on my journey thus far (read about it here) i am finally coming to a place where i am beginning to see the light. i cannot express how wondrous that is. light means hope and joy and life and - of all things - emotion. i am beginning to feel God again!
part of my journey includes asking searching questions like what does it really mean to be a christian? how does one become a christian? what would cause a rich, successful, kind, generous, for all appearances "got it together" kind of person to desire to be a christian? why is christianity something that every person should subscribe to? what makes it something that everyone needs, whether rich or poor, kind or a jerk? as i ponder these kinds of questions, i am slowly becoming more and more convinced that the message of christianity, the message of jesus, is incomplete and useless without an understanding of our brokenness. unless we first understand that we are all screwed up, that each one of us has contributed in some way to the filth and sin that surrounds us, then there is no need for a messiah. jesus is the solution to a worldwide problem, and unless we recognize that problem we will never recognize jesus for who he is. i am becoming more and more convinced that this is all that our faith is about. God came to rescue us, to restore us to relationship with him. it's not about morality, it's not about politics, it's not about heaven and hell, it's about restoring a broken relationship.
as i continue down the road, my mentor has assigned me to read two books: searching for God knows what by donald miller, and a new kind of christian by brian mclaren. i just finished the former last night around 12:30 am. it was excellent. and the coolest thing about it was that his book was exactly about what i have been thinking about like i described above. except that his thoughts were much more fully developed and he said it much better than i ever could. this book for me was a reinforcing and further developing of the core idea that i was becoming convinced our faith is really all about.
in his book, miller formulates our faith as a relationship with God, begun in the garden of eden and tragically broken through the deception and betrayal of adam and eve. the rest of the bible then is the story of God slowly and lovingly restoring that broken relationship. the bible does not include a how-to list for getting right with God. there are no bullet points or theological charts. there are stories, poems, visions, songs, parables, and letters. these are the literature of relationship, of heart and soul. the answer to man's problem is not in believing some fact, but in God himself. we find new life not in believing that jesus is God, but in giving ourselves to him in relationship as a bride gives herself to her husband in a marriage union. and scripture is full of God's love, anger, and passion as he patiently works to restore us from our betrayal.
miller begins by first establishing that our faith is best understood as relationship with God, then develops a comprehensive personality theory explaining human behavior as a direct result of God's absence. he says that we were designed to be in relationship with God, and without that we will die. the result of adam and eve's sin was death because their sin destroyed their relationship with God, it cut them off from God and without God humans die.
i could go on, but you would be better off reading the book for yourself. i thought it was one of the best explanations i have ever heard for the entire message of the bible. every theological tenet i believe in makes more sense when understood in this framework of relationship. it explains our brokenness, our need for God, why we die, why we wear clothes, why jesus matters, why the jews were chosen, why the ten commandments were given, and most importantly, why people have and do die rather than give up their faith in jesus christ. it's not a new idea, but it is, for me, a most beautiful way to understand my faith.
have you read it? what did you think?
4.09.2005
brokenness and relationship
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Hey, read on Brewer's blog that you read "a new kind of Christian"...I too loved it and am anticipating the second in the mail anyday.......
Cudous on the journey.
I haven't read that book Brandon, but it sounds very good. I know it's been said a hundred times, but it's true...religion is man's search for God, Christianity is God's quest for man. He wants to relate.
And you're right...doctrine makes the most sense (and sometimes only makes sense) in that framework. Even the trinity starts making sense when you understand that God is all about relationship.
Ravi Zacharias has been very helpful, to me, in understanding this principle. Here are a couple quotes from him:
“We are, in fact, broken. We have broken away from God; we are broken in relationship to our fellow human beings. And the most elusive reality is that we are broken even from ourselves.”
And in another section he shows the Jesus in unique in that He didn't come to offer doctrinal points, but to offer HIMSELF in relationship:
“It is not Zoroaster to whom you turn. It is Zoroaster to whom you listen. It is not Buddha who delivers you; it is his noble truths that instruct you. It is not Mohammed who transforms you; it is the beauty of the Koran that woos you. By contrast, Jesus did not only teach or expound His message. He was identical with His message ‘In Him,’ says the Scriptures, ‘dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily.’ He did not just proclaim the truth. He said, ‘I am the truth.’ He did not just show the way. He said ‘I am the way.’ He did not just open up vistas. He said, ‘I am the door.’ ‘I am the Good Shepherd.’ ‘I am the resurrection and the life.’ ‘I am that I AM.’
hey brando... let me push on one thing. you wrote, "it's not about morality, it's not about politics, it's not about heaven and hell, it's about restoring a broken relationship."
why do these rule each other out? i mean, i think you're right...it's about God restoring what he has created...but wouldn't this include (and likely redefine!) 'morality,' 'politics,' 'heaven,' and 'hell'? seems to me that if it's about restoring broken relationships--not just between God and humans, but between humans and humans--that it's necessarily about 'politics,' just not the kind we normally see.
I haven't read either of those books, Brando, but they seem like the kind I would like; I will have to add them to my ever-expanding list. I like what you've shared here, and I'm glad to know you're getting somewhere on your journey. I think AP's got a point, though, too. Primarily God's all about relationship but that doesn't exclude the rest, especially since we also have to live in relationship to each other as well as to God.
I don't wanna speak for Brandon, but I think he was emphasizing how it MUST start with a reconciliation with God. Morality and politics and, well everything, will be corrected as we draw closer to Christ.
The greatest commandment (relationship w/God) must be met first, then we can love people (morality/politics).
I think we all agree though
thanks for pushing ap. my words may have been more extreme-ish than need be.
however, the point, similar to what matthew said, is that the heart of our faith, the essence of it, and the beginning of it lies in relationship with God. we are not saved by being moral. we are not saved through politics. we are not saved just to have fire insurance. we are saved because of and through a real, dynamic relationship with the living God that creates life in us. a moral lifestyle and conscientious politics then become an expression of our love relationship with Christ. if we love Christ, we want to be like him, to imitate him - thus morality and conscientious politics. and if we love Christ the ultimate reward is to be present with him and the ultimate punishment to be forever separated from him - thus heaven and hell.
so those things are all secondary to the primary purpose of relationship. they extend out of the relationship. thus my wording, "it's not about..."
does that make more sense?
well, i think you said it well the first time...and said it well the second time. i am just not sure i do agree, like matt said. i mean, i guess i don't know what a restored relationship would look like without any of the things you mentioned. what does
'relationship with God' look like? i mean, if you want to use restored relationship language, what does a restored marriage look like if it's not about morality? or kindness? or politics? (i think we're using this word differently, and it may be best not to use it...so i use it here to show that i may be using it differently. i don't have in mind, "how do i vote?" or "should i be a Conservative?")
consider the OT: what showed restored relationship to God? all the things the Jews did... Torah; Temple; the land they lived on; their select marriages... i don't think this concept changes with Christianity...it just becomes more widespread and takes on new things to do.
what do you think?
i think we're looking at the same thing from different angles.
marriage for instance. yes, a restored marriage wouldn't really be very restored if there was no morality in it keeping me from sleeping around with other women. however, the motive for not sleeping around with other women is not so that i will be a moral person, it is because i love my wife and don't want to betray her trust and love. in that way, i say that the first issue is that of love, of relationship, and the other things - a necessary extension of that relationship - result from, extend from, flow from the love relationship.
i try not to sin because i love christ. would i have a restored relationship with Christ if i went around deliberatly sinning so that his grace could forgive me? no! i would be like a lover sleeping around on his wife so that she can have more opportunities to forgive. it's just insane. but the motive keeping me from sin is not found in morality, but in a love relationship.
thus, i think we are looking at the same thing, but i am coming from a close up angle, examining the origin of motive. and you are looking back from a more sweeping perspective where it all blends together to make a beautiful whole picture where one cannot exist without the other.
that's my theory.
Post a Comment