I found myself greatly encouraged by this article. Often times I tried to explain away the "goodness" in people as really not "good" because only God is "good" and so God must live in the person for there to be any good being done. I had decided that everything that was done in the name of "goodness" somehow had selfish roots if it were not connecting to the Jesus within a person. And because of those selfish roots it was therefore not good. The verse of scripture that continues to keep me from fullly agreeing with Kauffmann is Paul's Romans 7 discourse centering on 7:18 " I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out."
I am still not convinced that I was completely wrong, but Kauffmann's article put a different spin on the problem. I guess I could make the logical argument that since Jesus was present at the beginning of creation, and since the Bible says that through Jesus all things were created (John 1, and James 1), then Paul's statement in Romans is universally inclusive and not a specific utterance in the context of being indwelt by Christ at the moment of and after reception of Him.
So, this would mean that Ghandi did good stuff, and in many ways was a better person then me, and I would not really have a problem with that. It would also mean that people can do extraordinarily good things without their bowing to the Lordship of Jesus. However, all good things that could be done, were initially meant to be done by us as was intended by our Creator. Therefore, Jesus is still the reason we do good things whether or not we are willing to recognize Him as the source of our goodness.
The converse of this line of thinking also holds true in that although I, being indwelt with Jesus, continue to do bad things both in thought and deed I am not unsaved. The good or bad that I do is not what determines my fate after death, but it is the heart, or the why I do what I do. Of course, the more my heart is transformed by Jesus the less bad I will do and the good that I do will draw people to Jesus especially if my life points to Him, but it also points to Him because He is the one who authored the good in me from the moment Adam was created. So, then, we should not condemn anyone for doing good regardless of whose name they do it in. Instead we should embrace it as being a good thing, and then reiterate that it was what Jesus intended for them to do from the beginning.
Does it make sense?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I guess it makes sense? I believe Paul hits on this in Romans 2:14. Where he talks about Gentiles following the law even though they do not have the law. But it still bothers me to think that people who do not know Christ show more love or at least an equal amount as believers. My buddy in Iraq talks about the love the people have...the family life(muslims). I see it in the Jehovah's witnesses and we talked recently about the mormons also. So it troubles me that our faith claims we carry the actual "SPIRIT OF THE ALMIGHTY" in us, but have a insignificant difference in our walk compared to others. It seems it would be extroardinarily different. Something that would be completely obvious. It would blow people away.
I see many Christians loving others and reaching out in great ways...but I equally see this with other religions. Even those who know no religion. I have a girl who works with me who reaches out to so many who are hurting. She's like mother Theresa. But she has no real faith. This has been troubling me lately....
This was a new way of thinking for me. I have always believed that we are a fallen creation with no good apart from God. This derived from the selfishness and sin that I’ve recognized in my own life. I remember sitting in a missions class in college and having this argument with someone that saw humanity as inherently good. In my mind, if people were generally good then the missionaries and ministries to reach out to them were useless. This was the reason that I like Robert explained away people’s goodness. The distinction Kauffman draws between the two types of love, grace and good are interesting. You can look at someone like Angelina Jolie and see the difference she is seeking to make in the lives of people all across the globe. There are missionaries that are devoting their lives to the same efforts and the only difference is that Jesus Christ is the reason they do what they do. It is true that I can see good in the lives of people that do not have a personal relationship with Jesus but I guess my problem with this is what difference does it make? True God can use their good to bring glory to Himself, but he could just as easily use someone’s bad to bring glory to Himself if He should choose to do so. Kauffman’s applications for common grace in our daily lives are good practices for all Christians. To see and rejoice in the good and not that bad in others and our world can only improve our relationships and it is those relationships that lead to discussions of an eternal significance. Regardless of if a person seems good or bad, for me it still comes down to a matter of their soul.
My initial thoughts about the problem of good are that it really isn’t a problem. Certainly not a salvation issue. We know that no one can ever be good enough to achieve heaven without Jesus, since He says the only way to the father is through him.
I certainly thought the same as Robert in a sense that we are initially carnal in nature, but it makes more sense that we are originally good since we were all created by God, and all God creates is good. It’s the purest form of nature. Trees have no soul, but are so majestic, stoic and beautiful. Who doesn’t look at the ocean and just want to disappear in it vastness and serenity? These were all created by God and are good, but no salvation issue at stake. People are at the top of the creation chain and internally have a good versus evil battle raging inside of them from day one since they are originally good AND THEN carnally evil since the fall. This is the dichotomy of good and evil. Therefore only Adam and Eve ever had the freedom of initially existing without the struggle we all face, including Christians.
I believe the verse that Robert speaks of from Paul addresses that struggle. It acknowledges that the evil inside keeps us from doing the good that God intends for us to do yet His perfect nature in our creation is still capable of being good inherently, regardless of our conscious rejection of Jesus and His saving grace. The rejection of a Christian to allow themselves to be consumed fully by God’s power and will and in turn be transparent as such to the world may stand as the reason so many “heathens” are more Christ-like than Jesus lovers. It’s internal for all of us.
If you notice as well, nonbelievers are reaching out to the world to make it a better place. Their motivation is comfort and happiness for people in the here and now. As much as that would be nice, and fulfilling the needs of a person can be the foundation of a relationship that can lead to the saving conversation and decision, it does not take care of what matters to God and therefore His followers: where is your soul en route to?
This viewpoint was a relief in a way, and is very helpful to how we view nonbelievers. We don’t have to feel guilty that we see great things in them for who they are now, and it can fuel our intensity for praying for that opportunity to share the call with them. Imagine if that person was a Christ follower? Not only world be a better place but Heaven would be more crowded.
Although I’m not sure I want to pursue this issue as of yet, I do have a small dilemma with two kinds of love coming from God. Favoritism seems wrong, although I have difficulty arguing that it is there. Another time…
To be like Mother Teresa, but have no real faith causes me to wonder how it is she became like that. Is it just that God gives some a personality that is predisposed to giving and sharing and compassion, or is it that they were raised in an environment where those things were valued or both?
What do we Christians have to offer to the likes of her other than the hope that her goodness can have eternal significance? Is it just hope that we offer?
I would think that we not only offer hope, but a freedom experienced in the here and now from sin. A freedom that oftentimes seems elusive to me, but is available.
The problem then becomes how do we help a "very good" person recognize that the seemingly insignificant bad things that they have done or continue to do are costly in the long run? And how do we do that without condemning the good that they do?
It's Jesus, man! That's what it's about! How awesome would it be if we could convince people that their Creator is crying for a relationship with them and that is their purpose in life?!?! Isn't that the whole thing? We won't have to condemn them for their sins. Hell does that all on its own. We don't want to help that side, we want to live a life so full of the joy of the Lord that it is enticing and alluring to even the purest of Ghandis and Mother Theresas out there. A purpose that defeats death, lives on eternally, and fellowships with our Maker forever. Really the thing that is in most of our ways is ourselves. Fear is a powerful force, fear of ridicule, fear of man, fear of scoff. Let it go. Let God be as big as He is and just live with love. The rest comes from Him. We are vessels. Empty.
Indeed it is Jesus, and He is enough. We know this because we have experienced Him, know Him, enjoy Him, and know the rest of the story.
And maybe we are not patient enough with people as they figure out this thing with Jesus, so we put on the pressure to "convince" them. Maybe what I need to do is just be available to allow them to be convinced by Him. Meaning, I need to be more carefree with how I talk about Jesus, how I act, and how I perceive Jesus.
Sometimes I think we hold Jesus' name to be so precious that we fail to use it as often as we should. We wait for that pivotal moment to say, "Well Jesus taught..." or "Jesus said..." or "Jesus is ..." We have this idea that if we overuse it we'll become impotent, but I think we only become impotent if the purpose for proclaiming Jesus is anything other than glorifying Jesus.
I must chew on this a little more, but this could be a pivotal idea for me. I tend to be a man a few words already. No comments on that one, please.
ok, so here i am, finally weighing in on the article. actually i thought i lost the email the article was attached to, but as luck would have (or as was predestined, our author may say,) i found it.
i think there are a lot of good things we can take away from this reading. i had a lot of trouble with it, too. i'm ok with the key elements of common grace, that God gives grace to all creatures in many way, that he cares about the salvation of humanity and creation as a collective, that God is the author of truth, beauty, etc. and that we should give him credit for it.
i'm good with the 4part Gospel; usually i just hear a 3part Gospel - creation, fall, redemption. i think in that version redemption and resotration get rolled into 1.
and i'm happy with the idea that men & women are created good. i believe that God has never created a person who was not in his image. in other words, everybody, even the worst people ever like hitler or whoever, was created in God's image by God. but then there's this sinful nature that all people have - a result of our Freewill to choose to love God. so people, dragged away and enticed by sin forget the image in which they were created, embrace their sinful nature, and become evil.
as bearers of God's image we're to be stewards of creation; i'm good with that. [too bad most American Christians don't really believe it. we'd have a much "greener" world if they did. - a blog for another day i guess.]
this is the part of the article where my insides started screaming..."WHAT???"
on page 6 kauffman made a statement about "when we pray for the Kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven, we're saying that it's ultimately His responsibilty, not ours, to deal with the problem of the World-..." ok. this sounds like a dangerous line of thinking. i understand that God is in control and all but this statement makes it pretty easy for me to live lazily and complacently. doesn't God call us to be a part of his kingdom work? it may not be up to us to make it fully realized, but God's certainly using us to make it reality. i don't think we're supposed to just settle for how things are.
and then it bothered me, the part about God's glory being his ultimate purpose. i do think God's glory is super super important. i think a lot of people miss out on worshiping God just because he's God. but i think God's glory is wrapped up in the way he loves the world and in our salvation. God's going to bring us into a perfect relationship with him and i'd like to believe we'll get to join in his glory somehow and i'd like to believe he wants everybody to be a part of it, not just a choosen "elect" set.
so then there is the distinction between saving grace and common grace. i do not like what he said about God hating some people. i don't want to make any assumptions about if or why God hates people. the Bible i read always portrays God as favoring people who turn their hearts to him and turning away from the people who reject them wholeheartedly. so i don't think God ever hates people, just because he's decided to, and i don't think God holds back a saving love just for some. God does not show favortism, except maybe in the cases where it seems he does, he always goes in favor of the poor and weak and left out.
so i can't go all the way with saving grace and common grace, as kauffman explains. i can go with a john he doesn't seem to be reading - john wesley.
john wesley distinguishes between a bunch of different types of grace. the one i want to concentrate on is prevenient grace. wesley described prevenient grace as grace that goes before. it's God at work in people and in the world in all sorts of way. this kind of grace is God taking the initiative in us to help us discern what is good and to lead us to recognize him. see, where i think common grace falls short is that it says there is truth and beauty in the world just because. prevenient grace says there is truth and beauty in people and in the world because God is actively working, hoping people will choose to recognize him and helping them to do so. if we ascribe to prevenient grace, we can believe (and i think rightly so) that God loves everybody and wants everybody to come to know him and be saved. God isn't holding out if his prevenient grace is out there in and for everyone.
i like that kauffman is concerned about being able to appreciate and engage in culture, even when it isn't explicitly Christian. prevenient grace allows us to do that too. take a movie like Akeelah and the Bee for example (if you haven't seen it, rent it, even if it is part of Starbucks' plan to take over the world...). So Akeelah and the Bee is a very redemptive movie about a little girl overcoming her oppressive situation and location and beating the odds. it's a good news story: an unlikely girl is equipped by her community to do good and bring hope. the movie is no overtly Christian, but it is good and beautiful. i think God can use that movie and others like it to point to himself. when we start to wonder, why is this movie about Good? how is this a movie about Good? where does the Good come from? we open ourselves to the prompting of the Holy Spirit and allow God to start to work in us, even if we have no words for what is happening or we don't want to recognize that it is God at work.
i think God likes to surprise us by popping up all over the place. God's prevenient grace is in creation - how could it not have an intelligent and imaginative maker? i think God's prevenient grace is in a Dierks Bentley song or a U2 lyric. prevenient grace is in a work of art at the Louvre.
so yeah. i found it curious that one of the discussion questions in the article was about struggling with how to "love" a non-Christian. i guess i've just always taken this as a given. the Bible tells us that God loves us, he loves the whole world, and he calls us to do the same. frankly, there are a lot of non-Christians whom i adore. and there are a lot of Christians whom i struggle to love. i believe God has stamped all of us with his image. i believe God loves everybody and wants all people to be saved. i believe that God is good, and, even if we've distorted it, his creation [us & the world] is a reflection of that goodness.
Good stuff Emily. So fresh from seminary, and having that Wesley influence came in nicely here.
I do not think that whether or not God plays favorites or "hates" particular individuals should even show up on our radar. If they did we'd begin trying to discern who the favorites and hated folks were. I do; however, see where the choice of Isaac, the choice of Jacob, and even the choice of Mary the mother of Jesus lends themselves to that line of thinking. However, whether or not we're chosen to be God's favorites should not impede our willingness to be devoted to Him.
In regard to who's problem it is when dealing with the fallen world, I believe it is essentially God's problem. It is up to Him to fix stuff. Now, it just so happens that how He has chosen to fix stuff is with little Jesus people. However, He is the power behind the work, and He can place obstacles or remove them depending upon the work He wants to be accomplished.
I do not pretend to understand "How" it works, but I do know that taking the pressure off of me to get it right the first time helps to free me up to just try anything knowing that somewhere along the way where I am participating with God in the redemption of creation that He'll direct my path regardless how far off of it I began.
Amen Rob. Who is the Emily chic? She's rockin' too! So nice to see it is possible to think theological in the best interest of the Kingdom without arguing.
I looked at all the verses that Kaufmann used to refer to God's hatred toward certain people, and they seemed to point more to their actions in sin than themselves. And if not, at least God cares enough to have an opinion about those people, since hate isn't the opposite of love, apathy is.
The whole favoritism I can't wrap my head around, and it will probably be one of those revolving doors that I am thankful I don't have figure out. There seems to be evidence supporting the idea, but yeah, it shouldn't be a focus of ours, and thank God we don't know who those people will be. Perhaps it's the "God is sovereign and knows who will accept but gives all people the opportunity" line of thought.
It is a relief to know that we don't have to get it all right all the time and that mistakes can still be used for good. Shouldn't make us lazy, but almost motivate us more because if we try more we will have a better batting average and the coach won't bench us?!?!
Post a new forum so we can talk about the new article already Rob. Geez. You act like it is 6AM there...
The first article was good, you know that we've had this conversation many times talking about how the Dali Lama can have the attributes of Christ and not be of Him.
I dig the idea that we need to appreciate more of the amazing nature of The Creator that is in all of his creation.
The real issue for me, has and is, is that I still struggle with the fact that me saying a name and confessing I believe is what saves me. I still see the one who feeds the sheep as more of a follower than the one who just knows the shepherds name. Don't see resolution coming anytime soon on that one...
Miss you all.
So, DH if you didn't have a name how would I describe you. In essence the name describes very succinctly who we are.
I mean we have an entire book written over hundreds of years using thousands of words to describe God. Yet when I use the name God I know that it incorporates all of those words that describe Him and more.
So, the name hang up seems to be pretty shallow in many regards. No offense meant here, but it's like you wanted to be hung up on something so that you could still cling to some other ideas that don't necessarily mesh with Jesus.
I mean we could just call Jesus, Prince of Peace, Son of Man, Son of God, carpenter from Nazareth, dude who walked on water, who turned water into wine, who healed at least 10 lepers, one woman who bled a lot, and a dude who was possessed by a legion of demons, who rose Lazarus and a couple of kids from the dead, and who also happened to raise himself fom the dead, who now just so happens to live in me, guide me and direct me, forgive me, empower me, and correct me.
But wouldn't be so much easier just to call Him, Jesus?
Lest we forget that there is actual POWER in the name of Jesus. Cast out demons if we believed enough by His name, Jesus.
I have a hard time thinking my problems with personal faith and spirituality in a complex world are shallow.
Don't you love it when you hear or read in this case "no offense, but..."
I think deep down I wanted to stir you up a little. I think it worked!
I'm fine with you having faith issues, I would be a liar if I didn't admit I had some of my own, but I would like permission to challenge them.
BTW, don't call me Bob anymore, I'd rather be referred to "the guy who pissed me off by belittling my faith issues." I don't like the name! Actually I don't care, but just wanted to make a point...again.
lol
I'm sure we can carry this conversation on when you return over a refreshing cold beverage and pizza at Pazzos.
Post a Comment