Let Go And Let Man
People will often resort to the quickest way to get from one point to another, which is not a straight line. The shortest way to get from one point to another is by taking the path of least resistance.
Anytime a person, including myself, gets out of control, it’s because we don’t know how to handle the situation that we are in. Often parents like me will find themselves in situations of discipline where we resort to screaming like maniacs or spanking a child, not because we have great wisdom, but because, at that moment, we don’t have a clue what we should do.
When Jesus introduced the Kingdom, he did it by show and tell, and then he said, “Take over.” In fact, he gave Peter the keys (Matthew 16:19). Peter was put in charge of the Kingdom. Jesus didn’t say, “Peter, here are the keys. You are in charge, but I’m in control.” Peter was charged with leading the Kingdom of Heaven (God's children).
Peter wasn't put in charge the same way we put our six-year-old in charge of cleaning her room. Peter was in charge like the President of the United States is in charge of the country—he is the leader, supported by the rest of the people in the U.S.
Many Christians will use the cliché “God is in control” and I often wonder—what in the world does that mean?
I have been haunted for the last two days over a little four-year-old girl in Raleigh who was brutally killed by her own father by way of decapitation in their home, while her mother was at work. The father fled the state and left the mother to come home and find the unimaginable remains of her baby. I have cried twice in the last two days, because I coudn't stop myself from picturing the horror of that little girl's last few moments of life with her dad.
When God first created human beings, the first thing he did was give them the authority to kabash the world.
“God created human beings in his own image. God gave them authority and said, “Make more people; fill the world and kabash (kaw-bash) it. Rule over all the living things in the world” (Genesis 1:27-28, my translation).
Kabash is a very interesting word. We often read it translated as “subdue.” "Subdue" in our day can mean a lot of things. I would venture that most people think it means “cover.” But the real meaning of the word will probably surprise most of Christendom. Kabash is a word of great depth; it means to conquer, bring into bondage, bring into subjection, CONTROL.
God put human beings in control.
Good or bad, pretty or ugly, we are in control.
Nice or hateful, life-giving or murderous, we are in control.
Happy or sad, grateful or greedy, we are in control.
Saying to ourselves or to others, every time something goes horribly wrong, “God is in control,” may sound nice, but it’s not true. We are in control. God put us in control and we don’t have the privilege of taking the path of least resistance and giving control to God.
God said a long time ago, "Let go and let man."
Today, I stopped giving my responsibility to kabash the world back to God. It may not be easy, fun, comfortable, convenient, or simple, but it’s still our responsibility.
Forever learning,
Johnny
16 comments:
Walker says:
Challenging 'investigation.'
Just as we should, at least to some extent, put ourselves in the position of 1st century Jews in understanding Christ's ministry, perhaps we should place ourselves about 2000-1500 BC in seeking to understand Gensis.
I don't claim nay significant knowledge of the period, but I wonder if this declaration was more of a reflection of people awakening to the powers they had - adopting a new paradigm of having some [rudimentary] understanding and control over the natural world.
I.e., Moses (or whoever) saying "stop huddling in your crude huts, we've seen India blossom with some sophisticated ideas of civilization, that Plato guy is just around the corner and he'll be coming up with some interesting answers to the questions those Greek folks are starting to ask. (Don't worry about those Europeans, they don't even have metal yet!)
"And this isn't just me, God Himself is telling us to get up and get moving!"
I'm speculating, of course, and also likely motivated by a concern as to how the idea of "we are in control - God put us there" sometimes ends up with some bad societal decision making.
Namaste
Hello Walker,
I'm glad you invested with your comments.
I was hoping someone would take this to the next level, and you have.
To take this to the next step, we would have to understand the idea of God's sovereignty. I don't understand God's Word as telling us that we can give God control of the world that He has told us to "control," but we can give Him control of our lives.
In the Jewish world, praying the Shema is acceptance of God's reign over one's life, thereby accepting God's control over his or her life. By this we are able to live in the Kingdom and spread the Kingdom as we share the Gospel and show others how to accept God's control as well.
Still, we are not to believe that whatever happens in the world, we really have no control. That is not God's instructions to human beings.
We are responsible for creating a world fit for the King. God gave us that honored privilege and if the world is not fit for the Bridegroom, then the bride has not properly prepared for the wedding. God will not say, "Don't worry about it, bride, I'm in control. Even though you haven't prepared, I'll step in and do it for you." We are to prepare the world for the Bridegroom.
Our "escape theology" has given us liberties that do not actually exist. We are not free to allow the world to become more like hell than heaven.
In His dust,
Johnny
I never like to rely entirely on Greek or Hebrew words for definition.
A. They have many definitions, it depends on who interprets them.
B. It has been redacted so many times, who really knows what was said and did it really matter. I write and say things all the time that if you were to break my paragraphical point into tiny specific defined words...it would probably not make sense and lose meaning.
So...the point is, is God in Omniscient control with total sovereignty or not? What does Theology, Philosophy, and common sense tell us. This is where the Wesleyan has a difficult predicament. They claim free will, yet claim God's complete control when something good happens (God is in control), but then when something bad happens (It isn't God's will, or He answers in His time). Of course we are in control. It is my mind, my life, and my perception.
God doesn't control, He influences, and draws us into a greater will or understanding.
Please read Openness Theology, or even better Process Theology.
Perhaps He isn't a Puppet Master.
Maybe God is in a symbiotic relationship with us, with all living things, with the universe itself.
Thanks, John. Wow! Great challenge!
For me, the vorlage of the text has great meaning. Granted, the Hebrew language is a poor language, meaning it has fewer words in the language, requiring that individual words have many meanings and are used in many different contexts. This also adds the task of requiring a linguistic scholar.
I, like you, believe that God has given His children the responsibility of developing our lives. We will choose to live according to His roadmap or our own. Either way, we will get somewhere in the end. Our destination depends on our choices.
When God tells us to honor our mother and father that it will go well with us and we may live long on the earth, there is an interesting tradition of which many of us may not be aware. In the Jewish world, "mother" can refer to "wisdom," as "wisdom" is always referred to as "she." And "father" can be a reference to "God," who is usually referred to as "Father." Therefore, to honor our "mother" (accept wisdom) and our "Father" (obey God's instructions)gives us the advantage of living longer, as opposed to living the way we choose, which may not be the best way for a human being to live.
I don't expect a lot of people to enter this discussion, as it is a bit intimidating, but I hope that many will begin to consider that God has placed us in control of developing a beautiful world filled with people who make godly choices.
Forever learning,
Johnny
Walker said:
Phew!
It's been a long day, running sound and projection and participating in a Billy Wayne retreat (http://www.billywayne.net/), with an incredible consecration to end the day ... and then a, er, glass or two of non-sacramantal Chardonnay (may I mention that at an Army site without people jumping to conclusions or offending folks?)
And to top it off, I log on and Johnny hits us up with "vorlage" ?!?
And makes me wonder of the relationship between its implication for transalation and its meaning in the world of skiing? (Sometimes those Germans create incredible linguistic gymnastics....)
Phew!
Note: when God said "I've got plans for you," He was speaking to Ezekial (I think ) - not to 'everyone.' Maybe he does have plans for everyone, but I think that perhaps that could be considered a stretch of what He said.
Also, I've heard it said, but am not sure what to make of it, that if there is the personal, "Santa Claus" God who intercedes in day to day events, we'd never have been able to develop the hard sciences of physics, biology, chemistry, etc.
So, following this (tortuous?) line of thought, it can be said God is "in control" in the same sense (although vastly oversimplified) that it can be said geometry, trigonometry, rubber and ivory resiliance and a good eye are in control of the pool table.
(Maybe I really shouldn't belong to a Methodist church?)
Namste!
False humility has become the curse of Christianity.
Somehow we've developed an aversion to shining. Don't hide the growth that God provides in the name of modesty or modesty will become the next curse.
Johnny
Walker,
That is so funny how you mentioned the classic, "God has a plan for you...not to harm you, but to prosper, etc...". In college, 9 times out of ten, as people would give their testimonies that was the scripture or life verse. It became laughable.
First, there is no evidence that God cares about your vocation or calling to vocation(Jesus was a carpenter, Paul a tent maker, don't reply to that one Johnny, and Lydia a small business leader.) That type of mentality is dated and goes back to a holy calling to a priestly vocation which was a misinterpretation of scripture and another way for the Holy Church to remain in power.
Second, we seem to always take what someone said God said about someone specific and interpret it as God saying it directly to us 3,000 years later.
Third, If God has a plan, it is the same plan I have for my children. I want them to be successful, happy, and fulfilled. I don't want to, nor can I predetermine every moment of their lives.
Walker, I also loved you anagolous statement concerning pool. The personal God issue is incredibly difficlut to prove scientifically, but the negative is true as well. That is why most atheist are not atheist, but agnostics because it is hard to prove either way.
In the early 20th century there was a big push to seperate faith from sceince because of this problem of "God of the gaps". Existentialism did wonders, but ultimately proved outdated in theological circles.
Again, I would recommed picking up a John Cobb book on Process Philososphy(Theology). It really is an amazingly coherent attempt to reconcile a personal God with science.
John
Speaking of vocation, it wasn't until the non-Jewish takeover in the Church of the second century that there was a difference between a "calling" and a "vocation."
The church fought a verbal civil war over the idea that there were more godly jobs, such as a position of clergy. Until then, all vocations were considered ordained by God and clergy roles were voluntary in accordance with spiritual gifts.
The non-Jewish transition brought many unbiblical changes into the church, and today, these issues are beginning to be reopened, re-debated, and rewritten.
Forever learning,
Johnny
I taught on this several years ago and here are some of my notes.
Vocation comes from the Latin word meaning “to call”. When we speak of vocations we are asking, “What has God called me to do?” The idea of calling is pulled from scripture. From the OT and God calling out His people to be holy and separate to the NT where Paul tells us “lead a holy life worthy of the one who called you.” It describes Christians as the “called ones” and in Jude verse one it reads, “To those who have been called”. Romans 8:28, “In all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose”.
What has God called us to? What is our vocation? God has called us simply to utlize what we have been given for mankind and his glory. A vocation or calling is not a conviction or an inner feeling, but rather an objective. “What is your vocation?” is saying have you responded to God’s call to love Him? The Bible doesn’t speak of calling you to be a teacher, social worker, or a garbage collector; He calls us to Himself, to experience love and compassion.
Now, I am not saying that work is not important. We have to work to survive. Jesus was a carpenter, Paul was a tentmaker, Peter was a fisherman. They all had jobs, but no where in scripture do you see that a job was a calling, in fact I don’t see them really speaking a lot about their jobs at all. When we meet someone today, the first thing out of our mouth is, “What do you do for a living?” Then we measure a person by that. If we measured Jesus, Paul, and Peter some segments of our culture would label them not worthy of being a laymen, or prophet, or teacher, or….So, what is your job? To love, to have compassion, to have passion, to be like Christ wherever we are.
In the Greek world work was considered to be a curse. Aristotle said that to be unemployed was good fortune because it allowed a person to participate in political life and contemplation. Today its probably politics that enjoys the low reputation. Anyway for the Greeks, society was organized so that a few could enjoy the blessing of "leisure" while work was done by slaves. Everyday work was a demeaning occupation that one should try to avoid. Certainly there was nothing spiritually meaningful or uplifting about everyday work.
The opportunity to think about issues and engage in contemplation was also valued by Jews. And when Jesus came on the scene he was only one of many Jewish rabbis or teachers on the block. However, it is very significant to note that most Jewish teachers were not expected to live off the contributions of their students, but were expected to have a trade through which they could support themselves. Far from being avoided, as far as possible work was to be embraced as part of God's purposes in creation and theological reflection would be engaged in by people who were daily engaged in everyday life in the world.
Jesus was known as a carpenter and the son of a carpenter, although there is no example of him continuing this trade during the period of his public ministry. He called some of his inner circle of disciples to leave their fishing nets to follow him. But there are also examples of them continuing to fish at times. Certainly he gave no general call for all Christians to give up everyday work and much of his teaching drew on themes from the world of everyday work without any self-consciousness or apologies. Paul emphasizes a positive view of work, commending all Christians to continue in their work and to work well. And he plainly continued in his trade as a tentmaker during his church-planting ministry. This would seem to be the general Christian pattern for the first century after the Apostles.
Gradually the Church Fathers began to draw more heavily on Greek and Roman motifs in their theology and the more positive view of work gave way to a much lower view. This is reflected in the view of Eusebius who wrote about his doctrine of two lives about AD300. He says: "Two ways of life were thus given by the law of Christ to His Church. The one is above nature, and beyond common human living; it admits not marriage, child-bearing, property nor the possession of wealth, but wholly and permanently separate from the common customary life of mankind, it devotes itself to the service of God alone...such then is the perfect form of the Christian life. And the other, more humble, more human, permits man to join in pure nuptials, and to produce children.... it allows them to have minds for farming, for trade, and the other more secular interests as well as for religion.... a kind of secondary grade of piety is attributed to them". In a similar way Augustine distinguished between the 'active life’ and the 'contemplative life'. While both kinds of life were good and Augustine had praise for the work of farmers and craftspeople and merchants, the contemplative life was clearly of a higher order. While at times it may be necessary to follow the active life, wherever possible one should choose the other. The one life is loved, the other endured. Very soon it was this view that dominated Christian thinking, until only those people pursuing the contemplative life or a priestly role in the church were said to have a truly 'religious' vocation.
It was initially through the work of Martin Luther that the 16th century reformers recovered a sense that all of life, including daily work, could be understood as a calling from God. According to Luther we respond to the call to love our neighbour by fulfilling the duties that are associated with our everyday work. Work is our call to serve. This work includes domestic and civic duties as well as our employment. In fact Luther said we can only truly serve God in the midst of everyday circumstances and attempts to elevate the significance of the contemplative life are false. In fact it is the monastic life that has no true calling. It is an escape from the true obedience that God calls us to. Luther's view tended to defend the status quo socially and he had a fairly negative view of working for profit. Whereas John Calvin developed a more dynamic view which encouraged a greater degree of urban enterprise and the possibility of changing vocations. He identified a person's vocation more closely with their job. And this Calvinistic view was further developed by the Puritans who also encouraged enterprise and thrift with a strong ethic emphasizing the importance of stewardship and service but this was soon overtaken by the development of industrialization.
How much the "spirit of capitalism" was a true product of the Protestant work ethic or a corruption of it is still debated. Whatever the case, it is clear that with the passing of time the concept of vocation became so closely associated with a person's occupation or career that these words became synonymous and secularized without any reference to the calling of God. So the pursuit of a vocation became an end in itself. This is true for both capitalism and Marxism. Both encourage us to look for personal fulfilment through the work of our own hands. Once people worked to live now they are living to work. Marxism became attractive when the lack of a social ethic accompanying the Protestant understanding of vocation gave rise to a church that was afraid of conflict and sided with the status quo rather than exploited workers, following the industrial revolution. Whereas once the medieval church threatened to divorce faith from work, now they are so closely fused that work has become idolized. It is this distortion that deprives the unemployed person, or the person engaged in unpaid domestic or voluntary work of status, security and satisfaction, by emphasizing that these are primarily associated with employment. Work once degraded, is now worshipped, and demands great sacrifices.
Today we end up with a mixture of destructive consequences resulting from the ways these influences have impacted on our understanding. Five of these are...
(a) Ordained pastoral ministry or missionary service is elevated by Christians above other vocations and they feel the need to pursue these even when they don’t seem to fit (medieval monasticism)
(b) The Sunday-Monday Gap: The world of the marketplace is seen as "secular" and depraved: the world of the church as "spiritual" and divine. They are two unconnected worlds (Greek dualism). Another development is the way faith has become a private and personal leisure time pursuit that is considered out of place
in the public sphere.
(c) Workaholism and the devastating consequences of unemployment-employment
is seen as necessary for a true vocation and the source of fulfilment.
(d) An inflexible view of vocation that is not adequate to cope with changes in work patterns and career paths and gender roles, etc...
(e) A view of Christian vocation which seems to foster either a strong personal spirituality or a strong social concern, but doesn't often combine the two.
Sorry for the length, but it was interesting info. My theology has changed a bit since then, but it is still historical.
John
John,
Thanks for the info. Great stuff!
I'd like to add something about Jewish vocations.
Some of the disciples would go back to fishing, but in most cases, a disciple who was led by a "shmikahed" (having the authority to bind and loose the Torah) rabbi, would leave their homes and vocations at age 15 or 16 until they were thirty-years-old to learn from the rabbi. They would still have to work in order to support themselves, and their jobs were not considered "secular," as no part of life was secular. All parts of life, jobs, school, family, etc., were considered service to God and fellow human beings.
The information that you posted gives great insights to how we began to separate the God-serving portions of life from the self-serving. This is all a Greek or non-Jewish addition that was added in the mid-second century.
Thank you, John, for adding your research.
Grace and peace,
Johnny
Walker the anti-anonymous, said:
>>Existentialism did wonders, but ultimately proved outdated in theological circles.
Could you flesh that out a bit for me/us?
Are you speaking of Tillich and Coffin, etc (I don't know much about Coffin's theology, actually - but Tilloch makes great sense to me - albeit I should probably brush up on "current evenys in theology" since I last followed it in the, ah, early 70's?
Namaste
I'd like to make a correction to my last comment.
Disciples were usually and mostly supported by the community as they traveled. According to teachers like Ray Vander Laan, they would not work a "job" as it was expected that they would be taken care of by their Jewish neighbors.
Walker,
When you begin to speak of Tilloch, you are speaking John's language.
Have fun.
Grace and peace,
Johnny
Hi Walker,
I am a big Tillich fan, and although a fair amount of modern Theologians consider his ideas on Symbolism to be profound, they still feel as though his take on existintialism may be dated. His methodology that includes all humanity in tension with the fear of ceasing to exist metorphorically and physically is not as attractive now that WW1 and 2 are over. There was great anxiety in the world during that time and some would say that a modern culture doesn't share those same fears. I still see it's relevance because we still have anxiety, but that is just one problem. Another being a more natural connection between science and a personal God. They called Tillich the "Athiestic Christian" for a reason. He removed the historical Christ from the Christ of faith(If Jesus did not literally exist, then does the faith event really matter?), eternally seperating faith and the physical world we see. With the advances in science and a culture desiring a more tangible expression of God, many have dismissed Thiestic Existintialism as the front runner in theological circles. Most are just baffled by his complexity and those who appreciate him continue to be in awe, but ultimately it may leave one empty in practicality.
These are just some thoughts off the top of my head from books and articles I have read over the years. I am sure you could offer much more insight.
I hope that didn't come across sardonically. It was said with respect.
Walker said:
>> I hope that didn't come across sardonically. It was said with respect.
Not at all - I dropped in for a quick look, but don't have much time.
A quick read was fascinating, and perhaps ties in with some ideas I've been playing with recently about the close of WWII and the brief period in the sun (?) of film noir.
I need to run, but, I shall return!
Namaste!
Walker said:
Johnny & John -
Just checking in - printed out the thread to here - 12 pages cut and pasted into CG Times 12 pt.
Two readings so far and I'm just starting to catch on and follow it, I think....
But I expect to come back again to this thread!
Post a Comment