[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference yukon::christian_v7

Title:The CHRISTIAN Notesfile
Notice:Jesus reigns! - Intros: note 4; Praise: note 165
Moderator:ICTHUS::YUILLEON
Created:Tue Feb 16 1993
Last Modified:Fri May 02 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:962
Total number of notes:42902

717.0. "Calling any belief "non-christian"" by PAULKM::WEISS (For I am determined to know nothing, except...) Wed Apr 19 1995 12:44

Rather than burden the "Patriarchy" note with YAR (yet another rathole), I'll
start this fresh.  Responding to this thought (from 708.196):

>    I don't believe that it is Christ-like for humans to walk around this
>    planet telling other humans that they are not really Christians (or
>    are 'rebelling against God.')
>
>    Christ said such things, but He did so with an authority that people
>    on this planet do not have.  It is more Christ-like to love each
>    other.  All this condemning and pushing people away from God is not
>    the lesson I have learned from the teachings of Jesus.


Suppose someone were to assert the following:

"I'm a stauch Marxist, really I am.  

 I also believe that accumulating capital is a really good thing, and I 
 support the right of anyone to accumulate as much capital as they can, and 
 then hire people to work for him, at whatever wages he can get people to 
 come, even if the workers are on bare subsistence and he earns millions of 
 dollars a year.

 What?  What do you mean, that belief is not Marxist?  Why do you keep 
 showing me those writings of Marx that appear to say something different?  I 
 interpret those writings differently than you do.

 Why are you so insistent?  Who made you the keeper of Marx's writings?  I 
 believe in Marx, and I'm a Marxist.  Who are you to keep insisting that my 
 belief in the accumulation of capital is not Marxist?  You're so 
 judgemental.  Can't you just accept that I'm a Marxist too, and that I just
 see some things differently than you?"

If this were to happen, the absurdity of claiming one's beliefs to be Marxist
while denying the foundation of Marxism would be apparent to all.  Yet this
happens *all the time* with Christianity.  People desire to claim the title
'Christian' for their beliefs, while those beliefs may deny major, even
foundational, proclamations made by Christ Himself.

Jesus makes some incredibly outlandish claims about Himself, and about how to
follow Him.  His claims put people off in His day, too.  In the story related
in John 6:42-66, Jesus claims that He is the Bread of Life, and that "I tell
you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you."  An outlandish claim, and one which many
people could not accept.  The story ends by saying "From this time many of
His disciples turned back and no longer followed Him."  People could not
accept what He said about Himself, and because Jesus was right there in front
of them in the flesh, they only had two choices: accept Him *and* what He
said about Himself, or reject what He said and leave.  Many chose to leave,
but because of His proximity, the choice to accept Him while also rejecting
what He said about Himself wasn't a real possibility.

But 2000 years later, things are different.  Jesus isn't standing right here
in front of us any more, so it's entirely possible for us to accept the
things about Him that we like, 'interpret' or ignore (as unreliable witness)
things He said that we don't like, and claim that we're really following Him.

It is *NOT* usurping God's authority, or assuming the authority of God, to
note that a given belief is not in accord with what Jesus Christ taught.  It
is simply noting: "What you say does not match what Jesus said."  Unless we
can do this, then Christianity becomes a NOP.  If anyone can take any belief,
assert the claim that this belief is "christian," and we have to just accept
that without question, then what's the point, anyway?  "I believe that child
sacrifice is christian.  Who are you to say that it's not?  You have to
accept my beliefs as christian because I say they are"

Existing examples could be given, but specifics are beside the point.  The
point is that Jesus said some very specific things, and if someone asserts a
belief directly counter to what Jesus taught and claims that the belief is
'Christian,' it is a perfectly reasonable thing to point out that it is not.

Paul
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
717.1BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Wed Apr 19 1995 13:0026
    Emo Phillips (comedian) has a comedy routine that goes like this:

    		Emo sees a man on a bridge who seems about to jump off
    			to kill himself.
    		Emo tries to talk the man out of suicide and in the
    			course of their discussion, they discover
    			that they are the same religion (Baptist, I
    			think.)
    		Emo asks the man for the specific sect information 
    			about this other man's religion and after 
    			each answer, he says excitedly "ME, TOO!"
    		Then Emo asks one last question (something about
    			the year of the 'conference' that the man's
    			church subscribes to) and the man gives
    			his answer.  It's different than Emo's year,
    			apparently.
    		Emo cries to the man, "HERETIC!!" and says to the 
    			audience, "And I pushed him off..."

    If someone claims to love, honor and worship Jesus Christ but has
    slightly different views about the Bible or the meaning of Christ's
    teachings, *what right does anyone have* to tell this person that
    s/he is not really a Christian???????

    Who has the right to try to push people away from God (even if such
    a person believes s/he has a good reason to do so?)
717.2CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanWed Apr 19 1995 13:3339


Acts 11:26  And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it 
came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and 
taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. 



 The above verse contains the first use of the word "Christian" in the Bible.
 Who were these disciples?  Verses 17 and 21 of Acts 11 talks of those who
 "believed on the Lord (17) and "a great number believed and turned to the 
 Lord"..did these disciples merely acknowledge that there was a God, that 
 Jesus existed and believe in their "own way"?  No.  The word translated
 "believe" is not merely an intellectual assent.  It connotes a placing of
 trust, a commitment.   The preceding chapters discuss who these disciples
 were and what they believed and the word "Christian" defines them as people
 who had a specific belief as to who Jesus is and who had "turned" from 
 some belief and placed their trust in Him.  




>Acts 26:28  Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a 
>Christian. 



  How is one "persuaded" to be a Christian?  Read the preceding verses. Paul
 describes his ministry, his personal encounter with Jesus Christ and closes
 his message with verse 29 "And Paul said, I would to God, that not only 
 thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost and altogether
 such as I am (persuaded v26), except these bonds.  Paul's prayer was that
 he (Agrippa) would be *persuaded*. It was not an automatic, believe what 
 you want to believe "in your own way".



 Jim
717.3Not speaking about unusual individual beliefs...BSS::S_CONLONA Season of Carnelians...Wed Apr 19 1995 13:389
    Jim, if my church has some slightly different Christian beliefs (with
    regard to some specific details, not the basic tenets of Christianity)
    than your church (or you) happen to have, then do you just explain it 
    by saying that my church is not really Christian??
    
    Who gives you that right?  You know that many different Christian
    sects and churches exist - how can you claim that they can only
    be called Christian if they are totally and 100% consistent with
    the specific details of your beliefs?
717.5CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanWed Apr 19 1995 13:5141



>    Jim, if my church has some slightly different Christian beliefs (with
>    regard to some specific details, not the basic tenets of Christianity)
>    than your church (or you) happen to have, then do you just explain it 
>    by saying that my church is not really Christian??
 

      I believe Christians share the same basic beliefs..the authority of
      the Bible, the belief in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, the belief
      in His death in our place for our sin penalty, and in His bodily 
      resurrection, as well as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and that
      one must be born again through acceptance of the free gift of God's 
      Grace.  Now, there are some Christian Churches which agree on the 
      preceeding, but depart into various other teaching or beliefs usually
      around form of baptism, celebration of the Lord's supper, spritual 
      gifts, etc.  I'm not about to say that any one as described above
      is not a Christian, or their church is not Christian.  I believe the
      Bible (on which we base our beliefs) is clear on what constitutes
      a Christian.


   
>    Who gives you that right?  You know that many different Christian
>    sects and churches exist - how can you claim that they can only
>    be called Christian if they are totally and 100% consistent with
>    the specific details of your beliefs?


   I believe the Bible gives us the definition of a Christian.  (please point
   out where I stated someone is not a Christian, btw).

   We (Christians) base our belief on the authority of the Bible, which is
   the yardstick by which we measure.




 Jim
717.6CSC32::J_OPPELTWhatever happened to ADDATA?Wed Apr 19 1995 14:132
    	I think it is pretty disingenuous to equate disagreement over
    	faith nuances with pushing somebody off a bridge.
717.7PAULKM::WEISSFor I am determined to know nothing, except...Wed Apr 19 1995 14:1849
>    If someone claims to love, honor and worship Jesus Christ but has
>    slightly different views about the Bible or the meaning of Christ's
>    teachings, *what right does anyone have* to tell this person that
>    s/he is not really a Christian???????

Suzanne, I wrote .0 in response to this question.  You answered nothing from
my response, you just re-asked the original question.  That doesn't really
accomplish anything.

And I very specifically talked about "beliefs," not people.  I'm not telling
anyone they are not a Christian, that is between them and Christ.

>    Who has the right to try to push people away from God?

Nowhere did I indicate any desire to push anyone away from God.  Why do you
make this accusation?

>   Not speaking about unusual individual beliefs...

But I was.  My note specifically refers to "major" or "foundational" beliefs.

>     if my church has some slightly different Christian beliefs (with
>    regard to some specific details, not the basic tenets of Christianity)
>    than your church (or you) happen to have, then do you just explain it 
>    by saying that my church is not really Christian??
    
I was not speaking about 'slightly' different beliefs.  Of course there are
many, many 'slightly' different beliefs, and some beyond 'slightly'
different, that souldn't be characterized as non-christian.  I exult in the
fact that we have different denominations with different styles, which can
reach people who differ in their uniqueness.  The "high" church, Episcopal or
Catholic (yes, I fully accept Catholics as fellow Christians, though I
disagree with some of their beliefs) ministers to people who appreciate
formality.  Assembly of God churches reach people that the 'high' churches
would never reach, and vice versa.

You say: "how can you claim that they can only be called Christian if they
are totally and 100% consistent with the specific details of your beliefs?"
You're fighting against a belief that neither I, nor I think anyone in this
file, holds.  I can't and I don't make that claim.  From Catholic to AG,
however or whenever you want to baptize, how often you take communion or
exactly what happens to the bread and wine, how you choose to set up the
church government, none of that (and more) is essential to the Gospel.

None of that is what I'm talking about.  What I'm referring to is a claim
that a belief that Jesus consistently and repeatedly repudiated can be called
"Christian."

Paul
717.8Who gives us the right?NETCAD::PICKETTDavid - This all seems oddly familiar...Fri Apr 21 1995 16:0846
    In a number of the previous replies, the theme 'Who gives you the
    right?' keeps coming up in regard to rebuking false teaching. Consider
    the following, for a moment, in the context of rebuking false teaching,
    and not in the context of mindless bickering over adiaphora.
    
    As regards false teaching, Christ himself gives us the right to rebuke
    false teaching. Christ further adds that this should be done in a
    loving manner. Matthew 18 speaks to this matter. In the opening of 1
    Timothy, Paul speaks to false teaching as promoting controversy. Such
    false teaching must be rebuked. It is the responsibility of students of
    the Word to do that rebuking.
    
    Paul, in his letter to the Colossians, speaks of admonishing and
    teaching. The Colossians were in a real mess, since teachings sprung up
    there that would have had the congregation living under the law again.
    Nowadays, just as then, we all must be students of the Word. False
    teaching left unanswered can be faith destroying.
    
    Christ entrusted the ministry of His gospel to sinful mankind. In the
    process of carrying out that ministry, we are charged with the
    responsibility of, among other things, testing everything, and holding
    on to the good. (1The5:21) This calls for a judgement, but think
    carefully about where the judgement comes from.
    
    We know that it is not our position to judge. Fortunately, we have
    God's law for that. The law's sole purpose for a new covenant Christian
    is as a mirror to our sins. The law accuses. The law judges us. The law
    prescribes the penalty. We are all guilty under the law. We cannot be
    saved by adherance to the law. 
    
    Presentation of the law, in love, to a sinning brother is a supreme act
    of love. As students of the scriputres, the time we spend in the Word
    confronts us with the law. The Holy Spirit then works repentence. For a
    sinning brother who either is not aware of the law, or who refuses to
    look 'into the mirror' of the law and see his sin for what it is, is in
    a desparate state, and is in need of guidance. Using the Word to admonish
    this brother, in love, is a joyful process, and NOT a judgemental 'I
    told you so' experience.
    
    Loving admonishment is possible only when the person doing the rebuking
    is keenly aware of the fact that he, by his sinful nature, is in
    constant rebellion against God's law, and stands in constant need of
    Christ's forgiveness. Remeber, it is the Holy Spirit working through
    the Word that works repentence, NOT the speaker.
    
    dp
717.9USAT05::BENSONEternal WeltanschauungFri Apr 21 1995 16:314
    
    Good note, David.
    
    jeff
717.10Let Jesus be JesusPAULKM::WEISSFor I am determined to know nothing, except...Tue Oct 10 1995 12:19305
This is a sermon I preached this last Sunday at our church...

I've been transformed over the past couple of years.  I'm really a very, very
different person than I was four years ago. That transformation is due mostly
to two things - first, my introduction to the Holy Spirit, beginning four
years ago when Dolores Wind er was here.  I've been transformed from a good
American binatarian into a true trinitarian.  What's a binatarian?  Well,
most churches and Christians know a lot about God the Father and Creator, and
they all know about Jesus, but we usually don't talk much about that third
member of the Trinity.  That has changed radically for me over the past four
years.  The Holy Spirit has gotten hold of me in a big way.  That alone has
been completely life transforming, but that's another sermon.  Largely
because of that introduction to the Holy Spirit, I came to want to know Jesus
better and follow Him more closely.  So I started to examine Him and His
life, as described in the Bible, more closely.  And a subtle yet
not-so-subtle change began to take place.

I began to realize that I'd never really let Jesus be Jesus.  Oh, I said I
followed Jesus, of course, but I didn't really.  Have you ever seen those
comedy acts where the comedian has a dummy on either side of them, with the
arms and legs of the dummy attached to the arms and legs of the comedian by
poles?  The dummies then do everything the comedian does - they follow every
move.  It looks like they are moving on their own volition, but they aren't,
they're just attached to the comedian.  Well, my Jesus was like that.  My
Jesus was like a dummy that I had dressed up and set out in front of me,
attached to my hands and feet by poles.  Then I walked along, with my Jesus
going out ahead of me, me controlling his every move, and said "Look how I'm
following Jesus!"

What do I mean by that?  I mean that I took my own personal view of how the
world worked and what was true and what was real, and then I took Jesus and
sort of squeezed him into that view, lopping off the pieces of Him that
didn't fit.  When I read things that He said or did that didn't fit into my
idea of who He should be, I either ignored them or reinterpreted them to mean
something else.

Imagine this, if you will.  I mean, really think about what is happening
here. We say that we believe that Jesus Christ is actually God incarnate.  We
say that we believe that the very creator of all that is, from stars to
starfish, became a human being and walked among us to teach us the truth. 
Now I said I believed that, but I didn't act like I believed it.  Consider. 
If I get into a disagreement about the nature of reality with the creator of
the universe, who do you think is right?  I'm  never going to be the one that
is right.  But really, that is what I was doing.  I was talking to God, as He
revealed Himself through Jesus, and saying "No, that can't be right.  You
must be mistaken about that."  Just pause for a moment and consider the sheer
ludicrousness of that spectacle - sitting down and arguing with the creator
about the nature of reality!  And I didn't even really realize that I was
doing it!

In Jesus day, this was much more difficult to do without realizing that you
were doing it.  Jesus said many things that were very shocking, then and now,
and people had and still have a hard time accepting them.  But when He was
right there in the flesh, there really wasn't much of an option about how to
deal with it.  You either accepted Him and therefore accepted what He said,
or you rejected what He said and rejected Him along with it.  There are
several places where such confrontations are recorded in Scripture, among the
most telling is in John 6:

  Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the
  Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.  Whoever eats my
  flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the
  last day.  For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.  Whoever
  eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.  Just as the
  living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who
  feeds on me will live because of me.  This,BArial,> is the bread that came
  down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feed s on
  this bread will live forever." He said this while teaching in the synagogue
  in Capernaum.

  On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who
  can accept it?"

  Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them,
  "Does this offend you?  What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he
  was before!  The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words
  I have spoken to you are  Spirit and they are life.  Yet there are some of
  you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of
  them did not believe and who would betray him.  He went on to say, "This is
  why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled
  him."

  From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed 
  him.

							Jn 6:53-66

There it was, right in their faces.  A teaching that was incredibly difficult
for them to accept.  And for those who would not accept it, there was little
option of how to deal with it.  Their only real option was to turn back and
no longer follow Him.  He was right there, and they couldn't deny what He had
said.  They didn't have the luxury we have today.  Today Jesus is no longer
here in the flesh to defend His words, so we can interprett hem to mean
something else that doesn't threaten us so much.  Now I know that some things
are allegorical and some things are to be considered in the context of the
culture, but whenever I hear the word 'interpretation' my antennae now go up
to see whether I'm turning the plain truth of what Jesus said into something
else so I can feel more comfortable with it.

As I realized that I was not accepting parts of who Jesus claimed Himself to
be, I began to have the determination to not force Jesus into my mold any
more, to let Jesus be Jesus, to let Jesus define Jesus.  And things started
to change.  I'm not going to tell you this morning how you should let Jesus
be Jesus.  What I'm going to do is tell you just a couple of the things that
changed for me.   I'll choose the ones that were hardest for me.  A big one
was Jesus' exclusiveness and intolerance.  "What?" you ask, "Jesus, exclusive
and  intolerant?"   Our culture is very into inclusiveness and tolerance, and
so was I.  The Jesus I wanted to believe in - my puppet Jesus - was
wonderfully inclusive and tolerant too.  And of course Jesus *was* inclusive
of all sorts of people who were outcasts in His day, and tolerant of the
sinful results of life's woundings, as he reached out to love and heal
people. I focused on those passages, and made my Jesus tolerant of everything.

But I started to listen to the real Jesus has He defined Himself, and 
unfortunately He wasn't quite like that.  There's a side to Jesus that brooks
no disagreement.  He said hard things like the passage I just read, "unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in
you," and "No one comes to the Father but by me."  Very definitively
*EX*clusive.  It doesn't match at all with the Jesus that our culture would
like, our culture wants a Jesus who accepts all paths to God as good paths. 
And while Jesus was incredibly tolerant of sin as a result of woundedness,
until such time as He could love that person to health and wholeness, He was
incredibly *intolerant* of willful sinfulness or refusal to face the truth.  
He had no problem calling the Pharisees who stood on their own external
righteousness and rejected Him "vipers" and "unclean tombs, full of dead
men's bones."  So He wasn't exactly very tolerant either.  Jesus presented
truth like a sword, and you either accepted it or rejected it.   It's not the
Jesus I would have made up.  It's not the Jesus I would have wanted Him to
be.  But it's the Jesus who  IS.

Another big one for me was scripture.  I had always had a pretty loose
opinion of the authority of scripture.  But as I came to know more of who
Jesus was, I came smack up against the fact that Jesus very much affirmed the
eternal truth and value of scripture. He claimed that He came to fulfill the
law, and that not a stroke of the pen in the Law would pass away.  He
answered every temptation of Satan in the wilderness with Scripture.  So I
had to reexamine my view of Scripture too.  If Jesus said that Scripture was
that valuable, I had to allow my own thinking to be transformed to come into
alignment with the thinking of Jesus.

And once I started to let Jesus be Jesus, I found that I had to let God be
God.  Jesus came in the context of the Messiah promised by YHWH, so I had to
back up and let YHWH be YHWH.  This was even scarier, because the God of the
Old Testament is much less the God I'd make up than Jesus is.  As I started
to let God be God, I came across something that really startled me.  It's in
the Ten Commandments.

The first two commandments had always puzzled me, and I'd always lumped them
together, as most people do.  But recently I've come to think that maybe we
shouldn't lump them together, that maybe they are saying two very different
things.  Lets look at them.  The first commandment is clear:

  "You shall have no other gods beside me. EX 20:3

No other gods, pure and simple.  In the days when these words were first
spoken, there were lots of other gods.  Molech, Asherah, Dagon, Baal; gods
were a dime a dozen.  Everyone worshipped gods, lots of them.  It was
generally considered a good idea to hedge your bets by worshipping every god
available.  No sense offending any of them by failing to worship them.  But
YHWH said something different - "Worship me, and me alone.  No other gods -
period."  There's that exclusiveness again.  YHWH was offended if you
worshipped any other god.  

In our day, we don't have the same kind of gods, but we have plenty of 'gods'
that we put before the Lord.  Money, career, prestige, ... football.  Even
good things like marriage and family.  If they come before the Lord they are
other gods, and are forbidden by Him.

But I always lumped the second commandment in with the first:

  You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven 
  above or on the earth beneath or.		EX 20:4

It says "no idols," and I always thought of idols as physical representations
of other gods.  So I just sort of thought of this as "commandment 1, part 2,"
elaborating on not having other gods.  And since little statues (my idea of
an idol) aren't a big thing any more, I didn't really pay this much more
thought. I figured this commandment was no longer an issue.

But I noticed that no other commandments have an elaboration.  It doesn't say
in one commandment "Don't murder each other," and then another commandment
"Don't murder each other out of anger."  The second would be redundant.  If
we can't murder, then whether the reason is anger or any other reason is
irrelevant - all murder has already been eliminated.  The same applies then
to the commandment to have no idols.  If we already have a commandment that
says we can't have any other gods, then it is redundant to tell us that we
can't have any idols of those other gods.  We can't have anything to do with
other gods at all, let alone make statues of them.  So the second commandment
must mean something else.

I looked at the second commandment more closely.  In the Hebrew, what it says
is, "You shall make no image or likeness of anything ... and worship that
image."  I believe what this commandment prohibits is not idols or images of
other gods, but idols or images made to represent YHWH, the one true God. 
God is saying, in no uncertain terms: "I will define myself.  You do not
define me.  Not who I am.  Not what I am like.  I am that I am, and you are
to accept me as I define myself.  I am very jealous of the right to define
who I am, you shall not compete with me in defining me."  A very illuminating
story that portrays exactly this occurs immediately afterward, in Exodus 32:

  When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the
  mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us a god who
  will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt,
  we don't know w Aaron answered them, "Take off the gold earrings that your
  wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me." So
  all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron.  He took
  what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf,
  fashioning it with a tool. Then they said "These are your gods, Israel, who
  brought you up out of Egypt."

  When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced,
  "Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD."  So the next day the
  people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship
  offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge
  in revelry.

  Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you
  brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt.  They have been quick to turn
  away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in
  the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and
  have said, `These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of
  Egypt.'
						Exodus 32:1-10

Now I always took this story to be a story of the people worshipping another
god, and that's why YHWH was angry.  But that's not what they are doing. 
Look at the story carefully.  When they make the calf, they don't say "We
don't know where Moses is, so forget about the god that brought us out of
Egypt, we will make a new god and worship it."  Not at all.  They think they
are still worshipping the god that brought them out of Egypt.  Look in verse
4, when Aaron is presenting the calf to the people: "This is your god, who
brought you up out of Egypt."  And in verse 5, Aaron announces that with the
altar in front of the calf, "tomorrow will be a festival to YHWH."  They use
the name the Lord gave himself, and they claim they are still following the
same god who brought them out of Egypt.  But what they have done is crafted
their own image of what YHWH is like - and are worshipping that image as YHWH.

And what is God's response to this worship?  Does He recognize that they are
still turning to Him, YHWH , and lovingly accept their worship?  Or  does He
accept their worship with hesitation, with the intent to correct their
mistake when He has a chance?  Far from it.  This is the Lord's reaction:

  I have seen these people," the LORD said to Moses, "and they are a
  stiff-necked people.  Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against 
  them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.

								Ex 32:9-10

That is YHWH, folks.  That is who He is.  That is who He defines himself to
be.  It's not the god I would make up.  The god I would make up would
recognize that they still called the calf they had created YHWH and
identified it as the god who brought them out of Egypt, and tolerantly accept
their faulty worship.  But YHWH isn't subject to what I'd make up.  He is who
He is. And He's made it quite clear that He's not into our tampering with His
definition of who He is.

In our day we don't make physical statues and call them god.  But we very
much make 'images' of god and worship those images.  We make up our own image
of what we think God is like and call that image God.  How many times have
you heard someone say something like "The god I believe in would never do
something like that."  Is that "The god I believe in" or "The god I've made
up?"  If Judaism and Christianity are to be believed, God the creator of the
entire universe went out of His way to clearly reveal Himself and define
Himself, first to the Jews and then ultimately through Jesus.  If we really
take this seriously, then this is the God who IS, not just the God we want to
be.  And we, as His followers, need to understand God as He IS, not as we
want Him to be.

This was the issue at stake with the ReImagining conference that was held two
years ago. Some people were upset at some of the specific excesses at that
conference, but the fundamental problem runs much deeper than any specifics. 
The entire premise of the  conference, as revealed by the title, is that the
image of God - what God is like and how He is to be worshipped - was
'imagined' in the first place, and that it was high time to re-imagine a new
image for God.  This flies directly in the face of the second commandment,
and of who God proclaims Himself to be.

So how does this apply to each of you?  If I haven't already,  I could
probably offend nearly everyone here, including myself, by listing some of
the ways that Jesus and YHWH describe themselves that we don't want to hear. 
Pretty much all of us have ways in which we confine God  to our own concepts
and understanding of how the world works, and rely on that instead of how God
describes Himself.  But I'm not going to go about listing ways in which you
should let Jesus define Himself.  What is more important is for you to do
that.  Read the Bible, see who Jesus is, and let Jesus be Jesus.  

And this is not just about our intellectual ideas or doctrines, either.  It's
about becoming disciples. When Jesus gave the great commission to His
disciples, He did not say "Go into all the world, making converts and
believers."  Salvation does come by faith alone in Christ's sacrifice for us,
I am not claming that there is more to be done to be saved, but salvation is
only the first step in our Christian walk.  Jesus said "Go into all the world
and make disciples."  A disciple is not just someone who believes certain
things.  A disciple is someone who is committed to becoming like their
master.  Jesus does not want to just transform what we think, He is
interested in the much more complete process of transforming what we are. 
Francis Frangipane says "Victory begins with the name of Jesus on our lips,
and is consummated with the nature of Jesus in our hearts."

So begin, or deepen, the process of becoming a disciple.  Determine in your
own heart that you will adapt yourself to Jesus, instead of adapting Jesus to
you.  A great way to do this is to study closely the life of Christ.

But however you do it, LET JESUS BE JESUS,  and your lives will never be the
same.  And  that is the good news of the Gospel.
717.11ICTHUS::YUILLEHe must increase - I must decreaseTue Oct 10 1995 12:449
Thanks Paul...

It takes the LORD to open blind eyes...

						Thank you LORD



*Warning* the previous note is long...  ;-)
717.12HPCGRP::DIEWALDTue Oct 10 1995 14:399
    Beautiful Paul.
    
    I want to hear (read) this one next!  :-)
    
    >The Holy Spirit has gotten hold of me in a big way.  That alone
    >has been completely life transforming, but that's another
    >sermon.
    
    Jill2
717.13OUTSRC::HEISERwatchman on the wallTue Oct 10 1995 15:545
    I enjoyed this too, Paul.  It really hits home because I've had to deal
    with a lot of the same things over the past 5 years.
    
    thanks,
    Mike
717.14let's get specificNETRIX::"[email protected]"Mon Dec 18 1995 18:3311
Hmmm...this topic has jumped from april to december.  

Anyway, let's get specific.  It has been my experience that will call a church 
"non-Christian" based on two beliefs:

1. that church teaches that good works are necessary for salvation.

2. the church rejects the Nicene creed concept of the Godhead -- "one substance."

Do you agree?
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]