Intellectuelle

Bonnie,

I think what’s important isn’t that we de-emphasize God’s love but that we make sure we understand and teach what that love really is.

No, and yes. Whenever I point out that "sermons" in the book of Acts never state that God "loves you" I am not engaging in de-emphasizing God's love but, rather, I am attempting to point out that Christianity extends so much beyond the feel-good relationship that is now pushed. In other words, exactly what you state... that we understand and teach what that love really is. As David Wayne points out, evangelicals in America have come to believe that the core creed of American religion (American Christianity?) is "God loves me and has a wonderful plan for my life.” Such thinking (and I'm not accusing you of thinking this way) runs counter to the Biblical evidence. Yes God loves us, but what makes us conclude that He has a wonderful plan for each of our lives? Is that really the Gospel?

Bottom-line, I think we both agree that what all Christians should seek after is a full and complete relationship with God and avoid the ultimately plastic "feel-good" relationship that is peddled about.

Well said.

I love you Rusty:) but I have to point out that the sermons in Acts were introductory to the faith, later when Paul gets deeper into declaring important things about Christ and the gospel he talks a lot about love.... and John almost dotes on the topic.

There has always been this dual aspect of the love and the severity of God. I believe that two Enlightenment preachers depict the two well: Brainard learned to give the gospel that centers on God's love and reaped a revival, Johnathon Edwards also preached at that time, but about such aspects as "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"- which was the more prevalent message of the Reformed faith...also with results of revival.

Which was better? Which was more true? Both were true aspects and delivered to those who needed to understand the aspect which most penetrated their souls.

I think there is a balance between what you point out and Bonnies points. Both being true without cancelling out the other.

me again.
Just a thought:
if God *is* Love, wouldn't all His aspects, including "holy, righteous, omnipotent, merciful, wrathful, omnicient, etc." be explained as expression of that love in some way?

And is this something of what Bonnie said here? Do we sometimes react against what we find wrong in the Church more than we fully explain what is the true expression of the gospel? I ask myself this question in many ways all the time- it isn't pointed at anyone.

There is a lot of ugly plastic "Christianity"... but does it blind us with all its glitz and cause us to overlook the true? So we are tempted to superimpose our "rugged and harsh" rendition? Would't that be as false if we fell into that?

sorry - I 'm up too late, ....

Rusty, I agree that the "wonderful plan" part is problematic. I'm not ready to throw it out entirely, though; it's another one of those cliches that needs proper explanation.

Ilona, you've brought up a very good point about the emphasis a person may require when approached with that "duality" (which I wouldn't call a duality but rather opposite sides of the same coin). I wonder how personality, experiences, etc. affect both the means a person may require in order to understand the gospel and the emphasis one ends up having in one's personal theology.

I myself had plenty of guilt and sense of condemnation before my conversion; I was very aware of wrath. I also had well-developed senses of pride and denial going. I needed to hear what I really deserved condemnation for; in many ways it was different from what I thought. I also was able to admit my need for pardon once I realized that I could be pardoned. (Agape love was a concept entirely new to me and I didn't really "get it" for quite some time...I'm still working on it! :-) )

I also agree that much of Christian thought and even theology is reactionary in nature when it ought to be responsive.

When the feel-good kind of Christianity comes up, I always think about the bit at the beginning of Perelandra, where Lewis's character encounters an eldil (basically an angel): "I felt sure that the creature was what we call 'good,' but I wasn't sure whether I liked 'goodness' so much as I had supposed."

Atlantic, what a perfectly wonderful quote! I need to copy that into my collection:)

Bonnie, I'd been thinking about this discomfort with "the "wonderful plan" part". It never occurred to me to ever have a problem with presenting the gospel that way since the idea of God having a plan is so woven into the scriptures. The idea that He knew us before we were born, the times He says "I have a plan for you, for good and not evil" concerning the Israelites. I've never seen it as problematic.

I am more uncomfortable in labeling portions of Christianity without full discussion. I can get sticky about that. "feel good", for example -while I fully know what you refer to, also is something that I think is the part of the gospel that got lost with emphasis upon works. It became exaggerated and I would consider calling that heresy if the case would be made. As it is, I look at it as missing the mark and needing correction.

Plus... is it a root problem or symptomatic of another that we ought to be looking at? Maybe it isn't only feel-good Christianity, but an easy carnal Christianity that encompasses more than those particular Churches. Changing the face mask from feel-good to be-tolerant to my-way-or-the highway.... it could take many forms. Anything that puts the carnal in place of the spiritual and emphasizes man's methods over God's Truth.

In any case ( forgive me for my digression and longwindedness) it seems to me that a renewed sincerity in seeking God is the only positive antidote.

Simplistic?
====
I, too, had overwhelming sense of guitiness before
God... I needed to hear about the simple invitation of forgiveness and the possibility of knowing God personally- something I got neither in my Presbyterian upbringing and certainly not in my short lived conversion to Catholicism.
but in finality I felt it was simply the gracious work of the Holy Spirit that saved me and I can't really explain that!

Correct, the idea of love as God defines it and as it is currently used are two, quite separate thoughts. We are more than content to let God serve us, our whims and our needs, in love, than to actually be the creatures we were made to be. We were created to love God, and in that loving to serve Him and others. His love must be as He defines it, not as we wish it were for our immediate pleasure or long term desires. We have for so long had this God of love who was rather like the genii in the lamp, at our beck and call. I think it is time to change the language of the discussion, in the church and in the world. Instead of a God of love, the God Who loves.

Ilona,

...I have to point out that the sermons in Acts were introductory to the faith, later when Paul gets deeper into declaring important things about Christ and the gospel he talks a lot about love...

I understand. My statements do not exclude love from the equation.

There has always been this dual aspect of the love and the severity of God. ...if God *is* Love, wouldn't all His aspects, including "holy, righteous, omnipotent, merciful, wrathful, omnicient, etc." be explained as expression of that love in some way?

Exactly. If I'm understanding you correctly, then we're saying the same thing - the "love" of God must be understood in its fullest, and most complete, form. God is Love; even while expressing anger and wrath. Could even the existence of Hell be attributed to God's Love? Jesus is portrayed as meek and mild yet Revelation 19 describes Him as such,

"Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords."

...since the idea of God having a plan is so woven into the scriptures. The idea that He knew us before we were born, the times He says "I have a plan for you, for good and not evil" concerning the Israelites.

My concern has to do with the fact that the scriptural idea of God having a plan has to do with the nation of Israel (as you state), and not us individually. What's more, the context of God's plan for Israel was always within the framework of how Israel fit into God's Plan. It is unfortunate that in our society we have taken these ideas and transformed them into the notion that God has a wonderful plan for each one of us AND that we can go about discovering it. The result is that focus of God's Plan completely changes direction.

Rusty, it does seem that we are saying the same things but expressing it in our mutual perspectives and vocabulary.

As I keyed in the word "plan" in a Bible search I was struck by how many times it did line up with your viewpoint on it. Later, though, I thought of that verse, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." I wasn't ready to give up the individualized plan idea.

I did a lookup on the Greek word translated "ordained", it is Proetoimazo. It carries the connotation of preparing the way.
" drawn from the oriental custom of sending on before kings on their journeys persons to level the roads and make them passable "

This has a somewhat different flavor from the common use of "God has a plan for your life" and more follows that God fits us into His plan and makes the way for us to successfully fulfill that.

I guess I have to change my view to fit more with yours on this. This is more harmonious with other scripture statements ... and well, blush, you're basically right.

Ilona,

...you're basically right.

As much as I'd like to take credit for the point of view I wrote on, it really comes from studying the works of others. Greg Koukl, from Stand to Reason, has an excellent CD set on this topic (titled "Decision Making & the Will of God"). There are also the books Playing With Fire, by Walt Russell, and How to Read the Bible for All its Worth, by Fee & Stuart. The Jollyblogger also references another book... can't remember the title or author at the moment, but the excerpts that he posted were excellent.

One sidenote: I have no doubt that God has a plan for each of us... the issue is whether or not we have access to the details of that plan. American evangelicalism tends to teach that, as we grow closer to God, we increase our ability to "hear His voice"... to discover just what it is He wants us to do. THAT'S the part I have an issue with.

Well, I appreciate your conveying it. I hadn't realized how attached I was to the concept.. and still not sure how it will be replaced in the quest to know God's Will, which is always a big issue for all of us Christian revolutionaries ( to borrow Barna's term).

May be I should post on that and see what you think of that idea:) -Christian revoutionaries