Posted by Helen on: 09.01.2006 /
In comment #33 of God is Egotistical, Mike O wrote:
Barna did a survey once (I think it was Barna) and asked people what was their general opinion of Jesus Christ, and the responses were generally positive. But when the same people were asked what was their general opinion of Christians, the responses were generally negative.
What’s up with that?!?
Comment by: Helen
1I think people think Jesus is ok because their perception of him is that he thinks (would think) they’re ok. And they think negatively of Christians because their perception is, Christians think negatively of them.
If this is true, what it means is, [many] Christians have higher standards than Jesus.
My sense from reading the gospels is: if people wanted to hang around Jesus, he let them. It’s extremely unlikely that he went through them one by one and said “You’re ‘welcome to hang out with me’ BUT I hope you realize that none of this counts unless you believe I’m actually God”.
According to Matthew 16 Peter got full marks for saying Jesus was God’s Messiah and God’s son. Jesus didn’t say “Weeellll….close in some ways but it doesn’t count unless you say I’m God”
Jesus didn’t set requirements for people before he interacted with them. With offers like “Hey, let’s have dinner together at your house” to Zaccheus in the tree, who probably was hoping for no more than a clear view of him, he was unexpectedly kind and gave unexpected attention.
Evangelical churches often say anyone is ‘welcome’ but how welcome are you, if when you actually go to a service your first choice is, sing and say words you don’t agree with or stand out like a sore thumb; then you’re told you’d better not take communion; then you get to hear a sermon which as far as you are concerned is a string of unproven assertions; and which may well include misrepresentations of people like you - in fact your group might even be made fun of. And if you try to say anything about this at the end, there’s a strong likelihood that you won’t be listened to and the only response you will get (albeit politely delivered) is the patronizing “Here’s why I’m right and you’re wrong”.
Comment by: jim
2Classic Helen
I agree
Comment by: Mike O
3Surprisingly, I agree with virtually eveything you said, Helen! That was the point of the quote that started this line. Christians are getting something wrong if we’re so abrasive and perceived so negatively.
Evangelical churches often say anyone is “welcome’ but how welcome are you, if when you actually go to a service your first choice is, sing and say words you don’t agree with or stand out like a sore thumb; then you’re told you’d better not take communion; then you get to hear a sermon which as far as you are concerned is a string of unproven assertions; and which may well include misrepresentations of people like you - in fact your group might even be made fun of. And if you try to say anything about this at the end, there’s a strong likelihood that you won’t be listened to and the only response you will get (albeit politely delivered) is the patronizing “Here’s why I’m right and you’re wrong”.
I don’t see anything you wrote here as unwelcoming except for a) making fun of you and b) saying I’m right and you’re wrong. We can disagree with other viewpoints but should never make fun of them. And we should never say “I’m right and you’re wrong” even if we believe it. We should just disagree.
But other than those extreme examples, if you go into an environment that you don’t fit, and they ‘welcome’ you but don’t morph to fit you, they still welcomed you. Even if you find out you don’t like it there, that doesn’t mean they didn’t welcome you.
Say you went to a mosque or buddhist or hindu temple. Do you see how they could welcome you but not change to fit you? Why should Christians do any different?
Comment by: Helen
4Mike wrote:
Those are great questions, Mike.
I think the issue is that - in my experience - in traditional evangelical church services, the “I’m right and you’re wrong” is implicitly and explicitly so pervasive. Members invite friends and relatives to convert them, not to hear their opinion.
That’s why I find what Jim started doing a few years ago so innovative and refreshing i.e. “Offer an ‘outsider’ $25 to attend your church service and give you his/her honest feedback about it”.
The idea that what an outsider has to say about a church service is worth listening to is not one I’ve found to be widely held in traditional evangelical churches.
Maybe its just me - but, I don’t know how to feel welcome in any group where people aren’t interested in my opinions except to the extent they can change them to match the group opinion (since they’re ‘wrong’). I don’t feel welcome in places where it’s evident that I’m not going to get a fair hearing.
Comment by: Mike O
5I agree. Evangelical Christians (myself included) have a long way to go when it comes to just listening to people. I was absolutely enthralled by Jim’s ‘Lost’ interviews and man on the street interviews in Portland and Philly. That’s why I’m using them as material for my OA group that starts next week. Christians have got to learn to listen.
Where I differ is that there is a purpose to the listening, and it goes beyond curiosity.
Comment by: Helen
6I’m looking forward to hearing how your OA group goes, Mike.
Actually I think there’s more common ground than that. We both see a purpose in the listening, which is to promote ’some sort of good’. The difference, I expect, is that you see ‘bringing someone to faith in Christ’ as the ultimate good. Whereas I am currently not able to affirm that as the ultimate good, for a number of reasons.
I’ve found that lack of assurance has had the helpful consequence of making me much more open to what people who don’t have that faith think. I didn’t realize how heavily I discounted many things about such people until I lost the ability to be sure faith in Christ was infinitely the best way. Now with the benefit of hindsight I can see I did. But, I also want to remember that this was unintentional on my part, so that I remember it’s probably unintentional when other Christians do it, also.
Comment by: Rachel
7I know what you mean, Helen. It’s like someone who acts like they want to be your friend but they are really just trying to sign you up for Amway. They are super friendly until it’s time for the Amway sales pitch. Then if you don’t want to join, they drop you like a hot potato. (I know I’m picking on Amway, but I know so many people who have had this exact experience with them.) The basis of the welcome is not “I value you and want to know you.” It’s “you are a target audience for me to pitch my product.”
Comment by: Helen
8Rachel - yes, that’s it. It’s not humans being normally interested in developing a relationship with one another. It’s one trying to sell the other something.
I went to my ex-church once this year (before the newspaper article came out) because I wanted to hear what a particular guest had to say. I liked his approach to building bridges with the LGBT community.
Anyway in the sermon following his remarks, there were comments made about how the Bible role-models grace to outsiders; that strong challenge to turn away from sin, or whatever, is reserved for Christians between one another.
That’s exactly my problem, I thought. Theologically I have as much problem being here as an outsider; but because people here think of me as an insider I am getting strongly challenged (at least by some), rather than grace.
I tried to say that to the pastor who preached afterwards and asked him “How can I get the grace outsiders get?” but he thought I meant “How can I come back to Christ?” so we were at cross-purposes.
Comment by: Paul
9I think that as a christian i am frequently wrong about stuff, i am often thoroughly dislikable and I don’t think that people should rate me over Jesus - he’d win hands down every time. Where maybe I see a glimmer of hope is that I have realised that i am a natural and modelling imperfection, getting better at owning my mistakes, sometimes really listening to other people and more and more realising that I am crap at doing this off my own back… i like having Jesus as an inspiring example and more than that my prayers for more of his character and less of my own as i practice this might actually be answered :)
Comment by: Mike O
10Helen, I hope it comes through in words, but I really do value the perspective you bring.
Actually I think there’s more common ground than that. We both see a purpose in the listening, which is to promote ’some sort of good’. The difference, I expect, is that you see “bringing someone to faith in Christ’ as the ultimate good.
Yes, I do. But short of that, 90% of the time, probably, people may not come to faith in Christ. Given that, am I willing to be nice anyway?? That answer has to be yes. That’s something evangelical Christians like myself don’t get yet.
That’s why I’m bringing everything I’m learning here back to my peeps in the evangelical world. I belong there and I believe God wants me to bring this message of ordinary attempts and doable evangelism back into my circle of influence.
Yes, I do believe the point should be to bring people to faith in Christ. And there is SO much I can learn from you and the others here to make Evangelical Christians paletable to the rest of the world.
Comment by: Mike O
11That 2nd paragraph was supposed to be a quote from Helen … sorry.
Comment by: Helen
12Paul thanks for your comments. Do you realize how likable of you it is (imo) that you admit you can be dislikable? :)
Mike wrote:
Thanks Mike - that’s one of our goals: to help Evangelical Christians have better relationships with other people. That’s part of what ‘helping Christians be normal’ means.
Comment by: jim
13Paul- I agree with Helen - it is very transparent of you to be that reflective
What prompted that?
What gives you the courage?
Comment by: Paul
14Thanks Helen/Jim - what prompted that - good Q!!
Ummm cos I think that christianity is about being imperfect, for me it’s about not straightening me out and flying me right - believe you me i’ve tried to do that with me and with other people - results more bent out of shape and more crashes!
Christianity doesn’t work for me if its not about admitting who I am rather than who I’d like the world to think I am. Jesus for me was about looking for those who realised they needed help not about those who thought they were ok - I admit I need help. In fact since i’ve started admitting I need help, started looking at all the crappy things I do and sharing that with God and with other folks I’ve found a lot more hope, grace and opportunities to change than in all the years I smiled on the outside and died on the inside… in fact i got very excited the other day to find my call was all about modelling imperfection :)
What gives me the courage - I had the good fortune to hang out with a snr pastor once who was a funny guy I clicked with and he talked about the stuff going on his life and I was stunned by how honest he was - him being honest gave me the courage/permission to start trying to be more honest and that. So now i guess i’ve become a bit of a evangelist for being who we are, I’m not Christ, I’m just a guy who digs the fact that he loves me with all my stuff and i don’t have to go round pretending that i have been perfected yet. For me that means I as a christian should be a lot more accepting, its clear that if Christ lets me hang with him then his standards are pretty low - even if his belief/hope for me is quite the opposite :)
Comment by: Mike O
15its clear that if Christ lets me hang with him then his standards are pretty low - even if his belief/hope for me is quite the opposite
Well put!
Comment by: dh
16Just because Jesus let them “hang around Him” didn’t mean that they truly accepted Him for Salvation. Many people He hanged around or hanged around Him didn’t Believe He was God and thus didn’t obtain eternal life. However, the great thing about Christ is He still cared for Him to be nice even to hang around those who never accepted His message enough for Salvation. I think the problem people have with Evangelical Christians like myself is the attitude of the message. It can sometimes besaid with a harsh tone. However, these days in time are so different than 200 years agao. 2000 years ago Jesus told the adulterer “go and sin no more’. When that is said in some circles these days people label the deliver of Jesus’s “go and sin no more” “intolerant” or worse “fundamentalist”, etc. you pcik the label. I believe one can lovingly say “go and sin no more” and one can before that get to know the person so that when the Holy Spirit leads us to say that we can operate great in His will.
Comment by: Helen
17dh wrote:
Yes, I think the tone Evangelical Christians use is important. The Bible says to be ready to give an answer with gentleness and respect - not with harshness.
Thanks for your comments, dh.
Comment by: Paul
18Here’s my Q - what did Jesus mean when he said “go and sin no more” - how do people react to that statement? What do folks think about how Jesus meant for people to react to it?
Comment by: Helen
19Interestingly, I’ve only been to my ex-church once this year and the one time I went the sermon was on that particular passage. The pastor pointed out how many ways Jesus showed grace to the woman. [It was a pretty good sermon [as sermons go].
I think context is everything: Jesus said “Go and sin no more” to the woman after levelling the playing field: he implied that all her accusers were sinners too and he removed the death penalty from her for her sin just as they were not about to be stoned for theirs. So when he said that to her he was not singling her out as The Sinner Here Today, which was what they had done. One reason people who aren’t Christians get annoyed with Christians is their perception that Christians do that to them.
Anyway, as I’ve heard a few times, one of the fascinating things about this story is, it takes two to commit adultery but her accusers had not brought the man caught in adultery with her. Why not? That made the whole situation extremely unfair from the outset.
Comment by: dh
20I believe what you said Helen but Jesus said what He said becauseshe actually acknowledged that she did sin. That was part of the context or the term “go and sin no more” wouldn’t be that. True He didn’t single out her sin but we mustn’t forget that Jesus also acknowledged to her that she did actually sin as well. It is a combination. This generation reacts to the delcaration “go and sin no more” because people don’t want to face the personal responsibility with sin. Hense, my statement “When that is said in some circles these days people label the deliver of Jesus’s “go and sin no more” “intolerant” or worse “fundamentalist”, etc. you pcik the label.”
True he leveled the playing field and didn’t single out her sin but He also acknowledged that her action were sin as well.
Comment by: dh
21If didn’t sin by commiting adultry Jesus wouldn’t have used the term “sin” in the first place with the woman. Hewasshowing Grace by saying you have the ability to overcome this sin by living out the Salvation made available to her by accepting forgiveness given to her from Christ. That is the ultimate Grace by having the ability to overcome the death sin and turning from sin.
Comment by: Helen
22dh wrote:
dh, I just looked at the passage (John 8) and I can’t see where she acknowledged that she sinned. Am I missing something?
Comment by: Mike O
23Helen, I think that’s just semantics. Are you suggesting she didn’t think she sinned?
Comment by: dh
24True maybe she rejected Christ and continued what she was doing and never received Salvation? However, this point you bring up wasn’t the main point of what I was saying. If you reread the entire posts above you can see what I’m getting at and the importance therein.
Comment by: Helen
25dh and Mike, it really isn’t semantics to me because I don’t see that we know whether she acknowledged her sin or not.
dh, I got distracted by that one thing because I had to go look and see what the woman actually said to Jesus. I have the same problems when I listen to sermons - if something confuses/puzzles me then I end up thinking about that instead of the rest of what’s being said.
I looked at the rest of what you wrote. I’m not sure what your main point was, actually. Could you tell me again?
Comment by: dh
26“I believe what you said Helen but Jesus said what He said because He actually acknowledged that she did sin. That was part of the context or the term “go and sin no more” wouldn’t be correct. True He didn’t single out her sin but we mustn’t forget that Jesus also acknowledged to her that she did actually sin as well. It is a combination. This generation reacts to the declaration “go and sin no more” because people don’t want to face the personal responsibility with sin. Hense, my statement “When that is said in some circles these days people label the deliver of Jesus’s “go and sin no more” “intolerant” or worse “fundamentalist”, etc. you pick the label.”
True he leveled the playing field and didn’t single out her sin but He also acknowledged that her action was sin as well. ”
Does this help? Any thoughts?
On the Mike statement there are only two possibilities: 1) she received eternal life by believing in the Saving power of Christ or 2) She continued in her sin and rejected Christ and didn’t receive theSaving power of Christ. We don’t know either one but that isn’t the point because Christ made Himself to her regardless of her response.
Comment by: Helen
27Hmmm…my thought is, “I’m trying not to sin any more. Want to join me?” probably would go down better than “Go and sin no more” from one human being to another.
Comment by: dh
28I think that is the problem rather than take Jesus for what He said and help people with a kind heart andsay “go and sin no more” (defined as accepting Christ as our Savior and thus be cleansed from the death of sin with a pursuit of Sanctification thereafter thru discipleship.) We make Jesus as “trying to not to sin” and/or rephrase it in such a way that actually acknowledging that the act is sin is not present. The fact is Jesus acknowledged that adultry was a sin. He also acknowledged that sin in general not just adultry is what we should turn away from as well. However, he did it in a kind, compassionate, relational way. I see a growing group of Christians
Comment by: Mike O
29dh said: We don’t know either one but that isn’t the point because Christ made Himself to her regardless of her response.
I don’t understand your point with this statement. Based on what you’ve posted earlier, we’re probably on the same page, but what did you mean?
Helen said: “I’m trying not to sin any more. Want to join me?” probably would go down better than “Go and sin no more” from one human being to another.
I don’t understand your point, either. He did say ‘go and sin no more’ and it wasn’t from one human being to another. It was from Jesus to another. I think this goes in the ‘it would be nice’ category, but that’s not what happened. Maybe I missed your point.
Comment by: dh
30THe Scripture doesn’t say what her actual response was it ends with Jesus saying “go and sin no more”. Christ did say what her response should be “go and sin no more” whether she made that response is not mentioned in the passage. Does that make sense? Where is it specifically do you need clarification. I think we are on the same page.
Comment by: Helen
31Mike wrote:
I meant, when we take Jesus as our role-model we need to be careful to distinguish between things he said and did because he was Jesus and things he said and did because they are appropriate for all of us to do. So that we follow him in a way that’s appropriate for us.
Comment by: dh
32If we have Jesus in us and we operate within His will we can say what He said with thesame authority because it isn’t us saying it but God through us. Hypothetically if I say to a friend of mine who is A drunk “being drunk is a sin when the HS tells me to” it isn’t I who say it but God because in God’s word it says it is a sin. When I speak what is God’s word under the power of the HS it isn’t myself talking but God talking through me. The same goes for any Believer.
(notice I said friend. I’m not going to push people away with my words but lovingly say what the Bible says once a connection has been made at some level like Jesus did with unbelievers.)
Comment by: Rachel
33I completely agree, Helen. We are not Jesus - we are humans who do sin and we should respond to others with humility. If we pretend we are perfect and look down on others as if they are the only ones who fail, then we are acting just like the Pharisees.
Comment by: Rachel
34I think that what Helen is saying is that we as humans can not stand in the place of judgment in the same way Jesus did. As dh pointed out, Jesus did acknowledge that the woman was a sinner. But Jesus also pointed out that the self-righteous Pharisees were sinners. Jesus said that whoever was without sin could cast the first stone. And we Christians believe that Jesus himself was without sin. So he could have cast a stone at her by his own standard but he did not. He said that he did not condemn her. Then he said “Go and sin no more” - in other words, “be transformed, change the way you are living.” And it was Jesus’ love, mercy and forgiveness which empowered her to change, not his condemnation.
So we as Christians may find at times that we need to speak out about another’s behavior. For example, if I was cheating on my husband, my Christian friends absolutely should confront me about it. But as Helen said, we must always approach another in humility, as someone who also struggles and falls and fails miserably at times. And we must never throw stones ie. decide that someone has failed so badly that they are beyond redemption. If Jesus who was perfect could love and forgive, how much more must we who are imperfect be willing to forgive.
Comment by: dh
35The question then since we don’t know that she repented or not and then assume that she didn’t repent. Could it be that she condemned herself by not accepting Christ? Since Jesus says “…they are condemned already”. John 3:17-19 “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.[a] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.”
Jesus says He doesn’t condemn people but that people “…stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”
Comment by: Paul
36thank you, I appreciate all the thoughts in response to my question. I only wondered as I often sin, altho not revealed as publically as this particular woman. It strikes me as an interesting contrast from the point of Jesus saying that he who is without sin can cast the first stone - to revealing no condemnation for the woman (and I like Helen’s point that Jesus doesn’t condem her despite no evidence of response from her) and then his final words about going and sinning no more.
As an evanglical it used to get my back up no end as it deliberately conflicts with personal declarations of faith in jesus to avoid condemnation, here Jesus does it for gratis. As a person it was one of those passages i love as it reveals the depth of God’s grace. Maybe the woman knew she was guilty, Jesus knew she was guilty, the crowd all knew it so he didn’t have to saying anything further.
I wonder whether rather than a one off this was in fact Jesus modelling something of the on going process - reminding me that I am not to go around throwing stones and that I how often am I going to hear jesus repeatedly saying to me i don’t condem you go and sin no more…
Comment by: Rachel
37I guess we just can’t know for sure, dh. Although I tend to believe that Jesus’ mercy and forgiveness did transform her life and that she found his love and grace to be irresistible.
Comment by: Mike O
38To dh in #30: thanks, that explains it. I think it was just a grammatical thing or a missing word or something, and I couldn’t get my brain to get that sentence to make sense.
Comment by: dh
39Rachel I agree I believe she repented. I believe that she did responded to Jesus offer of mercy and forgiveness and accepted the gift made available to her. I wanted to get that off my chest because I was really cloudig the picture. Thanks Rachel. :)
However, for the sake of argument lets say she didn’t repent since weare not 100% sure “Could it be that she condemned herself by not accepting Christ? Since Jesus says “…they are condemned already”. John 3:17-19″? I was just wondering. Paul this question is mentioned retorically to answer your “As an evanglical it used to get my back up no end as it deliberately conflicts with personal declarations of faith in jesus to avoid condemnation,…”