You wrote:
I realize that I've been very guilty of posting too much content in a blog post to you which leads to big responses and I think I end up missing responding to you on some things - and the time to write my appends becomes excessive - so I'd like to propose that we limit the discussion to one point at a time - maybe two once we agree to move on - how does that sound?First, that sounds fine. Second, I hope you didn't come to that conclusion based on my post. I posted the long list of responses because I wanted to signal to you that I was indeed reading your stuff and was indeed considering the specific points.
When I write of the centrality of faith, I'm thinking not so much of specific things, but rather a kind of trust that in the end -- when the dust settles -- it's Jesus and not me that will make the difference. That may be too simplistic. But for me, I think it captures the sense of what I'm getting at. I've spent a lot of time reading and thinking about specific points of the Christian belief system, and when it comes right down to it I'm left with this -- all I know is I can't do it, so in my helplessness I must just sit down, give up, and turn to Him.
But you can't hardly build a world-dominating religion on that, can you? :-)
Dallas Willard once said something I found compelling. He was, I think, poking a stick in the eye of those fundamentalists who insist that salvation can only occur when someone says some magic sequence of words or signs some card or something. Willard said, "Anyone can be saved ... all I know is that it'll be Jesus who does the saving."
Note: Really ... if you stop and think about it, the notion of salvation being dependent on the words some human speaks is really pretty foolish. It strips God of his sovereignty and it makes salvation really an act of man, as if Grace is in a vending machine and what we need to do is insert the right coins and pull the lever. What if, in the end, God really does save everyone, including those who flat-out deny Christ? Who are we to say that's wrong? I'm reminded of the parable of the workers in the vineyard, Matthew 20:1-15. Don't ask me what 20:16 means. :-)
I suspect that could be controversial.
You wrote:
The reason I am looking at this table is that in my opinion it is the only way to get non-believers to even bother looking at the faith. So I'm wondering if there are any pros and cons I have missed - there must be many I am guessing.Ah ... I see. That helps quite a bit. You're touching on something I've tought about as well. It's a rare non-believer indeed that in the matter of a few minutes flips the switch. It usually takes a more complex process ... a progression, if you will ... to get people closer to the point of decision.
With that in my mind, I now go back and review your pro/con list. It's pretty darn comprehensive. I'd add a "con" -- self-righteous and often hypocritical people who claim to be "religious."
Ultimately it comes down to "Because it is the truth," but of course you can't lead with that card. People have to come to that conclusion themselves.
* * *
My lovely bride and I went on a 200 mile adventure to Bisbee, Arizona and Tombstone, Arizona. Bisbee is this old mining town that is now an artists' enclave. It's okay ... but I'm not really into that artist/crafty thing. That's why Santa Fe doesn't much appeal to me. Tombstone is, as you may know, the site of the famous "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral." No, not the Star Trek episode where Spock has to do the Vulcan mind-meld thing to convince people beyond any doubt that the bullets are real ... but what fodder for future discussion, huh? The 1993 movie titled "Tombstone," starring Kurt Russell and Val Kilmer was a pretty good movie; particularly Val Kilmer. If you've got nothing else to do or watch, that might be worth a watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment