Um....
lambonica
I'm curious if any of you have seen the latest NOOMA "You." I think
it would add some light to the discussion on the virgin birth and
such.
First of all let me explain that I'm not a heady theologian by any
means, but think a lot in terms of the conversations I have with
friends who are not connected with church.
In the newest NOOMA, Rob contends that the virgin birth, resurrection,
Advent, and many other things were common to many worldviews of the
day. So what makes Jesus so special? Virgin birth? So what? So did
my god. Rise from the dead? Yea, my god too (allegedly).
I guess I'm always asking how Jesus can have an influence on my life
today? Does the virgin birth help with the fourth grader I mentor who
is told he has no hope of going to college, told that he is stupid
everyday, and is falling behind fast with his only goal in life TO go
to college? No. It really doesn't.
Look, I'm not saying the virgin birth is not a good thing, but I think
this is where Rob comes from. What is the gospel? Is it an abstract
thing? I really don't think it is. If it's Good News, then it must
be Good News for the world. The Good News is that Jesus was born of a
virgin? No.
I don't know if that makes sense but I hope that sheds some light into
where I think Rob is heading.
Rob tells me that this is his "midrash." You don't have to accept it
as the absolute truth. He just wants to make you think a little.
The unfortunate part is that you don't get to see what is happening
here at Mars Hill as a result of the hopeful teaching we are part of
every week. It's a place of hope, and that's what the world needs.
I hope that all makes sense.
Mike
Michael Krahn
Welcome. I have not seen the latest NOOMA but I think I've seen all the others and I liked them. I also listen to the mars Hill podcast every week so I do hear what's happening there every week. I am part of the congregation by audio... I'm 4 hours away so that'll have to do for now.
Those things may have been common to other faiths of the day (its debatable) but we (Christians) believe our story is the only one that actually happened, right? Competing stories do not devalue or make our story untrue. So we're clear - yes, I am saying that our story is true and all the others are false, absolutely. Not very postmodern of me, I know.
Is the Good News that Jesus was born of a virgin? Its a part of it. Could he be God, the saviour of the world if he was not in fact born of a virgin with no earthly father?
If he wasn't born of a virgin, then he's wasn't God and man... if he wasn't God and man, then he was only man and only a good moral teacher. Even that is relative if he was not God. I might only think he's a good moral teacher because I have been raised as a Christian.
Do you see where it goes? I think Rob is absolutely wrong in asserting that if Jesus had a biological, earthly father it would make no difference to us today.
Having said that, I'm not about to toss out all the good I see at Mars Hill Grand Rapids. Rob is certainly leading a good work there.
I would just challenge you to take a look at Rob's claim that theology isn't that important. "Velvet Elvis" is a theology book, plain and simple. Rob, by insisting that people who obsess about correct theology are off the mark is also pointing a finger at himself.
Rob is action-oriented and that is the best thing about him... and that's a good thing.
Roland
I'm not saying I disagree with your point, I would just like to see
the line of reasoning that led you to that conclusion.
"I think Rob is absolutely wrong in asserting that if Jesus had a
biological, earthly father it would make no difference to us
today."
I don't think he was asserting that. I think he was asking how
important it is to you.
Maybe I'm reading the book with a different context in mind.
But I didn't take it that he was saying these things 'just don't
matter.'
I was understanding him to ASK whether or not your faith could
withstand that spring being removed.
Is the virgin birth part of the framework?
Is it only a spring? Is it many springs?
You got me. In my personal opinion, it is more likely part of the
framework.
But, would I be able to believe in a kind loving God who wants us to
be with Him if that turned out to be false? Yes, I would.
If Jesus did have an earthly father, would that necessarily make Him
any less God?
I understand your concerns Michael. It would definitely take away
from the story of Jesus.
But would it take away who Jesus really is?
I don't think it would, but it would definitely blur the lines of
clear understanding of who He is.
Is the virgin birth a necessary part of your faith?
Can you follow the risen Savior without it?
I look at what Jesus did in His life. How can I not want the life He
promises? He IS that life.
I also hold to the virgin birth. Rob Bell does as well. (Read that
part of the book again)
There is a scripture that says God wants us to reason with Him.
Sounds to me like He is interested in more than just obedience.
It sounds to me like He wants our hearts and minds.
Jesus called us friends instead of servants. For servants do not know
what their master is doing.
We have been given such a great understanding of what our Master is
doing. It convinces me.
I am not forced to obey, I am convinced it is the right thing to do.
I obey knowing He cares for me and wants the best for me. I do that
because I understand.
Testing our faith is sometimes difficult. But without testing, we
will be weak and frail.
I have trouble believing sometimes.
When I question things, sometimes I can't even find an answer.
But in the long run, He believes in me.
Which keeps my belief from disappearing altogether.
lambonica
I would definitely echo Roland's sentiments, read the part AFTER that
section you just mentioned. Nowhere does Rob say he denies the virgin
birth. He's asking what would happen to your faith IF this certain
thing was true. Would your faith fall apart?
I think you misunderstood me (and discussion forms are always such a
limited form of communication), I'm not saying theology isn't
important, or that the virgin birth isn't important, what I'm saying
is that if all you're ever consumed with is proving certain doctrines
right, then that isn't helping my 4th grader.
I don't think theology is an intellectual pursuit, I think it is a
living pursuit. How you live is part of your theology. I live as if
Jesus were God, with all authority. I live as if what Jesus said in
the gospels were true. I live as if the way the Jesus is the best
possible way to live. That is theology.
I think you would also find that Rob (and the rest of Mars Hill) think
theology is VERY important. Actually we are about to vote a "Narrative
Theology Statement" soon (which is already on the website, <url>http://
marshill.org/about/coreBeliefs.php</url> if you want to check it
out.). I don't find anywhere where Rob doesn't think that it's
important. What I do find him saying is that if we spend all of time
arguing which doctrines are "right," then we miss out on the mission
God has put before us, to restore the world, to help bring heaven to
earth.
In regards of thinking to the bricks and springs, think of it as
trying to find the perfect spring. That's where I think some of this
goes. We need to invite people on the trampoline to jump with us, the
springs ARE attached to a frame and a mat, but we don't get on a
trampoline to find out where the perfect spring is. Does that make
sense?
I don't want you to think that we are not saying Jesus' way is the
only way to God. I would say that the way of Jesus is how things
really are. It is the true reality. In the grand scheme of things I
guess you could say the way of Jesus is the best possible option (by
far) of all of the other worldviews out there.
I hope that makes sense. Sometimes I can be a little too vague.
Mike
> --
> Michael Krahnwww.michaelkrahn.comhttp://krahn.blogspot.com/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
gephartr
Statement, and it shows what I first heard out of Rob. The statement
also answers some of the questions that were raised in reading VE, and
specifically that I posted on last week.
It's obvious in the statement that we are not denying the personal
aspect of our relationship with God, but clarifying that it is not
only a personal relationship - but also our relationship with all of
creation. The statement also clearly states everything that is
important - Jesus is God in the flesh; died, buried, risen, and now
transforming us into the perfect that is to come. But it doesn't just
stop at confirming these truths, but then also speaks of the acts/
deeds that we as Christians are supposed to be doing to show Jesus to
the world thru our own lives.
Amen!
ryan...@livingfaith.ca
> I think you would also find that Rob (and the rest of Mars Hill) think
> theology is VERY important. Actually we are about to vote a "Narrative
> Theology Statement" soon (which is already on the website, <url>http://
> marshill.org/about/coreBeliefs.php</url> if you want to check it
> out.). I don't find anywhere where Rob doesn't think that it's
> important. What I do find him saying is that if we spend all of time
> arguing which doctrines are "right," then we miss out on the mission
> God has put before us, to restore the world, to help bring heaven to
> earth.
You have made a doctrinal statement by your last sentence. This is
the doctrine of your church. Historically the doctrine of the
orthodox Christian church is the plan of salvation for mankind; Jesus'
substitutionary atonement for our sins. The social gospel message is
a recent shift away from this core doctrine and by elevating this
message you reject the core doctrine of the christian church.
>
> In regards of thinking to the bricks and springs, think of it as
> trying to find the perfect spring. That's where I think some of this
> goes. We need to invite people on the trampoline to jump with us, the
> springs ARE attached to a frame and a mat, but we don't get on a
> trampoline to find out where the perfect spring is. Does that make
> sense?
The trampoline is an incomplete analogy, I prefer the one used by
Jesus comparing it to where we build our house, on rocks or sand.
Take away the rock and the house does fall down. Paul tells us that
if Christ did not rise from the dead then our faith is in vain. There
are certain "springs" that alone will cause the entire system to fall
down.
Roland
to fall down."
Which ones?
Chris L
On May 1, 2:29 pm, ryanch...@livingfaith.ca wrote:
> > I think you would also find that Rob (and the rest of Mars Hill) think
> > theology is VERY important. Actually we are about to vote a "Narrative
> > Theology Statement" soon (which is already on the website, <url>http://
> > marshill.org/about/coreBeliefs.php</url> if you want to check it
> > out.). I don't find anywhere where Rob doesn't think that it's
> > important. What I do find him saying is that if we spend all of time
> > arguing which doctrines are "right," then we miss out on the mission
> > God has put before us, to restore the world, to help bring heaven to
> > earth.
>
> You have made a doctrinal statement by your last sentence. This is
> the doctrine of your church. Historically the doctrine of the
> orthodox Christian church is the plan of salvation for mankind; Jesus'
> substitutionary atonement for our sins. The social gospel message is
> a recent shift away from this core doctrine and by elevating this
> message you reject the core doctrine of the christian church.
>
Actually, there are two parts to what Jesus (and Paul, after him
taught) - the gospel of Jesus AND the Kingdom of God. At the very end
of Acts, we read this about Paul:
"Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and
taught about the Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 28:31)
Also, while Jesus was here, his key message was about the Kingdom of
God, which was integral to who he was:
"Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their
synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every
disease and sickness."
When we, as Christians, choose to elevate either orthodoxy (believing
the right things) or orthopraxy (doing the right things) over the
other, we are only teaching half of a gospel. As E. Stanley Jones put
it:
"An individual gospel without a social gospel is a soul without a body
and a social gospel without an individual gospel is a body without a
soul. One is a ghost and the other a corpse."
I listen to Mars Hill's weekly podcast, and track with some of their
members during the week, and I would say that this body of believers
does an incredibly good job balancing the two. Critics of MHBC, I
believe, see their inclusion of the social gospel as integral with the
individual gospel as emphasizing the social gospel because many
churches today are so deficient in practicing it, that ANY emphasis
seems to be too much...
>
> > In regards of thinking to the bricks and springs, think of it as
> > trying to find the perfect spring. That's where I think some of this
> > goes. We need to invite people on the trampoline to jump with us, the
> > springs ARE attached to a frame and a mat, but we don't get on a
> > trampoline to find out where the perfect spring is. Does that make
> > sense?
>
> The trampoline is an incomplete analogy, I prefer the one used by
> Jesus comparing it to where we build our house, on rocks or sand.
> Take away the rock and the house does fall down. Paul tells us that
> if Christ did not rise from the dead then our faith is in vain. There
> are certain "springs" that alone will cause the entire system to fall
> down.
Actually, you completely miss the point of Jesus' teaching of where to
build a house. Sand is an excellent foundation (ask any builder), but
in Israel, the only place you will find sand is in the bottom of wadis
(canyons in the desert which frequently experience flash-floods).
When you build on the rock, however, you are building in a place of
safety. Let's read what Jesus ACTUALLY said:
"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into
practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain
came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that
house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.
But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into
practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain
came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that
house, and it fell with a great crash."
Notice that the person who builds his house on the rock is one who
BOTH hears Jesus words AND puts them ito practice (balancing orthodoxy
and orthopraxy), and the foolish man hears Jesus' words but does NOT
put them into practice (orthodoxy without orthopraxy).
So, in choosing this parable of Jesus', you were wise in choosing it,
because it was relevant to this discussion, but the point of the
parable was the opposite of your conclusion.