I've been debating with myself as to whether I should reply to the song you posted in address to me.
Thank you for doing so! I don't consider it debate, FWIW. Sharing, seeking, whatevs. Thank you for typing out the words, and I agree even w/o all the lyrics this is lots to discuss. And as I fully expected, you grasped exactly what I was getting at, which is the main reason I posted the song.
As a musician myself, I'm glad you appreciate the other aspects involved besides just the lyrics but I also fully recognize someone else might not enjoy this particular song, calling it 'sappy.' This group also has stuff with drive, but that's entirely beside the point.
Who am I
That the lord of all the earth
Would care to know my name
Would care to feel my hurt
Who am I
That the bright and morning star
Would choose to light the way
For my ever wandering heart
Not because of who I am
But because of what you've done
Not because of what I've done
But because of who you are
I am a flower quickly fading
Here today and gone tomorrow
A wave tossed in the ocean
A vapor in the wind...
I am yours.
These guys hit hard. They point out sin and don't apologize, even when it's in the Church. They tackle tough issues. They don't distribute within the standard industry of Producers and Distributors, so that they escape their control and can follow their Lord. I respect that immensely. I also just condemned much of the contemporary Christian music industry, but I won't get into specifics w/o knowing the individuals involved, with any specific song being secondary.
I've also had the sheer joy (and pain) of performing over 10 of their songs over the past 3 years, in a Lutheran Church no less. One that I will be leaving within a few weeks, with some remorse. Unfortunately, most of that remorse is over the very talented musicians and not a strong and nurturing Body of believers, but I digress.
Casting Crowns also uses their "concerts" as an excuse for their cause of the day. When I saw them it was to raise money to dig wells for African villages whose children spend their entire childhood carrying water, precluding any possibility of education. When a village gets a functioning well, it's truly a life-changing experience for the entire community! This is the type of thing G-d put on my heart to do before I was 20. The difference is they're actually
doing it.
Shameless plug:
World Vision - Poverty in the United States of America
[Hmmm, my original link doesn't work. Not sure what that means so please research with your own due diligence but this organization still seems like the Love of Jesus to me]
First time I ever heard this group it was a song "The Voice of Truth," G-d spoke to me through it, and I couldn't find their CD because it was sold out everywhere. I still don't know if that's popularity or distribution problems
Just reviewing their song titles speaks powerfully! I wanted to post Voice of Truth here but chose Who Am I instead because it more closely addresses Glass Soul's point, as I perceive it.
Enough digression and onto my original point:
A relationship that is entirely one sided, in which one of the persons is entirely without merit beyond that which the other condescends to impute by the nature of his person, does not go to what I would define as love.
The analogies of flower, wave and vapor fall short of a crucial element needed in a loving relationship in that they are not capable of voluntary mutuality.
Tough issue isn't it? This matter of Jesus Loves me. Why? What did I do? What can I do? Why does it need a response? Scoffers can scoff all they want, but His life literally divided time, which we all observe.
My observation is that the Love from G-d to us is different than the love we can express to others. Our own love can never be 'mutual' w/ that of the Almighty, as GS aptly points out.
Are those not currently experiencing G-d's Love not aware of this distinction? It would seem to me the Church has failed to preach the Gospel. I'll spare you the theological type ideas I have on the subject that explain the root cause, as those aren't fully developed. The fact remains,
there's a difference between G-d Loving us and us loving our neighbor. One summary of the Gospel is it's primarily concerned with closing that gap, and can never be done via our own efforts. It takes G-d's own Love, yet still it will go through a metamorphosis before it extends from us to another, by necessity. As GS demonstrates.
This completely disgraces our own ability to "love," and can even be thought of as the offense of the cross, the stumbling block preventing Christ's acceptance. I know that's not what the text directly says, but it is an angle w/ some valid perspective. I think the benefit of this particular angle is to see what "accepting Christ" might mean, a little more clearly. Still, the Love of Jesus is very much an experiential thing, not an intellectual one.
If there is a being to whom we can direct only flattery and self deprecation, then we are reduced to simply existing beside that being. The being-with that love (as I would define it) demands must have an element of voluntary mutuality (as opposed to mere symbiosis) or it ceases to be.
I disagree w/ the first sentence here. We literally gain a NEW part of our existence upon being born again, which is 100% inside G-d and capable of communing with Him on His own level; or rather, on that of His Son's. I'm not at all comfortable referring to Him as a being, since my mind immediately perceives boundaries via closure; so i use what I can to stave that flaw off.
Still working with the first sentence of this snip, I WISH that upon re-birth I ceased to exist outside Him, however Salvation is not that simple. It's taken me a long time and much grief to accept the Wisdom of this, but the "old man" is a part of this life. Consistent w/ my tagline written by Harry, it's in a state of flux.
That can be good thing! Notice how this seamlessly addressed the 2nd sentence of this snip? Yes, G-d is
that humble, as to slip in undetected.
If I use the term "love" in that way, I lose its use for those relationships which are based on voluntary mutuality--mutual respect and generosity toward one another being of primary importance. (It might create a footnote to what I am saying here to point out that I have developed this definition out of my study of the gospel of Jesus.)
I'm not ready to tell the whole Church it's wrong on this subject, but this is far from the first time this thought has crossed my mind. Our Love we experience with G-d, (coming from Him first) is different than what we can do "in our own flesh." The subtle distinction between meekness and humility is about all that addresses this in the Bible, and those definitions are completely blurred in most translations in use today. What matters is that there
is a distinction, and if Christians (including myself) had no difficulty observing it there would be fewer problems.
So I take people's rejection of the Faith as legitimate feedback, pointing out room to grow and improve. Aspects of the Church that have violated this (throughout history and today) NEED a stern rebuke rather than being coddled. As B&w notes, I have no problem doing that
Over time, I have come to suspect that Jesus grokked that the surest route to the fullest possible consciousness of the being on the throne is to treat one another with the very mutuality (of respect and generosity) I have mentioned above, and that the identity of the figure on the throne will be made manifest most quickly and efficiently when we nurture this mutuality with the least amongst us: the poorest, the most helpless, the most damaged.
There is both Truth and Beauty in this, as well as an interesting usage of the term "grok."
How come my English teachers never taught me how to conjugate that verb? Was this grokking merely one-way, teaching by example, or did He have to "grow in wisdom and stature?" In any event, the fact that Jesus blended these 2 distinct forms of Love under discussion here was never intended to be sufficient for us to be able to follow in His footsteps; the Church is
supposed to continue and multiply that example. The Church as a whole cannot say amen, but only mea culpa. Maybe this is what veneration of Saints is about?
As Matthew 25 states, when we do this we find that they are mystically Christ. It is Christ to give and it is Christ to be in need. The concept creates a circle of mutual respect and generosity.
Yup, except not 'mystically' Christ but - CHRIST. As one who stands accused of being a mystic, I unashamedly say, "huh?" The Bible uses no such term, but does speak of 3 distinct spheres or realms of our existence. I do perceive all three so readily that I blur them, so have forced myself to learn (or try) to distinguish between them, and find it to be a real key to communication that is overlooked, and a cause of much needless misunderstanding and division.
On to darker stuff:
His seeming coldness to John the Baptist's plight worries me a little...
I noticed that too! Perhaps my first read through, very young. It challenged me, and the only possible resolution for the cognitive dissonance is that at least
Jesus believed these elements of the story were the will of His Father, which He should not interfere with. If we wanted to add
valid "Traditions" to Scripture in our attempt to follow Him along the Ancient Way, it would be things like what did Jesus say and feel about such things that
aren't recorded in Scripture. I have no hope of uncovering any such thing(s) by reading the ECF. (Again reading my tagline by Harry furnishes far more hope of such, or rather the Truth underlying it)
He seems to have thought he could prompt this awareness to such a degree, in one generation, in one place, and within the framework of the standing religion, that it would culminate in a nationwide mystical experience in which the Son of Man would arrive as from heaven, as if with angels. That the curtain would radically be torn between ourselves as ourselves and ourselves as projected as Deity. That the identity of the one on the sapphire throne would be fully and forever revealed.
I disagree, although I credit you for observing this from a plain reading of the text. His Disciples certainly had this impression, or something like it! And this also gives room for the doubts about His Divinity that we see regularly pop up from Muslims on CF. I think this was done on purpose, and it does raise the question, did even He really understand the meaning and time-frames involved? I don't think He was praying for such things in His own personal prayer time, but almost exclusively to overcome His own flesh and avoid sin. Other things we might pray for, He'd simply go
do.
The figurative element of His coming you present I
completely agree with, except for the large scale bit. It starts within ourselves; the Great Commission in figurative terms. Clearly the distinction you draw between 'ourselves and ourselves as Deity' is from an atheistic POV, which I don't concede to but respect your honesty. Following that train of thought a bit, is it possible you experience the Divine within and don't see a clear border where you end and He begins? As the veil is torn, i find no such border either, except by taking His Word at face value. Really gives more scope to "every good and perfect gift comes down from above," doesn't it?
And "be ye Holy" refers to dwelling exclusively in this very accessible aspect we find within. Just ask B&w
On to things darker yet. I confess I considered using the typical and manipulative online strategy of merely not responding to the following. I again thank you for your honesty:
Tragically he was wrong. I suspect, in reading his story, that his sense of himself, of his powers as a leader, of his ability to address the depths of need in the crush of the crowds that came to surround him, of his invulnerability to the powers that be, were too grandiose.
Au contraire. He knew His purpose. Under duress He had all the Prophets to remind Him of His intended fate, right back to Adam. Again w/ respect to Tradition, how did Mary deal with this conflict? Now
that would be valuable!! While I haven't searched all that thoroughly, it strikes me that if they had such info, that's what would be prominent rather than what they present.
My opinion on your quote here isn't speculation. He said plainly it was better for Him to go away, and we would do greater works than He would do. This refers to sheer numbers. He is not limited to one throne in Jerusalem, but has access to every heart on the globe. A zealous young believer is actively seeking out this issue currently, mistakenly thinking he's merely engaging me on CF
He hasn't yet clarified the valid questions of -
how is that access granted, and limited? I hope he uncovers things i don't know.
Continued:
She also receives more Grace, and gets more recognition as well; i.e., her humility was honored.
