Posted by: The Informal Matriarch | December 8, 2007

Hey Jesus, Like My Shoes?

A lot of us believe that if we behave nicely then we are not as much of a sinner than other people who don’t. Most of us think that if we diamondshoe.gifaren’t killing people we are less of a sinner than someone who has killed someone else. A lot of us feel good about that.

Lets think about this for a moment:

What has been your life’s journey? Have you had a cookie cutter Christian life? Have you been abused? Were you part of a divorce? Were you molested? Did your parents love you unconditionally? Has someone you loved died?

How about the genetics in your family? Is there lots of alcoholism? ADHD? Schizophrenia? Depression?

I think all of these things have a MAJOR impact on who we become and how we rate on the wonderful “sin scale” that we tend to hold other people to.

The thing is, I can’t believe for one moment that God’s going to hold a person to their outward way of sinning on “Judgement Day”. We all have the same sin inside of us and you can’t say that we don’t because you haven’t walked in someone else’ shoes. You have no idea what it is to be like another person so you have no freaking CLUE if they’re worse of a sinner than you are. You may have been way worse off than them if you had their life.

I don’t think a loving and fair God can judge us by our actions. He knows our life, he sees inside us and he knows we all don’t have the same chances at being an upstanding citizen. Weather it be nurtured or our nature, we’re not all equal in the genetic lottery. Any God I would want to worship would not look at what our hands do but would look at how much he loves us on the inside. Because on the inside we are all the same. We are all sinners, we are all loved beyond anything we can imagine and, call me what you may, we are ALL forgiven. Christ came to save all. If our actions could save us then Christ wouldn’t exist.van-gogh-shoes-mid.jpg

So next time you start judging a friend who turned to drugs or a hooker on the corner, take a moment and reflect on what you would have become if your dad beat you senseless or your mom brought home a new man every night. Perhaps your dad did beat you senseless but you’re still OK, well be happy you just have that nature because not everyone does. Perhaps a little reflection would spark a whole lot of humility in our Christian circles and a lot more inclusion.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

Posted in Christ, Christian, Christianity, God, Jesus, Morality, Philosophy, Sin, Theology, religion | Tags:

« Old Testament…Relevent?
Freaky Floppy Churches »

Responses

I heartily agree that Christ came to save us but each of us has to make the specific decision by asking for our sins to be forgiven and then to follow his directions as to the kind of life we lead. We will all make mistakes but can ask forgiveness for each transgression.

By: Grumps on December 11, 2007
at 6:03 am

I agree. Yes absolutely Christ came to save all. However we still have to choose to accept the grace He extends to us. Absolutely we are all equal sinners, however, we will all still be held accountable for our actions, good and bad. I’ve never committed murder but a murderer’s sin has been as equally cleansed as mine has if he/she has accepted the gift Christ came to offer. Our God is a wonderful God of love, but He is also a God of justice.

By: Dana on December 12, 2007
at 5:48 am

Yes, we all learned these things in Sunday School.

Would NOT accepting Christ be a sin? Therefore being forgiven for that one as well?

By: pluckymama on December 12, 2007
at 5:58 am

We are all born sinners as stated in the bible. NOT accepting Christ as our individuial savior would exclude from Heaven. It is the choice of each of us.

By: Grumps on December 12, 2007
at 3:20 pm

I am curious about the people who don’t have the capacity, due to being born “handicapped” as our society so cruelly puts it, to comprehend “being saved.” Children with autism, downs syndrome, schizophrenia etc. Is there a place for them. And, I could never be so bold to believe that Christianity is the only way, puleeeese. There are a kabillion muslims, catholics, Buddists, Islamics etc in the world who have, just like us, been taught that their religion and beliefs are true and right. I cannot judge anyone for there beliefs, and really, it’s not my place; That is between them and their God, whoever that may be. Cornelius told me the other night that “all the people have different Gods, but I think they are all one God and everyone is fighting for no reason…it’s so stupid”! Wise words from a child…as usual; children are always putting things in perspective for me.

By: jilly on December 12, 2007
at 7:05 pm

Grumps:

We are all born sinners as stated in the bible.

Only according to one self-appointed apostle (after-the-fact), writing in the Belated Testament, who never met the historical Yeshua. Any argument to put those words in the mouth of Yahweh, Elohim, or Yeshua himself fails. Biblical scholars have repeatedly shown that if Paulus was even a somewhat competent student of the Jewish scriptures, he would have been a dishonest one. Paulus’ version of Christianity is a horrendous perversion of the Tanakh, probably even more twisted than the Gnostic mythologies. Ever wonder why there is no such thing as the “Fall of Man” or Christianity’s obsession with sin in the Jewish tradition?

By: Thinking Ape on December 12, 2007
at 7:14 pm

Thinking Ape: why do you think Paul was self appointed? Do you think he made all that stuff up about him being Saul and then changing and yadda yadda yadda?

Paul is my favorite apostle and I think he’s got some amazing things to say. He does get very passionate and crazy and I think people REALLY misunderstand him.

By: pluckymama on December 12, 2007
at 7:45 pm

pluckymama, I am glad you asked. I agree that many people misunderstand the person I believe is the most influential “Christian” to ever have lived. Unfortunately, many theologians and today’s “pop-religionists” (whether in Pentecostalism or in Emergent circles) only care to read him through the eyes of post-Christendom history. Luther accepted Paulus, but ignored Yeshua/Jesus when he cried out “the Law is Death!” - a notion antithetical to the Jesus of the New Testament. Nevermind my issues with Protestant theology…

To answer if I think Paulus made everything up - yes, I do, but he isn’t the only one. The extended version of Paul’s conversion story is found in Acts - a later document that contains several historical inaccuracies when compared to Paul’s time (including Jewish jurisdiction, Paul’s missionary timeline, and linguistic evolution). Paul never once claims to be Saul in his letters.

The reason I say self-appointed is because even in the New Testament documents that we have evidence that Paul was not exactly accepted by the so-called “Pillars” in Jerusalem: the letters themselves show his pandering to Judaizers (Gentile converts to Judaism) by aligning himself with the earliest Christian movement.

The problem is that many people read Paul as one coherent text, when he is anything but. Some of the canonical documents attributed to Paul are obviously not by him (i.e. Timothy and Titus), while the authentic letters are reactionary and evolutionary. Paul contradicts himself on numerous occasions because the churches he writes to follow through on his bizarre theology, as is expected when a man steeped in Jewish thought converts those in an urban pagan Roman city: what freedom is to one person is completely different than another (compare Galatians to Corinthians).

I apologize if this is turning into a book. Your question is loaded one. People have been trying to figure out Paul for almost two thousand years. New Christianities continue to pop up to explain a new Paul to a new generation. American Christianities - whether the pseudo-gnostic Pentecostals, the partially-literalist fundamentalists, or the Biblically-ignorant Emerging church - all fail to start with history when they read Paul, they only care to read him to fit their peculiar belief structure.

By: Thinking Ape on December 12, 2007
at 9:11 pm

Interesting you think the emergent church is an ignorant one. I’m part of the emergent church. I think it’s the least ignorant.

By: pluckymama on December 12, 2007
at 9:33 pm

Sorry, I did not mean to say the Emergent church is “ignorant.” As I wrote on one of my posts on our d-C blog,

I had already stepped away from my strict conservative fundamentalism and was dabbling with the liberal [stream of the] Emergent church. Eventually I came to the conclusion that the “Emerging church,” although psychologically healthy and socially conscientious, had very little to do with the original Christian church.

What I was meaning is that the Emergent church panders to this generation - socially conscientious, psychologically disturbed, and thoroughly disgusted with the politics of today. While other contemporary Christianities are ignorant of the reality before them, the Emergent church has answered it - but they don’t do it with Christian foundations, hence “Biblically-ignorant.” I have heard Emergent teachers talk about how we should concentrate on one part of the gospel and then pragmatically erase everything that doesn’t fuse well with that presumed framework - even if it sometimes requires interpreting Jesus as a sarcastic hipster. Personally, I really wish both Yeshua and Paulus were more like Emergent followers.

Do you believe that the Emergent church satisfies your spiritual needs (which I assume they do) because of its correct Biblical interpretations or because of its socio-psychological mastery? Why don’t you write a blog on your thoughts on the Emergent church, I would love to hear your side: the one thing with the Emergent church is that because it fosters discussion, every “church” is different.

By: Thinking Ape on December 12, 2007
at 10:23 pm

“I have heard Emergent teachers talk about how we should concentrate on one part of the gospel and then pragmatically erase everything that doesn’t fuse well with that presumed framework”

What that’s saying is, what’s the very basis of the gosple? The basis is Grace….right?? So then if something that one of the apostles said that doesn’t jive with that very basis then it obviously isn’t what we think it might be. I don’t think the Bible is a perfect book. When theologists interpret the Bible, they ask themselves “what CANT this verse mean”.

By: pluckymama on December 12, 2007
at 10:56 pm

What that’s saying is, what’s the very basis of the gosple? The basis is Grace….right?

You quoted that much better than I could have, which is why I didn’t attempt the specific example of what I meant by “presumed framework.” What I have to ask, however, is how did you, or other Christian thinkers, come to conclusion that grace is the basis of “the Gospel”? Is it a concept that was taught by Yeshua/Jesus?

So then if something that one of the apostles said that doesn’t jive with that very basis then it obviously isn’t what we think it might be.

Doesn’t that sound like circular reasoning to you? What if there are two different, or three different, or seven different viewpoints of the gospel within the canonical text? What if, for the last two thousand years, people have been trying to mesh together everything to make it all work when it doesn’t? If you are going to start with an assumption like “the basis of grace” and interpret everything through that lens, then you need to explain why you think that assumption holds true, right?

I don’t think the Bible is a perfect book.

I agree, but what do you think it is then? To even be a heretical Christian, one must still allude to the Bible for one reason or another.

When theologists interpret the Bible, they ask themselves “what CANT this verse mean”.

Could you explain this a little more? I’ve long since stopped theologizing, but every theologian I have read from the 2nd century onward attempts to explain what the verse means. If I was to ask myself “what this can’t mean,” the Bible would probably end up completely meaningless - and even I, as passionate agnostic, do not admit that. When someone writes something they want their readers to know what they mean, not what they don’t mean.

By: Thinking Ape on December 13, 2007
at 12:16 am

TA,

I know I owe you a reply over at my blog, but I’m here right now and something you said caught my attention.

Do you believe that the Emergent church satisfies your spiritual needs (which I assume they do) because of its correct Biblical interpretations or because of its socio-psychological mastery?

The Bible has its inconsistencies, but on one point it is wholly consistent: Each social group pictured there sees God/scripture/practice in its own image. Usually the Bible isn’t very forward thinking in its teachings.

The same is true today. The emergent movement is primarily a reflection of our culture rather than a reflection of some new Biblical interpretation.

When I was being trained for ministry I was taught to be very granular in my approach to scripture. I was taught that since God wrote the Bible, the meanings and richness of every “jot and tittle” were crucial to knowing God and His Wonderful Plan for My Life (TM).

I now think the Bible’s teachings and examples are best taken at face value rather than have unintended meanings imposed by later generations.

By: WhoreChurch on December 13, 2007
at 3:05 pm

Hey WC, always appreciate your comments.

The Bible has its inconsistencies, but on one point it is wholly consistent: Each social group pictured there sees God/scripture/practice in its own image.

Seems like you are saying the Bible’s consistency is that it is inconsistent. I won’t dispute what you wrote because I agree, unless I am not seeing how this furthers the case for any Biblical relevancy or “truth” for that matter.

The emergent movement is primarily a reflection of our culture rather than a reflection of some new Biblical interpretation.

Again, couldn’t agree more - but this can be applied to anything. You will notice that what I wrote about the emergent church is that it is a many good things, but it lacks integrity in its honesty about its foundations: Jesus and Christianity are basically lip-synced. Going through the experience myself, those within the liberal stream of the emergent church are basically people who are going through de-conversion, whether they know it or not.

I now think the Bible’s teachings and examples are best taken at face value rather than have unintended meanings imposed by later generations.

So I need to ask you the same thing I asked pluckymama: what is the Bible than? If you call yourself a Christian, even a heretical one, you are following at least some aspect(s) of the Bible, if not all of it. Pluckymama answered this aspect, for her, is “grace” - but where does this come from? What, I ask, validates your belief? If you say “faith” - I ask, “faith in what”; if you say “the Bible” - I ask “what parts?” Emergents are masters of negative theology - something is asserted by what it is not. As I expressed to pluckymama earlier, what then do you end up with?

By: Thinking Ape on December 13, 2007
at 7:44 pm

Golly TA, you ask lots of questions. Most of them require a longer answer than I will place in comments. I guess I’ll have to sharpen my pencil keyboard and actually write some meaningful posts.

By: WhoreChurch on December 13, 2007
at 8:16 pm

Somewhere in one of the gospels of the new testament Jesus stops a whore from being stoned to death by the men of the temple. He tells the men that whoever among them is completely without sin should be the one to throw the first stone.

In other words — Don’t judge unless you want to be judged.

By: southdream on December 22, 2007
at 10:11 pm

I think the question you ask are, in fact, more complex than their outward appearance would depict. I don’t think we can simply judge situationally (i.e. now-habituated behaviour based on past exp.), but, in those same terms, i think the frame of reference has to be broader. what i mean is, not only should one’s actions be correlated to one’s experiences, but even one’s concepts of ’sin’ or ’salvation’ are for the most part individuated.
Even holding to Christianity as a foundation for morals, it must be considered that various branches are faithful to differing beliefs, and even that singular branches include contradictory teachings, as the text are not mono-authorial, and thus are subject to various perceptions, shaped by (as you point out) various circumstances.
I think (and many, im sure, will disagree) that there can be no transcendental frame of reference for morality. Of course members of religious groups may believe that said group’s credo is the universal frame of reference, but the truth is that we create our own maxims, that we take to be universal laws. some believe that spanking children is an example of bad parenting, while others (yes, some still exist today) believe that it is a way of teaching children good behaviour based on the principles of operant conditioning (ie application of positive punishment). Each holds its own value and the answer is not a transcendental law but merely a garbled system of beliefs based on countless experiences.
i think the same holds true to many (perhaps less arbitrary) questions regarding, for instance, infanticide, homicide committed by the mentally ill, or even the ‘delusions’ of the ‘abnormal’ (genocides, cult killings, ritualistic suicide). We make many judgments regarding these acts based wholeheartedly on a belief in our own personal normalcy. Many scoff at the idea of cult suicide or those who suffer from obvious delusions of grandeur, while at the same time praising a self-sacrificing ‘king of the Jews;’ i do not wish to spark controversy over the validity of Christ as savior, but merely, as you have done, bring the buried questions out of their graves. we try so hard to ignore then that we think they’ve simply expired, but they are still there, and they are still lurking, and i think that we, as individuals and as a society, need to grapple with them, because these are the important questions of who we are in relation to one another, and in relation to ourselves.

By: marcin on March 13, 2008
at 5:56 pm

The author of this article is an idiot. We are not born sinners, and though I don’t believe that God would ever not accept someone I also don’t believe that we are all excused of responsibility for our actions. I feel like your trying to justify whatever mistakes you have made in the past.

By: chris on March 28, 2008
at 2:18 am

Chris…be nice now. I’m not justifying my sins from the past (I’m actually not ashamed of any of my past behavior) I am trying to explain that we come from all walks of life and Christ cannot judge us based on our outward actions because certain people get dealt the easy cards and some people don’t. The way we were nurtured and the genes we inherit are not our fault. If I was born into a different family I’d be totally different.

By: The Informal Matriarch on March 28, 2008
at 2:27 am

WOW! Great words from Jill, TOTALLY agree.

By: Irelandsmama on March 29, 2008
at 9:04 pm

my other website: (couldn’t fit it in that section) http://www.shelahphotography.blogspot.com

Thank you for sharing your heart. Thank you for challenging us and helping us not look and point at other people.

I understand your message. I’m a christian as well.. but what stood out to me was the statement that God doesn’t hold us accountable for our actions. maybe it was the wording… anyway, I understood the message behind what you were saying but I know God still holds us accountable. i was abused, i had issues… and I did a lot of sinful things because i was looking for love or was desperate or was treating others the way i was treated. But when I came to Christ and showed him what I did, i STILL had to repent for my actions because i was accountable for doing those actions.

we are STILL accountable for the actions we do. We’re not off the hook… we are given GRACE, but we are still accountable.

Thanks for hearing my heart. :)

Leila

By: Leila Dali on May 14, 2008
at 11:14 pm

Leave a response






Your response:

Categories