recognising and bringing about the good in this world. Being “born again” becomes about accepting a paradigm shift in your mind, being willing to see things in new ways, being eager to learn new things…
80 responses so far ↓
1 Linda // Feb 10, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Hugo,
Yes… me too. It looks like you’ve calmed down from what was going on with you a few months ago. I, too, want to build bridges. I’m finding, though, the “meme” you speak of is something that is so deeply imbedded in the minds of both the Christians and non that I’m losing faith in the possiblity of a bridge. (I’ve been reading about memes BTW after reading your posts.)
I’m starting to wonder if I’m the one who’s confused and got it all wrong. I have limited skills to communicate my thoughts, and it’s frustrating as hell…
I’ve been attempting to explain my thoughts on Friendly Atheist to an atheist, and I’m afraid I’m failing miserably again. (start reading about half way down in the comments section)
I’m interested in what you have to say and wonder if your “good Christianity” is similar to mine. Please continue with these posts…
2 Hugo // Feb 10, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Will do… there’s much in the pipeline. The pipeline just seems terribly long.
Quite… I need a cool, calm and collected composure for the journey I’m embarking on. Something I’ve been talking about, all talk and very little action so far. Before the end of the week the ball will start rolling again though. Share links installed in preparation.
Part of my journey involved what I’d call a “religious experience” in some circles, while explaining to others that it has a reductionistic psychological explanation. That is not important, what’s important is the insights it gave me into the human psyche, the “finding of my God”, if you will. Insights, or perspectives rather, that I’d gradually share over a long time, possibly some of it in the form of some fiction. We’ll see. I’d like to write some fiction again.
You are not. What are you reading, btw? Have you looked into Brian McLaren’s or Rob Bell’s books? Have you looked at http://deepshift.org/site/ ? I have some other books I could maybe recommend as well, if that’s what you’re looking for. Earlier this week I became acquainted with Ron Martoia. (Face-to-face.) His recent book, “Static”, was experienced by someone in my “church” as the clearest book on this paradigm shift, clearer than McLaren’s “Secret Message”. (The other possibility is that McLaren planted the first seeds, and Martoia’s book just helped the plant grow, so it is hard to identify which book is most successful.) Martoia’s site: http://www.velocityculture.com/
Having done enough battling with atheists here, I am slowly coming to the realisation that actions and demonstrations speak stronger than debates. Debates can just waste time. So that’s the direction I’d like to take this. Demonstrate the paradigm shift and its value.
Tuesday morning: thesis defence.
Wednesday morning: deliver on a contract job.
From then: more contract work, thesis corrections, job search and travel plan finalising (should be visiting Rio, LA, SanFran, Vancouver and London if all goes according to plan, starting with Easter weekend). But enough time in between to get some book reviews out (or overviews, rather), so that I can start sharing a couple of bits out of the books, and refer to them when I investigate the good and bad of Christianity.
Enough procrastinating by saying what I intend to do, time to get to it. Later!
3 Hugo // Feb 10, 2008 at 4:22 pm
The other person I’d love to chat with about her perspectives, would be lostgirlfound at de-conversion.com
http://de-conversion.com/category/lostgirlfound/
I’m sure there’s many more, but on the other hand, I should probably get more involved with locals. Your best sphere of influence would be among the people in your vicinity. Electronic communication can only take you so far.
4 Al Lovejoy // Feb 11, 2008 at 1:02 am
“In the cities and empires of the Axial Age [(700-200 BCE], citizens were acquiring a wider perspective and broader horizons, which made the local cults seem limited and parochial. Instead of seeing the divine as embodied in a number of deities, people increasingly began to worship a single, universal transcendence and a source of sacredness. They had more leisure and were thus able to develop a richer interior life; accordingly, they came to desire a spirituality which did not depend entirely upon external forms. The most sensitive were troubled by the social injustice that seemed built into this agrarian society, depending as it did on the labour of peasants who never had the chance to benefit from the high culture. Consequently, prophets and reformers arose who insisted that the virtue of compassion was crucial to the spiritual life: an ability to see the sacredness of every human being, and a willingness to take practical care of the more vulnerable members of society became the test of authentic piety…”
(The Battle for God, Karen Armstrong: ISBN 0-00-638348-3, pp xii)
James 1:26 “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: To visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world…”
Here is more on Shofar and proof that this does not truly matter to the leadership in the slightest – instead they are motivated by nothing more than greed and a lust for power, established by their willingness to lie and slander anybody who questions them on issues like taking money from single mothers and orphaned learners – those exact vulnerable members of society, which they should be protecting and serving in the manner of Christ. In terms of the Biblical world-view, an orphan is any fatherless child. Any fatherless child.
http://www.acidalex.com/fan_base/shofar3.html
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2361749801
We are in the process of organising a public protest in the form of a public prayer meeting on 01 Mar 2008 at 15h00. We will be praying that single mothers and learners are released from financial bondages to Shofar, the IFCC and Rhema.
We contend that Jesus Christ would rather bless those who spend money on those children growing up as “orphans” without fathers – rather than the leadership of Shofar’s lavish lifestyles.
We contend the same thing about the money set aside for young people’s educations.
Contact me on say_goeters@yahoo.co.uk for details and the venue.
5 Hugo // Feb 11, 2008 at 9:08 am
The Battle for God: I had that book in my hand the other day, thinking “ooh, I have to buy this”…
6 gerhard // Feb 11, 2008 at 2:05 pm
sorry , i dont understand this statement..
broken compared to what time exactly?
7 Al Lovejoy // Feb 11, 2008 at 3:22 pm
From where I am standing, the church has the mind of Christ – considering the mega-Christian bookshops groaning under the weight of self-help manuals with a Christian flavour, and all the mega-Christian rock bands, and the Christian super-spiritual superstars, prancing around on TBN / IFCC sound and TV stages. Definitely the mind of Christ…
But the church, barring belaboured lone individuals, has lost the heart of Christ – a long, long time ago. Read Matthew chapter 18 in context of 1 in 5 children being orphans in sub-Saharan Africa…
And this is being compared to the original model Moses established and more importantly the ACTS of Pentecost (The church is fixated only on the gifts of the Spirit during that time in early church history), where the poor, oprhaned and dispossessed were a very integral part of the church and its ACTS of daily worship in feeding and caring for them personally – something the single-serving, take away, instant Christianity currently being served up to the self-serving, self-adoring, country club, media friendly Christian charismatic church – is patently uninterested in.
As long as my ticket to heaven is booked and I toss some money the pastor’s way – I can sit back, look down my nose and consider myself real special and above everyone else….
This is probably why you don’t understand that it makes people hate Christ – not for Who He is – but for His semi-educated, compassionless, lousy representatives and their endless quest for health, WEALTH and eternal happiness – all on their own terms.
Don’t blame Christ – He is not like that!
8 Johan Swarts // Feb 11, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Damn, ek geniet jou blog nog steeds netsoveel soos altyd.
Die afterlife obsession is verseker ‘n baie sterk meme in Afrikaners se psiges. Vrees gaan telkens hand aan hand daarmee, dink ek.
9 Al Lovejoy // Feb 12, 2008 at 9:18 am
Fascinating that Johan, because in a literary analysis of the Words of Christ in the New Testament – the single phrase He repeated most often is: Fear Not.
Question is: Where did the church miss the plot? And consider this in light of the fact that the entire evangelical movement bases its theology on scary, theoretical, eschatological events, something which Christ Himself says no man could ever know the secrets to, but these so-called “evangelists” preach these theories (at best) as pure fact. And only in two single serving, take away flavours: Frankenstein evangelism and Father Xmas evangelism. With every eye closed and every head bowed – God is either gonna donner you or bribe you into the kingdom. Make your choice and put up your hand. Like I said: Where did the church lose the plot???
Final question: Is fear of the afterlife an effective motivator to true piety?
10 Al Lovejoy // Feb 12, 2008 at 9:19 am
The Willie Lynch Letter:
GENTLEMAN:
I greet you here on the bank of the James River in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and twelve. First I shall thank you, the Gentlemen of the Colony of Virginia, for bringing me here. I am here to help you solve some of your problems with slaves. Your invitation reached me on my modest plantation in the West Indies where I have experimented with some of the newest and still the oldest methods for control of slaves. Ancient Rome would envy us if my program is implemented. As our boat sailed south on the James River, named for our illustrious King James, whose bible we cherish, I saw enough to know that your program is not unique. While Rome used cords of wood as crosses for standing human bodies along the old highways in great numbers, you are here using the tree and the rope on occasion.
I caught the whiff of a dead slave hanging from a tree a couple of miles back. You are not only losing valuable stock by hangings, you are having uprisings, slaves are running away, your crops are sometimes left in the fields too long for maximum profit, you suffer occasional fires, your animals are killed, gentlemen…you know what your problems are; I do not need to elaborate. I am not here to enumerate your problems, I am here to introduce you to a method of solving them.
In my bag here, I have a fool-proof method for controlling your black slaves. I guarantee everyone of you that if installed correctly it will control the slaves for at least 300 years. My method is simple, any member of your family or any overseer can use it.
I have outlined a number of differences among the slaves, and I take these differences and make them bigger. I use fear, distrust, and envy for control purposes. These methods have worked on my modest plantation in the West Indies, and it will work throughout the South. Take this simple little test of differences and think about them. On the top of my list is “Age”, but it is there because it only starts with an “A”; the second is “Colour” or shade; there is intelligence, size, sex, size of plantations, attitude of owners, whether the slaves live in the valley, on a hill, East, West, North, South, have fine or coarse hair, or is tall or short. Now that you have a list of differences, I shall give you an outline of action–but before that, I shall assure you that distrust is stronger than trust, and envy is stronger than adulation, respect, or admiration.
The Black Slave, after receiving this indoctrination, shall carry on and will become self refuelling and self generating for hundreds of years, maybe thousands.
Don’t forget, you must pitch the old Black vs. the young Black male, and the young Black male against the old Black male. You must use the dark skinned slaves vs. the light skinned slaves, and the light skinned slaves vs. the dark skinned slaves. You must use the female vs. the male, and the male vs. the female. You must also have your servants and overseers distrust all Blacks, but it is necessary that your slaves trust and depend on us. They must love, respect, and trust only us.
Gentlemen, these kits are your keys to control, use them. Have your wives and children use them. Never miss opportunity. My plan is guaranteed, and the good thing about this plan is that if used intensely for one year, the slaves themselves will remain perpetually distrustful…
11 gerhard // Feb 12, 2008 at 11:29 am
al : Where did the church lose the plot???
i still must ask my question , when did they have the plot? surely not during or after romanization? i just can’t think of a time period where there was a plot to begin with. i would seem to me that when it isnt busy waving a sword its busy distracting its members with argumentation about and threat from meaningless details.
12 Hugo // Feb 12, 2008 at 11:36 am
gerhard, where do you get your knowledge of Church/Christianity’s history?
13 gerhard // Feb 12, 2008 at 12:25 pm
hugo, apparently the same place as you because you are avoiding giving me some sort of answer.
i just want a rough time period ? are we talking bc? we talking 500ad ? we talking 1500s ? we talking about 1950s? just give me an idea of when this orginized religion had the ‘plot’ …
its very confusing ..
14 Hugo // Feb 12, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I don’t know very much about church history. I don’t trust Hollywood’s rendition of most of it. I’m looking forward to getting a good book or two on the subject. Amongst others, I’m keen for Karen Armstrong’s “The Battle for God”, though I don’t know how much history that contains. I just had it in my hands the other day.
In terms of who has/had the plot: a whole bunch of churches these days do have the plot. Even if they’re not perfect, just like you are not perfect. The early Christian church also had the plot. (Think, um, before 500AD, maybe?) For the rest, I don’t make sweeping statements because of my lack of knowledge.
And here’s the thing: people mean well. Colonialist Christianity did make big mistakes, but they intended well. As I’m sure you intend well. But you know what they say about hindsight. I really don’t think it fair to judge history from outside the context of history.
On what “good Christianity” is: we’ll get to that. There’s some material on the matter in various places already. The problem: how many blog posts per day would be sensible? And how to prioritise stuff? I’m not prioritising according to your needs, unfortunately. (Um, “needs”… I hope you know what I mean.) Can I ask you to be patient on that one?
The thesis defence is done, my contract job now needs attention.
15 gerhard // Feb 12, 2008 at 1:41 pm
well, this is the problem. Who’s context of history?
i wonder if pagans would have such a high opinion of early christanity , esp during romanization of christainity. christains flayed flesh the flesh from the bones of those. i’m sure they intended well, but that still doesnt make it less evil.
hell, i’m sure in hitler’s mind that he intended well and i’m sure bush has the best of intentions and while some of his actions may be good but doesnt make his actions moral, justified or live according to. (nor defend nor glorify)
you do understand that the bible is _the_ historical record for jesus and co, right? This historical record is supposed to be read selectively? (basically just to ignore the stuff that goes against contemporary thinking..)
may i advise you to read about the history of cultures effected by christanity instead? like celts, germanic tribes? i think there are some great docu’s that i can recommend.
ehm… sorry the more i think about this the more questions and alerts come up.
16 Hugo // Feb 12, 2008 at 1:54 pm
When doing history, historical records are read with the historical method in mind. Some people argue or point out that historical reconstructions are misguided. Whatever. I learned much by reading about the “historical Jesus”. Quite inspiring. Stuff I’ll eventually share… hopefully.
17 Al Lovejoy // Feb 12, 2008 at 3:20 pm
That weird journey from being armed with a knotted rope and chowed by lions – fed on a solid diet of mean and lettuce for weeks in the jolly old Circus Maximus – to the torture chamber of possibly one of the most evil men on earth to have ever claimed to be a man of the cloth – Tomas ‘d Torquemada. I maintain there is not much to learn there, except how human history repeats itself in extremes.
The Divine has no history because it is the source of life from whence the events that we perceive to be history eventually spring. Hence there is only true knowledge in Christ and Christ alone, and until any person has fully put Christ’s teachings and promises to the test – they will have no right to dismiss Him.
Those claiming to be His adherents and running around in sparkly gold fish bowl organisations – are a different kettle of fish…
18 Al Lovejoy // Feb 12, 2008 at 3:43 pm
C’mon – what is the point of Christianity if not to share in Christ’s compassion? Especially to lost children? Without them there is no real future church.
Christ did not come to take away the fear of death – He came to teach us how to live with it, but more than that – He came to teach us how to measure LIFE.
You take any man, from any religion, who narrowly escapes death – unless he is a fool or truly suicidal – he walks away from it breathing in the preciousness and pricelessness of every person and every single moment.
That is a man who has awoken to the laws of God written in his heart. Unless you are converted and become as little children…
19 Hugo // Feb 12, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Al, you are great with words. Thanks for your presence here.
/me tips his hat at Al.
(Though I struggle to understand your last sentence right now. Matters not. Or otherwise I understand your last sentence but misunderstand your second-last. ponder… No need to spoil it with reductionistic explanations though, I like things just a little mysterious.
)
20 Al Lovejoy // Feb 12, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Rom 2:15, Matt 18:3
21 Al Lovejoy // Feb 13, 2008 at 3:07 pm
The real issue behind this entire topic, is the cornerstone of Christianity – the resurrection, because if He didn’t walk out of that grave that Sunday morning – then heaven, hell, purgatory, paradise – choose the transcendental reality of your own flavour – doesn’t exist. And neither does life after death.
I’ve mentioned it to you before Hugo, and showed the kind of exegesis I apply when I spoke about intractible paediatric epilepsy. Without the resurrection of the historical Christ, then Christianity is merely a good idea gone wrong.
So how about it: Do you believe in the resurrection?
22 Hugo // Feb 13, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Hehe. Kinda surprising how long this blog survived without that question being asked so directly? I will try to answer as best I can right now:
I’m pretty much in the Marcus Borg school of thought: I don’t care much for debates about the event of the resurrection. Did it happen, did it not happen… so busy with the debate, that we miss the point. We miss the meaning of the text. I care way more about the meaning than I do about the details. When it comes to historical texts, I can only really say: “Well, I don’t really know. How can I? It falls under meh“.
One thing I do feel strongly about: Christian doctrine calls us (if I may include me, I may do so in my church, anyway) the body of Christ. We are his hands and feet. We live, the body of Christ lives, a resurrection. Jesus lives in each of us.
That is good enough for me… How does that sound to you? Vague enough to be condemned to hell by at least some of my friends and family.
23 Al Lovejoy // Feb 13, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Let’s hear a few other fascinating minds on this, oh so very fascinating topic – first.
And boys and girls, while the Bible is a source of spiritual truths for me, we can beforehand establish that even if you go by one or all of the epithets – atheist, non-theist or rooster worshipper, you are capable of applying reasons from it for the existence or non-existence of Christ’s resurrection – by simply applying a small thing called literary analysis. What we used to call English Comprehension in school. Us theologians call it exegesis. I read it, I understood it and this is what I think (Not some other oke in a book, what You think)…the same applies to those of you who are Christians. Apologetics 101.
Then I’ll chip in my penny.
24 Hugo // Feb 13, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Cool! What perspectives do you want? All my regular readers? Which side of the “fence”? (I’ll email people who I think might like to contribute something interesting.)
Of course, my sentiment stands: let’s not turn this into a tired and silly old debate, let’s make this a case of “Check out all those diverse opinions! Interesting… interesting…”
It reminds me of a Bible story, Matthew 22:15-22, where the Pharisees and the Herodians came to ask him a question. Together. Now the Pharisees and the Herodians aren’t friends, to put things mildly. So why did they go together? To trap Jesus. If he answered “no”, the Herodians will prosecute him. If he answered “yes”, the Pharisees would do so. Simple yes/no questions aren’t always simple yes/no questions. Often the “yes or no?” question is a false dichotomy that over-simplifies matters. Simple boxes. Think outside the box… Jesus answered expertly, and sent them on their way. (I heard a sermon on this topic. While I cannot necessarily remember what the main message was, this here summarises what I remember, what I took from the sermon.)
So that’s one place I draw inspiration. This blog is read, amongst others, by fundamentalists of two kinds: atheistic, and theistic. I’m not answering directly. And I’d like to know whether that matters.
25 Hugo // Feb 13, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Doh. I have one particular “thinking too much” Christian friend, who relatively recently converted from agnosticism to Christianity, whose take on the matter I’m particularly interested in. However, he is preparing his PhD defence for next week, so he won’t be stopping by. Good focus that. Kudos.
The other people I can think of, are likely “post-Christian”, or Shofarian. Or atheists… Relatively predictable answers.
I’ll try to write a post on “Jesus died for our sins” tomorrow or later this week. (It’s been in the pipeline for a while.) Methinks I should go to the extra effort of reading the relevant chapter of my Borg book in depth, to provide a better researched post. It’s probably time I get my views on the “crux” of Christianity published.
26 Al Lovejoy // Feb 13, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Everyone has an opinion and although everyone is also entitled to mine…hahaha, it would be very interesting to hear personal opinions (not second hand or quotes) on the topic of the resurrection and be subjected to some other fine thinker’s intellectual stretch.
27 Hugo // Feb 13, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Please note that I did not give a second hand quote. I merely gave credit to Borg (and neglected Crossan) for opting to focus on meaning rather than factual details. I only took a good look at the chapter about an hour ago, because this conversation (and one I’m having in email) renewed my interest.
I say again, my opinions do not reflect Borg’s opinions, I merely agree there that arguing about the detail is not that important to me. I’d be much more interested in discussing that (whether factuality is important) than I am interested in discussing the factuality of the literal bodily resurrection.
(Atheists: this is a discussion I’m interested in having with Christians. I am quite familiar with the broad cross-section of your views already.)
28 Linda // Feb 13, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Cool! I’m in. As long as the discussion doesn’t get so elevated in tone that I have no idea what you’re talking about… I do have some thoughts about resurrection. I’ll try to write something up.
29 Ben // Feb 13, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Okay lets’s ‘ave a crack.
Josh McDowell (Not to be facetious by quoting, AL, but in an attempt to not claim this view as my own) points out an interesting logic. If the resurrection did not in fact take place (in which ever way) why on earth would men (the disciples) who chickened out so readily at Jesus’ arrestation all profess His resurrection in such a adamant way to earn prosecution to such an extent that they (as general History seems to show us) ended up dying in exactly the same way as He did?
Any thoughts?
30 Hugo // Feb 13, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Too easy to answer: Jesus introduced them to a way of breaking free from an oppressive penal-transactional religion, provided them with a new exodus story. (He showed them the Kingdom of Heaven.) Once you have a taste of that, anything that came before will have no hold on you.
So put it this way: if I were prepared to die a martyr’s death, citing Jesus’ way as my salvation, would that answer your (and Josh’s) question?
Anyone interested in me finding some book recommendations describing why the early Christians were hated so much? You can also check this out if you like:
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2007/11/09/breaking-news-early-christians-were-impious-atheists/
Now I’m not saying I’m right, I’m just providing a potential answer here… I really don’t find Josh particularly convincing. He has some good bits, sure, but he also has some really ridiculous sounding stuff.
31 Hugo // Feb 13, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Oh, and note: we have multiple Ben’s here now. Be warned. Or identify more clearly. (And you can leave the “website” field blank if you want.)
32 Hugo // Feb 13, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Sorry, I didn’t answer this detail: “chickened out so readily at Jesus’ arrestation”… arguing that some event after his crucifixion made them change their minds. Many things could have transpired. They could have realised what he meant by them having the Kingdom in them (“The Kingdom is within you…” ), they could have come to understand that they have to take responsibility for their actions. God wasn’t about to simply hand them a perfect Kingdom to live in. Behold, the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, reach out and grab it!
Understand what I mean?
33 Bennaluuks // Feb 13, 2008 at 10:35 pm
To be honest I haven’t really taken the time to read him! Okay granted, maybe it’s possible that the teachings of Jesus might have taken some time to sink in, to produce such radical liberation, but it does still seem probable to me that if the said they saw Him alive, and they died for His cause, they were probably quite honest. Maybe Im naive?
34 Bennaluuks // Feb 13, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Kingdom at hand comment:
Do you mean they scattered so they could go plant the kingdom? It seems to me like they scattered because they were scared, not strategic…
Am I misunderstanding you?
35 Bennaluuks // Feb 13, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Ignore that previous “Kingdom at hand” comment
What Im saying is that the most feasible explanation for their sudden courage is the word of their testimony: They saw Him alive! the tomb was empty! All the Romans were freaking out, and the Jews were blaming them for something they hadn’t done! Seems logically economic if not plain obvious?
We can’t know for sure ‘ey?
36 Hugo // Feb 13, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Hi Bennaluuks…
are you from Europe?
Naah. We are all naive… in some way or another. The point is this: “it does still seem probable to me”… sure, but that isn’t particularly convincing. “Probable”. To the scientifically minded, it still seems “extremely improbable”. And pretty much all of the “modernistic” apologetics I’ve come across are unconvincing to any skeptic. Which is why I’m more interested in asking why the factual details are so incredibly important.
Um… Will I go to hell if I say “I don’t know, I don’t actually think the factuality matters that much”?
I will share more Crossan/Borg later, and more on the Kingdom…:
I think so. They didn’t scatter to “plant the kingdom”. (What scattering are you talking about? In the years/decades/centuries following the crucifixion?) They went to “spread the good news of the Kingdom being at hand”, is what I’m suggesting. They went to teach others about a beautiful way of life. (And Gerhard, if you’re here, no, they weren’t right about everything. The colonialist mindset kicked in at some point, and the Romanisation also did some ugly things.)
The best recommendation I have with regards to books on the “Kingdom Gospel” is currently McLaren’s “The Secret Message of Jesus”. (It isn’t really a secret, but in some flavours of Christianity, it really seems to be.) I’ve not read the other recommendations I’ve heard, but Ron Martoia’s “Static” comes highly recommended as well.
Um, and we’ll talk about it on this blog, in great depth, if I have the time. Right now I gotta go sleep.
37 Bennaluuks // Feb 13, 2008 at 10:49 pm
So put it this way: if I were prepared to die a martyr’s death, citing Jesus’ way as my salvation, would that answer your (and Josh’s) question?
What if you cited (and were seconded, thirded, hundred and twenty-ed by other disciples) that you saw Him alive, in the context of His body’s dissapearance? Its much different a scenario than the embodyment of His teachings as motivation for martyrdom.
38 Bad Ben // Feb 13, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Hmmm. I don’t understand why it would seem improbable to skeptics, outside of interpretive bias. It seems logically the most economic explanation to me. Have you read any of Umberto Eco’s semiotique?
39 Bad Ben // Feb 13, 2008 at 10:55 pm
PS!
BAD BEN=BENNALUUKS=SAVED BEN=NOT EUROPEAN BUT LIKES BEING NAKED A LOT.
40 Hugo // Feb 13, 2008 at 10:57 pm
I’ve found other explanations that I find more feasible than that. I’d be happier if you could work in a “the argument I find most feasible” in there, rather than stating that as “objective truth”.
The other explanations I find significantly more feasible, requires more knowledge of the cultural context of the time, not the kind of thing you find in books aiming to give really-quick-and-easy answers. I understand well that in your context that explanation seems most feasible.
Much different scenarios indeed. You could cite the Bible with regards to “many seeing Jesus alive”, fair enough, but that pretty much remains close to a “single source”, not hundreds. The early Christians I know of were more into claiming “Jesus is alive” than they were into claiming “I saw the bodily resurrection with my own eyes.”
Still unconvincing. Still something I suggest we don’t argue about in detail, therefore. More important for me, is that “Jesus is alive”. In us…
41 Bad Ben // Feb 13, 2008 at 11:01 pm
No dude, Im totally with you.
Excuse me if my argumentative style seems essentialistic, it is not my intention. Mainly my way of throwing a couple of rocks into the bush. I respect your opinions, and am greatly interested in your findings concerning the context of the abovementioned happenings: do elaborate!
42 Hugo // Feb 13, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Skeptics are more concerned with empirically testable hypotheses. (Truth in “Lah”, rather than “Meh”, in the words of Lousirr.
) With an understanding of physics (etc), the alternative explanations seem highly probable, and the resurrection explanation extremely improbable. Based on empirical testing, they have found absolutely no reason to believe in “supernatural miracles”. Do you call this “interpretive bias”? At most it is bias towards empirically testable hypotheses.
No… sorry.
43 Bad Ben // Feb 13, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I like to push a certain angle of an argument hard, as if I KNEW it to be factual truth in order to ellicit a “balls to the wall” response.
Besides Im hopelessly under-researched to be arguing this point.
Please don’t read me as a fundamentalist! please. I’d rather be called Kurt Darren than a fundamentalist. I love dialogue, I get close to sexually aroused by the term. hmmm…dialougue…better than sex…
44 Hugo // Feb 13, 2008 at 11:07 pm
In due time, unfortunately. The pipeline of posts is long, and I also have work to do… I’m thinking of doing a whole series on “What is God?” – I have many atheists, non-theists and non-religious people following, and I want to lay some necessary foundations for the rest of what I want to try to communicate.
Note that I am by no means “conservative” (for the typical understanding of “conservative”, hehe). But hey, Jesus was a liberal Jew.
Oh, and btw, this looks a little anti-semitic:
You are referring not to the “Jews”, but to a particular group of upper-class, politically active Jews, that didn’t like Jesus’ challenge to their authority. Be careful of placing all Jews under the umbrella of a particular niche minority.
45 Bad Ben // Feb 13, 2008 at 11:08 pm
nonono.
Lets treat the testimony, as recorded in the bible fair enough, as a empirically measurable text – forget about the “miraculous-angle” for a second. I get that that would be a big inconsistency for a positivist. but Im rather trying to argue the validity of the witness.
How do you gooi that indentation?
46 Bad Ben // Feb 13, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Oh sweet – jews thing – cool. Passion in the moment. unconsidered. sorry. out-of-control-rhetoric.
47 Bad Ben // Feb 13, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Oh and by the way; those politically active jews’ opinions informed probably the majority of the jews on the otherside of the Jesus rift’s opinion about Him. Maybe more people actually bought what they were saying about the reason for Jesus’ body’s disappearal?
48 Bad Ben // Feb 13, 2008 at 11:14 pm
GO TO BED, DO NOT PASS FACEBOOK, DO NOT COLLECT ANY EMAILS.
49 Hugo // Feb 13, 2008 at 11:18 pm
No prob, just pointing it out, just in case.
Topics surrounding “reliability of witness” and hermeneutics will be touched upon in future posts. There is much that needs to be said, and forcing it into rushed comments would be bad. So here I leave the discussion. (For real this time.)
This topic will definitely come up again.
Indentation is done with HTML: <blockquote>this text will be indented</blockquote>. If you get it wrong the first few times, I’ll correct it for you.
50 Bad Ben // Feb 13, 2008 at 11:25 pm
My meisie sê dievolgende (hopelik met ‘n indentation)
(* quoting corrected by Hugo *)
(* accidentally deleted comment restored by Hugo: *)
I like to push a certain angle of an argument hard, as if I KNEW it to be factual truth in order to ellicit a “balls to the wall” response.
Besides Im hopelessly under-researched to be arguing this point.
Please don’t read me as a fundamentalist! please. I’d rather be called Kurt Darren than a fundamentalist. I love dialogue, I get close to sexually aroused by the term. hmmm…dialougue…better than sex…
51 Hugo // Feb 13, 2008 at 11:56 pm
You have to physically type out <blockquote> – in order to type those angle brackets, I’m actually typing < and > …
About fundamentalism, here’s my take on it: We are all fundamentalists about some things. More important is to identify in what way, and re-evaluate it, reconsider it, poke poke… rebirth. One famous Christian said “I’ve been reborn so many times, I’ve got spiritual stretch-marks.” The quote doesn’t make complete sense to me, but the idea is there…
About playing hard ball, one thought popped into my head: how often did Jesus do it? Or more specifically, when did Jesus do it, in which contexts?
OK, to bed, I’ve fixed the comments. I’ll only be back after brunch.
52 Hugo // Feb 13, 2008 at 11:58 pm
(The stretch-marks bit. You get stretch marks from giving birth, not from being born… um, so his old self is giving birth to his new self. The weird bit is his new self having the stretch marks of his old self. That’s what I mean by “doesn’t make complete sense”, but that is me being hopelessly too pedantic.)
53 Al Lovejoy // Feb 14, 2008 at 9:17 am
The problem with intellect is that it needs direction and purpose, something wholly reliant on the person presenting an idea or a reasoning. And a superior intellect will present such a formulated opinion in a simple, succinct manner devoid of thickets of bullshit baffles brains
This topic of the resurrection has as yet to be broached in the simple suggested manner. While arguing around even opening the Bible, playing with big sounding semantics and getting locked down in the backwaters of bigotry, modern physics, definitions of God and figures of speech – I have yet to hear someone’s opinion, either for or against the occurrence of the resurrection – using the simple texts that are available to be read in the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.
Just read it, formulate your own opinion and present it. Is simple Bible study dead?
54 Al Lovejoy // Feb 14, 2008 at 11:13 am
Here is what I am talking about.
Let us take the beggar born blind outside the city gates, the one who yelled and yelled until Christ stopped the crowd following Him and asked the man what he wanted. He told Christ he wanted to see, so He spat on the ground, made mud, put it in the man’s atrophied eye sockets and told him to go and wash his eyes out in the fountain in the city and he would see. John 9.
Now before we rush in with modern Western Medicine and the full set of data with which we apply ophthalmology through our understanding of optical neuro-histology and neurochemistry and first consider the evidence and eye witness report.
And because this encounter with Christ resulted in the arrest and trials of both the man and later – his parents in a public forum by the lawkeepers of the time, we should treat this like a crime scene.
So, what do we know as investigators?
Our witness reports: the man, his parents, their neighbours and the disciples seemed to all agree that the man had been born with a congenital illness causing him to be blind from birth.
This is also evidenced through his means of making a living as a beggar, and the manner in which Christ and the disciples seemed to recognise upon seeing him, meaning possibly (When I branch into a theory concerning the case I will clearly say so) – the man had some way of advertising his disability, like in our modern world with a white stick or a sign made by a friend or family member.
So, one thing we may be certain of, the man was most definitely 100% blind in the modern medical undestanding.
In the encounter, our witness states that Christ stopped in front of the man, had a conversation irrelevant to the case, then he mixed his saliva and DNA with a mixture of fine sand and inert organic material making a mud pack, which he then pressed into the man’s atrophied eye sockets. We can safely assume they had suffered some form of atrophy (due to the duration and nature of the disability) and were recessed, else the mud would have simple fallen off his eyeballs, not really being properly adhesive enough to sustain walking around although, this too is merely a theory.
Christ then told the man to add water to the mud packed into or on his eye sockets.
The events which subsequently transpired after the man had done so – are what causes us to go back and ask what really happened there medically, the limitations of modern science not withstanding?
Firstly there is the reactions of his neighbours, who are immediately unsure of his identity. Now since, his clothing, hair and facial features had undergone no changes that we are aware of – whatever had happened to his eyes after washing them caused them to have trouble with recognising him, possibly because his involuntary body language looked with his ears as a blind man and he had, up until then, never actually looked directly at anyone asking him a question. He answers them and confirms his identity to them. They ask who the person was responsible for this transformation and he tells them a man named Jesus. They in turn respond by arresting him and taking him to the priests for investigation.
During the trial he is unable to provide the magistrates with any real evidence other than, someone named Jesus had packed mud onto his eye sockets and then told him to go wash his eyes with water. After he had done so, he told the court he could see.
The court itself immediately becomes divided over the case. From the behaviour and reactions of the court we are able to determine that it clearly recognised both that:
1. the man – according to the testimony of all the neighbours, had in fact been blind all his life and,
2. This man before them could clearly see.
They too, are left with no rational explanation other than a case of mistaken identity and to this end they arrest the man’s parents, reasoning of course that his own parents would not mistake their own son for someone else.
Their testimony is: Yes, this is our kid, he was most certainly born blind but this same man before us – can see, and how or why that may be the case – is something they are utterly clueless about. They carry on and put the case back into the court’s collective lap by telling the court, he is an adult – ask him what happened yourselves. Not our responsibility. We didn’t even see it happen.
So they call him back to trial and requestion him. His testimony remains unchanged – a stranger he obviously had never laid eyes on did it to him and in his subjective opinion – it’s a bloody medical miracle.
The magistrates lose their collective temper and he is banished from their community, something so serious that when Christ hears of it – He goes looking for the man, so that they can meet face to face for the first time and He can explain.
Now simply looking at the way all the people involved in this case reacted, we can find no part of the account in which they did not act out of context for something so unexplainable, no suspicious behaviour, no manipulation of the events. Just real people acting out their roles within the context of their society, yet without a pre-written script. Something unexplainable both then and now – happened.
So we are lead back to: DNA, inert organic material and water – generating the very tissue of an incredibly complex sensory organ and its links to the brain.
In my opinion, based on the reactions of people involved – is: Yes, that man underwent a major medical change that affected everyone from the man himself to his family and local law enforcement agents. To me, the fact that it occured outside the current data set of this medical speciality – means that our data set is possibly very incomplete and needs to be revisited.
55 Bad Ben // Feb 14, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I cannot agree Al.
56 Bad Ben // Feb 14, 2008 at 12:13 pm
It seems to me like we are still imposing a western paradigm of judiciary witness. It’s in no way different to understanding medicine, than to understanding historical science. The less apt we are to read physical universals, the less aware we can in fact be to God’s transcendance of those principles. think about it: If you considered someone swallowing a pill and being healed a miracle, how much more miraculous could it be to apply mud and see someones eyes healed?
This principle needs to be applied in the case of your judiciary reading of that text: consider your own fundamentalism, as Hugo points out beautifully in his previous comment, and open your stance.
That being said I appreciate your defense of scripture, greatly, but the truth should be able to defend itself, no?
57 Hugo // Feb 14, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Your approach to the Bible has much in common with Lee Strobel’s. The hermeneutics you suggest here also resemble the hermeneutics I see at Shofar. I will share my approach and understanding in more detail later. I find the social and cultural context of such importance, that I will always want to draw on serious scholarship for a better understanding.
And what you describe is a supernatural miracle.
Whether these things happened or not, I am still curious as to whether their factuality is of such a great importance? For many, these things are obstacles. (I’m thinking of those that believe in a God, a creator God, a purpose-God, a meaning-God, but have trouble believing the Jesus story.) What I’m wondering, is whether it is so important?
Throughout history, there has been some pendulum swinging with regards to emphasis on Jesus’ “divinity” and his “humanity”. Some people place more (or too much) emphasis on one, and others on the other. Some people’s idea of Jesus is such that no one can really relate to him. An idea of a Jesus born with all the knowledge of everything, from age zero. That is something I don’t call human, that is something I’d never be able to call “God becomes man”. Foreknowledge changes things. Knowledge of everything provides a very different context for moral dilemmas.
Jesus studied scripture, like other Jewish boys aiming to become Rabbi’s. Jesus was a Rabbi. He worked for it. It didn’t simply fall in his lap. Sweat and tears, effort, flesh and blood… That is something I can relate to. So yes, some people would feel I’m over-emphasizing his humanity. So it goes… to and fro.
Does it matter? Or am I being a bigoted, directionless and purposeless intellect that deals in thickets of bullshit that baffles brains? Was that directed at me?
58 Bad Ben // Feb 14, 2008 at 12:16 pm
59 Bad Ben // Feb 14, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Hugo,
I fear you are putting me in a box. I might be a bit of a shofarite, but a large input theologically into my life is my dutch reformed theologian father, whom i love and cherish. He shares many of the ame convictions both you and I do, and paradoxically so.
I am also a firm believer that truth can only be known in tension. I read and enjoyed velvet elvis. But I believe that one of the parts of the truth in question will be fundamental to one’s understanding, and this “departure point” must be “reluctantly abandoned” when seeking/investigating. It must be gripped, not for the sake of it’s own preservation, but for avoidance of radical course shifts which entertaon that whole false dichotomy thing.
We are never as wrong or as right as we think.
Am I making sense?
60 Bad Ben // Feb 14, 2008 at 12:28 pm
61 Bad Ben // Feb 14, 2008 at 12:28 pm
who is this comment directed at?
62 Bad Ben // Feb 14, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Oh yes. And I wasn’t really trying to portray a specific hermeneutic model: I have not yet made up my mind to such a thing. But Once again nothing is ever completely wrong or completely right. I think there is merit in using a certain compound knowledge of perceivable realities in looking at scripture, but only this will result in a weird kind of absolutism. So we need literalist approaches, contextual approaches, historical approaches, personal approaches. I experience a weird underlying unity in scripture which ties a lot of approaches to hermeneutics together. Most importantly we need to be aware of our approaches, and humbly sincere about how big the world of scripture really is.
Have you read “a generous orthodoxy”?
Fabulous writer mr. McLaren, he is…
63 Hugo // Feb 14, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Oops. “Your approach to the Bible has much in common with Lee Strobel’s.” -> I was referring to Al’s crime-scene approach, not to yours, Ben. Sorry… So yea, your suspicions are correct, it wasn’t directed at you.
And yea, I think you’re making sense.
And why isn’t my “live preview” plugin working? Grrr… I thought that might help people in the future, with the blockquote thing for example.
64 Rinus // Feb 14, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Urg, I wish I followed these comments earlier before the mess I made on the other thread.
Sorry Hugo
65 Al Lovejoy // Feb 14, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Ooooh, and all I’m doing is taking something at face value, accepting that according to the responses of characters in that account – that something did happen and concluding – it is beyond the sphere of modern medical understanding…and far from suggesting that we engage in a debate on this particular “miracle” – the call was for a personal opinion on the resurrection – formulated in a similar fashion, no matter what hat or hats one wears when doing it…
Considering Mr. McClaren and Mr. McDowell, for that matter – have already formulated their own opinions and are really not part of our discussion, it would be refreshing to hear some other personal opinions, rather than reams defensive rhetoric and sarcasm, which may or may not be relevant but cetainly have not lead to the original objective of our discussion.
Let us try again: Do you believe in the resurrection? And why? (Not having your own opinion is not a fault – it is an honest answer…)
66 Al Lovejoy // Feb 14, 2008 at 11:26 pm
He be or not be, that is the gravest of questions.
I did not expect the knives of didactic arts to be unsheathed so readily, and greet you Hellenic gentlemen – gracefully close this topic and will reserve my own conclusions as I depart this learned forum…but before I go, a last word…, nay, nay – more a tasty soupcon of the essense of history:
“History isn’t like that. History unravels gently like a old sweater. It has been patched and darned many times, reknitted to suit different people, shoved in a box under the sink of censorship to be cut up for the dusters of propoganda, yet it always – eventually – manages to spring back into its old familiar shape. History has a habit of changing the people who think they are changing it. History always has a few tricks up its frayed sleeve. It’s been around a long time”, Terry Pratchett – “Mort”
Dead Man Walking.
67 Bad Ben // Feb 14, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Al, Do you use only you own common sense in your hermeneutic approach?
68 Bad Ben // Feb 15, 2008 at 12:07 am
“your own common sense”, sorry.
69 Hugo // Feb 15, 2008 at 1:09 am
Thanks for your attempt at making a contribution, Al.
I’m sorry to see you leave, but I understand. I was looking forward to your opinion, about either your question or mine. But I think I know how you feel about it.
I have my question, you have yours.
70 Al Lovejoy // Feb 15, 2008 at 9:54 am
I think your real question might be: Al are you a meme?
When I was in Bible College back in another lifetime we had a lecturer who once gave us a lecture on Christ’s triumph when he rode into Jerusalem. He pointed out that Jesus sent his disciples into the city gate and told them to follow a man carrying water to a house where he would find a ass tied up outside the house. They were to ask to borrow the ass and book the upper room of the house for supper.
All very innocuous until one considers that men in the Middle East do not carry water. This is evidenced by the woman at the well whom Jesus tided gently into serving him with some to drink. Someone culturally, He was forbidden to even speak to in that communal public place frequented only by women.
His conclusion was that the men in the house were celibate; therefore they had no women to fetch and carry water for them. Therefore they had to belong to a sect of priests called the Essenes. This intrigued me so much that from then on I made it my business to find out as much about the anthropology, politics and economics of the time as possible – to clarify my exegesis and better put myself into the writer’s frame and world view.
Similarly, by around twenty years ago – I had a huge library of Christian books on every topic imaginable. I’ve read McDowell and Lewis on apologetics (never got hold of Smith), I’ve read Nee, Spurgeon, Murray, McClung, etc, etc and freaks like Kenneth Hagin and his disciples Benny Hinn and Keneth Copeland. I taught myself rudimentary Greek (most of which I have forgotten) and began to read earlier very early writers like Augustine and perusing academic historical works focussed on hermeneutics outside of Scripture – in the writings of Romans, Greeks and Rabbis .
One day I found a thin little book by a post Renaissance monk named Tomas ‘a Kempis. He was a truly fascinating man in his short pithy musings on a life of piety and Christian contemplation. Some of the stuff was beyond bizarre – like how to flagellate yourself properly and apply the pain to sharing in Christ’s mortal suffering – but in the very middle of all of it, he gave me a piece of advice that I have applied since then to my singular approach to Scripture. In essence, from a modern perspective – he said: The only parts of Scripture to truly listen to are the red bits where Christ speaks, everything else is relative.
And so it is.
Today I have no Christian books except the Battle for God (I picked it up to brush up on my knowledge of Muslim fundamentalism last week), the six or seven Bibles I marked and read to pieces are also gone, I have one well made and unmarked Bible which is always on my desk and usually opened somewhere in the gospels. And when I read Paul, I go back there and look at his teachings through Christ.
Because of that, most of my theology is my own and I have had some fantastic sabbaticals, like three months 24/7 lockdown solitary in a French Speaking prison, with nothing except the Bible, a small amount of tobacco from a sympathetic chef every few days – and the fortnightly visits of a seventy year old nun, who in her early twenties was ministering succour to the victims of Nazi torture in the sealed State mortuary, which had been their dungeons below the prison.
Take something like Paul telling Timothy that Christ said a worker is worthy of his wages in context of ministry – this is why McCauley can live in an empty gazillion dollar house and drive a Ferrari he was “blessed” with by Jesus. Why Fred May can have the exclusive use of a wine mansion that could actually house over a hundred orphans.
See, Paul is actually quoting Christ, who was speaking about food and more specifically food sacrificed to foreign gods and idols as they embraced poverty to preach the gospel. It had absolutely nothing to do with pastors making money from the gospel, but unless one makes it one’s business to study ALL of Scripture – you will not find that out. Memes never do – the oke on stage thought for them already.
And only one cent raised in error by these greedy men – is fraud and theft, not simply material wealth – but theft of the gospel too.
Let’s move onto baptism. There is no place in Scripture where Christ preaches John’s water baptism for his disciples, on the contrary He preaches only His Own baptism for every believer, something I mentioned earlier in these blogs. He came to teach us how to measure – LIFE.
Yet, a church like Shofar will preach water baptism as central to salvation, which in actual fact is preaching death into salvation – which is supposed to release us into the adventure of our lives in Christ. John’s baptism is merely the choice of celebrating that publicly.
Take the evangelical foundation John 3:16. I refute that completely as the path to salvation – in favour of his later conversation with His disciples. Nicodemus was the equivalent of a semi-hostile dean of Theology in a State college meeting him in secret. For that academic to truly understand Christ, Jesus told him he would have to be born all over and learn every aspect of his vast education from scratch and he would still have to seek salvation.
In essence it was the theological stance of the Jew, hostile to Christ’s teaching, that being born a Jew by blood and serving God in His holy temple was the source of your righteousness automatically. Christ was telling the man that this was only an outward form that had to become an internal truth and the very core of how one lives life.
His disciples on the other hand were simple ordinary men – the you and me of their generation and when they asked him what the crux of the gospel was, in essence – who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? – He answered them very, very simply in Matthew 18.
Here and only here is where Jesus Christ gives
his disciples, and therefore the entire church, the very formula to being converted to Christianity.
And it doesn’t cost an ounce of intellect, no sinner’s prayer and someone who has never read nor can write can do it, while the huge Christian TV media, book and music industry cannot
motivate or tell anyone – how.
And according to Jesus – it is the ONLY path to salvation.
It is what I live and breathe, that is why arguing with people who label themselves non believers, agnostic, atheist, whatever is utterly pointless to me. The same applies to the origins and age of our world. In my opinion, they are merely people whom life has spared, until now, the desperate need to pray, because until you pray – you will never know God and Scripture will just be a contradictory book full of crap.
71 Hugo // Feb 15, 2008 at 10:29 am
Thanks Al, that was interesting. Is there any particular part you’d like me to respond to?
You come across as very certain of your interpretations. Many diverse groups of Christianity are very certain of their interpretations, and feel strongly about the parts they place emphasis on.
I do like your emphasis on Matthew 18. I’ll keep it in mind.
72 Al Lovejoy // Feb 15, 2008 at 10:51 am
You are right Hugo, I am certain of my interpretations and welcome anyone attempting refuting any point from Scripture correctly. Some of these things, are the product of nearly twenty-five years of study and meditation. As a highly successful and retired – technical, systems and business analyst, I am as confident of my results as machines I helped IBM and Acer redesign and the corporations who still run their businesses on my cross platform software and its underlying databases. These things I spoke of above are not from a closed system – yet, with applied discipline – they can be exact.
I will teach them to my son.
73 Hugo // Feb 15, 2008 at 11:38 am
Thanks! Can I pick your brain in the future then, to hear your input? (Not right now, I don’t have much to ask.)
Actually, I do have something to ask. I’m just not sure how to ask them. *ponder*… how’s this?:
Would you say, from your perspective, people that are effectively following the teachings of Matthew 18, without ever having heard of the Bible, or do not care much about “religion”, are on the right path? (Do you think there are other people also teaching this path?)
(An answer like “yea, good for them. Those that aren’t against us, are for us…” would be pretty cool…)
An outsider looking at the debates between Christians hears various interpretations and various emphases from various groups. Often they are following Matthew 18 already, of their own accord. Get them involved with a particular Christian group, and they start losing that focus, being distracted by anti-homosexuality and anti-abortion sentiments (this is the stereotypical caricature of American evangelicalism). Do you think they are better off living a Matthew-18 focused life? (The atheist’s sentiment “without religion, good people do good, bad people do bad. It takes religion to make good people do bad” springs to mind. Note that I don’t agree with the sentiment.)
74 Hugo // Feb 15, 2008 at 11:41 am
As in, do you think it necessary for a natural Matthew-18 adherent to read the Bible?
75 Bad Ben // Feb 15, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Hi Alex
Thank you for informing us about the context of your hermeneutical model.
I would like to make some observations which are in no way menat to be facecious or sarcastic, so I encourage you to take them seriously.
Manipulation of facts. Mr. Lovjoy, do please revise. I have physical evidence that you know the actual truth about the oude molen premises.
This is again not true.
Note:
This is exactly what the church’s official doctrinal position is.
76 Bad Ben // Feb 15, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Even though shofar does not equate John’s baptism which the baptism into Christ (ie. baptism by water). John’s baptism came before the resurrection and was a baptism of repentance, not a baptism of identification with Christ’s death and resurrection. This is the known focus on baptism as communicated by the church leaders.
I however like Hugo’s approach of focussing rather on the points we agree on than a pointless doctrinal agrument.
77 Bad Ben // Feb 15, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Oh but i do feel so honoured by being called a hellenic gentleman; bless!
78 Al Lovejoy // Feb 15, 2008 at 4:01 pm
No, Sir it is not. Not when threats of withholding blessings are included in every aspect of Fred May’s teachings and bullshit doctrines, even if he has adjusted them to fit. I think I’ve heard enough of Fred May’s manipulative theology and suffered enough of him and his wife’s personal poisonous manipulation to make that statement here and in any other public platform you may choose. Including court.
On baptism, on taking people into rooms alone and convincing them they are demon possessed and of course Fred is the only one who can exorcise them, on letters from outside of Shofar, one in particular where so called heathens had to feed a student whose parents could no longer trust him with money because it all ends up in the May’s and their leaderships pockets, on insulting my close friends and telling them they are possessed by demons of homosexuality from the pulpit. Tell me when to stop…
Before you try and say one more word to me, pay me the small respect and collect the list of virgins I apparently slept with when I was a member of Shofar from Lucille May. All the gory details are on my personal website http://www.acidalex.com/fan_base/shofar3.html She has suddenly lost the urge to be my wife’s best friend and made it a condition that I repent to all these women before either her or her husband will accept me as a Christian.
Don’t even think about playing your bullshit childish games with me sonny. Say what you want to say and say it finished, nobody is interested in your conspiricies.
My money, all the buildings I use and my influence and what I control, like Peter said in Acts – are all MY OWN. So don’t play games with me. More than that, everything belongs to my unborn son Robert Alexander Lovejoy through a trust fund.
Fred May is in control of Oude Molen, he ordered Partick (the guard at the gates) to bar my wife coming to one one of your closed meetings…I don’t care how or why – it is Shofar’s under Fred’s control for “the gospel” and it is a filthy disgrace.
You Shofarians scream that you are so involved with the Kayamandi community through Prochorus. Then tell me why I have never seen a couple of bus fulls of black folks ever join you there for one of your braais and sing songs? I was a nosy neighbour remember – for about two years. The only people ever to go to meetings in Mill House are rich, almost exclusively white folks in fancy cars and the inside of the main house, according to Natasha – is simply stunning beyond belief.
All for the glory of Fred May.
What is it, you don’t like the idea of Oude Molen being – Oude Molen Orphanage???
Are you a Shofarian or a Christian? Or do you want me to respond to Lucille’s May’s last message to me:
Remember what I said 2 u in the shop, Al. Just a final friendly warning – u r messing w God, not w us. I would not continue to do that if I were you. “Behold t goodness AND SEVERITY of God”. I’m changing my cell no now so I won’t receive any more of u’r threats. Luv. L
79 Al Lovejoy // Feb 15, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Hugo, I will be leaving this forum.
I have nothing to discuss with Shofarians. This fool wants to discuss Shofar’s official position on doctrine while his leadership was actively engaged in trying to poison my marriage with utter crap last week!!!
The leadership he is trying to defend are filthy and how they raise their money and what they spend it on despicable.
I have nothing to say to one of them while they defend the May’s or their doctrine.
80 Hugo // Feb 15, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I understand Al. Thanks for stopping by. Shalom. We’ll meet again.
Leave a Comment