I had a strange and surprising experience yesterday. I went into a store that sells fair trade goods from all over the world. It’s an interesting place. Ethereal, New Age music playing. Incense burning. My wife and daughter browsed around looking at their very unique handmade items. I checked out several things. There were 3 or 4 ladies serving people. They were very helpful and friendly. It was packed with stuff and with people. I picked up a vile of aroma therapy perfume called “Rain” and sniffed it. I liked it. I want some. I made my way over to a corner were some handmade banners were hanging inscribed with wise sayings from Mother Teresa, Zen Masters, Nelson Mandela, Buddha, Jesus, Albert Einstein, John Lennon, Confucius, and so on. As I was reading the sayings with the aroma of “rain” still in my nostrils, I suddenly noticed that I was feeling very emotional. I was embarrassed and almost left the store. Instead, I maintained a level of control, just allowing my eyes to be misty and my throat slightly choked up. My heart was welling up with waves of incredible feeling. I walked around the place enjoying the rich atmosphere of peacefulness, calm, joy, and solidarity. I felt genuine unity among all of us in that store. More than any other store, including the Christian book store, this one seemed to promote, even unconsciously, the good will toward all people that the angels promised on that first Christmas. Oh, may it be!
People pick their Jesus. Yes, Jesus said he came to bring a sword. But this is in the larger context of him bringing peace and reconciling all things to God through himself. Instead, some people think that because Jesus said he brings a sword, it gives them permission to be divisive, to draw lines of demarcation between themselves and others, to judge people and make life miserable for them. It is incumbent upon us to make peace, to love all people, to discern the powerful current of all things moving back to God and participate in this reconciling force that the scriptures say is at work in the world. We do not as yet see all things submitted under his feet, even though they are… apparently. Rather, I think many of us would prefer to separate those who disagree with us and cleanse the church and even the world of all who are different and challenge our understanding of who Jesus is and what he means… unless they get saved, of course.
When Jesus said that we would have the poor among us always, does this mean that we should no longer help the poor? When Jesus said that he brings a sword, does this mean that we no longer do anything in our power to reconcile, make peace, and work for the unity of all people? You say, “Not if it means forsaking my theological position!” If God gave up his Godhead, considering it as something not to be grasped, but humbled himself and emptied himself and became a man, why are we so unwilling to give up our rights, our privileged positions, our thrones of intellectual certainty and polemical assertiveness? I ask you: What do we actually give up and empty ourselves of?
When a complete stranger that Jesus hadn’t even met was preaching and healing in the name of Jesus, the disciples asked Jesus if they should stop him. Undoubtedly he was getting some things wrong. Instead, Jesus said to leave him alone. If he isn’t against us he’s for us! We prefer the variant reading that implies that if he isn’t totally for me and the Jesus I believe, then he’s against me and against my Jesus. He’s not one of us. He can just go to Hell!
I’m getting the impression that, generally, religious people actually prefer cleavage to unity and proof-text militant scriptures to support their divisive attitude and ways. So, Merry Christmas, peace just on my little piece of earth and goodwill toward all people I approve!
The image is a pencil sketch I did entitled, “Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth”.
Cartoonist.
Artist.
Spirituality Coach.
Writer.
Speaker.
Merry Christmas to you on your little piece of earth, from me on mine.
Let’s hope for better next year. Thanks for all your provocation, thoughtfulness and reflection.
Thank you for your article as well as the drawings. I believe Jesus also found greater openness to the Gospel outside of orthodox establishments. Perhaps we should create such an atmosphere as you describe in our churches. Blessing and Peace from a small corner of south Anchorage, may you nose heal and your wit continue.
I work at a Christian college. At the close of the fall semester, one of the students involved in missions on campus arranged to have representatives from Ten Thousand Villages (a fair trade store specializing in handcrafts) bring in some merchandise for a combo education/Christmas shopping event. Beautiful music was playing, and people were touching things made by someone else’s touch. The community vibe in the room was a lot like the one you describe.
It was one of the most gentle moments of the semester.
…not peace…but a sword
Love yr neighbour as yrself
Now,there’s a apparent dichotomy
“Jesus said he brings a sword, it gives them permission to be divisive, to draw lines of demarcation between themselves and others, to judge people and make life miserable for them†(NP)
See Fishon, NP is not promoting ‘divisiveness’ as is dialogued about in the Romans 16 passage you used as a proof-text – just as I had thought.
***On a side note – if Jesus did come to bring a sword – it might have been between me and fishon (lol)
“People pick their Jesus†(NP)
Just like how people pick their God – they focus on certain attributes as key and others as minor – it all depends on what one wants to focus on. For me, God is love first and foremost – from there I get into mercy, peace, faithfulness, compassion, etc. Then I think justice is right up there – in line with the idea of responsibility/repentance. As for the judge aspects – I kind of have varying views on that – but its not my focus either.
“I ask you: What do we actually give up and empty ourselves of?†(NP)
I think it depends on what ‘we need to be giving up’ – what is hurting our fellow humanity that we are holding onto? We need to seriously consider giving up those ideals that want to hurt someone else.
As for the sword idea, Jesus never used one – I don’t care what he said – he never used one. And when one did get used in a story (by Peter on a Roman guard) – Jesus ‘healed’ his enemy – not struck him down. So those weapons of warfare – are not even a Christian consideration in my personal opinion.
As for the poor, and them always being among us – this depends on how one interprets an idea like ‘blessed are the poor (in spirit)’ or Matthew 25’s sheep and goats parable in light of an idea concering ‘poverty’. It seems to me Jesus was deeply concerned with poverty as part of his minisitry – and the offer of helping people out of states like that. I think it’s a matter of humility and knowing that could have been you had it not been for some key choices in your life.
“Instead, Jesus said to leave him alone. If he isn’t against us he’s for us!†(NP)
Odd thing, when you put that ‘sword’ idea in the last pictorial ‘thing a ma jig’ – this was the first incident that popped in my head also. Call me a peacemaker – but I feel like not everyone needs to sound or be like some proto-typical Christian person – there is room here for variations.
“I’m getting the impression that, generally, religious people actually prefer cleavage to unity and proof-text militant scriptures to support their divisive attitude and ways†(NP)
Uh yeah…that’s religions in a nutshell. They are all fighting for their little piece of the pie – their being ‘right’ vs. the ‘wrongs’ outside their faith. Most religious institutions feel if they change or bend/break on something – they are dishonoring God – it really is a stranglehold (of sorts).
I do not feel this way about faith – I think there is room for dissension – maybe I am taking my cues from Judaic circles – but some diversity is healthy and normal.
I remember having my “Damascus Road” experience many yrs ago…I felt at peace,not divisive with myself or others…elated,not depressed…full of optimisn,not pessimism, etc….I think you get my drift and I know I’m not alone in this kind of experience,although some claim never to have had it. Nevertheless,my point is not so much a nostalgic yearning for the innocence of that short period,(then again,who wdn’t be)but an awareness of how I eventually became more divisive,proud and that I-know-more-than-you attitude.What happened to me?—well,in short…I became theological, literally I became something that almost destroyed me and eventually I had to pry that mask off and that took some time.
Recently,I’ve come to understand to a greater degree how “a theology” can replace “a faith” and mask itself as the real thing.I’m not anti-theological, in fact,I’m very theological-the difference in my approach now is a realization that if one has some degree of traditional ,but contemporary faith in God(as I do), then a theology is inevitable….actually,it’s inevitable for everybody,but for some it’s a thick mask like mine was and others it’s a framework that feeds and enriches their faith, as I hope mine might become.
So ,what is my point?To read Paul’s polemic,his rhetoric and generally his theology as an end in itself, rather than his attempt to bring others to an experience of the living God is to me,missing the point.It seems that much of the divisiveness between believers on this blog and a few others I visit is just that:I often read…Paul says this…hey,but Jesus says that…no,he wasn’t saying that,he was saying this and so on and so on.Am I the only one bored with this “your Mother and my Mother were hanging out clothes”approach.I think we need a little more adverb,as in maybe….possibly….probably, rather than the usual way we use the verb “be” as in “Jesus IS this.”Paul IS saying that”,’the Bible IS nothing but”…get my point….MAYBE?
On another note,I’ve always been intrigued(more so lately) by that passage that David mentioned about those others and “the so called no-good” they were up to…it has always suggested to me that Jesus’s reply was something like,”Mind yr own business”
f in f – phew. thank you. its been kinda hard work sometimes here lately – in spite of the tolerance and openness np guides us towards, and I hope very much we can feel secure enough to show each other some respect and humanity in 2009, whatever our views.
all the best to you, I feel I have learned from you.
Well we could all repent and return or convert and return to the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. I am not sure about the EO but I know the RCs would really like that. Do you think it would be an answer to Jesus’ prayer that we would all be one?
I came to your site by way of Pete Grassow’s…just had time to read this post and look at some of your toons, but I’ll be back again now that I know you’re here. I loved this post – I know exactly what you mean. I wish more people felt this way, looking at the similarities instead of the differences. Thank you!
Jesus brings the sword…not us.
Not that there aren’t jackasses in Christian outfits running around, but it is Christ Himself that divides. He is the great stumbling block. That morons want to judge people, even though Jesus told Himself not to do it, is their problem. They will in turn be judged accordingly.
Yes, Virginia, He is divisive. They hated Him when He showed up here two thousand years ago, and they hate Him today.
Amazing blog. What you convey is the sense that we aren’t taught to be judgmental and demarcating, We’re simply called to Love -Regardless of creed, deed, or lack-there-of. I can’t agree more. Right On!
Jordan
http://www.theriverjordan.net
FnF- @ 5:22 good thoughts!
The experience David expresses here is one of the main reasons that I have grown to become an agnostic. This is a mysterious experience that is diminished the more we explain it. At least that is my experience.
I think when Christians begin to make sure its “Biblical” and not going to allow Satan to take over their lives, the whole initial experience evaporates. I think this happens when we analyze these “artistic” transformational awarenesses with any system of comparison including psychoanalyzing it.
So the term agnostic or “Not Knowing” describes for me the process of giving up the need to know, so that I can take in the wholeness of that moment of awareness.
I could not agree more. I have grown to realize this myself in the past 3 or 4 years. I find myself having less Christian friends as a result, but I am happier and I think I have a better understanding of what love is and who Jesus is. I think I love better now. Thanks for posting this.
Boethius said, on December 19th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Well we could all repent and return or convert and return to the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. I am not sure about the EO but I know the RCs would really like that. Do you think it would be an answer to Jesus’ prayer that we would all be one?
I don’t see that it matters whether yr an RC, Orthodox,Protestant,Roman Centurion or First Church of The Frozen Chosen…it appears there are only five positions…in…out…moving in…moving out…and evicted from the kingdom. The problem ,as I see it ,is that too many Christians want to be on the eviction committee
I agree with Richard here that we can over-analyze something to death. Like Mary, maybe we just need to ponder these things in our hearts. But the point isn’t to make everyone the same. My experience in that store was meaningful because, in spite of the diversity represented by the many people in the store, there were no feelings of ill-will. There was a strong sense of community.
I think C.S.Lewis makes the point that we can taste…and we can know,but never at the same time.
Np…”My experience in that store was meaningful because, in spite of the diversity represented by the many people in the store, there were no feelings of ill-will. There was a strong sense of community.”
Do you think you wd feel the same at Wal-Mart?
I’ve been using aroma therapy oils as mood enhancers/controllers in the classroom for years.
Is it just a coincidence that your blog today references the same “I did not come to bring peace but a sword” scripture as the Dec.19 entry in MY UTMOST FOR HIS HIGHEST by Oswald Chambers? I just read that a little earlier this morning and was a little disturbed at how divisive good old “Ozzy” was in this passage — actually he was not that old — but I suppose he reflects traditional evangelical thinking of that day. I mention this because I know you have read Chambers over the years but we do think a bit differently now than they did in the early 1900′s. Most of his readings are quite good but once in a while I must disagree — but that is not a bad thing.
Thanks for your blog today — it is a good antedote for my annoyance with the Chambers reading for the day.
Cheers,
Richard Mullin
David, you ask one of the most important questions of faith: “What do we actually give up and empty ourselves of?”
Jesus asks us to abandon all baggage, become like children, and live in that place of deep freedom from want. Difficult! Spirit has no baggage.
It’s Jesus vs. religion. Spirit vs. Legalism. Spiritual freedom vs. textual-theological freedom. The former is fluid and always new, the latter builds up the self with piety. The former empties itself without seeking to refill, the latter simply replaces one form of selfishness with another.
David, you’re one of my favorite people. Merry Christmas to you and the family.
John L…..I wd mostly agree,but have noticed that the most spiritual are often the most orthodox…the key is not to get the cart(theology)in front of the horse(spirit)…the difficulty arises in the fact that our main resource,the Bible,is a deeply theological document.Wd you agree?
FLIF,
As David noted, we can use “orthodoxy” to support just about any theological position that suits our sectarian fancy. Those not against us are for us (or) Those not for us are against us. I come with a sword (or) I come to bring peace. Etc, etc…
I would offer that our “main resource” is not the letter written on a page, but the Spirit written on our hearts. I would also propose that God is not a Christian, and that reading or hearing Bible sentences is not a requirement of “salvation” – lest we reduce the cross to mere words.
Np….”I agree with Richard here that we can over-analyze something to death. Like Mary, maybe we just need to ponder these things in our hearts. But the point isn’t to make everyone the same. My experience in that store was meaningful because, in spite of the diversity represented by the many people in the store, there were no feelings of ill-will. There was a strong sense of community.”
David,I’m sorry for hoggin’ the blog ,but the coffee is really kickin’ in and it’s fair trade to boot…lol…I’m trying to ignore the fact(but can’t) that you seem to be suggesting that you had a “walk in the garden experience”,first prompted by an aroma and this led to 1)..the knowledge of how diverse the various patrons were, 2)..no apparent evidence of ill-will,and 3)…an experience of unity.Now,David,I haven’t known you for very long(blogwise),but I respect what I have read from yr deep and thoughtful spirit,so with that in mind,I just don’t see how this personal experience is translatable or cd be used as some kind of template when faced with the real Wal-Mart world.Do we not,like Jesus, show out true colours under pressure.Maybe I’m missing something…please correct me If I am and remember,I’m not into boob jobs(cleavage enhancement)
John L…I think we’re in agreement, but I don’t think there’s anyway to set the horse free from the cart…I mean,do you know of anyone who has had genuine,authentic experience of God without words?….a wild horse is a wonder to watch…but difficult to ride…
FLIF, reducing Spirit to words is like reducing gravity to the concept of graviton. We have absolutely no idea what gravity really is – we’ve never actually seen it – so we use logical concepts to try and describe it. But conceptualization cannot express the depths of mystery which is gravity and the quantum. Our understanding of gravity is like describing the sun by observing a shadow.
How much more mysterious is the Spirit? We know not where it comes, or where it goes. When we think we grasp it, it makes all things new again. And again. And forgives us yet again for clutching an idol (our cherished religious concepts). We recognize the fruit of Spirit, but that fruit is not the Spirit itself – it is more like a benevolent shadow.
Spiritual words are important, but can easily give us a false sense of empowerment. We so quickly lean on our own understanding. Yet the finite cannot contain the infinite. And are we really certain that the Horse wants to be hitched to our cart?
Once again you’ve managed to channel the feelings of my own restless heart through your fingers and keyboard.
Thanks for this post NP.
Thanks for giving voice to so many of us, people like myself, who often feel as though we are slogging our way through the religious wilderness of fear and judgmentalism.
John L…thx for that breath of fresh air…all good stuff and again,I think we agree,but I may be on a parallell rail …I take yr point to suggest the limits of words and wd concur,.but I’m noticing that yr using the very thing you know won’t do.That is,conceptualizing about that which is beyond concepts….in that sense,we are really spirits in bondage and are deepest desires are to be free,so on this end of the cart, I continue to hope…there’s a myth I know of …a land where wild horses run free.This quote from Lewis has always stuck with me….
“In the enjoyment of a great myth we come nearest to experiencing as a concrete what can otherwise be understood only as an abstraction. At this moment, for example, I am trying to understand something very abstract indeed–the fading, vanishing of tasted reality as we try to grasp it with the discursive reason. Probably I have made heavy weather of it. But if I remind you, instead, of Orpheus and Eurydice, how he turned round to look at her, she disappeared, what was merely a principle becomes imaginable. You may reply that you never till this moment attached that ‘meaning’ to that myth. Of course not. You are not looking for an abstract ‘meaning’ at all. If that was what you were doing the myth would be for you no true myth but a mere allegory. You were not knowing, but tasting; but what you were tasting turns out to be a universal principle. In the moment we state this principle, we are admittedly back in the world of abstraction. It is only while receiving the myth as a story that you experience the principle concretely.”
Thx again…enjoying yr thinking
A lot of wonderful sentiments and discussion here.
I agree that the Jesus/sword issue relates more to his very message and being causing divisiveness between some than to an actual “warplan” that calls for division.
I would also argue the sword imagery suggests a cleaving between truth and lies, life and death, etc.
That said, am I a bad person for having read the “Cleavage Enhancement” headline and having my mind go in an ENTIRELY different direction? Especially with the way David worked slowly up to his point, I have to admit, I kept expecting something a LOT more temporal/corporeal and not, in fact, spiritual. (Nudge, nudge…wink, wink…knowwhatImean knowwhatImean…?)
haha…men never wonder why they call them Wonder Bras..;
)
thoroughly enjoyed this post…
Merry Christmas form a very hot and dry South Africa! David your blog has saved my ministry and passion…and still does!
Well, I once felt peace and brotherly love in a Mormon church and they blasphemy the name of God regularly with their capricious conceptions of Him and their desire to become Him. As humans created in the image of God we are capable of divine expression even in our pitiful fallen state; even the soldiers in World War 1 had a brief respite on Christmas and walked out of the trenches to greet each other only to return to the trenches the next day and resume killing each other. Though we are capable of such divine expression we are still in desperate need of the cleansing power of the cross and the resurrection deliverance from death that Jesus brings. If we are talking about a larger context … Romans 12:9 seems to echo a solution to the apparent dichotomy between “love your neighbor” and “not peace, but a sword” … “Let love be without hypocrisy, abhor what is evil, cling to what is good”. Love must both abhor evil and exalt what is good. When we love our neighbor we don’t condone their Christlessness, but we do seek out what is good in them and call them to reconciliation to God through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus, love both unites and divides. It unites those who receive it, and divides those who don’t. If a bubbly feeling of love and peace changes our attitude of abhorrence towards evil, then we are in danger of deception. The only reason I once accepted Mormonism was because of that feeling of peace and lack of discernment. But, of course, such abhorrence must obviously not be against the person, just the sin. Just my thoughts to add to this pile…
David, perhaps NP -was- sensing the presence of Spirit in the hippy store? I sometimes don’t think we give Jesus enough credit for being the creator and sustainer of the Entire Universe, not just our own little religious corner of it.
Loving a person who is mean, nasty, evil, and perhaps even has (gasp!) the wrong theology, is not “hypocrisy” (as I understand you to infer), but just the opposite. Such kind of love seems to reflect the heart of Christ.
I would say – go hang with the Mormons a bit – go hang at the hippy bookstore – go hang with the sinners and unlovable people of this world. Plant the seeds of Christ’s love, even where the ground seems hard and dry. I’ve rarely found LK10:11 to be viable option.
Sometimes we forget that we are just as sinful as the Mormon, the New Ager, the Buddhist, the atheist, and the most hardened of heart. As you say, only the cross can redeem the human heart. Not theology.
Sure, love can divide, but 95% of the time, the religious divisions in this world occur as a result of intolerance, ignorance, bigotry, hatred, tribal inheritance, and selfishness – all in the name of religion and love.
John, the word “hypocrisy” comes from that verse in Romans 12:9. We must understand what the Bible is inferring. To not abhor evil would mean that love condones my own sins, which is hypocritical. On the other hand, to abhor evil but to not seek out that which is good is not love at all. And this in no was infers that we shouldn’t be hanging with the Mormons, chillin’ at the hippy bookstore, et cetera. We ever have Christ’s ministry example before us; and yet Christ never backed down from outwardly abhorring blatant sin (which ironically came mostly from the super religious). Any legitimate ministry should reach into all corners of the world just as Christ did. Yet as I immerse myself in the world and spread Christ’s love, I do not blithely ignore evil nor fail to see sin and death for what it truly is. I weep with Jesus at the work of death over Lazarus, I am angry with Jesus at the hypocrisy and defilement of God’s name, and I love with Jesus for the lost and hurting in the world. And though I am at times just as sinful as all the rest, I am called to sanctification in Christ Jesus, adopted as a son by which I cry out “Abba!” And as I am gradually transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit from glory to glory, I do not allow that love which I have received as a free gift (obtained in the most costly manner by our Savior on the cross) to be diluted into something it isn’t. There is a time and place for everything, and we must give room for the Holy Spirit to express Christ’s love through either peace or confrontation … but only through His discernment, not ours – God forbid.
David, good thoughts.
You say, “we must give room for the Holy Spirit to express Christ’s love through either peace or confrontation”
I suppose I’m just skeptical that we (the church) have found much success at expressing Christ’s love through “confrontation.” I think just the opposite.
Confrontation seems more appropriate to Christ’s heart in social justice contexts – think MLK, Aung Suu Kyi, Dalai Lama, Tutu+Mandella, etc…
I think you’re probably right. When we have those nuts at Westboro Baptist picketing soldier’s funerals, spitting on homosexuals, and making videos about how Santa is a fag and will send you to hell, we catch a glimpse of what happens when abhorrence of evil combined with confrontation consumes and destroys love, catapulting them into realms of hatred that Jesus would fall down weeping at the sight of. Confrontation can not and must not usurp the working of the Holy Spirit grounded in justice and love. So, I would agree that social justice seems far more appropriate than what many in the church would view confrontation as. But when I look at the greatest revivals (true revivals at that) in Christian history, there was a clear preaching on and conviction of sin that purged large sections of the body of Christ of hidden sin. So I think such confrontation, within our own rank and file, is far more appropriate than confronting the unsaved sinner with his sin as we would a Christian.
..a good discussion between you two guys on a timely and difficult subject…my take on yr position David is that I often see it (not necessarily yrs) as a program and not geuine love for another human being.I’m reminded of something I read recently:
The beginning of love is to let those we love be perfectly themselves, and not to twist them to fit our own image. Otherwise we love only the reflection of ourselves we find in themâ€â€¦.Thomas Merton
Merry Christmas to one and all and let’s continue to work out our salvations with as much fear and trembling as we can muster
FIF…that’s a great quote! Thanks for posting it! Very good timing!
That’s a good quote. People need to be transformed into the image of Christ, but the problem is that we tend to think that it’s our job to do when in reality it’s the Holy Spirit’s job. I think that as we accept them for who they are and avoid judging, we must be praying fervently that the Holy Spirit works deep within them otherwise pluralism will prevail and they will be no better off. There’s been so many times that I’ve simply loved the person but never challenged them with truth, nor prayed fervently for their salvation, and they were no better off over the long run. We are call called to the ministry of reconciliation, but we must do so only under the power of the Holy Spirit — no more, no less.
Thx David …I’m sorry,but I can’t help to think yr position is one of elitism and superiority if you truly think yr lack of prayer or truth-challenging leaves yr mark in a rather sorry state.And why is pluralism so difficult to digest,religious or otherwise…do you think you cd humble yrself and learn from a good Buddhist,Hindu,Muslim and maybe even a Mormon.
Elitism is ever the charge that pluralists level against those who assert there is truth. It really doesn’t phase me anymore because I know the love and truth of Christ that dissipates all elitism/legalism. And I do know the danger of falling into elitism if one does not stay grounded in Christ’s love. But I also know the danger of pluralism if one does not stay grounded in truth. In regards to pluralism (the philosophical system), it is simply a product of the syncretism, synthesis, and despair that has resulted from the rise and dominance of existential philosophy (existentialism having given up on the quest for truth a long time ago). (I’ll leave it to Francis Schaeffer to sanely analyze the rise of pluralism and its erosion of truth.) Yet if the ability to “humble ourselves” and “learn from a good Buddhist” leads to the “everything is legitimate” tenant of pluralism then there is a clear danger of falling into deception. I used to believe in Mormonism, and am quite knowledgeable and appreciating of the good qualities of Mormons, but this does not make them any less deceived nor in any less need of Christ’s salvation. The same goes for any false system that does not believe Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one comes to the the Father except through Him. I can and do love and listen to the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Muslim, and the Mormon, but if I do not pray nor challenge them with truth in the long run then I am simply performing an act of contextualization — which is a far cry from the true seed planting of evangelism. I have spent much time witnessing to fellow Mormons; but there was a time early on when I just listened to them and never spoke truth and it brought me into Mormonism rather than bringing them out of deception. So in response to your inquiry fif, humility should never mean checking truth at the door. I find it interesting, when I go to witness to people of other faith’s, how they love it when I listen to them but quickly dismiss me when it is my turn to present my faith…
David…so yr willing to wash their feet…but with conditions
You’re misconstruing everything with disconnected one-liners. Jesus both washed their feet and called them to repentance. If you want to call repentance a condition, then go right ahead. That’s the one major condition the whole gospel rests on, repentance. You can wash people’s feet until Kingdom come, but if they are never led to repentance then they are no better off. Alas, I think this will just keep going in circles. I’ve said what I’ve wanted to say.
So be it….but remember,I’m not dismissing you…
…we can disagree without being divisive-yr entitled to yr understanding of correct theology that leads to faith-I’m more concerned with faith and the theology that will support it.It might appear that I just said the same thing in two ways,but I wd be quick to argue that theology shld be Faith’s child.Most of us have our experience of God or Christ(including Paul)before we even know what theology is – correct or not.
…we think that every believer has heard or read Paul’s gospel,but a ponder for a minute those who lived and died and were unaware that there was such a person.It’s not like Paul’s letters were published and cd be bought in every market in the Roman wolrd. What wd their theology look like? Wd it pass the test? Better still,why was Jesus so pleased with the Roman Centurion -his faith or his theology?