Comments on: More Reflections on the Cross http://new-wineskins.org/blog/2009/08/more-reflections-on-the-cross/ The Institute for the Theology of Culture, an official program of Multnomah Biblical Seminary Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:20:19 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Kelsi Johns http://new-wineskins.org/blog/2009/08/more-reflections-on-the-cross/#comment-5932 Kelsi Johns Tue, 18 Aug 2009 05:58:07 +0000 http://new-wineskins.org/?p=1169#comment-5932 I appreciate your reflections. I often lament the great irony of what Christians today are marked as being: homophobic, judgmental, hypocritical. The true, an-adulterated message of Christ is the antithesis of these attitudes. But the thing that gives Christianity that mark is our human flesh trying to be Christ. This only makes us cowardly, smug and self-righteousness. Our flesh is far too evil to convincingly masquerade as Christ. I was perusing Craig's list the other day looking for roommates and typed in "Christian" as a keyword search. It saddened me that not only all the Christians were out in the suburbs (is the inner city too sketchy for Christ?) but people were actually seeking roommates who were "preferably not Christian". I hear you when you wonder if we've misread the gospels and N.T. I'm afraid that it's because we're so pre-occupied that we "look" good to others, that we only prevent Christ's true, life altering transformation from occurring. It's much, much easier to have the right answers and the right "do's and don'ts" to prove one's religious devotion than to be broken down and utterly powerless so an invisible God can be powerful in us. This sort of life, I suspect, would blow away our neatly constructed systems of religion that we so cowardly hide behind (myself loudly included). I appreciate your reflections. I often lament the great irony of what Christians today are marked as being: homophobic, judgmental, hypocritical. The true, an-adulterated message of Christ is the antithesis of these attitudes. But the thing that gives Christianity that mark is our human flesh trying to be Christ. This only makes us cowardly, smug and self-righteousness. Our flesh is far too evil to convincingly masquerade as Christ.

I was perusing Craig’s list the other day looking for roommates and typed in “Christian” as a keyword search. It saddened me that not only all the Christians were out in the suburbs (is the inner city too sketchy for Christ?) but people were actually seeking roommates who were “preferably not Christian”. I hear you when you wonder if we’ve misread the gospels and N.T. I’m afraid that it’s because we’re so pre-occupied that we “look” good to others, that we only prevent Christ’s true, life altering transformation from occurring. It’s much, much easier to have the right answers and the right “do’s and don’ts” to prove one’s religious devotion than to be broken down and utterly powerless so an invisible God can be powerful in us. This sort of life, I suspect, would blow away our neatly constructed systems of religion that we so cowardly hide behind (myself loudly included).

]]> By: Luke http://new-wineskins.org/blog/2009/08/more-reflections-on-the-cross/#comment-5876 Luke Sun, 16 Aug 2009 04:02:57 +0000 http://new-wineskins.org/?p=1169#comment-5876 that's a similarity I've wondered about as well... I'm curious what you mean exactly by "incest of goodness"? that’s a similarity I’ve wondered about as well… I’m curious what you mean exactly by “incest of goodness”?

]]> By: Zach Kirk http://new-wineskins.org/blog/2009/08/more-reflections-on-the-cross/#comment-5606 Zach Kirk Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:02:09 +0000 http://new-wineskins.org/?p=1169#comment-5606 I just watched a rebuttal of Rick Warren by Dan Dennett, a neuroscientist turned philosopher of sorts, and much of talk focused on the capacity for good without the need of God. He proposed religion as a product of natural selection in humanity, much like humans have bred a variety of dog. Nothing that he said though, ever once pointed outward, his arguments centered around ourselves. Even his view of God centered around what humanity has done through time to promote the idea of God, as if God were a byproduct of us. I am so struck by the fact that God and the message of the Gospel must be taken from the beginning through self sacrifice. Part of the "harshness of what the Gospel reveals" lies in the message of loving others and loving God, not ourselves. I often question the similarity between the love a Christian claims for others and the love a secular humanist claims for others. It seems that the love Christ has called us to lies far outside ourselves as the purpose of it points to redemption and a worship of God. Whereas the love of a secularist seems, for lack of a better word, to promote an incest of goodness. -Sincerely, Your little guy I just watched a rebuttal of Rick Warren by Dan Dennett, a neuroscientist turned philosopher of sorts, and much of talk focused on the capacity for good without the need of God. He proposed religion as a product of natural selection in humanity, much like humans have bred a variety of dog. Nothing that he said though, ever once pointed outward, his arguments centered around ourselves. Even his view of God centered around what humanity has done through time to promote the idea of God, as if God were a byproduct of us.
I am so struck by the fact that God and the message of the Gospel must be taken from the beginning through self sacrifice. Part of the “harshness of what the Gospel reveals” lies in the message of loving others and loving God, not ourselves. I often question the similarity between the love a Christian claims for others and the love a secular humanist claims for others. It seems that the love Christ has called us to lies far outside ourselves as the purpose of it points to redemption and a worship of God. Whereas the love of a secularist seems, for lack of a better word, to promote an incest of goodness. -Sincerely, Your little guy

]]>