Increasingly I believe that after we are saved we have only one calling, and that is to show forth the existence and the character of God. Since God is love and God is holy, it is our calling to act in such a way as to demonstrate the existence of God–in other words to be and to act in such a way as to show forth His love and His holiness simultaneously. Further, I believe that the failure to show forth either of these is equally a perversion.
Of course, in one’s own strength it is only possible to show forth either love or holiness. But to show forth the holiness and love of God simultaneously requires much more. It requires a moment by moment work of the Holy Spirit in a very practical way. (71; also 59, 67, 126)
As I've said many, many, many, many, many, many, many times before, the postmodern innovator simply lacks a regenerate heart. This unredeemed mind works to build a god in their own image and focus on their distorted perverted view of love. They completely miss the Holiness of God and a true understanding of love.
3 comments:
Isn't this a gross over-simplification of salvation. Turning it into an instrumental reality for God rather than a liberation of the person by God because of God's joy in what God has created? I'm taking issue with the "only one calling" bit of the quote. I don't buy it. When we truncate our calling in such a way we miss the value of humanity that God felt worthwhile entering into (incarnation) and even dying for. While the statement may be true in an abstract sense (ironically) in that becoming fully human does show forth God's love and holiness, it is not the purpose. God doesn't need to self-promote and sell God's self. If that were the case there would be a whole lot less free will involved. God is interested in the human, complete and completely flawed, and in giving us the capacity to be wholly human. This includes the ability to play, laugh, cry, act, learn, and even create (as God's true children).
I know this isn't the point you were trying to make, it is what struck me about that quote. In terms of postmodern innovators - they have the same potential for distortion as modern innovators. After all the epistemology is the same, just postmodernity starts from different assumptions. I'm not convinced that distortion is always perversion though. Perversion carries too much baggage as a word to be useful for such a broad statement. I am always shocked at how often Christians call perversion on things that actually came from other Christians simply because they are ignorant of the person who created that thing. Postmodern, as a term, too easily becomes a way of writing off that which makes us vaguely uncomfortable.
Frank - thanks for the input. We disagree at several points ... we may agree on others ...
To the key point you wrestled with, "we have only one calling, and that is to show forth the existence and the character of God." I think there may be a number of ways to say this but I suspect there is not likely a way to say it that both you and I would align to. For me, this is another was of stating Q1 of The Shorter Catechism and I'm all in on that.
I'm all over Q1 too - but I want to take very seriously the enjoy God aspect. And I think there is a difference between glorifying God (which is done when we live the full humanity to which Christ's death and resurrection makes possible) and what we are called to do. We might be closer to finding common ground than I implied - but my concern is for words, like calling, that are often used in funny ways - sometimes usurping God's character or making God less that God actually is.
Blessings.
Post a Comment