It is the bride of Christ.
How can you love a man and not his bride?
***********************************************
Salvation through Jesus makes me a part of the church (whether I like it or not).
This makes me a part of the bride of Chirst.
***********************************************
This makes me a part of the bride of Christ.
***********************************************
This
makes
me
a
part
of
the
bride
of
Christ
***********************************************
Other inidividuals who have salvation through Jesus have become part of the bride Christ. This puts me and all the other Christians on the same level, equal, and of the same entity.
To dislike any part of that entity is to dislike myself.
How can you hate yourself when Christ, himself, has chosen you his bride and given you a new robe of pure white.
***********************************************
Ultimately, I do not stay with the church, it stays with me and you and you and that guy and that woman over there and that child over there.
***********************************************
We are all the church and Christ has chosen us as his bride.
***********************************************
To not like the church is to look at all the others and Christ and tell all of them that none of them are good enough for you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Can you explain further Gary>
"To not like the church is to look at all the others and Christ and tell all of them that none of them are good enough for you."
I didn't understand how not liking beliefs or actions means that I think a person isn't good enough for me.
Maybe I should have written it this way:
Should I love people who hate me just because they may be a part of the church?
Should I love people who molest little children even though they may be a part of the church?
Should I love people who define God as someone vengeful... just because they are a the church?
I was trying to be extreme in all these examples to show that it is irrelevant what actions people do, and even those people, who may be a part of the church (and that's debatable), should not automatically get my love just because they are "the church."
And my love for people is regardless of my love or lack of love of their beliefs. If my kid believes a stork brought him, I won't love him more or less.
Two different thoughts there, but my "I loves" in my first comment were sarcasm. It just didn't come out right.
Gary,
Quit deleting your comments.
Anyway, maybe I should have worded it this way:
"To not like the church is to look at Christ and tell him he is not good enough for me."
But I won't.
I do believe that we are all equal, sinner and Christian alike. Especially Christian and Christian alike. We all sin and no one is perfect.
In Christ's eyes, there is no rank and file to sin. My lying to my parents when I was 17 is on equal ground with a child molester in terms of both are wrong and therefore do not deserve heaven.
I do not live this way, I admit it. If someone lied to me, it is quite likely that overtime (month?, year?, 5 years?) the relationship could be repaired and it would be like nothing happen. If someone molests my child, it may never, ever be repaired and I may decide that death is the only action they deserve.
However, i cannot ignore the fact that Christ will marry his bride the church when it is all said and done. All the problems the church has now will not exist and it will be perfect.
If Christ will marry his bride and all of its imperfections and I marry my bride with all of her imperfections, do I quit on my bride because she isn't perfect?
No.
Does she quit on me because I am not perfect?
No.
Do I quit on myself becuase I am not perfect?
No.
So why would I quit on the church?
Jesus himself find the church worthy enough, shouldn't I?
"To not like the church is to look at Christ and tell him he is not good enough for me."
No, I don't think that's so. These things are so totally disconnected, and I want to show you why I think that.
Many people believe that Christ died for the church, regardless of all its members realize this or not at any given time. In other words, Jesus did not die for those who would never come to know him, right? Christ's atonemnt has everything to do with an individuals _acceptance_ or election, right? This is predestination.
I would say that either 1) everyone is predestined or 2) that our view of who constitutes the church could possibly include individuals that are not truly a part of it -- individuals that are truly not accepted, elected, or predestined to be "the bride of Christ."
For me to dislike certain elements of our view of the church absolutely has nothing to do with my personal views of Jesus. To me, they are disconnected. If someone likes my wife and doesn't like me, then I would not say, "If you dislike my wife, you also dislike me" or "If you love my wife, you love me." No, we are separate and distinct individuals. We never became one flesh nor will we ever regardless of the mysticism outlined in the bible. We have different blood types. She is a woman. I am a man. We are distinct in personality, spirituality, emotions, and physicality. We are similar in many regards too, but thats beside the point.
"We all sin and no one is perfect."
I agree. There is no rank and file to this sin order, and it's irrelvant to me.
"However, i cannot ignore the fact that Christ will marry his bride the church when it is all said and done. All the problems the church has now will not exist and it will be perfect. If Christ will marry his bride and all of its imperfections and I marry my bride with all of her imperfections, do I quit on my bride because she isn't perfect?"
No, this isn't about quitting. It's about me realizing (or accepting the possibility that) there never was/will be a marriage. Big difference.
"Jesus himself find the church worthy enough, shouldn't I?"
Maybe you should! That's where we differ. I don't always rely on another's opinion for worth -- especially when it comes to the bible. It's backward sometimes.
I guess what I am saying is that there are mistakes and problems in the church and I know it is not perfect. I do not turn a blind eye to them, but I do not quit on it either because of those "problems."
As such, "I stick with the church."
It becomes too easy to pick on the church and complain about it and just throw up our hands and quit.
It doesn't go our way, we do not agree with it, and there are so many dang hypocrites, so we quit.
"It becomes too easy to pick on the church and complain about it and just throw up our hands and quit.
It doesn't go our way, we do not agree with it, and there are so many dang hypocrites, so we quit."
True, but those aren't the only reasons why people quit. In my case it isn't any of them, and I surely haven't given up on anything.
The modern church routine isn't horrible in my opinion, even if it doesn't represent the church as Christ established it. There are hypocrites everywhere: religion, politics, friends, everyone. It is not easy to live up to any ideal standard for anyone. There are just too many distractions. There is life to live. Although most people strive to live up to certain ways and standards, giving yourself one exception even due to circumstances makes you a hypocrite. That's not my issue.
What my issue is:
The bible clearly defines many aspects of God, our origins, and the purpose of human life. The question I always ask myself is, "are these things 1) true to what the rest of the universe is saying, and 2) do I believe that God chose men to document his will in what we now have as 'the bible?'"
My personal experience answers that yes, it is possible that God chose men, and yes, it is possible that God's will is documented in the bible. My experience also says that no, the bible is not consistent with life. So regardless of my belief in the possibilities of a divinely inspired word, if it is not divinely consistent content, it is not from God -- it is from men.
Now who am I to take the thousand years of history, trust, belief, faith, and selfless living for the sake of Christ and his church -- and just toss it aside? Well, I am not doing that. I think the belief that we are all sinners in need of a savior is a precious belief, and I will not quarral with anyone who believes such. I am just a man who could be wrong about many things, and I don't want to lift myself up with a pointed finger, saying, "you're all wrong." Really, I don't care. If your faith causes good, it is good.
I easily agree that the whole message of the bible points to the world being corrupt and in need of a savior. Thank you, Adam. But step out of that scenario for a moment (which may be nearly impossible to do), and ask yourself some questions. This is what I do. I usually ask God these things.
God, if you created man originally to not die, then what would happen as the world continued to populate through the ages? What would happen with the crowds of animals that never die, plants that never die, and people that never die? God, I want to believe that is what your original intent was, but I struggle in understanding the consequences of not having death. God, it seems that there is a life cycle. You created seasons, birth, death, change. You created scavangers to clean the decay. You created this balance and struggle that we, humans, term Good and Bad. Good flowers; Bad thistles and thorns. God, what would the good be without its counterparts? What would hope be without failure? What would need be without want? God you are above us, and I think there is another purpose to life than what I formerly thought was your showing me through the bible.
God, if my sins separate me from you, and you provided a solution to that through Jesus, then I need Jesus. I know that could be your way, and it doesn't sound too challenging to submit to that.
God, why is it that you created me to question everything? Why is it easier for me to believe that you created the lion to consume the lamb than it is to believe the lion and lamb were friends until a man ate fruit against your will? Why is the shedding of blood an atonement? Why is that the entire critique of death?
God, I have a lot of questions, and I look to the bible as coming from you, which is questionable. I look to nature as coming from you, which is surer to me. You desined the whole system of life and harmony, and I'm curious as to know what the purpose of my life is.
I'm not sure if my last comments posted.
Gary,
It is unfortunate that you are using your vast scientific abilities to critique a book that never claimed to be scientific.
Quote: "The bible clearly defines many aspects of God, our origins, and the purpose of human life."
Really? I didn't know that. I wish I would've known that. Becasue I spend a lot of time in conversation and thought trying to figure these thingsout. I've found that the Bible gives more questions than answers.
Why this is frustrating for me is illustrated in this example:
What if I told you in was raining cats and dogs outside. And you said "Rally?" and then ran out the door to examine the situation for yourself? You would find that there was actually only raindrops coming from the clouds and not actual felines or canines. You then return to me and say, "You're a liar! There's only water coming from the clouds!"
Was that a fair critique of my comments? Certainly not.
So, if you hold an unscientific document up to scientific standards isn't the same thing?
So, perhaps someof your frustration with scripture is that you were raised to read it as a text book more than a story (that is certianly my frustration). When we do this, though, we leave no room for metaphor, human error, tension, dichotomies and all the things that make a story great.
Contradictions in the Bible? Big deal. Doesn't fit what science says about the Universe? So what?
That said, I think you said some awesome things in this particular discussion. I was especially impressed with how you distanced Jesus from the Church.
"It is unfortunate that you are using your vast scientific abilities to critique a book that never claimed to be scientific."
Bah! I sense your sarcasm, but any preacher who takes ordination seriously should consider just how scientific the bible is if its stories are to be used in determining living standards.
My Quote: "The bible clearly defines many aspects of God, our origins, and the purpose of human life."
You: "Really? I didn't know that. I wish I would've known that. Becasue I spend a lot of time in conversation and thought trying to figure these thingsout. I've found that the Bible gives more questions than answers."
Really? I didn't know that. I wish I would've know that, because I spend a lot of time in conversation trying to help people who have been screwed by "answers."
"if you hold an unscientific document up to scientific standards isn't the same thing?"
You can hold anything up to science (meaning an area of knowledge that is the object of study within a particular field). They either 1) are irrelevant to the subject 2) in agreement with the subject or 3) in disagreement with the subject.
What I'm talking about is #3.
So what do you do with a great story?! Wouldn't you rather know your wife loves you than merely wonder if it's just a story?!
"Contradictions in the Bible? Big deal. Doesn't fit what science says about the Universe? So what?"
Well, I don't care what the bible says about the universe (I do care, but that's not the point). I care what the bible says about practicle things. Sometimes I wonder if we're talking about bible rocket science, or "go and sin no more" sort of stuff. The things that concern me are very clearly laid out in books attributed to Paul's authorship. Should we get into specifics? I'm curious as to what his stories do for you. ;)
"I was especially impressed with how you distanced Jesus from the Church."
If you're sarcastic... awesome! If not, explain.
I do not think you can distance Jesus from the church...ever!
For real
ever
Hmmm...
what are "hmmm..."
If you mean church as in what Jesus started, or the real church, or whatever, then cool.
If you mean church by Christianity, then man, I hope you're wrong, Brian.
Why?
"Christianity" turned the world upside down.
And in our lifetime it will be difficult to see it turned rightsideup.
Goodsideup.
What is the defintion of "goodsideup?"
It's a play on "right"sideup or "correct" side up. I'm a big fan of goodness over righteousness. Universalism, baby!!!!!!!!
lol -- inside joke
Sorry.
haven't been around in a while.
It's football season. Go blue.
Now, Gary, I posted on Paul without having read your response to me. I thought you needed to know that. I want you to know that I didn't respond to you in my post about Paul.
Here's my response to you regarding Paul: Paul is a pain in the ass. Paul pisses me off and, while he is certainly misunderstood and overused by the morality police, he has some serious problems. He seems to have known nothing about Jesus' teachings for one. And he may have (maybe) systematized and institutionalized something that was never meant to be systematized. (Geez, was that honest or what?)
Now, concerning the Church, I agree with Toby. It is absolutly essential to seperate Jesus from the Church in our perspective. Instead of seeing Jesus through the lense of the Church we need to see the Church through the lense of Jesus.
Ok. I get that!
Insightful.
Agreed.
Is a definition of "Church" needed in this discussion?
What do we all mean by "Church?"
This isn't about Paul and what he did or did not do or say.
This isn't systematic theology.
This is about Jesus and his church.
When you talk "church" what is you Merriam Webster definition?
I've been using "Church" in the sense of the great big institutional monstrosity that continually makes an ass out of Jesus in the 21st century.
However, the Biblical idea of church is what NT Wright called "community of love." Or McKnight might say, a Jesus society.
Post a Comment