timmy, 2 questions:

1. can overthrowing one dictator atone for the multitude of incompassionate and purposefully vengeful acts the "coalition of the willing" have perpetrated in Iraq/Afghanistan against formerly oppressed people? didn't we just replace the oppressor?

2. is the single goal of calling Jesus Christ Lord to be seen as heaven? is that something we find in Scripture?

just some thoughts...

if jesus is lord in our lives, is it because we audibly say it, or is it because we live like him?

if it is the latter, then gandhi and thich nhat hanh are greater in the kingdom than I.

but since it is about equality, how about we acknowledge that Bush's convictions are so great that he won't listen to any opposing opinions, even from his own "church denomination".

the president may have made choices with the intelligence he had at the time (too bad for the oppressed in Sudan where there isn't any oil), but he sure isn't the slightest bit ready to admit any wrong, and make the right corrections.

and once this civil war ends, I am sure democracy will be at GWB envisioned.

the one thing gandhi has all over Bush is...he stood on the frontlines of what he believed. and oddly enough, it was thich nhat hanh who enlightened MLK to the methods of gandhi and non-violence, encouraging him down the path where one leads the people by being with the people. MLK seemed to grasp this concept quite easily after looking back to through the entire bible. Abraham, Moses, David, John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, and Paul.

Bush, like Solomon (and all the other kings and rulers), is too satatiated to allow for the freedom of God and justice and compassion to reign.

Well, on your two topics (and trying to stay out of the current thread):

1) Life is a little bit bigger than some cognitive proposition. Life is exclusive, prohibitive, and negat-ive, but I don't think along any lines of belief. Take John 14:6 and remove the modern and Greek emphases on verbal rationality, and there are some provisions for orientation openness.

2) Violence is not an appropriate means to an ends. The War in Iraq is no exception, no matter what the declared motivation.

Let me get this straight...where is heaven at?

And- when Jesus came to make all things new, what was he making new?

ben spain

ben spain! the lost have been found!

the idea of the only way to the Father being a claim to exclusivity kinda falls apart when we live in an ecclesiastical territory war. for instance, certain denominations believe homosexuality is a sin, certain ones do not. which ones are following "the only way to the Father?" well, if that's Jesus and Jesus wasn't a homosexual, then I guess the non's win. however, he wasn't married or a substance abuser or a liar, fraud, ad nauseum. so by that rationale...

Israel in Isaiah had turned from God by saying one thing and doing the other. as a matter of fact, that (not blatant hedonism, etc.) is the true danger facing those who claim to follow Christ today. saying one thing, doing another. saying Jesus was a friend to the poor, but doing only minimal work in the area of social justice.

I hear you arguing for a grace-only theology, Tim. I'm not sure that's what you mean. Surely following Jesus means acting in some way or another? If you act like Jesus, how can you not have His heart within you? If you take seriously His priorities, how can you not be associated with Him? "I'm sorry Gandhi, Jesus would love to see you but you never prayed the sinner's prayer or were a member of a church."

Sorry, but just trying to elucidate that. Corbin is also dead-on with the whole verbal rationality thing. Jesus wasn't a Greek, so paths/ways were more Rabbinic than intellectual. The "halakah" was a way of acting based on the teachings of a rabbi. "Halakah" means "path" or "way" and implies an activity and not a cognitive assent.

Brad, do you mind if we stick around and talk?

Ben, he was making new...what was He making new anyway? (insert sarcastic smirk here)

peace-
sexy

Tim,

appreciate your response.

I wasn't speaking of non-violence, though I see why it would be implied.

the reason moses and david had "a heart after God's own" is not because God is violent, but rather that they were for the marginalized or oppressed, which meant standing on the front lines of battle.

I have no reason to trust any politician who sends soldiers to war - then stays behind to reap all the benefits of wealth - and then does nothing but increase the difficulty for the actual soldiers to get the correct compensation for their duty.

in my work at the vet center - because it can take more than a year to even get an answer from the VA - I will never know if the Vietnam Vets I see get any compensation, let alone the correct compensation. and these guys fought a war 40 years ago.

Bush doesn't line up with anybody from our scriptures, and yet we believe he has real "convictions"?

He has a real "agenda", and he seems to be willing to let all who enters "harms way" pay the price for it.



furthermore, the good acts that are like dirty rags in the eyes of God - this is in context to the jewish law.

the sermon on the mount is where we learn about the "spirit of the law", where jesus came to fullfill it by giving it meaning, rather than ritual practice that created pride and judgement rather than humility and love.

gandhi understood the spirit of this law and this truth. he was not doing it to be a good moral person - he was doing it because he knew it to be truth. Jesus played a huge role in this for him, thich nhat hanh, and MLK.


FYI - thich nhat hanh is a zen master who was good friends with thomas merton - that is how I first heard of him. He was exiled from Vietnam during the war because he would not choose sides.

anyway...

This journey to get into heaven reminds me of all the moms fighting to get the new playstation at christmas time.

who cares who is "in" and who "isn't"? I dont.

I am more interested in more interesting things...

ben spain

Guys--

You're more than welcome to stick around and continue this dialogue.

To respond to one little thread that has arisen, allow me to say this: I believe New Testament "Christians" believed in the Gospel Jesus taught only as a present reality; I also believe American "Christians" (generally) believe in the Gospel Jesus taught only as a future hope, thus the talk about who is "in" and who is "out" of heaven.

Call it uninteresting, but I am becoming enlightened as I hear the thoughts of my brothers about honorable men like Gandhi and where they fit into the Kingdom.

I'll continue reading, as this is fascinating stuff. Thanks to all for your contributions.

BT

I'm commenting on Brad's original question, not any of the ensuing discussion. Like Tim, I feel somewhat out of my depth here compared with the scriptural knowledge that some of you have. That said, again like Timmy, the Bible clearly says that believing Christ died for our sins and accepting him as Lord of our lives is the only way to be saved and spend eternity in Heaven. One can argue the semantics of that back and forth, but the that's what the Bible says, so that's what I believe.

As to our presence in Iraq, Casey and Kyle are already familiar with my position due to some reason conversations we had on my blog. I support our presence there from the standpoint of defending those who cannot defend themselves. Is that the main reason we went to war in the first place? No. I don't agree with all of the reasons we are there, but defending the Iraqis and helping them in a post-Sadaam Iraq is good enough for me.

Mike

I think that the one thing that irritates me the most in these discussions is when people say something along the lines of what Mike said, “I feel somewhat out of my depth here compared with the scriptural knowledge that some of you have.” By saying this, this then usually ends the point where the person commenting ceases to attempt to align the character of Christ with modern day living and actions, in this case, with the war in Iraq and other political escapades.

This bugs the shit out of me, I can not stand claiming ignorance or lack of thorough education in high brow scripture as a reason to not be able to talk, as a follower of Jesus, with clarity and concise thought when it comes to living as Christ commands us to, in the scripture. The last time I checked, I was able to know and understand the theology, love and grace of Christ just by loving and accepting Him.

anonymous,

with love and grace - check again.

I really appreciate everyone's opinion here, because this is the necessary conversation.

I suppose I've seen too many people do the "accepting Jesus" etc. thing and then live in a little theological ghetto where $5-$10 to a visiting missionary is considered "faith." I'm not trying to degrade anyone, it's just reality. To respond to some of the ideas:

1. Language of Scripture never indicates "accepting" Jesus as any sort of means to salvation. To my knowledge, this term is only used once by Jesus in reference to His disciples being rejected as He was rejected. We've bought into the idea that being "saved" is something that happens to individuals in the privacy of their hearts. Looking at the prophets, honestly, their sin is corporate and national and since the church is to be the spiritual adopted Israel then our salvation is in how we all follow Jesus: individual actions in communal settings.

2. To say that Jesus is the only way to the Father is fine, but we're missing the bigger picture. What is Jesus' "way?" That is what I'm trying to say. The energy we spend on exclusivism between faith strands and denominations blinds us to some strong realities. If living as Jesus did is the only "way" to the Father, then where do the American evangelical multi-million dollar "temple-building" projects fit? If living like Jesus is the only way to the Father, then due to the above reason and many more, we are simply happy, guiltless people wandering around on our own path.

Again, the Greek for "way" is hodos which is a very practical and concrete image, and even the Aramaic/Hebrew is the same only in Rabbinic terms. To follow Jesus is not to be forgiven and attend church regularly, although these are helpful by-products, but it is to mold our priorities to His. If our priorities are not the marginalized and impoverished, the proclamation of justice and a New World order (Kingdom) through Christ, then the "tax collectors and prostitutes" will enter the Kingdom ahead of us.

This is where the Gandhi, Thich Nhat Hanh, etc. discussion becomes very rich. We, as Americans and evangelicals, have really reverted back to a form of neo-Pharisaism where the Law becomes "salvation experience/personal relationship with Jesus" and we become blind to those people who don't fit that category and yet live more like Jesus than most of our pastors and church leaders, in the sense of hodos and halakah.

All I'm saying is that maybe the question shouldn't be: "Is Jesus the only way to heaven?" because in reality if that's what we're living for then we're dead already. As Brad keenly observed, the Kingdom is here and now, already and not yet, and simply waiting for people to live like they belong there: even if they are Buddhist monks or Hindu priests.

I apologize to Tim and Mike if you guys feel I'm attacking you (I think Mike knows better, but even so) I just get passionate and rolling when it comes to this particular idea. Responses are desperately needed.

peace-
b. sexy

Casey, I don't know that the question is "Is Jesus the only way to Heaven?" so much as it is "Does the Bible mean what it says?". As clearly stated as Romans 10:9-10 is I have to question the thinking that Gandhi (or others) could be saved apart from a belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus coupled with a confession of the same. The way I see it, all the good deeds in the world don't mean squat apart from a specific belief in Christ and his death and resurrection. Justification by faith (grace) is all that's required, and not the grace only theology that you mentioned, but what Tim detailed in his last post.

You indicated that molding our priorities to those of Jesus is to follow him. But what meaning does that hold without actual faith in him? There are certain to be those people who view Jesus as a great moral teacher (and nothing more) and pattern their lives after his, sans the faith aspect. What is to be said to those people, aside from "...depart from me, I never knew you"? Or what is to be said to the person who accepts Christ perhaps a week or two before their death and don't have the time to adequately mold their priorites to his, or at least practically live out those priorities? Or to a person like Ted Bundy, who spent his entire life practicing wickedness but appears to have repented and was saved before his execution?

Nick

16the people living in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death
a light has dawned."[a]

17From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."


The only challenge I feel I can offer is to understand what it looked like for the "people of God" to repent - why they needed to do so - and what this "kingdom of heaven/kingdom of God" actually looks like - especially compared to what the Jews expected it to look like.

The reason I offer this challenge is because you can't fully understand the scriptures of Paul that you keep using to exclusify our faith in Jesus.

In other words, Paul's words are absolutely meaningless without first fully understanding Jesus in his own context - rather than our hyperindividualized/hyperprivitized culture.

We must seek ye first the kingdom of God.


""But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." (Matt. vi. 33.)

The sole meaning of life is to serve humanity by contributing to the establishment of the kingdom of God, which can only be done by the recognition and profession of the truth by every man.

"The kingdom of God cometh not with outward show; neither shall they say, Lo here! or, Lo there! for behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke xvii. 20, 21.)

THE END."

-Leo Tolstoy

Greetings all. Brad comes out of “blog” semi-retirement with a vengeance! You’re over the 20 reply mark and my younger brother hasn’t even chimed in. Well, on to the good stuff…

I think we will all be grateful that God isn’t nearly as tied to our formulas for salvation as we are. If Tim had been implying a “grace only” theology he would be close to the truth given our severe inability to live correctly without it shattering barriers, sustaining, correcting, and generally imparting life where there was none before. I’m not as “modern-mind” hating as my beloved brother Bickel, but it’s certainly like us to split life into categories like Grace vs. Human Responsibility or Faith vs. Works etc. It’s all the same stuff, two sides of the same coin. Jesus himself always attempted to get us to see that by tying together things like “love God and neighbor”, “If you’ve done this for the least of these you’ve done it for me”, and so on.

Tim, I think the issue some of the others may be having with you on this subject is that your interpretation of the text and what it means to confess Christ might be a bit narrow. I on the other hand may have an interpretation that is too broad and conceptual. However, I believe that the work of Jesus Christ is much more far-reaching and powerful than a formula of saying the right things and believing (mentally consenting to) particular doctrines. It is easy to take biblical texts and fit them into our theological construct (and may be almost impossible not to) but we might not be so quick to quote other more difficult passages and fit them into a formula for entering paradise. If you did that you might end up without an eye or a hand, and you would have sold everything you have and given it to the poor. You might possibly spend all of your time with people who have no clothes, food, drink, are sick, poor, and in prison because Jesus uses this as the criteria for not getting cast into a lake of fire. By the way, all really good ways to spend your time! Go and do it…

Maybe if we could possibly see a bigger God who’s love isn’t confined by our limited understanding of it, we could make some room for the possibility that God could bring a Buddhists, Muslim, Hindu, Agnostic, or even an American Christian under the Lordship of Jesus Christ without you or I ever saying a word. Speaking as one who has studied and taught theology and history for about 15 years now, I would say that God rarely, if ever, allows us certitude but always offers us hope, grace and mercy and love. He breaks down our formulas, breaks out of our boxes and pushes us far beyond our limited understanding if we will simply be present with Him.

Well, as much as I care about all of you, I’m glad you’re not the final judge and I’m even more glad that I’m not! Peace…

Mike said, "One can argue the semantics of that back and forth, but the that's what the Bible says, so that's what I believe."

I'm not going to address the specific topic here of what heaven means and what it means "to be saved" or how that happens. But I just had to bring my perspective in here a bit, even if to be dismissed or despised. I think what really happens is "That's what I believe, so that's what the Bible says." The problem in resolving this conversation is that the Bible is significantly capable of being interpreted either way, and though I believe one interpretation is stronger by the context and language, the really decisive factors here are the values we bring to the table. We will emphasize the parts that support our beliefs and cohere the terms in ways that structure our worldview. We don't read the Bible with neutral eyes, and so it is possible to have very different interpretations while both sides are carefully trying to be faithful to the text and tradition.

I mention this because I'm not sure any resolution is going to be found until those core values are reexamined, and then only if a consensus can be reached. Otherwise, we'll have to respect our different values, live them out fully, and hope that God or whoever will recognize our sincere attempts to realize our faith/beliefs/values. I also say this, because this sentence implies something that has been bothering me but I haven't been able to articulate. I'm trying to word this carefully, but I'm sure I'm going to fail and piss people off. Sincerely, I'm sorry and not trying to.

Mike and Tim, you have both expressed on the Pentavorite Board and elsewhere that believing what you do and not being theological academicians does not make you a lesser Christian, and that you felt judged and ostracized by the passionate attacks of Kyle, Doug, Brandon, myself, etc. I understand your frustration, because in your responses during those dialogues, there was an implication that these "instigators" WERE lesser in their Christian attitudes because of their aggressive dialogues. This was never said, and the opposite might have even been said. But the tone and general message of some of these comments were belittling and judgmental, as belittling and judgmental as we had been. Beliefs are an exclusive activity. When one believes something, one does not believe its opposite. And the very nature of this opposition, or focusing, is one of prioritization and valuation. So I apologize for any condescension, but ask that simply disagreeing, even passionately, not be seen as an attempt at a power play. By giving scholarly hermeneutics or politically charged rhetoric, Casey and Kyle are not condemning those who are not like them or do not know what they know. They are just bringing to the table who they are. And vice versa. I think we all know you guys are very intelligent and want to be good people, and that's why an effort is being made to bridge our differences. It's not an attack as much as a plea, and that plea necessarily comes off as oppositional, as do the responses.

In all of this, I know that I cannot be a peacemaker. I'm not in the middle. I'm not even in the ballpark. I just hear these great discussions where personal effort, time, and beliefs are invested, and where the outcomes mean everything. A lot is at stake, so we all take it seriously. It doesn't mean that we think we are better--we're just trying to do what we think is right.

I don't know what this comment might produce. But I wanted to try and shift to the peripheral for just a second, and bring a reminder that it's not that one side is more "Biblical" than the other, or more "Christian", but rather that our worldviews are not all the same, and the working out of those differences may challenge us in our core.

Just a quick thought before I head home. Corbin's post reminded me of something out of Mere Christianity. It follows.

" I hope no reader will suppose that 'mere' Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions -as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable. It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting
unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into your room you will find that the long wait has done you some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and panelling. In plain language, the
question should never be: 'Do I like that kind of service?' but 'Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or
my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?'

When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen
different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house."

Corbin, I appreciate your forthrightness. It's nice to hear someone say that, despite each person's different views, we can all accept each other for who we are and the efforts we are each making at living in a Christ-like fashion, as far as our personal understanding of that goes. Casey and Kyle both know I don't feel attacked by them (from previous discussions elsewhere) and, other than the post that was made by the anonymous character, I haven't felt attacked for what I said here. Disagreement is fine. It's how the disagreement is presented that causes problems. You are right, in past posting on the message board, I was definately less than civil, which is one of the reasons I stopped posting on the secondary board. At times, I did feel attacked by other parties for my views on things, the war in particular. As I told Casey, my beliefs are founded in my upbringing, experiences, etc. If God convicts me that I need to change how I believe on a particular subject, then I pray that I will have the courage to do so. Believing differently from others does not make any of us less than any one else. Diversity of beliefs is what leads to discussion and (possible) new thinking about subjects we think we are pretty grounded in. And that's a good thing.

Mike

I value the discussion and certainly didn't mean to annoy anyone. I was signing out of the conversation is all. I value you all as men...some of you as women, even.
I find the conversation interesting, its just that I am not interested in participating in it because I fear a repeat of the pentavorite and I didn't want to impose that onto Brad's journal.
So, this is my post script to my bow out. I am sorry Timmy- I dont want to be annoying.

ben spain

Tim –

You said, “I readily acknowledge that my grace would run out far before that which I hope I have been afforded. but there still has to be a time where there is no grace, and I believe that to be the case for those that do not accept Christ as Lord of their life.” Your comment makes me think of one of the questions that is most complex and hardest to answer, for me. What about tribes/people who live in areas that western culture has not, nor never will reach. What about people who have no oral or written traditions that reflect the God and Christ we know, and they will never be exposed to it…do they all die in vain because they never knew of a man who they could accept? I don’t know the answer, every time we meet with missionaries, the same question plagues my heart and I yearn for an understanding. I can not believe that a God of such love and compassion would condemn people like this…

I will be the first to admit and be brutally honest (of course, that’s what I am known for!) that the whole notion of the kingdom being the here and now, that heaven is not some palace in the sky – that Jesus wasn’t teaching that type of kingdom reality, that nowhere in scripture does it actually say that we have to use the term “accept” Jesus, etc. is rather uncomfortable. It has taken me a long time to get to where I am with help of others around me and I feel like I only have the slightest understanding, I have a life of learning ahead of me.

But what it meant for me was that I had to take all of my nice, neat God boxes that I had and break them open. I had multiple boxes, the God box of what I was taught as a Catholic, what I was taught as a Presbyterian, what I was taught as a member of an AG church (where we were told only people who spoke in tongues were going to heaven) and then I had my Nazarene box. What I encourage you to do is pry those boxes open, allow God to spread out of those and explore how much larger He is than the boxes we categorize or attempt to explain him into.

I am a business person and organizational mottos are often to “think outside the box” and I think the church needs a fresh dose of this as well – we can not contain the mystery and wonder that is God within the confines of our boxes. Our upbringings and family traditions lay deep and hardened truths in our lives but, we have to be careful to not be our father’s religion and religious experiences, we need to be sure to have our own.

Just my thoughts on this – everyone is somewhere on the journey, we are all just at different mile markers. The willingness to talk about it, to share about it and to know that we all may or may not have the “right” answers is the first step to better understanding.

kudos to Corbin for saying what I implied...

I don't believe anyone involved in this discussion is blind or moronic, etc. If I did, I wouldn't bother with the dialogue. so much of this is so foreign to all of us, because we were raised in a certain context. I have found (I guess this is testimonial time) that since I've been able to expand around some of these issues, really trying to seize the context of Jesus/Paul in the scheme of an early Hebraic/non-western worldview there have been so many things come clear to me--so many new challenges:

When Jesus issues the parable of the tower and the King going to war (Lk. 14:25ff) it was in the context of large groups of disciples joining the following throng. These two parables basically say "You need to decide if you can sacrifice what it takes to follow me. If not, maybe it's better that you not try." Jesus, actually discouraging those who are not willing to dive in fully from following Him. I don't know how this would preach at an altar call or invitation: "Think about it, but don't come forward until you know you can give it all up to live like me." I know this sounds "works" but I think that's because we are paranoid about becoming catholic (caveat here: we might be better off working a little catholic bran into our diet to get things moving) but the reality of this passage is not a license for war, etc. It's that following Jesus means more than nodding, praying, and placing membership.

I think that's why the catechumen system (one year's instruction in the faith and community, i.e. full church membership, before baptism) in the early church really reveals through the first disciples the soteriology inherent in what Jesus taught. If someone was in that catechumenate process and had not been baptized (insert contemporary salvation act terminology here) would they "go to heaven"? They knew, as Tim astutuely pointed out, that Jesus Christ was who they wanted to follow and they were molding their lives in that direction but they didn't actually "seal the deal". What happened to them?

Our soteriology does not allow for God to act outside of our own understanding. That might be an issue we need to address. I appreciate all of your honesty, and if you've read this far then Applebee's wants to send you a coupon for a free dinner...okay, that doesn't really work...forget it...Let's get 40 comments for BT!

peace-
sexy

i dont know who anna is, but she is onto something.

oh boy- on earth as it IS in heaven - heaven and earth are one. The kingdom is here. Look mother, i come to make all things new. Oh boy.

ben spain

anna is the other half of subervision inc.

A quote from Brian McLaren. "I beleive that God is good. No thought I have ever had of God is better than God actually is."

The following is an excerpt from "The Last Battle" by C.S. Lewis...


"Then I looked about me and saw the sky and the wide lands and smelled the sweetness. And I said, By the Gods, this is a pleasant place: it may be that I am come into the country of Tash. And I began to journey into the strange country and to seek him.
"So I went over much grass and many flowers and among all kinds of wholesome and delectable trees till lo! in a narrow place between two rocks there came to meet me a great Lion. The speed of him was like the ostrich, and his size was an elephant's; his hair was like pure gold and the brightness of his eyes, like gold that is liquid in the furnace. He was more terrible than the Flaming Mountain of Lagour, and in beauty he surpassed all that is in the world, even as the rose in bloom surpasses the dust of the desert. Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead wth his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of Thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him, for I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yes I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, says the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and truly. For all find what they truly seek.
"Then he breathed upon me and took away the trembling from my limbs and caused me to stand upon my feet. And after that, he said not much but that we should meet again, and I must go further up and further in. Then he turned him about in a storm and flurry of gold and was gone suddenly.
"And since then, O Kings and Ladies, I have been wandering to find him and my happiness is so great that it even weakens me like a wound. And this is the marvel of marvels, that he called me, Beloved, me who am but as a dog----"



If no thought of God is better than He actually is, then God is even better than this one man's vision. The Holy Scriptures, as Holy as they are, do not reveal to us all of God's mystery and goodness.

We have no liberty to judge any man's eternal destiny!

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

He is risen, indeed. Great questions, Tim. Reguarding C.S. Lewis, I can see God having a conversation with someone like Gandhi similar to the one described in this passage from the Last Battle.

Response to your questions.

1. a. The Kingdom of this world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reighn forever and ever. (Rev. 11:15)
b. Revelations 21:3-5...I heard a great voice out of Heaven saying, "Behold the Tabernacle of God is with men, he shall dwell within them, they shall be his people and Almighty God will be with them. He shall wipe away all tears from there eyes, there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying and no more pain, the former things are all passed away." He that sat upon the throne said behold, "I make all things new". He said unto me write these words, for they are faithful and true.
c. Luke 7:22...So he replied to the messengers, "Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.
My personal opinion is that the Kingdom of Heaven is already here and looks like (see C. above), but not yet come in its fullness (B. above). It will be on earth as it is in heaven (see a. above). I believe the Kingdom of Heaven is where we can begin to dwell with God right now eternally.

2. Matthew 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

This is how to enter the Kingdom.

Peace to you, Tim

I'm hesitating to start a new thread because this is so intriguing to me, but I sense it is losing momentum. Kari and I are reading Brennan Manning's latest offering, "The Importance of Being Foolish," and there are some incredible thoughts I'd like to process with you all on here. If there's more to say about this (of course there is, but we have to decide if we want to say it), let's continue...I'll give it another day.

If this conversation does happen to be over, I'd like to thank all who participated. My life is richer because of it.

BT

Tim- have you thought about the Kingdom already being here? Kingdom living is a present reality for all, not a goal. MYou think thats a possibility?

Ben Spain

Speaking of reading, I just finished White, Ted Dekker's third book of his Circle trilogy. Wow. I don't know how many of you have read Dekker, but the 2nd book, Red and this last one really seemed to mesh with the discussion that was going on here. Check him out if you get the chance.

Nick

WE WANT BRAD! WE WANT BRAD! WE WANT BRAD!

In response to the adoring masses (okay, maybe just Corbin), I'll post a few thoughts about all this. :)

This has been so enlightening. I really like how civil the conversation has generally been, so thank you to all participants.

Reading through the comments again, I really am in harmony with some of the things John B. had to say. We need to recognize that God is bigger than our simple understandings of him. And, as Chris B. said over on his blog, we American Christians have too closely associated our patriotism with our Kingdom-thinking.

The book I mentioned that we're reading by Manning, "The Importance of Being Foolish," has a lot to offer this conversation just in the first chapter. Manning talks about how grossly we have watered down the Gospel, because as it is it just isn't very appealing. As Manning says, the Gospel of Christ is both embarrassing and offensive, and the American church (in general) strives to make it neither of those things. It just isn't appealing to turn the other cheek, to love our enemies, to give to the person who is suing us for our shirt our coat as well, and yet Christ didn't set limitations.

That's all a little off topic, I guess. I'm really making an effort to hear everyone's perspective here. As for the Gandhi question, I agree that I'm glad none of us are the eternal judge. Since my sophomore year at MVNC, I've been a strong believer that grace is God's greatest gift, graciousness His greatest characteristic. The passage which is quoted at the top of my blog, from Paul's prayer for the Ephesians, says it all. The love of God is greater far than tongue or pen can ever tell! We can't understand how high, long, wide, or deep it is...Paul says it's beyond knowing. In my feeble, broken humanity, I simply cannot grasp the "whole otherness" of God (thank you, Augustine). What does it mean that Jesus is the only way to the Father? I'm still trying to figure that out. While I consider myself somewhat proficient in Greek, I'd love to hear what some of you think about the original language of that passage.

As for Iraq, again, I'm trying to see everyone's perspective. I can't deny that I'm glad Saddam Hussein is no longer in power in Iraq. Is the American version of democracy viable there? We'll find out. It is noble, though ethnocentric, of us (again, generally speaking about "America") to try to assist these people. I still cannot get past our complete ignoring of injustices taking place in many other locations, the most recent of which I have learned about is Vietnam. All over the world, evil, corrupt dictators are committing mass genocide at levels far greater than Hussein was, but, because those places are not hotbeds of oil drilling, we turn our heads the other way. To me, this is a grave hypocrisy on the part of our government.

The things I say are general in nature and are still in the process of being thought out, so please, no one take any of this personally. I love each of you and believe if I attacked your character, I would be as guilty of sin as those I've been talking about. I sincerely desire for us to continue to discuss and listen to one another in Christian love and respect...Sometimes I think we forget that Christ's command to love one another isn't just a command to love an enemy (although it certainly is that), but is also a command to love our brothers and sisters.

Someone said (sorry, too lazy to reread all these posts!) that our religion is exclusive. I agree that Christianity as a Religion is exclusive. But it is interesting to me that our Christian "religion" is so exclusive when our Lord was so inclusive. From the Beatitudes to the Samaritan woman at the well of Jacob, from the tax collectors and prostitutes to his calling to Peter in a dream to "not call anything impure that God has made clean", Jesus is highly inclusive. He doesn't seem to spend any time debating who is in and who is out.

I personally believe that we often misread Jesus in light of our misreading first of Paul. We read the words of Jesus through the lens of Romans rather than the other way around. This tends to create a "Religion" for us to control and people both in and out of the religion to judge rather than focusing on the character and action of our Master. Christianity in it's most pure form has no room for such things. To me the debate shouldn't effect our mission and lifestyle since it is God's place to determine such things. We've been taught that our way is the way of the cross. The way of the cross is peace, reconciliation, and illumination of the character and action of God. We are most definitely to be about the work of the Kingdom. For us grace and forgiveness are to be offered not seven times but seventy times seven (on and on and on...).

Assuming for the moment that Casey, John, et al are correct and salvation is not at all dependent on an acceptence and confessing belief in the resurrection, how then is one to witness and bring non-believers into the Kingdom? I agree with you that our goal can't be an exclusionary finger pointing of "I'm in and you're not".

However, if we are trying to bring people into the Kingdom, hadn't we better be pretty sure that we are correct in how we are bringing them in? How do you encourage someone to live a Christ-like life sans a belief and confession in Him?

Nick

If we are trying to bring people into the Kingdom, hadn't we better be pretty sure that we are correct in how one lives in the Kingdom?

Nick,

I keep forgetting that most of you have history together (going to school together, etc.) and I do not. I should probably be more explicit in explaining myself and my theology. I am after all a Nazarene pastor and it's certainly not because I need a job! I believe we are completely dependent on the life, death, and ultimately the resurrection or Jesus Christ for salvation and any concept of the Kingdom of God that we have.

My posts here have simply been to say that God doesn't confine Himself to our systems and salvation is much bigger and more powerful than we can understand. In other words we have developed terms like "The order of salvation" to help us understand our faith better but we then attempt to force God to work by our system. We've made prescriptive formulas from biblical sources so that God will make more sense to us. Let's take the "Substitution" theory of atonement for example. Christ's death as a substitution for ours is a very biblical perspective, however it is only one of the biblical perspectives for the meaning and purpose of the cross. It is an insight into it's meaning, a metaphor to help us better grasp the deep mystery. If we make it a formula, we do damage to the biblical text and we create a schizophrenic God in our image who is motivated by linear thinking and kills himself to satisfy his thirst for blood.

These things are complex. Most evangelicals today have an incredibly reductionist view of salvation. Believe this, confess that, abstain from a few things and hold on for dear life until you die. For me "salvation" is that God has shattered all the barriers (sin) for us (between humanity/God and humanity/humanity). He has set us back to the garden in terms of our capacity for His eternal kind of life. Life that leads to Life. In my view, salvation isn't simply about and individual's status as heaven bound or hell bound. It is that I can live God's kind of life "on earth as it is in heaven" right now and that is what will be reflected into eternity. If this is what we mean by salvation then we can truly follow Christ's commission to make disciples, rather than the modern reductionist's idea of making converts. We can then take seriously Christ's command to love God with all we are and our neighbor as ourselves. If we start taking this life as seriously as Jesus himself took it rather than reducing it to formulas, a proclamation of God's kingdom will more naturally flow from our lives. Certainly our hope is that eventually we will see clearly what we now see darkly as if through tinted glass (the already and not yet principle). However, as Christ makes clear in Matthew 5-7, the expectation is to live the Life now and hope in God to grant us our complete inheritance in His time.

Sorry this is so freakin' long. Peace...

jb

Hey,

I'm not sure I have much to add to this conversation. Although I have spent much of the last year in my MA program studying these very things, I think everyone is doing a fine job without me and my opinions.

I do however want to ask that if anyone is interested in reading some very good books about these issues, I'd be happy to recommend some.

I know everyone involved in this conversation is very intelligent and probably reads often. But some admittedly haven't done a lot of research on these ideas.

Say the word and I'll post some recommendations.

I'll say it..."The Word." Post away, Brandon.

Thanks for the clarity you're bringing to all this, John, and to Nick for your great and relevant question.

BT

"Assuming for the moment that Casey, John, et al are correct and salvation is not at all dependent on an acceptence and confessing belief in the resurrection, how then is one to witness and bring non-believers into the Kingdom?"

We are all here already, in the Kingdom. The only "salvation" we need is from ourselves.

ben spain

Brad. I heard some news. See you soon? James