Becoming relevant to God's purposes
Conrad Gempf reminds readers that our approach to the Word of God needs to be more than me-centered. In other words, we should not look at the Bible for what we can get out of it that is relevant to our lives:
I don't want to approach God and the Bible as a client, with my categories as fundamental, looking for relevance, as if with an ultimatum: The solid thing is my job, my relationships, my life, God. Me me me. What can you give me that will work in it? What can God and church do to enhance me? And if he shows me that he can improve my quality of living, then I'll let him stay.A-men.
I want to approach God and the Bible in an attitude of love. I want to be willing to lose my life, to give him permission to mess up my neat priorities. To seek him. You you you. What will you give me that I can work toward? It's not what can I find in the Bible that's relevant to me me me? It's how can I change "me" to be relevant to God's purposes?
Yeah, we want our own stories to merge with the biblical story. We need to do that without rigging it so our story and categories will win.
posted by Milton Stanley at 5:48 PM
6 Comments:
I've read a lot of stuff against "me-centred worship" lately.
I can read posts like this one and intellectually agree with every single word and sentiment but end up feeling like I'm being beaten down into the ground by the author of the words. As if the author is trying to tell me "God's yoke is heavy and his burden is unbearable".
Is this personality type? I'd like to be able to "see" how someone can say an enthusiastic "Amen" to this. Can you maybe give me a perspective?
My experience is that when I follow Jesus and I give his love freely away is that I'm joyous. I have a feeling that other Christians don't want us being joyous. If I heard a sermon like that, I think I'd probably leave church in tears.
(This is a genuine question about perspective.)
I don't know what to say, Pam. I simply don't see the problem that you mention in Conrad's post. From what I've seen of his writing Conrad (an expat USAer living in the UK, btw) is probably one of the most joyful NT scholars I've come across. I don't see Conrad beating anyone down with his words, and I pray I haven't misappropriated them to give such an impression.
Milton, no, I don't think that he is trying to do that. It's a matter of perspective, I think.
I've been thinking about it and here is what I've come up with.
To me, there is an implication that there is an "us and them" situation being set up. "We" are the good people who really want to worship God. "They" are the bad people who just want me-centred worship.
I've been an "outsider" most of my life and when someone sets up an "us and them scenario", I automatically identify emotionally with the "them" - the outsiders and outcasts, even if I know that the definitions being set up are such that I "should" identify with the "us".
Who are the people who want me-centred worship? Charismatics? Happy-clappy evangelicals? "Liberals who don't really want to hear the gospel?" How do I know my worship is sufficiently "God-centred" and how much of my "me" am I supposed to eradicate when I worship? It's not actually clear to me which people we are supposed to be seeing as good examples. (And how could I have the hubris to even begin to think that my worship was a "good example"?)
I think that when people set up scenarios like this, they think that all the good people will recognise themselves and immediately identify with the "in-group" who God loves. But many people in church will have been outcasts (and accepted Jesus for his love of outcasts) and will automatically identify with "the bad them".
I don't know if that makes sense? And no, I'm not going mad. I'm wary about the "us and them device" which is, I suspect, not totally aligned with the Gospel. I'd be happier with a sermon that positively identified what God-centred worship looked like.
I understand. I, too, have spent most of my life as an outsider, first in my own nuclear family (a good thing in retrospect), then among my school mates, etc.
As an adult, most of my outsider tendencies have manifested themselves in the church. I'm deeply suspicious of cliques, especially in churches. I've been on both sides (inside and out) of church cliques, and the allure of the "we good folks" synodrome is both seductive and poisonous. In that respect you might call me an ultra-inclusionist--one who views the church as not belonging to any faction except the Lord and his own. That's one of the themes I'm preaching in my series on 1 Corinthians.
Another theme is that the distinction we're talking about is right on target. In a very essential manner, an "us and them" aspect is intrinsic to the Kingdom of God. Either you're in or you're out. You're either a sheep or a goat. You're either redeemed by the blood of the lamb or lost in your sin. Either the Royal feast or outer darkness.
The problem, of course, is that Christians appear to be singularly bad at distinguishing where the in-or-out line really is. We either draw lines that God does not or else blur the real lines to make allowances for sin in the Kingdom. Most of the time most of us do both.
I agree that showing what true God-centered worship looks like is in keeping with the task before us. Far too many preachers spend all their time preaching what's wrong and not enough time on what is right. But as we see over and over in the Bible, sometimes we do need to preach repentance.
Peace.
Another theme is that the distinction we're talking about is right on target.
The problem for is that from the article, I have no idea what or who the target is. Did I miss it, or does he give a definition of what he considers me-centred worship to look like? If I had some criteria, I'd know whether I agreed with those criteria or not and the whole exercise would feel far less personal to me. Then I'd have a benchmark off of which to judge. But it just seems to be "you know what the criteria are, and if you don't, then you must be one of them."
In a very essential manner, an "us and them" aspect is intrinsic to the Kingdom of God. Either you're in or you're out. You're either a sheep or a goat. You're either redeemed by the blood of the lamb or lost in your sin. Either the Royal feast or outer darkness.
Maybe this is a difference in theology. I'm a Methodist with Anabaptist tendencies. As a Methodist, I believe that God offers his grace to all people. So I don't believe that God wants to cast anyone into outer darkness; I think we cast ourselves there by turning our back on God.
Secondly, as someone with Anabaptist theological tendencies, I often get cast as someone who has totally missed the point of what being a Christian is all about.
Thirdly, I really don't understand the sheep and the goats anology with respect to this thread. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel you may be confusing soteriology with the ability to make moral and ethical judgements. I think Christianity gives us much ability to make moral and ethical judgements without the necessity of threatening people with a God who is trying to cast them into outer darkness.
To me, the sheep and goats stuff is simply a matter of fact: it's what will ultimately happen to those who chose to turn their backs on God. I'd like to think that God would have a bit more mercy on someone who wasn't worshipping "properly".
Thanks for the dialogue.
Good point, Pam, that immature worship does not necessarily make someone a "goat." Peace.
Post a Comment
<< Home