The Evangelical Universalist Forum

''more like Jesus''

just how often have you heard simplistic Christian platitudes like this popular one, invariably what people mean by this is more compassionate , humble , loving , and who could possibly argue with that ? but there is far more to Jesus than these noble traits
some things about Jesus a good amount of Christians might not like
for example ‘‘driving them out of the temple with a whip’’ goodness doesn’t sound very loving or compassionate ! :astonished: certainly not what you would expect from a supposed pacifist but remember GOD is love !
some might argue that Jesus held a unique position of authority that we have no right to imitate ?
this sounds like a valid argument on the surface of it ,but I’m not so certain that approach is entirely correct either ?
some may find him perplexing , sometimes I do , or some may find his travel advise infuriating !

‘‘sell your leather jacket and buy a handgun’’ :astonished: :smiley: :wink:

I find him to be challenging !, provocative , surprising , grating , blunt , controversial , politically incorrect [perhaps then we should disagree to agree instead of agreeing to disagree !] :sunglasses:

even to some degree confrontational ! these aspects of Jesus seem to be decidedly
unpopular to say the least ! these things about Jesus I love, for at least one thing about all of us he would oppose [me included] one of my favourite passages of scripture is this one and I can’t help but wonder what the modern equivalent would be ? Luke 4 :16 - 30 they hated him and wanted to kill him !,MMM Rob Bell comes to mind
so do you still all think its a good idea that we should become ‘‘more like Jesus’’ ? if we all believe we should and that love is the highest goal then surely Jesus is the model to go by ,for he is the embodiment of GOD who is love .
I suspect most of the opposition [if we were more like Jesus] would come from those who claim to follow him !

Superb, thought provoking post stuartd!
Jesus was love incarnate so what does this tell us about real love?
Perhaps it is the height of disrespect to pussy-foot around issues of profound consequence?
Jesus was incredibly hard on those who had distorted the message of ‘Love’ and who were placing a heavy burden on ordinary people. Do we have ‘christian’ systems which are equally or even more cruel than the heresies of the pharisees - you bet we do!
And finally, a good question to ask is whether Jesus, with his polemical and curt approach (note the height of understatement) would be banned from this forum? I for one have no doubt as to the answer.

Why thank-you, you have made it onto my Christmas card list ! :laughing: and yes I cant help but wonder about that issue also
not that I’m suggesting a rebellion against the ‘‘rules of engagement’’ but I do see some differences in the approach that Jesus often took against the ‘‘christians’’ of his day ,so just how does one remain ‘‘graceful’’ towards those who oppose you yet remain
faithful towards an approach that more closely resembles wwjd :exclamation: :wink:

An armed police raid on a gang of slave traders doesn’t sound very loving or compassionate either, if you look at it from the trader’s point of view. But from the slave’s point of view, it’s the most loving thing that could happen. I think a vehement rejection of injustice and oppression is compassionate, and many if not most Christians would agree. Possibly including pacifists (a position I lean towards myself). So I wouldn’t argue in this particular instance that Jesus held a unique position of authority, although presumably he does; freeing the oppressed is clearly something we should all be about as it’s a major theme throughout the Old Testament too.

I would argue that in circumstances where the oppressed are “only” (hah!) spiritually oppressed, like the ones Pilgrim mentioned, perhaps Jesus could be 100% sure firstly that his belief was right, and secondly that the way he was about to handle the situation was the best (perhaps even the only) way to do so. Whereas our beliefs and understanding of God and humanity are in constant flux, at least mine are, and I doubt that anyone on this forum was born into UR, so there must have been a certain amount of change for all of us. As a result, we can’t be 100% sure that we are right in what we now believe, either.
Aside from that, Jesus presumably had the gifts of teaching and prophecy (Paul is quite clear on being very careful how you use at least one of those) and he only used the strong words against people who were in a position of authority themselves - not just fellow-Jews (or fellow-Christians to us), but specifically those who told them how to believe/live.

Given this uncertainty and my lack of teaching/prophetic ability, I would like to tend to err on the side of gentleness, lest I too oppress others. Please notice I said “would like to” :laughing: But those of us who do have those gifts are presumably good to go on Mark Driscoll and other preachers. :wink:

An armed police raid on a gang of slave traders doesn’t sound very loving or compassionate either, if you look at it from the trader’s point of view. But from the slave’s point of view, it’s the most loving thing that could happen. I think a vehement rejection of injustice and oppression is compassionate, and many if not most Christians would agree. :slight_smile: exactly ,perhaps you should see my moral dilemma post ! Possibly including pacifists (a position I lean towards myself). So I wouldn’t argue in this particular instance that Jesus held a unique position of authority, although presumably he does; freeing the oppressed is clearly something we should all be about as it’s a major theme throughout the Old Testament too. :smiley: just how does a pacifist do that when under certain circumstances force is required :question:

I would argue that in circumstances where the oppressed are “only” (hah!) spiritually oppressed, like the ones Pilgrim mentioned, perhaps Jesus could be 100% sure firstly that his belief was right, and secondly that the way he was about to handle the situation was the best (perhaps even the only) way to do so.can you then explain this - acts 18:26 or Paul’s extreme admonition in Galatians ? if ''Christianity does indeed preach another gospel just how do you aline an accommodating approach to the harsh attitude displayed by Paul [not just in that instance] in Galatians :question:

Whereas our beliefs and understanding of God and humanity are in constant flux, at least mine are, and I doubt that anyone on this forum was born into UR,so there must have been a certain amount of change for all of us. As a result, we can’t be 100% sure that we are right in what we now believe, either. :wink: GOOD POINT but as I have said before while that approach is indeed admirable, if you are to be consistent how can you ever be solid on
anything ? for example if I were to turn around and state that GOD will literally burn sinners forever how can you argue against me if you intend to be consistent ? after all you could be wrong :exclamation: :smiling_imp:
Aside from that, Jesus presumably had the gifts of teaching and prophecy (Paul is quite clear on being very careful how you use at least one of those) and he only used the strong words against people who were in a position of authority themselves - not just fellow-Jews (or fellow-Christians to us), but specifically those who told them how to believe/live. isn’t every teacher
of every ilk telling us what to believe ?

Given this uncertainty and my lack of teaching/prophetic ability, I would like to tend to err on the side of gentleness, lest I too oppress others. Please notice I said “would like to” :laughing: But those of us who do have those gifts are presumably good to go on Mark Driscoll and other preachers. :wink:

I don’t yet know whether you have to reject all expressions of force to be a pacifist, or just war. Like I said, I lean towards that position, I’m not firmly in the camp yet. Personally I would go with providing support to those who actually do the intervening, like the IJM, and being willing to support and help people once they have been de-oppressed, so to speak. :slight_smile: And having said that, the day I see anyone hurting one of my children, you can be sure I will do whatever it takes to stop that, pacifism or no pacifism. To be honest, watching the news every day I find myself pulled in two directions. Shouldn’t we do something about Syria? But look what happens when we do something… Afghanistan, Iraq,… :question:

Acts 18:26 says “He began to speak boldly in the synagogue”. I don’t see any contradiction between what I said and this. :confused:
I assume by the admonition in Galatians you mean Paul saying “if someone is preaching another gospel, let them be under God’s curse”, and later the bit where he calls the Galatians foolish for accepting such teaching. Well, Paul did have a gift of teaching (and/or prophecy), and he is speaking up against someone else who is in a teaching position. He isn’t cursing the non-teachers in the church, or even anyone, but rather saying let God curse them. So I think that fits fine with what I said. Calling the non-teachers foolish is a bit trickier, but he isn’t calling them white-washed tombs - he’s not raging against them in the way Jesus appears to do with the Pharisees. And he is in a position of authority, which I am not vis-a-vis other Christians. I do tell my kids not to be idiots sometimes, which is probably similar in terms of both tone and relationship.

I definitely didn’t say anything about an accommodating approach however - my husband will laugh himself silly when he sees that! :laughing: I said I would err on the side of gentleness - which is what Paul himself recommends in Galatians 6: 1 "Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. " Besides, it’s a subset of the Golden Rule - I’d prefer people to tell me I’m wrong about UR gently (and with scriptural evidence and logic) rather than by shouting that I’m a liar who will burn in hell. Therefore I should do the same to them.

Sorry, I didn’t think the discussion was about whether or not to argue at all. I thought it was about whether we were to argue with strong and accusing words and/or whips, like Jesus did with the Pharisees/temple salespeople. I think I can argue with you reasonably consistently without the use of either of those things - as demonstrated above. :wink: After all, I do believe I am right, even while allowing for the possibility that I might be wrong. Because I believe I’m right, I can disagree with you. Even boldly, as Apollos did. But because I also know I could be wrong, I prefer to disagree without actually calling you a viper.

Absolutely. But I think perhaps I didn’t make myself clear - I meant that Jesus only used strong words against teachers, those who were considered to be speaking for God. Not against normal people e.g. the woman caught in adultery. By extension, we should too reserve our stronger words for those claiming positions of authority, such as Mark Driscoll or indeed Rob Bell. In my view, this would be part of being more like Jesus, which I still think we should be. But I could of course be wrong. :wink:

(ETA: Where can I find your moral dilemma post?)

And having said that, the day I see anyone hurting one of my children, you can be sure I will do whatever it takes to stop that, pacifism or no pacifism.precisely , because you love them , I would ask just how is it loving to put an ideology before the safety of another especially a child To be honest, watching the news every day I find myself pulled in two directions. Shouldn’t we do something about Syria? But look what happens when we do something… Afghanistan, Iraq,… :question: and I find this an understandable thing , even though I lament some of the actions and decisions of those conflicts one must ask the question if not doing anything would naturally increase the suffering of your fellow man then just how is THAT loving ?

Acts 18:26 says “He began to speak boldly in the synagogue”. I don’t see any contradiction between what I said and this. :confused:
the rest of the verse reads ‘’…when Aquila and Priscilla heard him they took him aside and explained to him the way of GOD more accurately .’'goodness could you do that with fellow Christians? I don’t believe so :wink:

I assume by the admonition in Galatians you mean Paul saying “if someone is preaching another gospel, let them be under God’s curse”, and later the bit where he calls the Galatians foolish for accepting such teaching. Well, Paul did have a gift of teaching (and/or prophecy), and he is speaking up against someone else who is in a teaching position. He isn’t cursing the non-teachers in the church, or even anyone, but rather saying let God curse them. So I think that fits fine with what I said. Calling the non-teachers foolish is a bit trickier, but he isn’t calling them white-washed tombs - he’s not raging against them in the way Jesus appears to do with the Pharisees. And he is in a position of authority, which I am not vis-a-vis other Christians. I do tell my kids not to be idiots sometimes, which is probably similar in terms of both tone and relationship.
as I said there are plenty of texts that speak in the strongest of term’s against false teaching and the need to oppose it, so just how does one do this? thus remaining true to the text without determining whether what is being said is true ? still allowing for a degree of freedom,given the ‘‘none of us are in charge’’ scenario ?

I definitely didn’t say anything about an accommodating approach however - my husband will laugh himself silly when he sees that! :laughing: I said I would err on the side of gentleness - which is what Paul himself recommends in Galatians 6: 1 "Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. " Besides, it’s a subset of the Golden Rule - I’d prefer people to tell me I’m wrong about UR gently (and with scriptural evidence and logic) rather than by shouting that I’m a liar who will burn in hell. Therefore I should do the same to them.
once again I agree ! but tell them none the less and there-in lies the heart of the problem ‘‘none of us are in charge’’
but what has always been a tremendous turn of is this- if given a range of possibilities yet one of them fits far better with the evidence and the sound arguments that back that evidence up I still find that even when presenting said argument in the gentlest of ways I have experienced that overwhelmingly the majority of Christians forthrightly and stubbornly refuse to concede even the smallest of points !

Sorry, I didn’t think the discussion was about whether or not to argue at all. I thought it was about whether we were to argue with strong and accusing words and/or whips, like Jesus did with the Pharisees/temple salespeople. partly ,yes you are correct
I think I can argue with you reasonably consistently without the use of either of those things - as demonstrated above. :wink: After all, I do believe I am right, even while allowing for the possibility that I might be wrong.this is a good explanation but I still feel it doesn’t quiet address adequately the gist of my point ! ,surely if you believe you are correct then it follows you should be willing to display a degree of dogmatism ! yet how can you do this IF you could be wrong ?

Because I believe I’m right, I can disagree with you. Even boldly, as Apollos did. But because I also know I could be wrong, I prefer to disagree without actually calling you a viper. :sunglasses: why thank-you , and you may have noticed I didn’t call you nor anyone else a viper but I still believe my point is more than valid ! if we are to be more like Jesus then surely those aspects of his character that are shall we say harsh we should to some degree replicate !

Absolutely. But I think perhaps I didn’t make myself clear - I meant that Jesus only used strong words against teachers, those who were considered to be speaking for God. Not against normal people e.g. the woman caught in adultery. By extension, we should too reserve our stronger words for those claiming positions of authority, such as Mark Driscoll or indeed Rob Bell. In my view, this would be part of being more like Jesus, which I still think we should be. But I could of course be wrong. :wink: I once again fully agree however I see a problem with what you are saying and that is when ANYONE says a statement regarding GOD they are to varying degrees postulating an absolute ,and thus by extension :sunglasses: claiming a degree of authority !, point taken ?

(ETA: Where can I find your moral dilemma post?)in moral dilemmas

Very good points. It’s easy to say “I just want to be more like Jesus,” but a lot harder to figure out what that looks like.

I lean to a somewhat simpler but also perhaps more difficult solution. IMO, doing what Jesus would do is a little more flexible that I used to think. Jesus was clear that He only did what the Father showed Him to do. He lived by the guidance of our Father via the indwelling Holy Spirit. If we are to be like Him, we will live by the guidance of the Son via the indwelling Holy Spirit. So that means we don’t have to decide definitively whether to be a pacifist, a semi-pacifist, or even a soldier. We only have to do what Jesus tells us to do moment by moment via the Holy Spirit.

Now that’s technically a problem since we might think Jesus has told us to do something which He definitely has NOT told us to do. What if I met a sweet, sexy guy one day and decided Jesus was telling me to dump my husband and go after this new guy? Clearly that would be wrong. Love, scripture, and simple human decency (not to mention common sense) tells me it’s wrong. But let’s face it; if I want to deceive myself, I can certainly twist all of these things to tell me what I want to hear.

I think that as long as we are genuinely surrendered to God, we CAN trust Him to guide us in all things via His Holy Spirit living within us. So we know the black and white areas (Don’t commit adultery), but we also know the gray areas (Should I call out this preacher I know to be abusing and intimidating the sheep, and if so, how should I do it?)

And in a more hypothetical vein, “Should I defend my family and home from looters by force of arms, or should I invite the would-be looters in for dinner?” I believe that God might choose to work this in either direction, and while I would prefer the second, I would not refuse the first if convinced that it was the way God wanted to protect my family.

Scripture cannot tell us what to do in every given situation. And if we try to make it do so, I think we could classify that as “eating from the wrong tree.” When you eat from the Tree of Life, while you do get basic principles, you mostly get step by step guidance. “Don’t worry about what you’ll say; it will be given to you by the Holy Spirit.” So to me, WWJD becomes (I hope) WIJD (what is Jesus doing?) That is, what is He doing through me right now as I obey Him?

So that’s my take on it. I always lean toward not having to make a definite commitment . . . yet. :wink: I’ll just wait and see what He tells me to do.

Love and blessings,
Cindy

Stuart,

Amazingly, shockingly even, it isn’t as glaringly obvious to some people as you might think – just sayin’ . . .

But yes, I did want to make it obvious for illustrative purposes. Things are not always black and white even when you know the scriptures, let alone for people who don’t know them. But it is important to know the written word and to have some understanding of it.

And as to your second comment, there is actually a true story similar to this (which I believe I read here) where some violent young men were vandalizing the home of pacifist believers, and the family prepared dinner for them whilst the culprits were ripping tiles off their roof and invited them in to eat when they came down – and the men came back the next day unasked and repaired the roof. You never know how God is going to work.

But yes, I do understand that you and I are not going to agree on this. We can still be brother and sister. :wink:

Blessings, Cindy

I’ve heard billions of stories Cindy from the Christian community that go along the same lines , sorry but I pretty much refuse to swallow stories from Christian’s [that deal with the seemingly impossible] just because they are telling them !
gullibility for both myself and dare I say the majority of non-believers IS a massive turn-off

I would have thought that such an important topic such as this would have had a few more contributors Pilgrim , I find it interesting that Christians seem to only like you if you agree with them its only when you challenge them and they are cornered that you get the impression that steam is streaming from their ears !

You will claim that God tells us to move our right foot forward. I will claim
exactly the opposite, that God clearly tells us to move our LEFT leg forward. And so we, as a church, walk. What may seem contradictory to our tiny self-righteous minds may be reconciled in God’s will, if we are humble and earnest to hear his still small voice, and not filled with puffery and arrogance.

Ecc 7:13 Consider what God has done:

Who can straighten
what he has made crooked?
14 When times are good, be happy;
but when times are bad, consider this:
God has made the one
as well as the other.
Therefore, no one can discover
anything about their future.
15 In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these:

the righteous perishing in their righteousness,
and the wicked living long in their wickedness.
16 Do not be overrighteous,
neither be overwise—
why destroy yourself?
17 Do not be overwicked,
and do not be a fool—
why die before your time?
18 It is good to grasp the one
and not let go of the other.
Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.[a]
19 Wisdom makes one wise person more powerful
than ten rulers in a city.
20 Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous,
no one who does what is right and never sins.
21 Do not pay attention to every word people say,
or you may hear your servant cursing you—
22 for you know in your heart
that many times you yourself have cursed others.

Nottirbd, that’s a good reminder from the often neglected book of Ecclesiastes. Thanks for posting it.

Stuart, what you are saying is a bit of a caricature. Of course, you wouldn’t have to look far, even on this forum, to find evidence to support the point you are making. But part of growing in christian maturity, becoming more like Jesus if you like, is developing the ability to love and even to like people who see things differently. I wonder if the veil of anonynimity provided by the internet doesn’t just allow us to be less tolerant, more childish and aggressive, than we ever would be in a face to face conversation?

I wonder if the veil of anonynimity provided by the internet doesn’t just allow us to be less tolerant, more childish and aggressive, than we ever would be in a face to face conversation?

:wink: I have said this quiet a few times myself especially for those who do become angry,plus diversity is to some degree a good thing
but and lets be frank !, it has its boundaries ! :wink:

Every group made by human beings has its boundaries I suppose. But shouldn’t the way we patrol those boundaries and respond to people who appear to be outside them, be pleasing to God? And when we look at Jesus, don’t we see him constantly going beyond the boundaries set by the powerful and the religious? That should challenge us. We see a similar pattern continuing through the story of the early church in Acts. And although church history has clearly taken many wrong turns down the ages, we still see that same pattern continuing in the best of the church today.

Stuart, I at least stopped posting because it’s too difficult to discuss an issue with someone who doesn’t answer what has actually been said (no doubt I make the same mistake myself sometimes). If I claim that the sky is green, and you say, no, it’s not, and I then reply “well people like you always say the sky is red, but you’re wrong”, and continue to misunderstand you, at what point do you give up?

In the above discussion, I’ve answered your question, you have disagreed with me about various points which you consider to pertain to my answer, but it still remains my answer, and you misunderstanding it won’t change that. We’re clearly talking at cross-purposes, and I have other things to do with my time than continue something fruitless.
I believe this answers your question in the OP too, in a way, :smiley: and also your last question to me - can I take you aside and explain the way of God to you more accurately? Well, to the extent that I think I understand it, I have done so. It’s not a problem for me if you choose not to see it the way I do. It’s up to God to make sure we both come in line with his way of thinking, and not my job to force you into acceptance or vice versa.

Andrew, I do have to work hard not to allow the veil to do just that. To me, one of the advantages of the internet is being able to reread what I’ve written and check for aggression. And also for SPAG. :wink:

I’m afraid that many Christians believe that they will only be loved by their community (and/or successful evangelisation will only occur) if and when they display themselves as kind, gentle, loving, meek etc etc (ie all the things that our western sterilised and impotent Jesus looks like). So they train themselves daily to wear a false mask of ‘niceness’ (usually accompanied by a nauseating false smile) which, in fact, puts off all rational sceptics because they can see the falseness (often even hypocricy) from a mile away.
There are several problems with this approach:
[size=150] It’s fake![/size]. It’s a wrong image of Jesus (which is what this thread is all about). It’s a belief that we can, by our own strength, become ‘good enough’ to be what God wants us to be.

For a mature christian, the quest to become more christlike is neither a platitude nor a lame aspiration to ‘niceness’. It is a tough, costly, cross-bearing struggle requiring love, integrity and dedication. The mature christian can and should enjoy debate with honest, rational sceptics. I certainly do, but I don’t have a lot of free time, and if I’m going to invest in a conversation with an adult, I’m looking for some maturity in them too. It can’t be a one-way street.

Absolutely Andrew, and I might add that, in addition to our submission to bearing our own cross, the work can only be achieved by the power of the Holy Spirit. It must be His work in us, not our attempts to do the work in our own strength.