Monday, May 15, 2006
How does one go about being friends with somebody whom he doesn't see often, hardly knows as a person, and never seems to be free enough to talk for extended preiods of time online?
Somebody teach me.
So last Thursday afternoon, out of the blue, Qianjin messaged me. Uh oh, I thought, must be something about Hope (church). And I was right! First he asked me how come he doesn't see me in church anymore. Well, how does one officially "quit" from a church, anyway? "Hi guys, I'm not coming to this church anymore, bye ya'll!"? In any case I have wondered from time to time what Daniel told the rest about me not going to Hope anymore, or even if he has told anybody at all? Not saying that I think he's bad-mouthing me in front of them or anything, cause he certainly is not that sort. Just that, I don't really think he'll tell them exactly the reason(s) I had, or the little argument (debate?) we had.
So QJ asked me if I would go back to Hope. And I told him that Hope is not the church I'm looking for, and briefly cited several issues I had with is and evangelical new-age churches in general. He replied with something interesting, along the lines of Hope being the only church he ever knew and stuff, and asked me to consider going back, saying that if I had doctrinal issues I should "teach" the church and help it to "grow" instead of leaving.
Now I had indeed considered going back and "exposing" all the dubious teachings they had. But my experience with Daniel right before I left stopped me. If he was typical of the church leaders, then there is not much I can do going back.
It's amazing how I have not backslided (much) after being church-less for so long. Everyone seemed to be shocked when I tell them "I don't have a church", but can't really answer me when I asked them what's wrong with not having a church. I think it's a wonderful experience. Everyone should take a break from church from time to time.
One of the bigger issues I have with Hope and other evangelical new-age churches is their advocating of a "personal relationship with Jesus". I never understood that, although I didn't really began to see the wrong of it until I started reading and doing my own study, that is, gaining knowledge from outside the church. Just how is one suppose to have a "personal relationship with Jesus", exactly? He is God, I am man. He is Perfect, I am Fallen. Evangelical churches advertise Jesus as a personal friend, like those $2 per minute friend chatlines. Facing problems? Talk to Jesus! Feeling down? Talk to Jesus! Jesus is your bestfriend!
It felt weird and wrong to me from the start, and now I can confidently tell these evangelical Christians: Jesus is your God - The Holy, Just, Righteous, Infinite, God. It's called reverence; start showing some.
An excerpt from an article titled "Leading Christian Myths":
"The modern hymn calls Jesus a "friend" and some may appeal to a verse in John where Jesus calls his disciples "friends". But the understanding of the word is decontextualized. People of the time of the Bible did not "get to know" each other as modern persons in the West do. A "friend" meant a person who looked out for your practical interests -- not someone you had beer and watched football with.
Even some preachers today (I am thinking of John MacArthur, but there are others) have lamented the modern view of God as a "buddy" as detracting from God's holiness. The result has been numerous corrupt theologies which see God as one who dispenses wealth like a gumball machine, and whose voice is constantly in one's head, sometimes defeating sound practice and doctrine but sometimes even just giving advice on what house to buy or what have you. This myth is a common one perpetrated by some persons of influence listed below.
But really, even a more common view can be misleading. Many evangelists speak of a "personal relationship with Jesus". The phrase is used to mean something not too far from the "God is my buddy" idea, in essence meaning we can talk to Jesus any time, and so on. If I had to correct this, I would say that what is required of us is a patronal relationship with Jesus. The NT explains our relationship with God in terms of a client-patron relationship, one in which God, as a client, is remote; and Jesus, as a broker, mediates between ourselves and God. Then we do have the indwelling Holy Spirit as a broker as well; but though the Spirit supplies us with mediation and perhaps power, there is nothing to show that the Spirit is some sort of intimate conversation partner. And finally, since people of the ancient world seldom "got to know each other" personally (as is taken for granted in modern, Western society) there is no way that NT writers could have had an idea like a "personal relationship with Jesus" in mind in the first place -- not as we perceive it.
Ironically, the view of God as a remote patron is the one that is most conducive to the view concerned Christians like MacArthur wish to see us return to. Perhaps then we would see a greater respect for God and His holiness, and less obsession with self-fulfillment, ranging from best-selling books having titles like The Purpose-Driven Life to our most popular songs being titled, "I Can Only Imagine" (focus on experience, not on fact)."
So will I go back to Hope? I don't really see myself doing so. Perhaps for a visit from time to time.
And, just for the record, I had a terrible weekend.
{/9:26 AM}
me