Oddly, this seems to be a topic that I would rather muse about than rant on. When I first considered the topic I thought I would probably rant, but the more I thought about it, the more it became a muse.
Anyway, this muse is in reference to a recent Slashdot article referring to a book by Don Watson. I read the Newsweek.com article that Slashdot linked to and I like what Watson has to say.
The basic premise is that every organization out there now seems to be selling itself through the use of "vision" statements, marketing documentation, etc. If you look through Watson's web site, you'll find listed a number of both humorous and disturbing marketing-speak phrases to describe otherwise simple concepts.
I really don't care very much about schools, hospitals, and government offices and their use of obfuscating marketing terms, but I am disturbed by churches doing this. The language itself doesn't bother me nearly as much as the motive behind it. The use of such terminology demonstrates a clearly manipulative approach to religion that I think both denies the sovereignty of God and distrusts each person's own responsibility for her actions.
Very often this sort of behavior is justified by using terms like "relevant" and "application-rich." We want to reach out to "people" by making our message relevant. We want to reach out to "people" by making the message "application-rich." What is really meant by these terms, more often than not I'm afraid, is: We want to soften the messasge so that it's not offensive and that helps a person help himself. This sounds great, I'll admit it. Why would I want to share an offensive message? Why wouldn't I want to help someone help himself? Of course, I want both of these things, but truth trumps all.
The truth is that the true gospel of the Bible states that humans are worthless, steaming piles of dung. We really don't have anything to offer God at all. Not only that, but we don't really want to offer anything to God, we want it all for ourselves. This is one of the ironies of free will. While we have the free will to offer up ourselves and everything we have to God, we won't. As long as we are fallen, it is our nature not to, even though we could. As such, to present a message that helps a person help himself is delusional. No one can help herself; she must first be called by God.
Furthermore, this message is utterly offensive. What person wants to be told, "You're a steaming pile of dung and have never done anything on your own that merits God's attention?" Yet, this is the very message of the gospel. We bring nothing into a relationship with God and yet He imputes righteousness to us on the basis of His work. He plans every aspect of this transaction even while He works through the actions of humans to do it. We aren't His pawns, but we can't help but do His ultimate sovereign will.
Thus, it is my belief that churches should shy away from worldly devices, such as vision statements. I won't go so far as to say they are a bad idea, but they'd better be meaningful and they'd better be geared towards explaining the church's stand clearly and without omission. This is just a device for getting a message across. It cannot save people, it cannot hold people on course, it cannot equip believers to do any work. Let's keep our focus on the goal and the work that our Lord has set before us.
"You're a steaming pile of
"You're a steaming pile of dung and have never done anything on your own that merits God's attention?" Yet, this is the very message of the gospel.
Hmmmm... I'm not quite sure I would put it that way and I'm not quite sure that is the message of the Gospel. It seems to me the message of the Gospel is that we as people are so precious that God would send his own Son to die for us and that Son would be willing to die for us. Got knows us so personally and cares for us so much that he even knows how many hairs are on head.
I would be willing to say that with out Christ as your Lord and savior you aren't forgiven and since you⿿re not forgive it makes what you have to live for and look forward too after death pretty grim. But, even then we all have intrinsic worth because Jesus died for us yet when we were still yet sinners. He didn't die for the perfect he died for the imperfect!
Maybe it's all in how you spin it or look at it. But I like to look at the positive that even though by myself I was nothing, Jesus still loved me enough to die for me on the cross.
You're both right
I think that being the only creature made in the image of God and having a God who loves humans enough to desire salvation for each one gives all human's intrinsic eternal value. At the same time, humans are evil, sinfull, ugly creatures who are completely and utterly lost without the redeeming work of Christ (note, the work of Christ, not humans). So really, humans are both ugly, evil, hopeless, and lost, yet valuable because God assigns us value. He's a crazily awesome Father, He is!
Ben,
I totally agree! Ame
Ben,
I totally agree! Amen Brother!
Wrath, Mercy, and Definite Atonement
Well, I was here understating God's desire for reconciliation to maximize on the fact that Christianity hosts some unpalatable and unmarketable features (to use more weasel words).
Evidence: God created the world as an omniscient being who knew before He created it that by giving us free will, we would rebel. Via Adam and every person since, this rebellion has been made evident. God's nature is such that He would be fully justified in writing us off and destroying all of creation utterly, but He didn't create just to destroy. It was His plan all along to demonstrate His wrath and demonstrate His mercy (mercy is only relevant in light of the wrath that is held back).
Thus, Christ came to offer the only possible sacrifice to restore God's relationship with His chosen people. However, I will disagree with one statement you made: "But, even then we all have intrinsic worth because Jesus died for us yet when we were still yet sinners."
This is my understanding and an opinion and not core doctrine of Christianity, but I just want to use this to say that I believe in definite atonement (which you, by this statement, profess not to). Therefore, I believe that Christ didn't die to save anyone who chooses to go to hell. Therefore, all that person has is his sin for which he's utterly responsible for, but God did not call and did not alter that person's fundamental nature, so that person walks willingly and defiantly to and through the gates of hell.
I don't really have time to go into why I believe this, but I believe this is the teaching found in scripture. Anyway, that's a difference of opinion and not really a difference of substance, but it is a difference.