What does it mean that we're a "new creation in Christ"?

[mkgal1]

Does that mean that we no longer carry shame and defensiveness any longer? Does our "baggage" from the past just "wash away"? Because I don't believe that's what's meant by that.

I believe that God *has* forgiven us......but that is different that the process for us to work through our wrong-thinking, poor relational habits picked up by our families of origin, and even shame and defensiveness from our past.

The best example I can give is this talk given by Wm Paul Young (his personal story):

 

[mkgal1]

Of course.....most of us don't have the same sort of background as Paul Young does. Taking from EHS PDF....some "symptoms" of room to grow are things like:


1. Using God to run from God Few killer viruses are more difficult to discern than this one. In my case, using God to run from God is when I create a great deal of "God-activity" and ignore difficult areas in my life God wants to change. Some examples might be: --I use God to run from God when I do God's work to satisfy me, not Him. --I use God to run from God when I do things in His name He never asked me to do. ---I use God to run from God when my prayers are really about God doing my will, not my surrendering to His.

2. Ignoring the ungodly emotions of anger, sadness and fear Most Christians believe that anger, sadness, and fear are sins to be avoided , that something is wrong with our spiritual life. Like most Christians, I was taught that feelings were unreliable and not to be trusted. This applies especially to the more "difficult" feelings of fear, sadness, anger, hurt and pain.
The problem with this is it is not biblical and the practical implications of such a view is enormous. We end up as ½ human beings, suppressing our God-given humanity as men and women made in the image of God. We end up missing the many many ways God is actually speaking and coming to us.

3. Dying to the wrong things True, Jesus did say: "If anyone would come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me" (Luke 9:23). The question, however, is what does this mean. Yes, we are to die to the sinful parts of who we are —such as defensiveness, detachment from others, arrogance, stubbornness, hypocrisy, judgmentalism, running our own lives — as well as the more obvious sins described for us in Scripture. But we are not called by God to die to the "good" parts of who we are. God never asked us to die to the healthy desires and the pleasures of life — to friendships, joy, art, music, beauty, recreation, laughter and nature. God plants desires in our hearts so we will nurture and water them. These desires and passions are, very often, invitations and gifts from Him.

***4. Denying the past's impact on the present When we come to faith in Jesus Christ, whether as a child, teenager or adult, we are, in the dramatic language of the Bible, born again (see John 3:3). The apostle Paul describes this way: "The old has gone, the new has come!" That is our new status in Christ. Yet the work of growing or maturing in Christ (what theologians call sanctification) actually demands we go back in order to break free from unhealthy and destructive patterns that prevent us from going forward to what God has for us! The goal is to go forward, but we must get rid of the baggage we carry first. ~ http://www.emotionallyhealthy.org/w...em-of-Emotionally-Unhealthy-Spirituality-.pdf

http://www.emotionallyhealthy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Session-3-Go-Back-to-Go-Forward.pdf

 

[Dave-W]

Good and interesting stuff. But I am not sure what it has to do with egalitarianism....

 

[Greg J.]

Re: What does it mean that we're a "new creation in Christ"?

One of my favorite topics. Too broad a question for me to easily know what to say! We become a new creation when we are born again. Adam stops being the one from whom we inherited our spiritual nature, and God becomes the one from whom we inherit our spiritual nature. Who we are in God's sight changes radically. We were dead, but then we become alive. Through faith we died with Jesus on the cross and were raised with him at his resurrection. Who we become are beings cleansed from sin, joined with Jesus, so there are no longer two (him and "me"), but this new creation "in Christ" with each retaining their identity. Acting in agreement with God nurtures this connection. Acting against God's will deadens it.

Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. (1 Corinthians 5:7, 1984 NIV)

 

[mkgal1]

Good and interesting stuff. But I am not sure what it has to do with egalitarianism....

Originally that's not what was on my mind (how does this pertain to egalitarianism) it was just a continuation of a comment on another thread in this sub-forum.

But now that you ask--there does seem to be a correlation between patriarchal fundamentalist church teaching and the idea that once we "accept Christ" we don't have to look back or do any sort of self reflection of what beliefs and dysfunction we may be carrying forward. There's also a lot of teaching that dismisses--even demonizes--emotions in the patriarchal churches that would consider this "worldly psycho babble". It seems to me all of that has to do with people's desire for authority as a sort of way to avoid the messiness of life (along the lines that Scazzero's series mentions....maybe a way to use God to avoid difficulty?). IOW.....it's used like a fake facade to present that everything is okay....when it's not.

That's another reason why I mentioned a while ago that egalitarianism--to me--seems to stretch a lot farther than just an issue of male/female equality. It's more about everyone having the full encouragement to be all God has intended them to be--the full freedom to "live abundantly".

 

[mkgal1]

Acting in agreement with God nurtures this connection. Acting against God's will deadens it.

Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. (1 Corinthians 5:7, 1984 NIV)

That's a great verse for this topic. I notice the active wording...."get rid of the old yeast". To me that shows the need for our participation--and the need for discernment of what that even looks like. Another verse paints a visual to me is Eph 4:22:

Regarding your former way of life, you were taught to strip off your old nature, which is being ruined by its deceptive desires, to be renewed in your mental attitude, and to clothe yourselves with the new nature, which was created according to God's image in righteousness and true holiness.

 

[mkgal1]

Also.....I'm not really speaking about "sinful ways".....more about unhealthy attitudes and behaviors that are crippling to us and our relationships. Things like what Pete Scazzero outlined of his own baggage:

I Had Cultural, Not Biblical, Expectations for Marriage and Family

Third, my beliefs regarding marriage and gender roles were shaped much more strongly by my family than Scripture. Of course Geri complained. But all the women in our extended family complained about their husbands. Wasn’t that normal? Our marriage sure seemed better than most. I was “helping” with the kids, wasn’t I? I never observed a joyful, intimate couple investing in the quality of their relationship before their children. I preached Ephesians 5 on marriage and family but lived Scazzero.

I Resolved Conflict Poorly Fourth, even though I taught workshops on conflict resolution and communication, the basic way I handled conflict and anger resembled my family of origin, not Christ’s family. My mother raged and attacked. My dad was an appeaser who gave in to whatever my mom wanted to avoid conflict. I took on my father’s basic style, taking the blame whenever something was wrong in order to end the tension. I justified it as being like Christ, a sheep going to the slaughter.

Perfectionism It is not okay to make mistakes. You drop a dish- get a beating or a scream. In my bones. Christians make mistakes, sin. Again- grace. I could go on, but I think you get the point. Success Our family, like many families, defined success by making a certain amount of money, getting a certain level of education, becoming a professional, having people look up to you, getting married and having children. In God’s family, however, success is becoming the person God has called you to become and doing what God has called you to do. That is a very different definition! But when I look back now and think about how I lived the first seventeen years of my Christian life, I am stunned . . . shocked . . . .embarrassed . . . There was so much needless pain! Philosopher George Santanya said it well: “Those who cannot learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.”~http://www.emotionallyhealthy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Session-3-Go-Back-to-Go-Forward.pdf

 

[mkgal1]

Back to how this pertains to egalitarianism: patriarchy celebrates strength and pushing through no matter what the circumstances....but, it seems to me, that often leaves the ones that are truly suffering with life no answers or support (people suffering with death of a loved one, or a long-term job loss, or terminally ill child--not sinful matters....or even baggage from the past....just messy life issues). Patriarchy doesn't seem to celebrate love (and I've noticed that a lot on this forum as well as other places).

Sorry for the ramblings--and how I'm darting all over the place--I'm just sort of processing and posting midstream.

 

[Dave-W]

But now that you ask--there does seem to be a correlation between patriarchal fundamentalist church teaching and the idea that once we "accept Christ" we don't have to look back or do any sort of self reflection of what beliefs and dysfunction we may be carrying forward.

I understand that. To me, that is one of the serious flaws in Calvinism.

Back to how this pertains to egalitarianism: patriarchy celebrates strength and pushing through no matter what the circumstances....but, it seems to me, that often leaves the ones that are truly suffering with life no answers or support (people suffering with death of a loved one, or a long-term job loss, or terminally ill child--not sinful matters....or even baggage from the past....just messy life issues). Patriarchy doesn't seem to celebrate love (and I've noticed that a lot on this forum as well as other places).

I am not sure I would conflate totalitarianism and patriarchy.

Ancient Israel was VERY patriarchal but was not totalitarian. Dad ran pretty much everything but he was VERY concerned with the well-being of everyone in his charge. In fact, our Lord contrasted what HE wanted and how the surrounding gentile cultures did things:

Mk 10.42 Calling them to Himself, Jesus *said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. 43 But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant;"

 

[mkgal1]

But now that you ask--there does seem to be a correlation between patriarchal fundamentalist church teaching and the idea that once we "accept Christ" we don't have to look back or do any sort of self reflection of what beliefs and dysfunction we may be carrying forward.

I understand that. To me, that is one of the serious flaws in Calvinism.

Is that a flaw in ALL streams of Calvinism.....or just neo-Calvinism? From what I have read....there seems to be a great schism between the two.

 

[mkgal1]

I am not sure I would conflate totalitarianism and patriarchy.

Ancient Israel was VERY patriarchal but was not totalitarian. Dad ran pretty much everything but he was VERY concerned with the well-being of everyone in his charge. In fact, our Lord contrasted what HE wanted and how the surrounding gentile cultures did things

Okay.....I may need to clarify a bit. I didn't use the phrase "patriarchal" on its own---I said, "patriarchal fundamentalist church teaching" (in contrast to egalitarian teaching). To me...."fundamentalist" teaching is set up in a way that there's a clear line of division through a lot of things (it's very black & white....very us/them.....right/wrong....true/untrue....etc). When I use that phrase (patriarchal fundamentalist church teaching).....I mean this idea of a faith tradition that's more about following in obedience to the "right rules" instead of being more about our relationship with God and with others (others may have a different definition of "the opposite of egalitarian"---but that's what I'm observing these days).

Personally.....what I'm seeing in that stream of Christianity looks to me to be a lot like what I read in the Bible about the Pharisees in Jesus' time. The fundamentalist teaching is about authority (as I see it) not equality......and that seems to be offering security against a messy world full of possible difficulty (but....there seems to be a huge attempt at keeping that difficulty outside the "bubble" either through denial---deadening the emotions--or pushing others away that are dealing with a messy life with cliche's ). In an environment like that---the people that are genuine about their struggles get quickly ostracized....and you're left with "pretenders" (again.....my personal review/perception of my observations)....because the message that's sent is, "it's not acceptable to voice your struggles---you must not be faithful or obedient enough in you're struggling".

Does that make sense to anyone.....or am I sort of off on a different track (on my own here )?

 

[Dave-W]

Okay.....I may need to clarify a bit. I didn't use the phrase "patriarchal" on its own---I said, "patriarchal fundamentalist church teaching" (in contrast to egalitarian teaching). To me...."fundamentalist" teaching is set up in a way that there's a clear line of division through a lot of things (it's very black & white....very us/them.....right/wrong..

This is a bit of a side bar:

I get what you are saying. On that subject, I always remember what my favorite SBC pastor Charles Simpson said:

"Fundamentalism as a doctrine is fine and wonderful. Fundamentalism as an attitude is deadly."

I think you are referring to the latter rather than the former.

 

[mkgal1]

I think you are referring to the latter rather than the former.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure of the distinction between the two. Would you mind expounding?

 

[Dave-W]

To be honest, I'm not quite sure of the distinction between the two. Would you mind expounding?

Fundamentalism as a doctrine means that we get our teachings from the text of scripture.

Fundamentalism as an attitude means that ONLY my interpretation is right.

 

[mkgal1]

Fundamentalism as a doctrine means that we get our teachings from the text of scripture.

Fundamentalism as an attitude means that ONLY my interpretation is right.

But would you say that fundamentalists actually leave room for other interpretations (because that's not my observation)? I see the two as being one in the same. Doesn't EVERY stream of Christianity make the claim that they're using the text of Scripture as their basis?

This is from Wiki:

Christian fundamentalism began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among British and American Protestants[1][2] as a reaction to theological liberalism and cultural modernism. Fundamentalists argued that 19th-century modernist theologians had misinterpreted or rejected certain doctrines, especially biblical inerrancy, that they viewed as the fundamentals of the Christian faith.[3]~Christian fundamentalism - Wikipedia

....and the way I see that is that right out of the gate, their implication was, "you all have been WRONG and we have the RIGHT interpretation".

BTW....that article describes fundamentalism as a "reaction to theological liberalism and cultural modernism"---when really that seems to me to mean "egalitarianism" (it emerged when more cultural freedom and rights were being given to blacks and women).

 

[mkgal1]

To clarify a bit more: I'm referring to a specific stream of Christianity--the movement that formed within Protestantism that began in the late 19th century and really took hold roughly 30 years ago with writings from Wayne Grudem and John Piper (Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism).

Christian fundamentalism, movement in American Protestantism that arose in the late 19th century in reaction to theological modernism, which aimed to revise traditional Christian beliefs to accommodate new developments in the natural and social sciences.~Christian fundamentalism | American Protestant movement

 

[Paidiske]

BTW....that article describes fundamentalism as a "reaction to theological liberalism and cultural modernism"---when really that seems to me to mean "egalitarianism" (it emerged when more cultural freedom and rights were being given to blacks and women).

Actually, I think Fundamentalism really came about a bit earlier than even first-wave feminism. It wasn't aimed at egalitarianism (although when that came along it knew it didn't like it!), but more so at ideas such as evolution, or, more broadly, the attempt to integrate faith with a wider world-view which required some adjusting of existing theological ideas.

 

[mkgal1]

[...]the attempt to integrate faith with a wider world-view which required some adjusting of existing theological ideas.

You're right--that seems to have been the beginning of it (and there's so more much involved than just gender equality).....but since gender equality is more day-to-day practical living....that seems to be where it really took hold and got some deep roots (as I'm understanding).

And you make a good point (or--rather--caused me to think of something). It seems to me to have been a resistance to the change of adjusting theological ideas (even in the face of reality) .

 

[Chaplain David]

Originally that's not what was on my mind (how does this pertain to egalitarianism) it was just a continuation of a comment on another thread in this sub-forum.

But now that you ask--there does seem to be a correlation between patriarchal fundamentalist church teaching and the idea that once we "accept Christ" we don't have to look back or do any sort of self reflection of what beliefs and dysfunction we may be carrying forward. There's also a lot of teaching that dismisses--even demonizes--emotions in the patriarchal churches that would consider this "worldly psycho babble". It seems to me all of that has to do with people's desire for authority as a sort of way to avoid the messiness of life (along the lines that Scazzero's series mentions....maybe a way to use God to avoid difficulty?). IOW.....it's used like a fake facade to present that everything is okay....when it's not.

That's another reason why I mentioned a while ago that egalitarianism--to me--seems to stretch a lot farther than just an issue of male/female equality. It's more about everyone having the full encouragement to be all God has intended them to be--the full freedom to "live abundantly".

This has not been my experience. Perhaps I've never belonged to what you would call a patriarchal church or had strictly patriarchal views.

Have you personally experienced the things that you are writing about or are your views from the outside looking in? I realize that is only two views but they were the ones that came to mind.

One of the things that has helped me is having belonged to other religions prior to my becoming saved and born again in Christ. I can truly see the wonder in Christianity. Also, I joined a 12 Step Group when I was very young which started me out on a generic God and when I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior my faith became a rich and glorious set of beliefs. Also the 12 step group emphasized working on ones character defects and other things so it naturally adapted to my religious beliefs as well. God bless.

 

[Paidiske]

I haven't encountered dismissing of the emotions, exactly, but I've certainly encountered distrust of the professions which work with them (counselling, psychology etc). The idea seems to be that if you're not spiritualising your experience, you're somehow being ungodly in how you manage it.

It's something I've never been comfortable with; despite that being the sort of church I started out in, I never found that kind of distrust helpful or healthy. And when it means encouraging people to ignore or avoid medical advice and help, I think it can be downright dangerous.