Personal Relationship

[geph...@hotmail.com]

Personally, I liked the book. I would agree that the book tends to be
more of a starting place for asking questions. And for Rob, who has a
church that posts podcasts weekly that would be appropriate. It is a
way to get people interested in the sermons from his church, to think
about their religion, and hopefully to get people involved.

>From the sermons that I have heard, Rob appears to have a "proper"
view of doctrine with a healthy dose of historicity. In my opinion,
Rob's viewpoints on Jewish meanings and Jewish origins is something
that the church desperately needs. It does not mean that he has it
right, but his emphasis is right. For the gentile believers are the
unnatural branches that are grafted into God's nation of Israel;
Jewish believers are the natural branches. I believe that the Church
played a great disservice to God when it distanced itself from being a
part of God's nation of Israel - which in the Old Testament he calls
His bride.

Anyway, I digress from my subject line. The part that I question from
the book, which I believe is in a chapter as yet unreviewed by this
board, is his viewpoint on the relationship of God with us. There is
a statement that the Church goes to far in thinking / believing that
our relationship with God is a personal relationship. He then
discusses how it was / is a communal relationship and that the
relationship with God does not exist without the community. To me,
this does appear to go to far to the opposite extreme - and this may
also just be part of Rob's attempt to spur thinking and discussion.

>From the beginning, the relationship was a personal relationship
between the person and God. But, it was also about the relationship
with the rest of people (and creation). God created the entirety of
creation and called it good. We are only a part of what was created -
though as someone else stated we are the pinnacle of creation (in our
viewpoint - I believe Lucifer thought that he was the pinnacle).
Anyway, I think it important to remember that our relationship with
God is and always will be a personal relationship. But we cannot do
proper honor to God without honoring all of His creation - and
especially that part of the creation which was made in His image.

(BTW, I don't view man as the pinnacle of creation. This moves the
focus away from God. Man is important because he was made in the
image of God. The image pointing to the glory of God, not to the fact
that we are in His image.)

gephartr

[Roland]

Nice insights, gephart. May I call you gephart? :) Sorry, sometimes
I just enjoy being odd.

Anyway I agree with the stuff you wrote, but I have a thought on this
part:
"There is a statement that the Church goes too far in thinking /

believing that
our relationship with God is a personal relationship. He then
discusses how it was / is a communal relationship and that the
relationship with God does not exist without the community."

I would tend to think we can't have a good relationship with God
inside a vacuum.
i.e. Just Him and me.
We might be able to, but in the scriptures there is that part near the
beginning where God says something about it not being good for man to
be alone. Maybe there is something to the community. Also, Peter
wrote that scripture isn't of any personal interpretation. It would
almost seem as if God desires us to communicate with each other.

As an example:
At my work if someone in a leadership position asks someone else to
try something different to improve an outcome of a situation, there
are usually negative reactions. I've noticed that those who came to
try to change things were doing it in a kind manner, usually. I try
to point out the desire for improvement. I'm not sure if they always
believe me, but at least they listen. :)
If they were left on their own, their view would stay distorted. We
seem to need others to get us to understand things.
When Adam hid in the garden, he could instead have gone straight to
God and confessed. Part of the problem stems from the answers we see
he gave to God. He blamed God for giving him the woman that caused
him to disobey. He was blame shifting to be sure, but he also seemed
unable to see that God was looking out for him. He was having
problems with his leader and at that time at least, couldn't
understand how things could be going wrong. He had trouble seeing
God's viewpoint. And even if God was the one to explain it to him, he
would have balked at the answers he would have gotten.
We tend to do that today still. At least, I know I do. :)

I still like what Red Green said,
(even though I'm not a big hockey fan I like it)
"We're all in this together, keep your stick on the ice."

[geph...@gmail.com]

Good addition Roland. I would agree, and I was not disagreeing with
the communal part of the relationship. I was just mentioning that in
the book, it seemed that Rob was saying it was all community and no
personal - which is just the opposite extreme of all personal and no
community. My viewpoint is that, as with most things, the truth lies
somewhere in the middle.

[geph...@gmail.com]

Ok, now that I have fed my son I also came up with one more thing that
I wanted to respond.

Regarding the place in scriptures that says it is not good for man to
be alone, it is also important to look at God's solution to the
issue. Did God go and create a community of people for Adam to
interact with? No; he created Eve and instituted the sacrament of
marriage. So, from God's act it would appear that the solution to not
being alone is to further the image of God in man. And then again he
furthers the image even more when Adam and Eve have their first
child. (Father - Son - Spirit.)

Again, I agree with the concept of a community. But God's first and
primary relationship is personal. Every time that God came down to
direct the course of history it was thru a personal relationship with
specific people. A community gives us a greater ability to share and
bounce ideas off each other. But, as shown in Israel - the chosen
people - the community at large will fail God where the personal
relationship always remains.

[Michael Krahn]

As I think about this everyday, listen to Mars podcasts, and talk to others like yourselves, that extremism is what see as the dominant fault in Bell's thinking.  He despises many things about the North American evangelical church, and I share his spite for many of them, but those ideas took root because there was some truth to them.  Throwing them out entirely is not the solution; showing moderation and countering them is.

There is no fault in looking forward to heaven but that has been the dominant sentiment of evangelicalism for many decades and has been damaging because of its dominance.  There is no fault either in being and bringing the kingdom here but to focus on that exclusively is also faulty.

The biggest good thing I have learned from Bell (and through a good friend of mine who is a big fan of Bell) is that we need community.  We are (I have been) too focused on personal salvation... that I am saved and going to heaven and just waiting for that day.  There is more to it than that and Rob and Aaron (my friend) are helping me flesh that out.

I have another blog that is less theology focused where I posted some further thoughts on friends and conflict and coffee over at http://krahn.blogspot.com/ . Some of what's been happening here went into that latest post as well.

Thanks for the discussion.  I'm really enjoying it.

http://krahn.blogspot.com/

[Roland]

"My viewpoint is that, as with most things, the truth lies
somewhere in the middle."

I agree.

"Regarding the place in scriptures that says it is not good for man
to

be alone, it is also important to look at God's solution to the
issue. Did God go and create a community of people for Adam to
interact with? No; he created Eve and instituted the sacrament of
marriage. So, from God's act it would appear that the solution to
not
being alone is to further the image of God in man. And then again he
furthers the image even more when Adam and Eve have their first
child."

True. Yet God also told them to be fruitful and multiply. Sounds
kind of like starting in Jerusalem then Judea then Samaria then the
uttermost parts of the earth. And the command to multiply came before
the fall. We still need to have a focus on our Creator. And He is
the source and soul of our lives. But it doesn't end there. God
grows. Strange thing is, He is already perfect and complete. He
isn't growing Himself. He is more like the farmer Jesus talks about.
(this is one of those times the Trinity gets way beyond my ability to
grasp)
We are similar to wheat. Yet we are more than just vegetables.
(except maybe to hyper-Calvinists) ;)
And He wants to dwell in us. Again, I get at a loss for words here,
but hopefully you can see what I'm getting at.
We need Him. He desires us.
We can end up desiring Him. But in the end, He doesn't truly need
us.
Too amazing for me to comprehend why He would want us when we were yet
enemies.
Yet He does.

Still awed,

Roland

[gephartr]

Isn't it just wonderful, the Good News? Isn't it great that we can
sit here and talk about everything that God does for and thru each and
every one of us? That, in certain ways we can all be "right" because
we are all saying the truth of God - though always in part and thru
our own rose-colored glasses (as Paul would say).

But when Jesus returns, we will be made perfect and know the perfect
truth!

[Roland]

Yes the Good News is wonderful!
And one day we will all see much more clearly.
It does make the walk much more interesting this way. :)