Is There Any Hope for Western Christianity?
“Can the West be re-evangelized? Only if we unlearn our default ethnocentric assumptions about “real” Christianity (our own) and unlearn our blindness to the ways Western Christianity is infected by cultural idolatry. It may be more blessed to give than to receive, but it is often harder to receive than to give. That reverses the polarity of patron and client and makes us uncomfortably aware that what Jesus said to the Laodicean church might apply to us in the West: “You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked” (Rev. 3:17).”
Want to read more? You can find it here. This excellent piece by Christopher Wright would be an excellent discussion starter for any Bible class, small group, or leaders’ retreat. (Thanks, Jim, for telling me about it!)
Here’s another paragraph to whet your appetite:
“So another piece of unlearning we must do is breaking the habit of using the term mission field to refer to everywhere else in the world except our home country in the West. The language of home and mission field is still used by many churches and agencies, but it fundamentally misrepresents reality. Not only does it perpetuate a patronizing view of the rest of the world as always being on the receiving end of our missionary largesse, but it also fails to recognize the maturity of churches in many other lands.”
- – - -
And PLEASE, when you get a chance, read this book review of John Stackhouse’s new Finally Feminist: A Pragmatic Christian Understanding of Gender
Here, again, is just a taste:
Stackhouse finds, in the church’s changing attitude toward slavery, a proper model for the church’s changing attitude toward women. He points out that while women and homosexuals are never linked in the restrictive passages of the New Testament, women and slaves are. Women and slaves in the early church, freed in Christ, were nevertheless encouraged to observe cultural norms to keep the gospel from disrepute.
But slaves have been freed from that particular cultural norm—or such is the overwhelming consensus today. “In the case of slavery,” Stackhouse writes, “Christians worldwide have come to agree that the social conservatism of the New Testament was a temporary matter.” This was not an agreement reached without struggle; Stackhouse points out that theologians of the 19th century “marshalled powerful, Bible-based arguments” on both sides of the issue. “[A] straightforward interpretation of the passages regarding slavery conveys no obvious condemnation of the institution,” he concludes, “and seems instead to encourage Christians in both roles, master and slave, to stay right where they are and simply behave properly. Yet there is no important Christian leader anywhere in the modern world today who defends slavery.”
Stackhouse argues that the abolition of slavery provides us with a model for the Holy Spirit’s slow, ongoing work in doing away with a sinful, oppressive cultural norm—a change that doesn’t at all undercut the authority of Scripture. Many evangelicals point to thousands of years of patriarchy as proof that patriarchy is an essential part of God’s creation. Yet slavery, which we have now rejected, was as universal as patriarchy, and the Christian church has rightfully rejected it.
Well said!
Thanks for the article link, Mike. I read Wright’s piece and have now copied it to several friends and colleagues. I like the general idea of what he is saying, but I wish it went further into the details.
He makes the great point (and well-said, too) that Western Christianity has treated the majority world with a bit of snobbery. Much of it unintended, but most of it blind and unwilling to see.
Then he makes the point that our center of faith is the Cross and God’s reconciliation (a beautiful reminder), so that no country, culture or church is meant to be a more important center of faith than any other. But then he stops. I felt hungry for more. I wanted to see the details of where this realization sends us. What does that look like at the local church level in our Western culture?
I will be looking forward to the future articles from the Christian Vision Project, and I so appreciate you mentioning this one to peak interest. Is there anybody that has more comments on this subject?
I have not thought on this issue NEAR as much as most of you posting….but was wondering if anyone has read “Created To Be His Help Meet” by Debi Pearl? (www.NoGreaterJoy.org)
Steve Jr,
I’ll go this far with you. 1 Tim 2 might address life in general, not just the worship service (though it does specify how she should learn, and that she should not teach men). That understanding creates a difficulty with Priscilla, Aquilla, and Apollos. But that might not be an insurmountable difficulty.
1 Cor 14, on the other hand, addresses the assembly of the church (see verse 26). Paul’s instruction in that context would not have been ambiguous to a first century woman. She clearly was prohibited from speaking in the assembly.
Won’t anyone discuss the human-animal hybrids?
Yes, there is great hope.
GKB – I’m pretty sure human-animal hybrids are forbidden from participation in public worship. Especially gay ones.
Wow. I discussed something a little similar weeks ago. Unfortunately, we forget why Jesus came. Luke 4:18-19 states:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” Jesus was all for turning the status quo upside down (and not just in a political sense). As I said in one of my posts at http://wisdomwalking.net/2007/01/03/christian-spiritual-growth-without-the-church/
“It seems some churches are so busy trying to establish and implement effective marketing strategies and institute profitable fund raising programs to build bigger buildings at the expense of helping people face their fears, turn around, and truly meet God so that they might truly heal…the church has a wonderful opportunity these days to be God’s agents who would help ‘heal the brokenhearted and bind up their wounds’ (Psalm 147:3).” We’re so busy trying to maintain a status quo that doesn’t apply to our own culture and society that people are dying in the streets moment by moment.
If we all would concentrate on loving Jesus, and sharing Jesus with others, and not worry so much about who is doing what, where and why. Jesus’ church, not our church, would be better for it.
I am a woman, I am a Christ follower, I am a sinner. I am glad that my salvation is in Jesus, and not attached to where I go to church, what kind of music I sing (or play) or what gender the person speaking, serving communion, praying etc. is.
In 1987, in response to somewhat similar difficulties in an Orthodox Jewish community in the U.S., a jewish woman steeped in Jewish tradition, and learning, wrote this,
“The halakhic scholars…must make it possible for women to claim their share in the Torah and begin to do the things a Jew was created to do. If necessary we must agitate until the scholars are willing to see us as Jewish souls in disttress rather than as tools with which men do mitzvot…There is no time to waste. For too many centuries, the Jewish woman has been the golem, created by Jewish society. She cooked and bore and did her master’s will, and when her tasks were done, the Divine Name was removed from her mouth. It is time for the golem to demand a soul.
The half truth of ‘God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, can only be a whole truth if we add ‘God of Sarah, God of Rebecca, God of Rachel, God of Leah.’ The half truth ‘magen Avraham’ is only a whole truth if we add ‘u foked Sarah,’ ‘Rememberer of Sarah.’ Unless we acknowledge both men and women as parts of the historic Jewish community, just as we must acknowledge both as contributing members of our community, we will be making our female community members invisible and punishing our foremothers with the ultimate Jewish curse–erasing their names.”
This issue cannot come down to prooftexts, such strategies have a tendency of leading merely to mutual escalation. Nor can this be an issue of ‘missing out on the treasure-trove of gospel material that is available from the female members of our churches.’ Though the no one could plumb their depths.
There was a similar barrier when women like Julian of Norwich and Hildegaard of Bingen emerged as clear and fitting teachers of the church in the middle ages. After some struggle, the church finally had to acknowledge that what they were offering was truly God-sent. But this cannot be about what we can ‘get’ out of gender-inclusive practice.
This is an issue of giving truly holistic, just and holy acknowledgement to all those around us. We do harm when this is not done.
I, for one, am glad they still let sinners go to church where I attend…
Susan, I agree that the focus must be on loving Jesus. But Jesus did say that if we love him we will obey his commands. You cannot separate the two.
Steve Jr., I’ll take the bait and disagree. I think that 1 Tim. 2 is specifically talking about assemblies. Several years ago, Everett Ferguson (in Restoration Quarterly) as well as some other NT scholars pointed out that “in every place” in 1 Tim. 2:8 basically means “in every synagogue.” Jewish folks called their synagogue “the place.” Compare CofC people calling their church “the building.” It’s not so easy to get any of this from the NIV which has “everywhere.” If Ferguson and the others are correct (and I think they’re on solid ground), then “everywhere” is not a particularly good rendering.
I think the 7 churches of Asia (rev 2-3) might be the most relevant texts for the american church today. lot of painful truth in there
thanks
brian
joel,
i don’t know how you meant it so I may have misunderstood, but
“growth is the carrot that 98% of churches are chasing”
is a great quote and the THE problem, imo
Frank – That may be right … I’m not even in the same stratosphere as Ferguson, somehow escaping seminary without even one Greek class …
What about Caroll Osburn’s assessment of Paul’s instructions to women as being contextual and non-binding for the contemporary church? (as I recall)
This thing can turn into a “you’ve got your Greek scholar…I’ve got mine” thingamadoo really quickly. Sort of like both sides of the global warming debate have their scientists with their own “conclusive evidence.”
As Mike has said many times on this blog, I thank God that my “life to the full” (which began when I took the plunge) is not dependant on my getting everything right. Let’s search for the truth together, but only insomuch as it illuminates our Savior and his mission.
For a totally unhermeneutical anecdote, we have just left our c of c because of the women in the church issue. It has gnawed at me for over a decade, and my husband and I have just decided to put it to rest by changing denominations. How I wished we lived in Abilene so we could attend Highland! The complete silencing of the feminine voice in service, which is only invited in most churches of christ and baptist churches in a choral environment, is something I refuse to expose my daugther to or myself to, for that matter, for one more day. At one christian church we’ve visited, women help serve communion, and I’ve been told…gasp…they let a mother talk last mother’s day. I believe this discrimination probably turns away many, however, I feel the need to point out that the Disciples of Christ offer complete equality for women. The last word I ever uttered on my own in a Church of Christ service was when I was 10, and I said the books of the Old Testament at the end of a Wednesday night service. I remember watching the boys go up to lead songs, and wondering why I wasn’t allowed to pick a song, too. I remember all the sermons about women’s roles in church of christ, and how heavy I felt after hearing there was no place for my interpretations or prayers in the worship service. While it is true I might freak if I was asked to say a prayer, it is because I’ve never seen an example of this in my life! I do not want this for my daugther.
I understand that much of this discussion is directed towards issues around homosexuality and the place of women in the church. I have not read the article yet, but what if we, meaning the church, became more involved in activities outside of the church and on days other than Sunday morning. Is there a place within us that we could serve in the name of Jesus that would enable us to place these issues to the side while still moving forward? Could we not fight for orphans, widows, and other people God cares about?
The issues being discussed are important and relevant to me and many other people, but there are also many other things of importance to God and Christians that if we fail to act upon will haunt us. (i.e. Darfur and the 300,000 child soldiers in the world to name a few)
1 Timothy 2:11-15 (TNIV)
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”
Isn’t it clear that more is going on here than easily meets our contemporary, English-speaking eyes? If we want to be legalistic about this decontextualied verse, we might say that clearly this gives evidence that Eve sinned… not Adam, and that Eve was deceived… but not Adam, and that women (contrary to our traditional 5-step plan) are “saved” by giving birth… not by faith, grace, obedience, baptism or anything else….
This is all, of course, ludicrous and points to the fact that some complex stuff is at work in this passage that was not originally rendered in English to contemporary Americans. We look at OTHER passages to say that, yes, Adam sinned too… Adam was deceived as well… and women are “saved” in the same way that men are… Can’t we also bring other passages concerning the equality of men and women IN CHRIST to bear on our reading of this? It seems there is a dear CULTURAL pet doctrine that we feel compelled to cling to. We fear losing it. It feels like home… like apple pie… like grandma’s cooking… it feels so down home and “churchy”
Can the dearness of a pet doctrine close our ears to hearing God’s Word… even as we read scripture? I think so…
If my words are not enough, then hear the voices of the children themselves.
ray,
if your argument about assigned gender roles and creation is correct, then God created me to be inferior…good to know. sure makes me jump for joy about my limited opportunities to serve him.
kelly
Alan – the real debate or rub is our cultural upbringing often dictates which “commandments” we keep and which we toss out. Do all men (people) in your church life “holy hands” in prayer as so instructed in I Timothy 2? I concur with the decision made by the ministers and elders at the Highland church of Christ, the Manhattan church of Christ and others that offer a more inclusive role for women in the church. The Bible-based presentations made by Tom Robinson, Mike Cope and a host of others ring true with me.
Yes Houston… it’s embarrassing isn’t it. We shore up our doctrinal borders while children are dying…
To address the title of this post: “Is there any hope for Western Christianity?”
All Christianity, East and West, is doomed if it does not cast out pagan doctrines and return to the Hebrew Christianity expressed in the New Testament.
The ONLY doctrine preached by Jesus and the apostles was love – love of God and love of fellow humans. Not a weak, sentimental love but the meek love which is the sign of a truly great character, the only kind of love whereby it is possible to ‘love your enemies’. It was the outward revelation of this inner depth of character which demonstrated that the Kingdom of God “cometh not with observation…for, lo, the Kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21)
The simplicity and purity of this teaching did not prove sufficient to the Graeco-Roman church ‘fathers’ and still does not prove sufficient today.
The minds of the said ‘fathers’ were set in the key of a different structure to that of the Hebrew apostles and the doctrines built up around the person of Jesus are a reflection of their gentile theology.
The major church doctrines are ‘unscriptural’ – demonstrably so. The Trinity, Virgin Birth, and the various ‘divinity’ teachings focus completely upon the personality of Jesus and the effect which it is assumed he produced upon his contemporaries.
To accept this, is to accept that the issues for which he lived and died were issues applicable only to that time and those circumstances.
Many theologians reason that because these doctrines have been taught for so many years, they are somehow thus endowed with weight, with truth.
The only truth in this view is that they have been taught long enough to become ‘traditional’. Jesus himself told the Pharisees that they made ‘void the word of God’ by their tradition. (Mark 7:13). Those who rely on ‘tradition’ to bolster their arguments stand in precisely the same position as their intellectual ancestors.
After almost two millennia, the ‘gospel of the Kingdom’ spoken of by Jesus has not yet been preached. Christianity will wander further into the wilderness until that day arrives.
KentF,
You are right that our cultural upbringing is a major influence. Neither of us is immune. What “rings true” to either of us is influenced by our upbringing. Thank God for his grace. Thank God our salvation does not hang on our ability to eliminate all our biases.
But we cannot just presume upon God’s grace. We need to find out what pleases the Lord. And we need to obey.
vynette,
You have too low a view of tradition, I think. And too simplistic a view of Christianity, as a result.
First of all, it is tradition that is responsible for the establishment of the Scriptures you are using to support your belief that love is the only doctrine that Jesus preached (and therefore we need to return to this simplicity). In denying the authority of tradition, you also deny the authority of Scripture, since it is tradition that ultimately led to scripture becoming what it is.
Tradition is what puts the meat on the bones of Christianity. Based on your simplistic Christian view, you could easily ignore Paul’s arguments to the gentiles about them not having to keep Jewish Law. This was one of the first conflicts the early church faced. The tradition of Christians being separate from Jews in their observance of Jewish Law was the result. Most every other tradition, e.g. the trinity, divinity/humanity of Jesus etc. is the result of the church authorities trying to resolve conflict within the church and between the church and the culture. Ignoring the wisdom others brought to bear on these issues seems extremely perilous to me.
Thanks Houston.
Careless soul why do you linger
wan’dring from the fold of God
Hear you now the invitation
O PREPARE TO MEET THY GOD!
Careless soul, o heed the warning
For your life will soon be gone
Oh how sad to face the judgement
O PREPARE TO MEET THY GOD
Don’t let women talk in service
Don’t let gays too near you trod
Cause we men have the Lord’s favor
O PREPARE TO MEET THY GOD
Elton John, will soon be burning
Duct tape works to quiet your wife
Make sure we’ve got the right doctrine
OR YOU’LL FORFEIT ETERNAL LIFE
Pecs, you said: “In denying the authority of tradition, you also deny the authority of Scripture, since it is tradition that ultimately led to scripture becoming what it is.”
I do not deny “the authority of Scripture.” I do deny, however, that “tradition led to scripture becoming what it is”.
The early churches in Jerusalem, Samaria, Lydda, Caesarea, Antioch etc. were all separate entities and from the earliest times were in possession of the various letters and ‘gospels’ which form our present canon.
The formation of the canon was due to a growing grass-roots consensus rather than a decision that was handed down by ecclesiastical authorities. The canon was not imposed by church leaders or by councils. They stand at the end of the process rather than at the beginning.
No action of a council or a synod was early enough to have had a decisive influence on the course of events. The council decrees have the form: “This council declares that these are the books which have always been held to be canonical”.
It would therefore be more accurate to say that the canon selected itself, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, than that the Church selected it.
The point of my original argument is simply that when the scriptures fell into Greek, and subsequently Latin, hands, the Hebrew concepts underlying the writings were lost.
Ignorance of Hebrew monotheism, the Hebrew God and the Hebrew Messiah, led the non-Hebrew fathers to superimpose layers of ‘gentile’ interpretation onto the texts. This process was underway as early as Ignatius.
It is indeed sublime that an otherwise obscure Jew was thrust onto the world stage precisely because the fathers created a ‘Jesus Christ’
holding universal and substitutionary appeal for the gentile world.
Doh! Every time a post like this pops up I’m convinced that you guys will resolve the whole thing… Maybe next time. Although, personally, I am getting tired of listening to the whole thing – and I’m actually convicted (and extreme) in my views. I’m still tired of it…
I’m guessing that we’ll hit 100 comments without much problem. Be nice if half that many people were getting involved over at Larry James’ corner of the web. Why not go argue about whether or not the poor brought it on themselves, whether God loves them as much as he does us, or some other question where we should be equally convicted and passionate?
Nevermind – we should probably resolve this first… let me know when it’s over and who won – thanks.
Thank you Scott, for your comment posted at 3:53pm. I want to be more like the Bereans and search the entire Word of God on this issue-as I think many of us in the CofC have done with other issues. I want that same intellectual honesty and hunger for God’s will in this issue too. I cannot settle for isolated texts and pat answers anymore.
Justin, I agree that as far as judgment is concerned, one sin is no worse than the other; however, the earthly consequences for some sins are much greater than others thus making the sin a much bigger deal. You might want to read post #5 at the website below to see the medical consequences of homosexuality.
http://philaletheia.thetruthtree.com/2007/01/14/under-pressure/
I have hope for western christianity. However, the hope I have lies on the other side of a bitter divorce. Christianity needs to divorce itself from the flow and power of politcal allegiance. I am not saying Christians can’t be political, but I am saying that politics is not the Christian’s strongest play.
Jesus entered a culture, engaged it with wisdom and courage, and made choices that shocked the culture without flatly condemning it. Apparently for Jesus, engaging the culture (not embracing or condemning) was more powerful than either of the other two ways.
Western christianity seems compelled to either embrace culture or condemn it. We need to be a part of it without being infected by it.
The church is infected.
Western Christianity is probably doomed–too irrelevant. We are entering a world of genetical, nanotechnological, and computorial breakthroughs never witnessed before by humans and some Christians are still arguing about whether or not a human who goes to the bathroom sitting down can speak up in a large group. (A friend of mine stopped going to the Christian assembly and he no longer has that problem to worry about.) It is time for new prophets to point the way for a new humanity.
God has ordained the order He wants when it comes to gender and the church. It is not a put down or teaching women that they are unimportant. There are no unimportant members of the church. We all have our responsibilities in the kingdom and the Lord of the kingdom has set the order.
Ray,The order is that “the last shall be first, & the first shall be last”.
vynette,
How does the fact that cannonization was a process, rather than a decisive moment, make it any less a tradition? It certainly isn’t scriptural, i.e. the Bible is not self validating in what books should be in it and what books should not. What are you left with? Tradition. Why don’t most Protestant Bibles have the Apocryapha? If the canon “selected itself” then why is there such a difference in Bibles between Catholic, Protestant, EO, Syriac, Ethiopian Christian groups? Denying the role of history (i.e. tradition) is like looking at the Bible with rose-colored glasses. Not as it is.
Annie,
I am not sure what you mean by your response. All I know from scripture is that God has so designed the church where He desires for men to provide the leadership. He has set the deisgn. I have not.
God in His design for gender differences has not made women unimportant but just provided a guide for how He wants His church to function in a way that gives Him glory.
Do you really think that, after sending Jesus to die for our sins, God would leave the message about that in the unreliable hands of men? No way! Man did not decide what books are in the Bible.
And here I thought one of the foundational premises to Christianity was just that: God uses men/women, unreliable as they are, to communicate his message.
Alan,
Jesus left his ministry in the unreliable hands of men. Moses had unreliable hands… and David, so did Paul for that matter. But someone else was and is still at work–God’s Spirit. Is it possible that God’s Spirit is what enables us to have the scripture we need?
Is it also possible that the lack of God’s Spirit is also what enables us to miss the point of the scripture we have?
It seems to me that the work of the Spirit is the central defining factor that makes or breaks scripture, tradition, interpretation, and everything else we try to put ahead of God. Could it be that, as Paul points out, with the Spirit’s guidance I can even grasp large chunks of God’s “invisible nature” in the creation around me? We can bicker about hermanuetics and canonization all we want, but if we aren’t being “in-Spired” today in our approach then scripture is just as succeptable to the human slight of hand as any other bit of literature is.
Let’s pray for humility and guidance from God at every point along the way– no matter what we are reading. The spirit helps us to discern truth–in the Bible, in Sports Illustrated, on Cope’s blog, in the works of Chaucer, in the pulpit, in the Firm Foundation, in New Wineskins, in the Koran, the works of Budda, Donald Miller or Brian McLaren.
Oops… I may have said too much…
Sorry…. “hermeneutics”
Scott,
Hmmm. I have some trouble accepting this Spirit business. Sounds good, but not sure I see it working in practice. I’ve seen plenty of “spirit-led” people or groups of people come to different conclusions on interpretation of Scripture or any number of issues. I think if you make the Spirit your primary access to truth, you’ll get just as many variations of that “truth” as “Spirit-filled” people you consult.
I would have an easier time accepting the Catholic position, where when decisions are being made that are binding on church, the Spirit is speaking to the authority of the church, and they are in effect carrying out God’s will.
I have a harder time believing that we all have access to this kind of authority. Christianity, in its present state, certainly doesn’t appear as if God works that way.
Pecs, the bottom line is that the ‘scriptures’ we now have were in existence before the imposition of the doctrines of Trinity, Miraculous Incarnation, Pre-existence, Original Sin etc.
These doctrines were crystallised by the disputes among early Gentile church fathers who looked into the Pool of Narcissus (the scriptures),
saw themselves imaged there, and then projected this, their own image, upon the world through the medium of ecclesiastical councils called by Roman Emperors from 325AD onwards.
Christendom bears the image, not of the mind of Jesus and the character of the Supreme Being, but of early Gentile theology.
Of Jesus the apostles taught:
That he was God’s ‘anointed’ who would one day sit on the throne of David and rule over the Kingdom of God on earth.
That he was ‘anointed’ with full power and authority to speak and act in the name of the YHVH and to perform the specific tasks spoken of by Isaiah the prophet (Is.61).
That he was the ‘son’ of God by human parentage (John 1:34, 45, 49) though not the son of Joseph as commonly supposed at the time (Matt. 1:25).
That he was a ‘god’ in the sense in which he used it himself, that is, a man “unto whom the word of God came.” (John 10:34) On his reasoning, Moses and the prophets were also ‘gods’.
That he was the ‘only-begotten’ of God because he was the only-resurrected, not because he was born to a virgin.
That his ‘sonship’ of God refers to a purely ‘ethical’ relationship.
Eternal life is to be found in spirit, not doctrines. Jesus’ true message, unfettered by doctrines, brings hope and a sense of human dignity to the despised and rejected of the Earth.
The New Testament writers enumerate principles to follow in order that Christians living many centuries later may become one with Jesus. Where John preached the gospel of love, Paul announced redemption by a inner and spiritual identification with Jesus, with a self-imposed crucifixion and resurrection.
Church doctrines can deliver no such message. If Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth today, he would be unidentifiable in terms of doctrines and would most likely be subjected to the same treatment he received the first time.
Pecs,
I wouldn’t say the Spirit leads us to “infallibility” in any conventional sense of the term… but I think to limit our pursuit of God’s truth to the workings of the rational mind alone is doomed to failure.
My tradition leaves me in no way prepared to accept that the Spirit speaks to the “authority” of the church in any way beyond the way the Spirit might speak to anyone in the church. That may be a weakness of my paradigm… but I also see Christ’s promises made to believers concerning the Spirit to be to all believers (John 14 and thereabout).
I think our problem is that we think we are seeking “infalibility” at all. God calls us to be righteous more so than he calls us to be right. I will never be fully right about everything… and I will never be righteous of my own accord. God desires seekers– and worshippers who worship in Spirit and truth. It’s a journey. As some have alluded… we’ll never work some of these things out– they may not even be things we need to work out. We do, however, need to continue seeking, speaking and patiently relying on God.
If we don’t rely on the Spirit, we’re in trouble from the start imho.
Ray, I’m really thankful that I get to follow Christ, and HIM alone.
Isn’t it great that HE made us neither male nor female, bond or free, Jew or Greek, & we are FREE in HIM!
And, those men AND women who seek God all of their earthly lives will be first, & those men AND women who live for themselves all of this earthly life, will be last. That’s what I mean.
Annie,
I totally agree with you.
luogo interessante, soddisfare interessante, buon!
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article e Any Hope for Western Christianity? at PreacherMike, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.