tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post1453580235814216219..comments2024-03-19T08:09:22.326-04:00Comments on Assistant Village Idiot: The King Jesus Gospel, by Scot McKnightAssistant Village Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01978011985085795099noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-8937329245405688082012-02-12T10:42:28.245-05:002012-02-12T10:42:28.245-05:00Agreed -- they're both necessary. Most of us ...Agreed -- they're both necessary. Most of us probably are strongly driven to emphasize one and ignore the other. Modern Americans (including myself, certainly) probably err in the direction of emphasizing our own choices. I guess the trick is to figure out which aspect of your duty you're mostly inclined to ignore and try to concentrate more on it.<br /><br />As Screwtape said, the fun is in getting everyone to rush over to just the side of the boat that's already gunnels under in that particular age, so in licentious centuries he tries to get everyone all worked up over the unhealthy obsession with purity, while in Puritanical ages he tries to scare everyone with the dangers of unguarded, passionate hearts. We fall for it every time! A good reason to read old works. Scripture comes to mind.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-37264626054744828602012-02-12T09:27:43.049-05:002012-02-12T09:27:43.049-05:00Texan,
"...aren't they both necessary?&...Texan, <br /><br />"...aren't they both necessary?"<br /><br />Certainly, but I think you mistake the greater part of where the distinction lies. <br /><br />I am not making a free-will vs. determinism argument (*yawn*). Rather I am making the point that our default setting as 20th/21st century AMERICAN Christians seems to be that the way we approach God is first about our efforts and our will and our strength and our goodness. We tend to treat our approach to God as a business relationship - a transaction. I do this, therefore God gives me that. Quid pro quo. <br /><br />In actuality, Jesus promises us a family relationship. In a business, we must perform to be accepted/approved. In a family, we are accepted/approved -- and therefore it behooves us to perform in ways that bring honor to the family. The actions can be the same, but their orientation is different. <br /><br />The family relationship is possible because God acts to raise us dead sinners -- who as corpses can do nothing on our own. He adopts us *giving* us instant status as sons and heirs. He brings us thereby into HIS story. Our own efforts to bring him into ours are fruitless until he brings us into his. Then, empowered by his Spirit, they become fruitful indeed. <br /><br />This sounds very much like where you are. Praise God for his grace.<br /><br />Enough sermonating. I gotta go.Dubbahdeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00075702513873912334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-31679615075730423212012-02-12T08:55:10.534-05:002012-02-12T08:55:10.534-05:00Because I've always had a tendency to put free...Because I've always had a tendency to put freedom and independence on a pedestal, I was wedded for much of my adult life to any kind of heroic individualist philosophy I could find. Now that I am a Christian, I find of course that I am very drawn to the part of the Gospel that stresses the importance of each soul's free choice. That always has to be reconciled with the belief that I can never be in charge and always must be looking for ways to use my free choice to submit entirely to God. It's easy to get tangled up between "making God a bigger part of my story" and "God making me a part of His story" -- aren't they both necessary?<br /><br />All I know is that when I believed there was no authority superior to my own will, I was miserable and made a hash of things. There's a howling, meaningless void in that direction of the road.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-73362395449335415742012-02-12T00:16:11.908-05:002012-02-12T00:16:11.908-05:00Perhaps the most succinct way I have heard this &q...Perhaps the most succinct way I have heard this "kingdom gospel" expressed was this:<br /><br />"The gospel is not about how we can make God a bigger part of our story. The gospel is about how God is making us part of his story."<br /><br />I have used this often in my recent sermons. I think it drives home the distinction between salvation orientation vs. a kingdom orientation without using the terminology.Dubbahdeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00075702513873912334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-61079516982329638842012-02-11T14:26:57.830-05:002012-02-11T14:26:57.830-05:00You may already be aware of the role of shape-note...You may already be aware of the role of shape-note singing in spreading the Gospel to nearly illiterate populations. The idea of the shape-note system was to make intricately harmonized church music accessible to people who couldn't read European notation. The lyrics (which they call "the poetry") are identified by their meter and can be inserted into a variety of tunes, though these days the words and music have settled down firmly into traditional combinations. The tunes often began life as folk songs, readapted for the church. Itinerant music masters would hold singing schools and disseminate copies of the books. The rejection of musical instruments probably started out of necessity.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-58013693597870707152012-02-11T14:02:52.275-05:002012-02-11T14:02:52.275-05:00I have often used that image of the frontier gospe...I have often used that image of the frontier gospel - a high portable Christianity when the nearest trained clergy might be a circuit-rider. (Priests at the river cities didn't count with Protestants then.) But it was also a LCD among Prots, even liturgical ones. You had to change from being one kind of person to another, and a Bible was involved. Most everyone agreed on that part, so when forced cheek by jowl against unknown others, it was easier to stick with what everyone thought they agreed on.<br /><br />They didn't, of course, and "soulwinning" plus getting Bibles into hands - even if people did not read or understand well - become dominant. The frontier settlers came largely from Appalachia, which had heavy Baptist, Presbyterian, and Methodist populations. Liturgical settlers tended to stay farther north.<br /><br />Someone must have studied how hymnals - also highly portable - fit into all this.Assistant Village Idiothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978011985085795099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-82750516105177658772012-02-11T10:13:51.322-05:002012-02-11T10:13:51.322-05:00I'm surprised...
I've attended a church t...I'm surprised...<br /><br />I've attended a church that leaned heavily on salvation, and spoke only moderately with the continuing life of Salvation. Yet even that church couldn't hide from the fact that not all believers were perfect, nor that some needed help along the straight and narrow path.<br /><br />My current home church is very heavy on the continuing life of Salvation; the life of faith as the believer grows closer to Christ.<br /><br />(Incidentally, the salvation-as-a-single-event thought pattern is very American, and could be called 'frontier gospel'. It was partly the result of the rapid expansion of American culture westward, and some people taking along the simplest form of Christian teaching that they had at hand.)<br /><br /><br />I had wondered if Scot's work would be a diatribe against Those People who were too simple in their thoughts, or if it would be a more serious, thoughtful work. I am pleased to hear that it is thoughtful.karrdehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00205160745963596856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-70435532721941713752012-02-10T14:01:27.470-05:002012-02-10T14:01:27.470-05:00Carats? Carets are the little housetop insertion ...Carats? Carets are the little housetop insertion things. I wish blogger would allow edits to comments.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-31459026549422499872012-02-10T14:00:06.927-05:002012-02-10T14:00:06.927-05:00Like "fellowshipping."
As an Episcopali...Like "fellowshipping."<br /><br />As an Episcopalian, I've never been completely sure what people mean when they say either "saved" or "born again." If it overlaps at all with what I recognize from Scripture, it refers to a change of direction, a turning towards God. But for me that is a constant duty, not something that happened once. (Not that I don't understand the importance of that first decision to turn, which is the difference between night and day.) The only other thing that "saved" means to me is a reality that Jesus achieved: the doctrine of redemption. And "born again" means the renewal that He so often talked about.<br /><br />I loved what you said about how Jesus would have responded to someone who came to Him asking for the technical minimum he could do to be "saved." He never let his interlocutors get away with taking their eyes off the ball like that. It's a little like a man wooing his bride, asking her to get specific about exactly how far down on his knees he'll have to get, and how many carets in the ring, before he can be sure she'll marry him and prove a faithful wife. Bring the lawyers in and negotiate a prenup.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.com