Get E-Mail Updates

What if the Church were Christian?

100215-if-the-church-were-christianAs I stated in an earlier blog post, the juxtaposition of reading Philip Gulley's book If the Church Were Christian while attending Trinity Institute's "Building an Ethical Economy" really intrigued me. I decided to e-mail this Indiana-based Quaker minister to see if he could illuminate some of the points he raised in his book.

Why do you say if Jesus intended to create a church he did a questionable job?
Author Marcus Borg used the words "movement initiator" to describe Jesus. While I do believe the charisma, compassion, and commitment of Jesus inspired a wide variety of people (and clearly infuriated and frightened others), I don't believe what he did was an attempt to initiate any new institution. Clearly, that was Paul's vision, and while Jesus might have initiated that movement, Paul brought it to fruition in a practical way. Indeed, I would go so far as to say Jesus seemed leery of religious institutions, and probably suspected any institution he might begin would inevitably fall prey to the very divisions and abuses he had witnessed in others. People interested in creating new institutions devote their time to funding, amassing power, building and organizing a base, then expanding it. If those were priorities for Jesus, he failed to articulate them and was unsuccessful in achieving them. Paul, however, did all those things and more.

How would you respond to those who claim Jesus was an anarchist sent to create an insurrection and overthrow the established order?

It's very tempting to read our own priorities and values into the life of Jesus. I do it myself. Those persons who are victimized by the established order, and there are many, might especially feel a kinship with a Jesus who defied and rebuked the tyranny of institutional power. I think the priorities of Jesus were to live out the values of God, as he understood them, as radically and faithfully as he could. That desire would naturally compel him to speak out against all tyranny, whether it was political, personal, religious, or cultural. I suspect Jesus had a bit of the anarchist in him, but I don't think that's all he was, or even who he primarily was.

How do you account for the power struggles that exist even in peace churches like the Quakers?

It has been my experience that most power struggles have at their base self-absorption and advancement. When I have been embroiled in power struggles, it has often been a consequence of my tendency toward self-promotion and my desire for status, though I try to cloak my motives in the garments of justice and equality. I suspect my struggle, and my failings, are universal ones.

What's your reaction when people declare that denominations are dead?

My first reaction is laughter. As one whose degree work is in the sociology of religion, I believe even the movements away from denominationalism will one day evolve into denominations. It is the natural order of religious bodies. Cults begin as a reaction against the established order. Then, in order to become socially accepted, cults become sects. Sects, in a further effort to become widespread, evolve into denominations. The names might well change, but our tendency to organize toward societal acceptance and respectability is always with us. So while a specific denomination might well die, our tendency toward denominationalism will not. We'll just have different names.

What do you see as the central task for the church of the future?

To teach us what it means to be loving and complete human beings.

portrait-becky-garrisonBecky Garrison will be speaking at "The Evolving Church: Kingdom Economy" in Toronto on April 10, 2010.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: BlueDeacon

02-16-2010 @ 5:02pm

Let's keep in mind several things.

1) The early church was basically running for its life and had virtually no friends, especially in authority.

2) Its members were of the belief that Jesus would return in their lifetimes, basically to set things straight.

Since Christianity is now socially acceptable and Jesus hasn't returned yet, it's taken all the trappings of an institution, with different theologies, denominations and such.

by: hammerud

02-16-2010 @ 8:06pm

No. He was completely God and completely man. As God, He humbled
Himself to fully experience the limitations of humanity. As it says
in Hebrews, "for we have not an high priest which cannot be touched
with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted
like as we are, yet without sin." I understand it, but there are
heretical views out there in Christian discourse. I was responding to
a comment on the article by another person who apparently had the same
question as I did as to the author's position on the Deity of Christ
based upon what was written.

by: hammerud

02-16-2010 @ 9:14pm

The Deity of Christ is an essential doctrine for a person to hold in order to be a Christian. Here is a quote from John Walvoord, "while Christians may differ on certain aspects of prophecy as well as other areas of doctrine, there is an irreducible minimum to a true Christian theology apart from which Christianity loses its meaning and significance." The Deity of Christ is essential and is part of the "doctrine of Christ," referred to in 2 John 9 highlights. If Jesus Christ was not God, His sacrificial death in payment for our sin would not reach to the level of God. Sufficient payment for sin against God requires payment by God. The sacrifice of any created entity would be insufficient.

by: SamHamilton

02-16-2010 @ 9:54pm

I was scratching my head when I read that sentence as well. I wondered what Gulley meant by "...value of God, as he understood them...".

by: SamHamilton

02-16-2010 @ 10:06pm

I agree with everything you've written, but it's possible that other people are drawn to Jesus for different reasons than you. In that sense, the statement isn't inaccurate. And the statement also doesn't lead me to believe Gulley doesn't, himself, view Christ as the Son of God.

But I did so a little internet research on Gulley and he does have a few unorthodox beliefs (for example, he believes everyone is saved from the get go), but I haven't seen anything where he denies the deity of Christ.

by: Charles Kiker

06-20-2011 @ 8:28am

LinkedIn

------------

This is a reminder that on June 7, Charles Kiker sent you an invitation to become part of his or her professional network at LinkedIn.

Follow this link to accept Charles Kiker's invitation.

https://www.linkedin.com/e/j1j...

Signing up is free and takes less than a minute.

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-17-2010 @ 12:16am

Good for you, Sam. I wish others would do the click "work" to answer the questions in there heads, rather than casually imply that someone is a heretic, or not.

by: James Martin

02-17-2010 @ 12:30am

Well, I guess I am out.

by: Patricia

02-17-2010 @ 12:52am

I don't understand your point.

by: Patricia

02-17-2010 @ 1:07am

I'm not sure if I can explain this adequately, but I sometimes wonder about that very thing. Not whether Jesus was the Son of God or not, but whether he was completely, totally aware of his God-ness throughout his life.

In a way, I think if he was, he had a lot more information "in advance" of his sacrifice on the cross that, in the grand God-time scheme, might have made it easier for him to do what he did. And, in a way, diminishes it some. If he KNEW he was God, and he KNEW that after this one day the entire world would be saved, and he KNEW he had the power to endure because he was all-powerful...how hard could it have been, from all-knowing God-ness?

On the other hand, if, in his humanness, that knowledge was hidden from him, except perhaps in flashes of understanding of his Father's will for him, and he did that will anyway - trusting but not knowing - truly like us in every way except sin - THAT is something entirely different.

Scripture seems unclear in this area to me. Sometimes Jesus is sure and confidently proclaiming, sometimes he is weak and struggling. I just wonder if, at the time, he really knew and understood it all...

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-17-2010 @ 1:18am

James, were you ever in?

by: NC77

02-15-2010 @ 6:11pm

Does Gulley see Jesus as the Son of God?

by: VineyD

02-17-2010 @ 3:08am

providentially the torah and gospels were recorded in a time when writing had no capitalization nor punctuation and thus the dogmas for which christians have tortured and killed each other had to be wrestled from a raw stream of words that held no visual prompts such as a capital g for god or a capital d for deity the only way writers designated the true god was to give him a name such as yaweh or jehovah as you please or else say the god what i have already written should demonstrate why someone like myself should be allowed my salvation through jesus the christ even though i am one who will only acknowledge that he is the son of the god and is from the realms above which means of course that he is deity but no capital letters please

who in their right mind seriously can contend that jesus ever said i am god the son instead of i am son of the god also it is absolutely false to contend that a sin against the god by a created entity could not be ransomed by the only begotten son of the god if that only son was a created deity it is entirely reasonable that the ransom be paid by an entity that had to exercise free will in the same way that satan exercised his
the scriptures refer to jesus being a corresponding ransom nobody has ever shown from the scriptures why the christ had to be the god himself

this is a fourth century dogma that would have condemned the apostles to the flames such idiotic theology subverted the saviors principle teachings and had the church fostering a head game instead of a heart change

tell me why you have to capitalize the deity of the christ and if i do not capitalize it how does that tell you anything about the state of my soul

by: fundamentalist

02-15-2010 @ 6:14pm

Jesus understood that Satan would generate many counterfeit Christians that would be a part of the church. He gave the parable of the sower and tares to warn us not to try to determine which were the true and false believers.

The dichotomy between Paul and Jesus is false. Paul never did anything that Jesus didn't do. Jesus raised funds, after all. What was Judas stealing from?

by: SamHamilton

02-15-2010 @ 6:29pm

Does anything he says lead you to believe he doesn't?

by: facebook-1596654777

02-15-2010 @ 6:39pm

I don't quite follow the distinction between Jesus and Paul in Gulley's comments on "church." To suggest Jesus did not intend a "church" seems to avoid readings of Matthew (the well known upon this rock verses). While I do not disagree that the "church" as we know it and practice it may not be a fully faithful version of what was intended, the language Jesus was leery and probably suspected seems to undercut the divinity of the Christ and point to church as a human creation - as opposed to a divine creation operated by a fallen humanity. I suspect one of the reasons the Spirit was sent was to enable humanity to maintain a barrier to the foreseen and inevitably corrupting touch of humanity upon the church.

by: hammerud

02-17-2010 @ 7:15am

You don't have to be. There is one way, and one way only, but it is
available to everybody. God loves you and died for your sins. Just
invite Him into your heart and He will receive you into His family.
It is written in Acts, "there is no other name in heaven whereby we
must be saved."

by: NC77

02-17-2010 @ 11:21am

Patricia,

It is good that you question these things.

The fact that he knew, before he came to earth, that he would go to the cross to die as a sacrifice for the sins of all mankind is what struck me the most about Jesus many years ago. At the time, as a lost man, I somehow intuitively knew, there was something significant about that. That is, Jesus being God and yet willing to lower himself to become man and to die at the hands of his own creation (mankind) to save all who would believe.

The next day, after a bible study I went to as an unbeliever, and these things were discussed, Jesus came to me while I was out in the field working and revealed hiimself to me. I was torn between leaving the things of the world I was attached to or receiving eternal life from him and being born again into a new life. I chose to receive him as my savior. It was an amazing experience.

It is a good thing you are questioning these things. I encourage you to seek out the truth about these question concerning who he was and what he knew.

When you say sometimes Jesus is sure and confidently proclaiming, sometimes he is weak and struggling, shows to me you understand how difficult it must have been for him to be completely human, yet equal with God, because he is God.

The Gospel accounts of his prayer and time communicating to the father at Gethsemane show this point very clearly. It shows both his weakness and his strength, his human side, and his God side full of purpose to complete what he came to earth to do.

by: ford49

02-15-2010 @ 7:46pm

Your sense of humility is staggering...are you always right?? What would Jesus do if we didn't have you to tell us who was false and who wasn't.

by: SamHamilton

03-02-2010 @ 10:52pm

Patricia - Sorry this response is so delayed. I decided to take a hiatus from this blog for Lent like a couple other people have (one of the conversations I was having with another commenter was bordering on the insane so I thought taking a break would be good for my sanity as well!), but got sucked back in a little, so I thought I'd send you a response.

So, I've thought about what you wrote as well. I definitely don't have any certain answers. Jesus obviously has some concerns about what he's being asked to do in the Garden before his crucifixion. Even if I knew that something painful (not to mention life-ending) I was about to endure would result in unlimited good, it would still be hard for me to go through with it. I'd probably be asking..."Is there another way??" It's definitely hard to pin down exactly what Jesus' thought process was in this and other situations. So, nothing profound from me here, but I thought you were due a response.

by: squeaky

02-17-2010 @ 2:50pm

Anne Rice explored that very question in her books "Out of Egypt" and "Out of Cana". It's an intriguing question--how much did He know of His own deity? I don't know if He would have had to know He was deity His entire life to be God. It may be possible He couldn't fully be human if He knew He was God. So as human, He fully understood what it was like to be human, and the struggles we all face, because He faced them too.

by: hammerud

02-15-2010 @ 8:40pm

Perhaps the comment "I think the priorities of Jesus were to live out the values of God, as he understood them, as radically and faithfully as he could." That may be true, but as God, I am quite sure He understood them. Made me wonder if this person recognized that He was God.

by: Jesusistheway

02-15-2010 @ 9:04pm

It should be fair to point out that Marcus Borg is part of the Jesus Seminar, who have basically taken it upon themselves to rewrite the Gospel. My understanding is that Borg does not believe in the historical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, of which is fundamental to historical, evangelical Christianity. Some people only want to paint Jesus as a revolutionary and pacifist. The core of Jesus' message is that He came to set us free from sin and death. Ironically, liberal Christians twist the message of the Gospel as much or more as more conservative Christians.

by: NC77

02-15-2010 @ 9:17pm

True. What do make of 1 John 4? Are we not to test the spirits to see if they are from God?

by: NC77

02-15-2010 @ 9:29pm

Sure. This statement does.

"It's very tempting to read our own priorities and values into the life of Jesus. I do it myself. Those persons who are victimized by the established order, and there are many, might especially feel a kinship with a Jesus who defied and rebuked the tyranny of institutional power. I think the priorities of Jesus were to live out the values of God, as he understood them, as radically and faithfully as he could. That desire would naturally compel him to speak out against all tyranny, whether it was political, personal, religious, or cultural. I suspect Jesus had a bit of the anarchist in him, but I don't think that's all he was, or even who he primarily was."

Concerning this statement.

"Those persons who are victimized by the established order, and there are many, might especially feel a kinship with a Jesus who defied and rebuked the tyranny of institutional power."

Yeah. I feel a kinship with Jesus. But not because I feel victimized by the established order, or because he defied and rebuked the tryranny of institutional power. I feel a kinship because God has adopted me as a son.

1 John 3:1-3, Ephesians 1 and 2, Luke 9:28-36, John 17:1-5

There are many more scriptures that testify that Jesus is the son. Jesus lived out his priorities to perfection, not the best he could, because he is the son of God who existed before the world was created.

by: Patricia

02-15-2010 @ 9:41pm

But, many people DO feel a kinship with Jesus exactly because "Those persons who are victimized by the established order, and there are many, might especially feel a kinship with a Jesus who defied and rebuked the tyranny of institutional power."

Many people progress on to the kinship you feel, some do not. Have you been given authority to judge the validity of the manner in which others come to Jesus?

by: Patricia

02-15-2010 @ 9:48pm

I could be mistaken, but I don't think the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, as understood by the majority of Christians, is a necessary tenet of faith for Quakers.

Which doesn't mean that NO Quakers hold this belief, just that not all of them do.

And, in my own opinion it also doesn't mean that those who do not hold that belief have nothing to contribute to those of us who do. We have a tendency to narrow our focus to particular trees, at the expense of being able to see the forest.

by: Patricia

02-15-2010 @ 9:50pm

I could be mistaken, but I don't think the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, as understood by the majority of Christians, is a necessary tenet of faith for Quakers.

Which doesn't mean that NO Quakers hold this belief, just that not all of them do.

And, in my own opinion it also doesn't mean that those who do not hold that belief have nothing to contribute to those of us who do. We have a tendency to narrow our focus to particular trees, at the expense of being able to see the forest.

by: Patricia

02-15-2010 @ 9:51pm

I could be mistaken, but I don't think the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, as understood by the majority of Christians, is a necessary tenet of faith for Quakers.

Which doesn't mean that NO Quakers hold this belief, just that not all of them do.

And, in my own opinion it also doesn't mean that those who do not hold that belief have nothing to contribute to those of us who do. We have a tendency to narrow our focus to particular trees, at the expense of being able to see the forest.

by: squeaky

02-15-2010 @ 9:53pm

Don't really get why those statements would be read as Gulley not thinking Jesus was the Son of God. Just because he said some might find Him attractive for this or that reason does not mean he is saying He didn't think Jesus was the Son of God. Certainly, we who call ourselves Christian are attracted to Jesus for a number of reasons.

by: Kris Hagel

02-15-2010 @ 10:24pm

Interesting Blog here. I have been wondering, in my own small way, if the traditional church has some how been preaching a 'corrupted' [ as in like a computer file infected by a virus] Gospel over the past few Centuries. My thought here is that Jesus did not set out to create a church [ much less die for us to sit in one] but He was here to start a Movement. Just a thought

by: Jesusistheway

02-15-2010 @ 10:49pm

Then why did Jesus tell Peter "upon this rock I will build my church?" In Spanish, the word used for church is "iglesia" or people. The church is not a building but living beings working together to bring the Word of God to a hurting, sinful world. And at the core of being the church is the worship of God, among which is to be in His temple praising Him. We should never try to mold Jesus into our own image, which is what many try to do.

by: Patricia

02-15-2010 @ 11:15pm

After some more research, there seems to be some tension between "unprogrammed" Quakers and those holding the more traditional view - the traditional view being that Jesus IS the Son of God, crucified, died, and resurrected.

It does sound to me as if Mr. Gulley does not hold the traditional view...from statements quoted by NC77 and hammerud.

by: John Mulholland

02-16-2010 @ 12:49am

"We have a tendency to narrow our focus to particular trees, at the expense of being able to see the forest."

I'm not sure I understand this. What I read you writing is that "Jesus being God is just one tree among many, and as such, the forest is made of many, so how can we focus on just one". Am I misunderstanding your analogy?

by: letjusticerolldown

02-16-2010 @ 1:10am

I think we get hung up on too many issues around wine and wineskins--i.e. about form and spirit.

The spiritual life is not the form we give to it. But on the other hand--the spiritual life does not exist if it is not given form.

And the spiritual life within us is not nurtured aside from it being formed.

We need to stop worshipping and stop dismissing the forms of our spiritual life on Earth.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

02-16-2010 @ 1:23am

WHAT IF THE CHURCH WERE "THE WAY" AND THE MEMBERS WERE "BELIEVERS"?

Why don't you folks understand that "Christian" was originally created as a epithet to make fun of the Believers who preached about the Anointed (One)?

If churches were scripturally correct, there would be quite a few of them in an average sized town and they would all be Pentecostal in doctrine, too.

by: Patricia

02-16-2010 @ 1:45am

Yes, I think you are misunderstanding the analogy - or perhaps I put it poorly :).

What I mean is that sometimes Christians are so focused on the particulars of belief (a particular "tree") that they cannot see that there are others who do not believe but still have valuable points and ideas to contribute - even about "us".

Or, sometimes some Christians discount anything someone who is not the same species of tree we are might say, believing that no truth can come from anything other than our particular species of tree.

That's what I meant by being focused on a particular tree - there are other trees in the forest. They may not be the same species as we are, but they still contribute to the forest ecosystem.

Of course, I am not one of the variety of Christians who believe that God created people of other faiths or no faith at all simply to be converted or be damned, either. I believe each soul is precious to God, and each soul sincerely seeking God will find God. I believe Christianity is MY path, but I don't believe it's the ONLY path.

I know I'm probably going to get it for that, but that is my belief :).

by: Palosaari

03-13-2010 @ 2:55am

It seems like the author would say that Jesus intended to create a movement, and not an institution, so not a church, but also, that he intended to create church, in that he intended to create families.

by: fundamentalist

02-16-2010 @ 12:14pm

When I find I'm wrong I change my mind.

by: fundamentalist

02-16-2010 @ 12:21pm

I agree. Neither Jesus nor Paul appear to have envisioned the organizations that have built up over the centuries. The original church was patterned after the synagogue for obvious reasons, without a hierarchy. However, that doesn't mean that what has developed is wrong. There is a lot of freedom within the framework outlined by Jesus and the apostles. However, whatever the organization, Christians are responsible first to God, the Bible, and their local group of Christians, not the organization.

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-16-2010 @ 1:08pm

The Bible says He learned obedience through the things He suffered and that His ministry didn't always take the direction He desired. Does this mean He was any less God to you?

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-16-2010 @ 1:14pm

Not that you have ever "rewritten" the Gospel.

by: ckgmail

02-16-2010 @ 1:14pm

Is your understanding of Borg from reading Borg, or from reading or hearing what someone else says about Borg? They do not seek to rewrite the Gospel (singular) but to understand Jesus in the light of the gospels (plural). Even as a Sunday School reader I noticed a huge difference in the Gospel of John and the synoptic Gospels. And more careful studies (beyond the Sunday School level) reveal layers in the synoptics leading to source theories. And yes, one can engage these studies, and learn from them, and still believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. More important than believing THAT Jesus is the Christ (the devils believe and tremble) is to order our lives to the best we can to follow that WAY, and where we fail to follow that WAY, to trust in Jesus for the difference.

More on the subject of this blog, I have long been troubled by the apparent unChristlikeness of the institutional church, but have to realize that it is made up of imperfect folks like me. Our imperfections are not alike, but we are alike in the fact of our imperfections. I am straight. I confess that I do not understand homosexual impulses. But I do understand sexual impulses. I have been physically faithful to my wife during the more than half century of our marriage. But I have lusted, and I think Jesus equated lust to adultery. Jesus said nary a word about homosexuality, but a lot about fallen heterosexuality. Divorce equals adultery in one of the gospels. Divorce except for adultery equals adultery in another gospel. So when I am in a group where I know there are divorced/remarried people loudly condemning homosexuals, I think of Jesus statement, "Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not see the log in your own eye? . . . You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye." (Mt. 7:3, 5)

by: Patricia

02-18-2010 @ 1:34pm

I understand that Jesus was completely God, and that before he was begotten in human form he was all-knowing - it's the period of time in which he was fully human (and still fully God) that I wonder about...

by: Charles Kiker

06-07-2011 @ 1:37pm

LinkedIn

------------

I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.

- Charles

Charles Kiker

Interim Minister at American Baptist Churches

Amarillo, Texas Area

Confirm that you know Charles Kiker

https://www.linkedin.com/e/j1j...

--

(c) 2011, LinkedIn Corporation

by: Palosaari

03-13-2010 @ 12:55am

It seems like the author would say that Jesus intended to create a movement, and not an institution, so not a church, but also, that he intended to create church, in that he intended to create families.

by: BlueDeacon

02-16-2010 @ 5:02pm

Let's keep in mind several things.

1) The early church was basically running for its life and had virtually no friends, especially in authority.

2) Its members were of the belief that Jesus would return in their lifetimes, basically to set things straight.

Since Christianity is now socially acceptable and Jesus hasn't returned yet, it's taken all the trappings of an institution, with different theologies, denominations and such.

by: Charles Kiker

06-07-2011 @ 1:37pm

LinkedIn

------------

I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.

- Charles

Charles Kiker

Interim Minister at American Baptist Churches

Amarillo, Texas Area

Confirm that you know Charles Kiker

https://www.linkedin.com/e/j1j...

--

(c) 2011, LinkedIn Corporation

by: hammerud

02-16-2010 @ 8:06pm

No. He was completely God and completely man. As God, He humbled
Himself to fully experience the limitations of humanity. As it says
in Hebrews, "for we have not an high priest which cannot be touched
with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted
like as we are, yet without sin." I understand it, but there are
heretical views out there in Christian discourse. I was responding to
a comment on the article by another person who apparently had the same
question as I did as to the author's position on the Deity of Christ
based upon what was written.

by: hammerud

02-16-2010 @ 9:14pm

The Deity of Christ is an essential doctrine for a person to hold in order to be a Christian. Here is a quote from John Walvoord, "while Christians may differ on certain aspects of prophecy as well as other areas of doctrine, there is an irreducible minimum to a true Christian theology apart from which Christianity loses its meaning and significance." The Deity of Christ is essential and is part of the "doctrine of Christ," referred to in 2 John 9 highlights. If Jesus Christ was not God, His sacrificial death in payment for our sin would not reach to the level of God. Sufficient payment for sin against God requires payment by God. The sacrifice of any created entity would be insufficient.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: NC77

02-15-2010 @ 6:11pm

Does Gulley see Jesus as the Son of God?

by: NC77

02-15-2010 @ 6:11pm

Does Gulley see Jesus as the Son of God?

by: fundamentalist

02-15-2010 @ 6:14pm

Jesus understood that Satan would generate many counterfeit Christians that would be a part of the church. He gave the parable of the sower and tares to warn us not to try to determine which were the true and false believers.

The dichotomy between Paul and Jesus is false. Paul never did anything that Jesus didn't do. Jesus raised funds, after all. What was Judas stealing from?

by: fundamentalist

02-15-2010 @ 6:14pm

Jesus understood that Satan would generate many counterfeit Christians that would be a part of the church. He gave the parable of the sower and tares to warn us not to try to determine which were the true and false believers.

The dichotomy between Paul and Jesus is false. Paul never did anything that Jesus didn't do. Jesus raised funds, after all. What was Judas stealing from?

by: SamHamilton

02-15-2010 @ 6:29pm

Does anything he says lead you to believe he doesn't?

by: SamHamilton

02-15-2010 @ 6:29pm

Does anything he says lead you to believe he doesn't?

by: facebook-1596654777

02-15-2010 @ 6:39pm

I don't quite follow the distinction between Jesus and Paul in Gulley's comments on "church." To suggest Jesus did not intend a "church" seems to avoid readings of Matthew (the well known upon this rock verses). While I do not disagree that the "church" as we know it and practice it may not be a fully faithful version of what was intended, the language Jesus was leery and probably suspected seems to undercut the divinity of the Christ and point to church as a human creation - as opposed to a divine creation operated by a fallen humanity. I suspect one of the reasons the Spirit was sent was to enable humanity to maintain a barrier to the foreseen and inevitably corrupting touch of humanity upon the church.

by: facebook-1596654777

02-15-2010 @ 6:39pm

I don't quite follow the distinction between Jesus and Paul in Gulley's comments on "church." To suggest Jesus did not intend a "church" seems to avoid readings of Matthew (the well known upon this rock verses). While I do not disagree that the "church" as we know it and practice it may not be a fully faithful version of what was intended, the language Jesus was leery and probably suspected seems to undercut the divinity of the Christ and point to church as a human creation - as opposed to a divine creation operated by a fallen humanity. I suspect one of the reasons the Spirit was sent was to enable humanity to maintain a barrier to the foreseen and inevitably corrupting touch of humanity upon the church.

by: ford49

02-15-2010 @ 7:46pm

Your sense of humility is staggering...are you always right?? What would Jesus do if we didn't have you to tell us who was false and who wasn't.

by: ford49

02-15-2010 @ 7:46pm

Your sense of humility is staggering...are you always right?? What would Jesus do if we didn't have you to tell us who was false and who wasn't.

by: hammerud

02-15-2010 @ 8:40pm

Perhaps the comment "I think the priorities of Jesus were to live out the values of God, as he understood them, as radically and faithfully as he could." That may be true, but as God, I am quite sure He understood them. Made me wonder if this person recognized that He was God.

by: hammerud

02-15-2010 @ 8:40pm

Perhaps the comment "I think the priorities of Jesus were to live out the values of God, as he understood them, as radically and faithfully as he could." That may be true, but as God, I am quite sure He understood them. Made me wonder if this person recognized that He was God.

by: Jesusistheway

02-15-2010 @ 9:04pm

It should be fair to point out that Marcus Borg is part of the Jesus Seminar, who have basically taken it upon themselves to rewrite the Gospel. My understanding is that Borg does not believe in the historical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, of which is fundamental to historical, evangelical Christianity. Some people only want to paint Jesus as a revolutionary and pacifist. The core of Jesus' message is that He came to set us free from sin and death. Ironically, liberal Christians twist the message of the Gospel as much or more as more conservative Christians.

by: Jesusistheway

02-15-2010 @ 9:04pm

It should be fair to point out that Marcus Borg is part of the Jesus Seminar, who have basically taken it upon themselves to rewrite the Gospel. My understanding is that Borg does not believe in the historical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, of which is fundamental to historical, evangelical Christianity. Some people only want to paint Jesus as a revolutionary and pacifist. The core of Jesus' message is that He came to set us free from sin and death. Ironically, liberal Christians twist the message of the Gospel as much or more as more conservative Christians.

by: NC77

02-15-2010 @ 9:17pm

True. What do make of 1 John 4? Are we not to test the spirits to see if they are from God?

by: NC77

02-15-2010 @ 9:17pm

True. What do make of 1 John 4? Are we not to test the spirits to see if they are from God?

by: NC77

02-15-2010 @ 9:29pm

Sure. This statement does.

"It's very tempting to read our own priorities and values into the life of Jesus. I do it myself. Those persons who are victimized by the established order, and there are many, might especially feel a kinship with a Jesus who defied and rebuked the tyranny of institutional power. I think the priorities of Jesus were to live out the values of God, as he understood them, as radically and faithfully as he could. That desire would naturally compel him to speak out against all tyranny, whether it was political, personal, religious, or cultural. I suspect Jesus had a bit of the anarchist in him, but I don't think that's all he was, or even who he primarily was."

Concerning this statement.

"Those persons who are victimized by the established order, and there are many, might especially feel a kinship with a Jesus who defied and rebuked the tyranny of institutional power."

Yeah. I feel a kinship with Jesus. But not because I feel victimized by the established order, or because he defied and rebuked the tryranny of institutional power. I feel a kinship because God has adopted me as a son.

1 John 3:1-3, Ephesians 1 and 2, Luke 9:28-36, John 17:1-5

There are many more scriptures that testify that Jesus is the son. Jesus lived out his priorities to perfection, not the best he could, because he is the son of God who existed before the world was created.

by: NC77

02-15-2010 @ 9:29pm

Sure. This statement does.

"It's very tempting to read our own priorities and values into the life of Jesus. I do it myself. Those persons who are victimized by the established order, and there are many, might especially feel a kinship with a Jesus who defied and rebuked the tyranny of institutional power. I think the priorities of Jesus were to live out the values of God, as he understood them, as radically and faithfully as he could. That desire would naturally compel him to speak out against all tyranny, whether it was political, personal, religious, or cultural. I suspect Jesus had a bit of the anarchist in him, but I don't think that's all he was, or even who he primarily was."

Concerning this statement.

"Those persons who are victimized by the established order, and there are many, might especially feel a kinship with a Jesus who defied and rebuked the tyranny of institutional power."

Yeah. I feel a kinship with Jesus. But not because I feel victimized by the established order, or because he defied and rebuked the tryranny of institutional power. I feel a kinship because God has adopted me as a son.

1 John 3:1-3, Ephesians 1 and 2, Luke 9:28-36, John 17:1-5

There are many more scriptures that testify that Jesus is the son. Jesus lived out his priorities to perfection, not the best he could, because he is the son of God who existed before the world was created.

by: Patricia

02-15-2010 @ 9:41pm

But, many people DO feel a kinship with Jesus exactly because "Those persons who are victimized by the established order, and there are many, might especially feel a kinship with a Jesus who defied and rebuked the tyranny of institutional power."

Many people progress on to the kinship you feel, some do not. Have you been given authority to judge the validity of the manner in which others come to Jesus?

by: Patricia

02-15-2010 @ 9:41pm

But, many people DO feel a kinship with Jesus exactly because "Those persons who are victimized by the established order, and there are many, might especially feel a kinship with a Jesus who defied and rebuked the tyranny of institutional power."

Many people progress on to the kinship you feel, some do not. Have you been given authority to judge the validity of the manner in which others come to Jesus?

by: Patricia

02-15-2010 @ 9:48pm

I could be mistaken, but I don't think the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, as understood by the majority of Christians, is a necessary tenet of faith for Quakers.

Which doesn't mean that NO Quakers hold this belief, just that not all of them do.

And, in my own opinion it also doesn't mean that those who do not hold that belief have nothing to contribute to those of us who do. We have a tendency to narrow our focus to particular trees, at the expense of being able to see the forest.

by: Patricia

02-15-2010 @ 9:48pm

I could be mistaken, but I don't think the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, as understood by the majority of Christians, is a necessary tenet of faith for Quakers.

Which doesn't mean that NO Quakers hold this belief, just that not all of them do.

And, in my own opinion it also doesn't mean that those who do not hold that belief have nothing to contribute to those of us who do. We have a tendency to narrow our focus to particular trees, at the expense of being able to see the forest.

by: Patricia

02-15-2010 @ 9:50pm

I could be mistaken, but I don't think the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, as understood by the majority of Christians, is a necessary tenet of faith for Quakers.

Which doesn't mean that NO Quakers hold this belief, just that not all of them do.

And, in my own opinion it also doesn't mean that those who do not hold that belief have nothing to contribute to those of us who do. We have a tendency to narrow our focus to particular trees, at the expense of being able to see the forest.

by: Patricia

02-15-2010 @ 9:50pm

I could be mistaken, but I don't think the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, as understood by the majority of Christians, is a necessary tenet of faith for Quakers.

Which doesn't mean that NO Quakers hold this belief, just that not all of them do.

And, in my own opinion it also doesn't mean that those who do not hold that belief have nothing to contribute to those of us who do. We have a tendency to narrow our focus to particular trees, at the expense of being able to see the forest.

by: Patricia

02-15-2010 @ 9:51pm

I could be mistaken, but I don't think the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, as understood by the majority of Christians, is a necessary tenet of faith for Quakers.

Which doesn't mean that NO Quakers hold this belief, just that not all of them do.

And, in my own opinion it also doesn't mean that those who do not hold that belief have nothing to contribute to those of us who do. We have a tendency to narrow our focus to particular trees, at the expense of being able to see the forest.

by: Patricia

02-15-2010 @ 9:51pm

I could be mistaken, but I don't think the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, as understood by the majority of Christians, is a necessary tenet of faith for Quakers.

Which doesn't mean that NO Quakers hold this belief, just that not all of them do.

And, in my own opinion it also doesn't mean that those who do not hold that belief have nothing to contribute to those of us who do. We have a tendency to narrow our focus to particular trees, at the expense of being able to see the forest.

by: squeaky

02-15-2010 @ 9:53pm

Don't really get why those statements would be read as Gulley not thinking Jesus was the Son of God. Just because he said some might find Him attractive for this or that reason does not mean he is saying He didn't think Jesus was the Son of God. Certainly, we who call ourselves Christian are attracted to Jesus for a number of reasons.

by: squeaky

02-15-2010 @ 9:53pm

Don't really get why those statements would be read as Gulley not thinking Jesus was the Son of God. Just because he said some might find Him attractive for this or that reason does not mean he is saying He didn't think Jesus was the Son of God. Certainly, we who call ourselves Christian are attracted to Jesus for a number of reasons.

by: Kris Hagel

02-15-2010 @ 10:24pm

Interesting Blog here. I have been wondering, in my own small way, if the traditional church has some how been preaching a 'corrupted' [ as in like a computer file infected by a virus] Gospel over the past few Centuries. My thought here is that Jesus did not set out to create a church [ much less die for us to sit in one] but He was here to start a Movement. Just a thought

by: Kris Hagel

02-15-2010 @ 10:24pm

Interesting Blog here. I have been wondering, in my own small way, if the traditional church has some how been preaching a 'corrupted' [ as in like a computer file infected by a virus] Gospel over the past few Centuries. My thought here is that Jesus did not set out to create a church [ much less die for us to sit in one] but He was here to start a Movement. Just a thought

by: Jesusistheway

02-15-2010 @ 10:49pm

Then why did Jesus tell Peter "upon this rock I will build my church?" In Spanish, the word used for church is "iglesia" or people. The church is not a building but living beings working together to bring the Word of God to a hurting, sinful world. And at the core of being the church is the worship of God, among which is to be in His temple praising Him. We should never try to mold Jesus into our own image, which is what many try to do.

by: Jesusistheway

02-15-2010 @ 10:49pm

Then why did Jesus tell Peter "upon this rock I will build my church?" In Spanish, the word used for church is "iglesia" or people. The church is not a building but living beings working together to bring the Word of God to a hurting, sinful world. And at the core of being the church is the worship of God, among which is to be in His temple praising Him. We should never try to mold Jesus into our own image, which is what many try to do.

by: Patricia

02-15-2010 @ 11:15pm

After some more research, there seems to be some tension between "unprogrammed" Quakers and those holding the more traditional view - the traditional view being that Jesus IS the Son of God, crucified, died, and resurrected.

It does sound to me as if Mr. Gulley does not hold the traditional view...from statements quoted by NC77 and hammerud.

by: Patricia

02-15-2010 @ 11:15pm

After some more research, there seems to be some tension between "unprogrammed" Quakers and those holding the more traditional view - the traditional view being that Jesus IS the Son of God, crucified, died, and resurrected.

It does sound to me as if Mr. Gulley does not hold the traditional view...from statements quoted by NC77 and hammerud.

by: John Mulholland

02-16-2010 @ 12:49am

"We have a tendency to narrow our focus to particular trees, at the expense of being able to see the forest."

I'm not sure I understand this. What I read you writing is that "Jesus being God is just one tree among many, and as such, the forest is made of many, so how can we focus on just one". Am I misunderstanding your analogy?

by: John Mulholland

02-16-2010 @ 12:49am

"We have a tendency to narrow our focus to particular trees, at the expense of being able to see the forest."

I'm not sure I understand this. What I read you writing is that "Jesus being God is just one tree among many, and as such, the forest is made of many, so how can we focus on just one". Am I misunderstanding your analogy?

by: letjusticerolldown

02-16-2010 @ 1:10am

I think we get hung up on too many issues around wine and wineskins--i.e. about form and spirit.

The spiritual life is not the form we give to it. But on the other hand--the spiritual life does not exist if it is not given form.

And the spiritual life within us is not nurtured aside from it being formed.

We need to stop worshipping and stop dismissing the forms of our spiritual life on Earth.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-16-2010 @ 1:10am

I think we get hung up on too many issues around wine and wineskins--i.e. about form and spirit.

The spiritual life is not the form we give to it. But on the other hand--the spiritual life does not exist if it is not given form.

And the spiritual life within us is not nurtured aside from it being formed.

We need to stop worshipping and stop dismissing the forms of our spiritual life on Earth.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

02-16-2010 @ 1:23am

WHAT IF THE CHURCH WERE "THE WAY" AND THE MEMBERS WERE "BELIEVERS"?

Why don't you folks understand that "Christian" was originally created as a epithet to make fun of the Believers who preached about the Anointed (One)?

If churches were scripturally correct, there would be quite a few of them in an average sized town and they would all be Pentecostal in doctrine, too.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

02-16-2010 @ 1:23am

WHAT IF THE CHURCH WERE "THE WAY" AND THE MEMBERS WERE "BELIEVERS"?

Why don't you folks understand that "Christian" was originally created as a epithet to make fun of the Believers who preached about the Anointed (One)?

If churches were scripturally correct, there would be quite a few of them in an average sized town and they would all be Pentecostal in doctrine, too.

by: Patricia

02-16-2010 @ 1:45am

Yes, I think you are misunderstanding the analogy - or perhaps I put it poorly :).

What I mean is that sometimes Christians are so focused on the particulars of belief (a particular "tree") that they cannot see that there are others who do not believe but still have valuable points and ideas to contribute - even about "us".

Or, sometimes some Christians discount anything someone who is not the same species of tree we are might say, believing that no truth can come from anything other than our particular species of tree.

That's what I meant by being focused on a particular tree - there are other trees in the forest. They may not be the same species as we are, but they still contribute to the forest ecosystem.

Of course, I am not one of the variety of Christians who believe that God created people of other faiths or no faith at all simply to be converted or be damned, either. I believe each soul is precious to God, and each soul sincerely seeking God will find God. I believe Christianity is MY path, but I don't believe it's the ONLY path.

I know I'm probably going to get it for that, but that is my belief :).

by: Patricia

02-16-2010 @ 1:45am

Yes, I think you are misunderstanding the analogy - or perhaps I put it poorly :).

What I mean is that sometimes Christians are so focused on the particulars of belief (a particular "tree") that they cannot see that there are others who do not believe but still have valuable points and ideas to contribute - even about "us".

Or, sometimes some Christians discount anything someone who is not the same species of tree we are might say, believing that no truth can come from anything other than our particular species of tree.

That's what I meant by being focused on a particular tree - there are other trees in the forest. They may not be the same species as we are, but they still contribute to the forest ecosystem.

Of course, I am not one of the variety of Christians who believe that God created people of other faiths or no faith at all simply to be converted or be damned, either. I believe each soul is precious to God, and each soul sincerely seeking God will find God. I believe Christianity is MY path, but I don't believe it's the ONLY path.

I know I'm probably going to get it for that, but that is my belief :).

by: fundamentalist

02-16-2010 @ 12:14pm

When I find I'm wrong I change my mind.

by: fundamentalist

02-16-2010 @ 12:14pm

When I find I'm wrong I change my mind.

by: fundamentalist

02-16-2010 @ 12:21pm

I agree. Neither Jesus nor Paul appear to have envisioned the organizations that have built up over the centuries. The original church was patterned after the synagogue for obvious reasons, without a hierarchy. However, that doesn't mean that what has developed is wrong. There is a lot of freedom within the framework outlined by Jesus and the apostles. However, whatever the organization, Christians are responsible first to God, the Bible, and their local group of Christians, not the organization.

by: fundamentalist

02-16-2010 @ 12:21pm

I agree. Neither Jesus nor Paul appear to have envisioned the organizations that have built up over the centuries. The original church was patterned after the synagogue for obvious reasons, without a hierarchy. However, that doesn't mean that what has developed is wrong. There is a lot of freedom within the framework outlined by Jesus and the apostles. However, whatever the organization, Christians are responsible first to God, the Bible, and their local group of Christians, not the organization.

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-16-2010 @ 1:08pm

The Bible says He learned obedience through the things He suffered and that His ministry didn't always take the direction He desired. Does this mean He was any less God to you?

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-16-2010 @ 1:08pm

The Bible says He learned obedience through the things He suffered and that His ministry didn't always take the direction He desired. Does this mean He was any less God to you?

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-16-2010 @ 1:14pm

Not that you have ever "rewritten" the Gospel.

by: PASTOR JEFF

02-16-2010 @ 1:14pm

Not that you have ever "rewritten" the Gospel.