reading donald miller's "searching for god knows what"
highly recommend it.
it strikingly brings out an idea i've been wrestling with for the last year:
how can you reduce and simplify the beauty and complexity of god's message into a few phrases and a list of ideas to follow?
the theological concepts of how it all works, the propiations and transformations and omniwhatevers of it all, that is not how god chooses to present the gospel to us. god does not choose to contrast sin and morality and the beauty of morality etc. most of the time when jesus shows us the good news of salvation, it is not through any kind of proposition of logical concepts. jesus shows us through parables, jesus shows us on a relationship level.
donald miller asks a provoking question after going through this:
are we just caving in to our reason-based society to come up with some bullet points for jesus?
are we saying we're smarter than god and we know of a better way to present the bible?
no one likes to actually read anything any more, we like bullet points and summaries--is that what we're doing with the gospel?
don't get me wrong, theology is beautiful, we need theology, but if jesus wanted a confession or a catechism or bullet points to salvation to be really important, then he would have given them to us. nowhere in scripture do you find those lists----its on purpose. god uses millions of ways and means and cannot be limited by a set way to do things.
the bible is presented to us in all its pain and sweat and flaws and jesus (unlike joseph smith and mohamed) did not grab a scroll and write down his complete theology. he always values intimate close honest relationships and beautiful metaphors over lists of concepts.
god uses poetry and songs and choirs and references to current culture.
thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
my dad says good thoughts.
i ditto that.
yeah, except you've still got to come up with a way of explaining it to get people into the Bible in the first place.
or is that another subject all together?
Oh, our Pastor has raed thiss quote to us that entirely aplies, but I forget what it is, maybe he will say it this sunday.
Ahem, excuse my pathetic spelling, I'm on the Watts computer, which I am not used to . . .
that's the other point of the whole book.
he brings out a possible way to say it: that a huge message of the bible is going against what he calls a "lifeboat mentality."
this is the pharisee's way of doing things. it is setting up a hierarchy of people that are more right and more moral and better than others.
moses and john and paul in their writing were very careful to go against this mentality. jesus, too, spent the majority of his time going against a lifeboat teaching. one of the reasons he was so hated.
miller's point was that we have to say the bible how the bible says the bible. not try to come up with our better way to trick people into logically believing it.
Besides, only God can change mans heart, so their is only so much we can do or say . . . we could argue or explain endlessly but it wouldn't matter, or even help.
that's true though...we can go around condemning every party or group or affiliation on earth because they are all made up of humans and none are perfect. so we shouldn't go around looking for what's wrong...we should look for who's got the most right!
we can put ourselves on top of the pyramid and condemn everyone else. we can put ourselves at the bottom and only conemn ourselves. we can be in the middle and point fingers both ways like the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz, but we're never going to have true joy until we focus on getting ourselves right by the Bible only the way it was written, in the context of the times, and stop trying to see what "new" ways the Bible is being presented in, because maybe it'll make sense this time.
exactly.
I wouldn't scrap the Catechisms and apologetics books completely. Yes, the Bible is God's Word to us and should be the ultimate authority, but it's good to have other literature to explain it to us. And what that literature is like kind of depends on the way people learn--some people learn best from parables and personal relationships, but some people have the literal, bullet-point sort of minds that really appreciate having it all neatly laid out. Yes, it's impossible accurately to reduce God's amazing and complex gospel down into 107 neat little questions and answers, but it's a tool to help people with literal minds understand it. And that tool must always lead back to God's Word.
Good point Aletheia. I know their are people who like to see thing laid out. But it really depends on God anway.
I agree, as long as nothing changes from the truths in the Bible to the ideas in the newer ways it's presented. that's one of the reasons I have some problems with a few translations of the Bible, but my pastor is really good at knowing how true they are to the original Greek/Hebrew, which helps a lot. some of the new versions are a lot better.
so that's all great, like you said people are different, as long as the truths behind what/how it's presented are the same.
First of all, I must say, Sam, you like complicated posts. I had to use all my mental power and temporarly ignore Nathan asking for the computer.
We've been going through Romans right now in Church and we're on Romans ten. Pastor Lyon has been talking alot about stating the Gospel simply. It's possible to state the gospel too simply, it's been done. A quote from someone (don't remember who) says somethg like: if you cut the gospel down too close to the quick you let out some of its vital spirits (don't quote me on that) Sometimes stating the gospel simply can help you to look at the whole picture.
About what you said about theology, Sam, theology is the study of God. We learn things about God in the Bible. My theology is what I believe.
I'm still a little left behind. I better go reread your post a couple hundred more times.
the theology i refer to is the theology of big words and concepts that i don't find in the bible. it's an emphasis i don't believe the bible makes.
books like romans balance with books like john and 1 john to provide a very clear emphasis on relationships and love. there is a time for theology, but it is certainly not the pattern we have for presenting the gospel. at least not that i can find.
i see your point about literally-minded types of people, that's definitely true.
i would hesitate, again, however.
we just have to be careful to not say "well, the bible's very good if you're that kind of a person, but we can think up something better."
the thing is, we can't.
we're insignificant compared to the god who gave us the exact bible he intended us to have--it's meant for all people regardless of personality type or relational vs. head-knowledge people. it's written for all people regardless of who they've been or how they think.
we should have a discussion about translations of the bible, that'd be interesting.
swords in the square at noon sharp tomorrow.
okay, fine, rocks and throwing knives.
okay, fists.
okay, we can have it with words.
*rolls eyes*
lol. I love your idea Sam . . . God descussion. : )
And I agree with you Michaela. I totally have to focus. Which is why I feel so out of it sometimes.
Yeah Sam I agree with you there. Bible first and foremost.
(And I don't want to be annoying or anything but there are many things in the Bible which are really hard to understand, which is why those theologians write those big turgid books about theology--things like predestination versus freedom of the will, hell, the Trinity.... But you could be right--I'm sure some of them really do take it too far with their fancy terms and long books. God gave us what He gave us didn't He? Thanks for pointing that out.)
I'll come watch the discussion! But I don't know enough about the different translations to do any of that knife-throwing.
I'll TRY and be here. TRY, you understand. I'll be home but getting ready for company...maybe I can take a break for a few...
Yeah, I think especially in ministering to people of different religions that focus on certain parts of something (following rules, sacrifice, love, etc.) you have to present different parts of the Bible for them to grasp it at first. Not explain the Bible differently, but present the parts that really grab them, speak to them, and meet them where they are.
"predestination versus freedom of the will, hell, the Trinity"
that was so funny reading that the first time, because i thought of you as thinking of things, and you're listing them off, and then you're like, "Oh, hell, what about the trinity!"
and i was like, that's weird, i didn't think you would use the word hell like that, and then i was like, oh, right, she just literally meant hell.
thanks for the laugh.
well, yes, i agree to an extent.
i think our first and foremost tool are the gospels. they are infinitely more important to evangelism than a tract explaining jesus' perfect live and perfect god-man combo can ever be. people are moved by jesus' words and the working of the holy spirit, not by our own logical steps that we thought up.
good stuff.
LOL! :P
Yay we agree!
So... what about that Bible translation duel? It's already past 1:00! :D
yeah...I was trying unsuccessfully to make a pie crust and getting ready for company. I did TRY, but it didn't work. sorry! but where were the rest of you guys?
Post a Comment