You are viewing the older version of this Weblog. I have left this version available for those of you who do not have Javascript enabled in your web browser.

If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
« "Hey, Hey 16k!" | Main |   » Conflict Map...

May 06, 2004

Informatio: , ,

Others' thoughts on Jesus and boundaries...

The other day, I mentioned that I wanted to think more about “Jesus and boundaries.” A friend of mine commented with some of her thoughts there — all of which were very good.

I am still thinking about them.

It came to my attention today, that I’m not the only one who is thinking. Check out this thread over at OpenSourceTheology.

A couple of comments that caught my attention, though I would encourage you to read the entire thing as I am just pulling out some biased excerpts (and the conversation there may continue)...

“Imagine” began the thread with:

On reading “Jesus and the Victory of God”, what struck me strongly was the sense that Jesus’ vocation was an invitation into the kingdom and the scandal which provoked his death was that this was available to all. Would Tom Wright endorse the idea that emerging church concepts build on this inclusive gospel. How would he and others see this in practice; if we follow Jesus’ approach, especially in the multi-faith, post 9-11 West how and to whom is the challenge of this gospel made. And what does Tom Wright think is actually “happening” on the cross to realise this welcome from God?

“Andrew” said:

...I think two things still need to be stressed. The first is that the church has developed habits of thought, speech and behaviour that have made it exclusive in practice if not in theology.
And:
Here’s roughly how I see it. Jesus’ ministry was radically inclusive but really only within the boundaries of the covenant people: those who find forgiveness and healing are frequently disenfranchised and marginalized but they are also for the most part Jews (is the Syrophoenician woman the only exception?). The larger inclusion of Gentiles within the people of God is a later development, driven by the Spirit and in many respects a reaction to the Jews’ continuing unbelief and hostility towards the followers of Jesus.
“Josiebelle” said:
...i think church community should extend to people who do not believe all i believe. and i think that church action should definitely include all the people around it : particularly those in need, regardless of their beliefs.
“Andrew” then said:
My point is that you can have a fairly clear and rigorous definition of what it means to be ‘Christian’ or ‘follower of Jesus’ or even, if we must use the terminology, ‘saved’, without excluding people from the distinctive type of community that is generated by the presence of God in the lives of believers. So yes: ‘church community should extend to people who do not believe all i believe’. But membership of the body of Christ is something different; it is more than being connected to a community.
“Josiebelle” concludes with:
jesus said on the cross “father, forgive them, because they don’t know what they are doing.” that’s the key relationship dialogue. that’s the thing that gets us off the hook. jesus asked god for our forgiveness. jesus prays for us. and that includes everyone, dead, alive, yet to live.

Maybe one day I’ll actually come up with something that I think.

Posted at 08:32 am

Trackback:

Trackback Link:

Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url

Comments (7):
I think the key to the statement quoted is that Jesus died for all people to have the opportunity to have a relationship with Him. This is contingent apon people accepting this relationship that Jesus desires of all individuals. Also, the scripture says,“that it is appointed unto man once to die and after this the judgement.” We must remember that salvation only comes while we are living once we die we have no opportunity to redeem ourselves. I’m sure we all believe these things it is just a matter of how far we take it.

Doug Hensley () - May 06, 2004 at 11:28 am

It also appears after reading the article that this “emerging culture” has a conflict. I think that current culture in whatever timeframe in history will always be in conflict and has been in conflict with what the Bible teaches. I think it is important to share the Gospel in a loving and non-threating way but yet stay within the Biblical truth of the Bible in a non-relative way. Scripture is God breathed by the Holy Spirit. I think the church is being threatened by relativism and this waters down the true message of the Gospel. I think we need to trust the Holy Spirit as well as understand that we have a responsiblity to the Biblical truth. “I am the way the truth and the life no one can come to the Father but through Me.”

Doug Hensley () - May 06, 2004 at 11:45 am

Doug, I don’t believe that anyone here is arguing for relativism… Rather, I think we are on a common quest to find what Jesus meant by his life — inclusive yet still remaining within some sort of boudaries (though, I don’t know what those were/are).

Biblical truths are one thing, but basing our customs (rules, conditions, whatever else) on what the Church (in historical context) tells us is completely another. That is what I am trying to figure out.

What did Jesus tell us? How is his example relevant to us? How can we live more like Jesus? Can any of us answer these questions outside of the past conditioning that Chritianity has provided?

But, that’s a completely different subject…

timsamoff () (URL) - May 06, 2004 at 11:55 am

What you said makes sense. I agree with all that you said except I personally don’t know what you mean by “past conditioning”. Maybe the “past conditioning” is correct. Much of the “past conditioning has been constant over time. Why change. Howvever, I encourage all people to search and ask questions to find the answers. I just feel that the Bible has the answers and I know you agree with this. Great discussion.

Doug Hensley () - May 06, 2004 at 12:19 pm

I brought this up because many times when we ask questions we do so for the wrong reasons to challenge what the Bible states as truth. I know this site and we don’t do that here. However, other type of theologies do. If we are truly asking questions with the right motive then we are on the right track. We need to make sure are thoughts and questions are consistant with what the Bible says and that we do not contradict what the Bible says. I know Tim and this site and again this is not the problem. Open Source that’s another thing.

Doug Hensley () - May 10, 2004 at 1:20 pm

I would like to state that I do not judge those who are here to “challenge what the bible says.” In fact, I welcome it. My part of “this site” ends after I post a thought. When people comment on what I say, it is no longer mine, but something much much bigger.

My own convisctions and opinions aside, I feel like it is necessary for people to challenge belief structures sometimes — it is healthy for growth and realization. So, while I respect you opinions, Doug, I don’t want to detour people from posting something here which they might feel judged for.

Bring it on… Let’s talk.

timsamoff () (URL) - May 10, 2004 at 2:09 pm

I’m sorry I wasn’t trying to lead this down this road. I did agree with what you said. I wasn’t trying to judge at all. I agreed with you and stated that. I wasn’t trying to bring on anything. I even stated that it is good to ask questions. I only stated the motive. That’s all. We all should encourage others to search to know God more.

Doug Hensley () - May 10, 2004 at 3:25 pm

Commenting has been permanently disabled. Please use the Contact button above.