In our HCJB team prayer meeting, we listened on DVD to president Wayne Pederson talking about the vision of the mission. He suggested that the word ‘christian’ has become compromised, and that what we should be seeking is to lead people to love and follow Jesus. There’s an impetus to use technology and current popular communication methods like twitter and face book more effectively as channels. The image popped into mind of the liquid metal T-1000 in Terminator 2, able to morph shape as circumstances required - as an image of what this nimble, adaptable communication aspiration is like.
I try to be honest about my own questions and doubts too. So here’s one: We sing about ‘king Jesus’ in church, celebrating the idea that this man who lived two millenia ago somehow rules and infuses the universe. So how is it that in the daily grind he can seem so peripheral: so far off the radar of my own consciousness in the rough and tumble of life, let alone in the mind of the secular masses? The notion that the church ‘made’ this man into Deity can at times appear a persuasive one. To be continued…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
2 comments:
It's good to question.
Not sure what use twitter etc would be to you. I'd like to see christians share their doubts as well as their faith. It would be more balanced. Street evangies just set off the nutter alarm - especially the creationists.
In what way is the term christian compromised? How would changing it be any different.
One of the things I despise about the brights (other than the name) is that they spoend half their time discussing what to call themselves. I prefer atheist, but for some that's too negative.
church made this man into a diety - i dont think the new testament ever says jesus was god but it does say god was jesus.
In the beginning was the word
and the word was with god
and god was the word.
It is a chiasm in the original greek - if my memory serves me correct
I half read an interesting book it was called "christ - a crisis in the life of god" - by a literary critic who looked at the new testament from a literary rather than a historical or philosophical critque.
His point was quite simple: With jesus god came down a category from a thought to an event from a reason to a process - from a target point from of escaping the world to a way
being in the world.
In the crucifiction nothing makes any sense - but going with that - rather than trying to break out to a totalising and secure system of thought - that to me is the way of the cross.
there will always be systems of thought just like we will always have the poor with us. To me they are like floorboards - they are only worth paying attention to when either you dont have any - or they get old and creaky. I mean I have never spent an evening watching my floorboards - nor have I read the catechism - well except the bits about sex...
Post a Comment