I happened upon the following blog and determined to throw it out like a piece of meat to hungry dogs and cats. I am desperately interested in getting some feedback and comments from it. I want your thoughts. But do three things for me. First, exercise that unusual yet necessarily ability of logic to separate John Eldridge from the writer of this blog. John is not writing it, but one of his readers is. Second, separate the John Eldridge books you may have read from the statements this blogger makes. Third, critique the gospel according to John Eldridge if you have read his books. Here's the blog listed at the blog entitled "Manuscript Error" at the following link: http://rmfo-blogs.com/theophileo/archives/2005/02/17/the-gospel-i-never-knew/. I listed again for you here because the blogger's formatting makes the blog difficult to read.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"I have learned one thing this past year, perhaps the most important revelation God will ever grant me. In the last twelve months, I have read one after another of each of John Eldridge’s books, and they have taken me on a journey, back through the 24 years I have spent on this planet, and even beyond, to when my existence was only that of an idea in the mind and heart of God.
"Through the incredible workings of God - in his infinite wisdom to make so many of the intricate workings of both this world, and the relationships we experience, into living metaphors of who he is and how it is he longs to relate to us - through portraits of this in my life, both incredibly joyous and excruciatingly painful, I feel I understand God in a completely new way, and grasp the gospel as if for the first time in all my life.
"He has shown me this: God is an outrageous, uncontrollable, relentless lover. Of me. And of you. “By his choice,” we often say, but I’m not so sure that’s accurate, or at least not some of the impressions it gives. I believe he loves me - and you - not because of a gear-grinding, mathematically calculated choice, but because of who he is, and who we are, created in his image. He is compelled to love us; he must love us; his very nature drives it. Because - and this blows me away every time I stop to think about it - because of what he sees when he looks at us. We are his Beloved, the Bride of Christ. You are exactly what you are supposed to be, you are exactly what God finds irresistible.
“But sin?” you ask. “What about my sin?” That’s the amazing thing. You are perfect. Not flawless - for we are truly tainted by the wickedness that we can dream up - but you are perfectly what you are supposed to be, underneath that sin. That taint, of course, is deep-rooted, and enough to arrest all communion with God. It stops it with a wretched abruptness, the recoil from which we must face in anguish for the rest of our lives here on earth. And that taint we are indeed helpless to remove, try however we might. But something happened before the taint ruined our lives.
“Those whom he foreknew, he also predestined…” says Paul in Romans 8, as he nears the climax of this pinnacle passage of the Bible. God knew us. Before the foundations of the world were laid, he knew us. He saw our hearts; he saw what we were. And he loved us. He, by his very nature, was compelled - not controlled, mind you, there is still a choice involved - but he was compelled to love what he saw. And he made up his mind then and there: Nothing can happen; nothing we say, nothing we do, nothing we ever are can change his mind. It is set. He loves us.
"So when we died - and die we did, that day in the garden - he swore to do everything possible to bring us back. He would have the ones he loved. He would stop at nothing to see us alive again, that we could be with him. Indeed, he did stop at nothing, for it was he who “for the joy that was set before him endured the cross.” That joy before him was the hope of reclaiming his lost love. He would rather pay with the pain of death than see his love be lost forever. He reclaimed our life for us. For after he died, he “raised us up with him.” He became like us in our death, that we would become like him in his resurrection.
"And so, since that day he first saw us, so many, many generations ago, he has been after us. Battling to win our hearts. Even today he continues, fighting to woo us, to display his relentless love time after time, only out of hope that we would realize what we truly are - what he sees when he looks at us - and rise to meet him.
"Brothers, let us rise. Our pursuer longs to earn our affections.
Posts
7 comments:
You merely ask for opinions without giving your own. What are your thoughts of this? I can tell in some ways you are critical (heck, I wrote this, and I realize I'm walking a very fine line--how do you aknowledge the glory of man without ignoring the simultaneous depravity we bore as non-believers?).
Keith,
Thanks for stopping by for a visit. Commenting on old posts is what always keeps them fresh!
My opening comments simply attempted to jolt my readers into always criticizing what someone wrote just because everyone else is. So in that vein, I was hoping to edge out the criticism and have some real interaction.
Since you asked, I'd say that my issues with the piece are as follows.
First, you say, "He has shown me this: God is an outrageous, uncontrollable, relentless lover. Of me. And of you." This is true. But what is missing is that first and foremost God is an outrageious, uncontrollable, relentless lover. Of Himself. Then of me and you. He loves Himself before He loves us. If He didn't, He wouldn't be God. He is the first and highest and most supreme and lovely thing in all the universe. So if He loved us first, He'd be an idolater.
Second, you wrote, "He is compelled to love us; he must love us; his very nature drives it." Later, you wrote again, "he was compelled to love what he saw." The Bible seems to preach against this line of reasoning. He is not compelled to love any of, if by that you refer to saving love. His very nature is that of holiness and justice as much as it is of love. Love is not the end-all-be-all of God's nature. Therefore, His holiness and justice actually compel Him to destroy us. That's why Paul refers to us as 'objects of wrath' in Ephesians 2.
Then, you state, "you are exactly what God finds irresistible." But we are not. According to Romans 5:6,8,10 we were enemies of God, sinners, helpless beings. Having found sin irresistable, we were deplorable in God's sight. God never found us irresistible. Such a statement finds quarrel with the Scriptures. I hope I'm not coming across so strongly that my manner is overshadowing my meaning.
Another issue would be with the statement, "That joy before him was the hope of reclaiming his lost love. He would rather pay with the pain of death than see his love be lost forever." This is where I feel the John Eldridge theology coming through. The joy, as we read from John 17, was glorifying the Father, not reclaiming His lost love. Jesus died first and foremost for His Father, to propitiate His just anger, to satisfy the law's just demands against our sin. And it is in that light that His death 'for us' is to be seen.
Finally, again the Eldridge-theology shines through when you write, "And so, since that day he first saw us, so many, many generations ago, he has been after us. Battling to win our hearts. Even today he continues, fighting to woo us, to display his relentless love time after time, only out of hope that we would realize what we truly are - what he sees when he looks at us - and rise to meet him." Remember what you said about predestination in Romans 8? Awesome. Now plug it in here and watch it work. The day He first 'saw' us was before the foundation of the world after we were lost in sin. And it is precisely because of that predestination that God does not have to 'battle' for us. He has already won us. But He does in fact 'woo' us, as you say, with His love through His Spirit and the preaching of the gospel.
Those then would be brief replies without the thing I would love most - talking with you over some java about these things further.
I have read just one of John Eldridges books. In fact I didn't get all the way through it. I got as far as the comment about God taking risks, closed the book and moved on to some other books written by people who truly understand God.
I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but anyone who thinks that God takes risks (implying that something is beyond His control) really does not understand just who or what God is.
There is too much good God soaked, Cross soaked material available to waste time with this material.
Rob, I agree with your comments regarding this old post of Kevin's, with one tiny qualifier. You said: "The joy, as we read from John 17, was glorifying the Father, not reclaiming His lost love. Jesus died first and foremost for His Father, to propitiate His just anger, to satisfy the law's just demands against our sin. And it is in that light that His death 'for us' is to be seen." What you said is true but not necessarily complete. God's just demands having been satisfied, we can now have fellowship with Him--the very thing He desired when He created Man. So isn't joy in the restoration of His purpose for us implied? Otherwise, I think we'd be limiting God's joy in light of that one John 17 passage.
Rob - Thanks for your thoughts. I knew when I wrote this originally I was pushing the envelope quite a bit, but I did so in hopes (like you) of illiciting some response and interaction from readers.
And to be honest, I actually now cringe a little at what I wrote - not because I disagree with it, but because I think I failed to articulate that I'm describing only one side of a difficult dichotomy. I came at this (and at John Eldridge's work) with the truths you described pounded very heavily into me, and I fully acknowledge them. God IS first and foremost about himself; he is absolutely holy and just; we ARE wretchedly depraved and unnactractive to God before redemption.
However, I think we cannot stop there. I think the full picture is more complex than that. I think the appeal of the gospel is more than simply the intillectual truths of our guilt and that Christ is the only means of forgiveness. I believe it is also vital to acknowledge the emotional appeal of the Gospel, that God wants to give us what our souls crave, that he does love us and chose to rescue us because of who he is.
As I read through the Bible, I see two very different stories, both at work simultaneously. First, we are guilty; we sinned and deserve judgement. But I also see in God's heart for us the truth that we were duped by the Enemy; in one sense, we are the victims, and God wants to rescue us. I don't say this in any way to belittle our guilt and the weight of sin, but instead to shed light on the compassion of God, and the compassion we are to have on the lost.
We cannot minister to a lost alcoholic by merely condemning them. We must also come alongside them, show them we care about them and want to help them through their problem which is now far beyond their control - and offer to them the grace and understanding compassion of God. And we can do this because he has done it first to us.
In Christian circles we have our now trite comment that "it's not a religion, but a relationship." This is true, but I think when it really comes down to it, everybody has a relationship with God (albeit not often a friendly one), and everybody goes about life as an emotional reaction to that relationship - even the most staunch athiest. And we need to strive to understand how God approaches us on this relational level, not simply at a level of intillect and logical answers.
Keith, Thanks for your thoughts. One of the best perspectives I gleen from Eldgridge's stuff is looking at the Bible as a story...the big wig theologians call that biblical narrative. After trying to do that for a while, one has to admit that the Bible, while seemingly simple, is ultra complex. But no matter, that's what I gathered you were doing in your initial blogger--telling the story of the interaction between God and man.
In doing that, one question you must ask is what kind of story is it that we are in? I, and I think the Bible, would say it's one of rescue, redemption and restoration; restoration being the one that seems to fit best in my mind. Restoration, like the others, hints that something was lost that was good and must be restored...Like an old, broken down, quaint cottage that a skilled craftsman engages
and restores into it's original magnificence. It takes time...a lifetime.
You certainly see in early Genisis that God thought man to be a good work: He cherished him, He was his friend. But it all went sour with the introduction of Satan and the knowledge of Good and Evil. Things got complex and choice entered the world. Man was hopelessly lost, because the curtain was drawn between God and man. Silence entered the story. Shame. Fear. Judgment. Loneliness. The world got harsh. No more early morning walks. No more relationship.
And that is the state, it seems for everyone living outside of the gospel message. I loved what you wrote about everyone having a relationship with God, even an athiest. God is a reality, which no one can get around. To believe in a creation that has no creator, is lunancy and illogical. And our existence is a reality, which we must all accept. The interaction of the two is therefore also a reality.
The whole Old Testament seems to be a story of God's reaquaintence and restoration of the world; first through a man, Abraham; then through a nation, Israel; and then the world.
As I said above, and as the gospel of John states in Chapter 1, the world is in darkness apart from its relationship with God. So God rescues, because "God IS love." He sends his Son to reconcile man with God; that is why Paul in his second letter to the Corinthians describes his ministry (and ours) as the ministry of reconciliation. The amazing thing about it all was God's pursuit, His belief that we were worth it. He wanted us. He desired us to be restored, made right, beautiful, in all the glory we once had and lost. He saw way deeper than our sin, into our hearts which were broken and marred. He saw the good that could be. He knew what he created was good and could be again, if He intervened, made ammends. He knew what was, though we had forgotten. That is why Jesus comes on the scene, proclaiming that his mission is to heal the broken hearted, set people free, and release us from darkness.
The only way he could do that is by agape, the kind of love displayed by the prodigal son's father. The kind that believes great things of you even though you give him no reason to. Notice in the story of the prodigal son, the son was a son before he left, while he was sleeping with prostitutes, and when he returned. The prodigal's father let him leave without a hassle and receives him without shame, judgment or disdain. He just waited until his son wanted to come home. He even throws a party. It's that kind of love, and only that kind, that can a change man. God knew this. Love is the only thing more powerful than sin. As the Word says, it is God's loving kindness that brings us to repentance. That's why Paul said, where sin increased, grace increased all the more. It's love that frees and releases us, the real us, the us that God only knows...and that "us" is good.
I think this is the most disputed topic of Eldridge's material: that the heart of man is good at it's core, that sin is not the deepest thing about us. It's a point that I've stumbled over quite a bit, because I think we often look at our sin and equate it to our hearts, but that's not fair. Rather, I think we need to look at our desire. As Paul writes to the Romans in Chapter 7, we want to do we do not do, and don't do what we want to do, therefore it is no longer we who do it. Paul basically says, it's no longer I who sin, but the sin within me that sins. That is a radical statement for all those who believe that we still, after believing in Jesus Christ as the atoning sacrifice for our sins, are wretched to the core. Something fundamental and very mystical happened to us. Lots of things happened to be exact. Far to often we stop at the cross, we stop at misery and never finish the story--it ends in glory, resurrection.
The rest of the story is victory. We are friends of God, like in the beginning. We were given His Spirit (Ezekial 36, and "Don't you know that your bodies are a temple of the living God") that we may walk with him again. We are kin to Christ, looked at as perfect by God. We are without blemish. We are fully and whole-heartedly loved and embraced as good by God. He is a believer in us.
Lastly, I'd just like to point out that, as far as I know, in the Old Testament, God was pretty scary and His name was changed to Adonai when Jews read the scriptures allowed because His name Yahwah (sp?) was too holy to be read aloud. When Jesus told his disciples how to pray, he called God father, "abba," signifying reconciliation, peace, and reunion. That would have blown the Jews of Jesus' day away.
It blows me away too. Praise God. Thanks for your input. Keep sharing the good news, for as my friend always encourages me, "When the gospel ceases to be good news, it's no longer the gospel."
Becky,
Thanks for the correction. You are right. This is such the hard object in theology, maintaining two equal weights: namely, the fact of God's independence (the fact that He does not need us or our fellowship to be happy), and the truth of creation (the fact that He did create us to fellowship with Him).
Keith,
Your comments are extremely helpful. Thanks for the wonderful clarification. Well put and great balance.
Post a Comment