He Gets Us campaign

[RDKirk]

No, I wasn't implying that we are to fix the world. But I am implying that Jesus intended for us to minister to the World at large, and that ministry wasn't to just provide us an opportunity to flap our jaws with The Gospel.

If I missed it, so did the Apostles...because they did not preach it or do it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If I missed it, so did the Apostles...because they did not preach it or do it.

We don't actually know everything the Apostles preached or did in their individual lives, even much of what they may have done on a daily basis on behalf of any Greek pagans. So, while you're one of a dozen people here on CF whom I truly respect as a Christian thinker, I'm going to disagree with you that the Apostles "didn't" ever preach it or ever do it. I think sometimes they did, but Luke doesn't tell us every detail of every moment of life lived by all Christians in the time frame he accounts for in his book of Acts. However, I think we could still glean some things about 'ministry to the world' from the rest of the New Testament writings, especially if Jesus is our Supreme Model and our Lord and Director, as recounted and represented in the Gospels alone.

Additionally, since it's on my mind, I listed four books up in a previous post (#176). Should I burn those books since quite a few of the much more right leaning Evangelical Christians will tend to completely ignore those sorts of alternative-evangelical positions/writings? Should I also burn my copy of James H. Cone's, God of the Oppressed, and ignore all that he had to say simply because he was a Liberation Theologian and that he may have been wrong on a few counts, despite perhaps also having a few very salient points to make otherwise? I think not. Why? Because I think "Jesus Gets Us!" But, in an inverted way, we only partly 'get Him.'

Anyway, have a blessed day!

 

[QvQ]

Actually, the Messiah, Jesus, provided the directive to begin the 'fixing' of social inequality through human means, i.e. through His Church. And the success of Jesus' intended "aid package" would depend upon the extent to which His people assimilated to His Person and Teaching.

Jesus is God
Jesus said, "the poor you will have with you always." "there will be wars and rumors of wars."
The Bible does not say, "Man can solve injustice (inequality) or end all wars.
In Exodus, there is a description of East of Eden. That is where we are.
Jesus, as God, could have created heaven on earth and reigned forever over New Eden.
He did not and to say that Christians have the power to do what God Himself did not do, for His own good pleasure, is an interesting point.
Jesus as God does feed the multitude and heal the sick but not Jesus as "man." It is not in man's power.
Is it claimed that Christ didn't do it but He gave instructions for Christians to do it? We have the power to have heaven on earth by man's works?
Yes, we should care for what comes under our hand. But our power and how much is in our hands is not much.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Jesus is God
Jesus said, "the poor you will have with you always." "there will be wars and rumors of wars."
The Bible does not say, "Man can solve injustice (inequality) or end all wars.
In Exodus, there is a description of East of Eden. That is where we are.
Jesus, as God, could have created heaven on earth and reigned forever over New Eden.
He did not and to say that Christians have the power to do what God Himself did not do, for His own good pleasure, is an interesting point.
Jesus as God does feed the multitude and heal the sick but not Jesus as "man." It is not in man's power.
Is it claimed that Christ didn't do it but He gave instructions for Christians to do it? We have the power to have heaven on earth by man's works?
Yes, we should care for what comes under our hand. But our power and how much is in our hands is not much.

Please stop. You're wrong, and you have a lot of study ahead of you. As it is, all you're doing here is providing rhetoric, not supported claims.

 

[QvQ]

Please stop. You're wrong, and you have a lot of study ahead of you. As it is, all you're doing here is providing rhetoric, not supported claims.

Matthew 26: 11 The poor you will have with you always
Matthew 24: 6 There will be wars and rumors of wars

Genesis 3: 23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
3: 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed at the East of the garden of Eden

And exactly where in the Bible does it say that all man's works can create utopia on earth, solving poverty, injustice and war?
Ecclesiastes 1: 2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
1: 3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?
State your case..

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Matthew 26: 11 The poor you will have with you always

This is asserted without its context. What is the the actual reason Jesus said this ... ? (I'm implying you need to go read it in the fuller context, don't just quote it.

Matthew 24: 6 There will be wars and rumors of wars

Same as above.

Genesis 3: 23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So He drove out the man; and He placed at the East of the garden of Eden

And exactly where in the Bible does it say that all man's works can create utopia on earth, solving poverty, injustice and war?

I said nothing about creating any Utopia on earth. Why do you all jump, then, to conclusions when I simply say we all can do more than jabber our jaws? It's almost like folks are looking for loopholes as to why they shouldn't have to help others or understand them. Surely, the only real reason not to is because we ourselves don't have the means to do so, not because we think being a Christian only requires jabbering. Right?

Ecclesiastes 1: 2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?
State your case..

I just did. Above.

 

[QvQ]

This is asserted without its context. What is the the actual reason Jesus said this ... ? (I'm implying you need to go read it in the fuller context, don't just quote it.

I know the full context.
11 The poor you will always have with you; but you will not always have me.

The fact remains that Jesus did say and He was speaking as God, "the poor you will have with you always.."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I know the full context.
11 The poor you will always have with you; but you will not always have me.

The fact remains that Jesus did say and He was speaking as God, "the poor you will have with you always.."

Yes, and what He meant by that statement was "there is something you disciples need to do instead right now, but you'll have time to minister to the poor like you should in the very near future."

 

[Aussie Pete]

Well, CNN and AOC have both stated that their claim of being apolitical is false because they have supported anti-abortion and anti-LGBT organizations.

Charlie Kirk has stated they support liberal and left-wing ideology, referring to its backers as "woke tricksters".

I think both of those fail to understand what apolitical means. I think they fail to understand that engaging with others does not mean advocacy or acceptance. Christians looking to the whole bible for support on all issues will naturally run into political issues, and they may support one party more than the other, but they won't be partisan fan-boys. They will seek to understand and create relationship the people they are engaged with - that does not equal advocacy either.

My personal opinion is they are trying to reflect who they believe Jesus really was. The ad was not the misrepresentation conservatives are claiming this morning. Jesus did interact with the very people who were being rejected by their society. Study of John 4 reveals just how far out of bounds he was reaching when interacting with the woman at the well. They are imperfect I am sure in application as we all would be.

It depends on the point of the ad. Jesus may get me, but I don't get the point of the ad. A pastor in Ireland produced a video entitled "He saves us!". It's gone viral. 2 million views in no time. I found out about it on CBN

 

[FameBright]

For my part, I try to keep the academic jargon to a minimum. But, sometimes folks need to be challenged to move our of their conceptual boxes and see the larger, more expansive, even truer aspects of social reality.

I was jokingly alluding to the "use your PhD". Even though I do prefer more of a direct and literal approach I'm sure someone like Merrill would probably appreciate it.

Anyhow, you don't think social inequality just seems to be the natural order of things? Even in Heaven, doesn't it seem to resemble some sort of social status? Especially when you hear things like "Kingdom of Heaven", "Some who are first will be last and some who are last will be first", "...theirs are the Kingdom of Heaven", "...they will inherit the earth", etc. Even animals seem to naturally have pecking order.

We all probably have different visions of social inequality so I could be in left field a little.

If social inequality was so important, why not start at the beginning? Abraham and Sarah had servants. Jacob was set to gain more than Esau. Joseph had dreams of his elevation of status, etc.

Actually, the Messiah, Jesus, provided the directive to begin the 'fixing' of social inequality through human means, i.e. through His Church. And the success of Jesus' intended "aid package" would depend upon the extent to which His people assimilated to His Person and Teaching.

I don't see anything wrong with this method; it seems like it's the other methods like from a political standpoint that people may seem to have a problem with.

For example, someone mentioned the dangers in "Liberation Theology". Then I think you mentioned a more moderate approach to "Liberation Theology" which to me seems fair. I'm working off memory so I apologize if I'm getting things mixed up.

However, if you take it to the extreme like in the Far-left sense, wouldn't that stifle creativity and innovation? And if that happened businesses would stop growing and making money ultimately resulting in the collapse of our economy. Then if our economy collapsed, wouldn't that open doors for the Romans (Oppressors) to come in? That's where the dangers seem to lie. I'm being rhetorical here because it's hard to encapsulate the exact ideology.

I don't think anyone would deny that the poor should have certain basic rights; I think there's just a point you cross where it just seems more detrimental overall. If it did result in a weakened economy don't you feel like it would open doors for the Oppressors? We can rely on faith that it would never happen but it's easier said than done.

For example, back in the OT days, wouldn't you say that the faith of the Israelites would blow ours away by today's standards? Why did they feel like they still needed to elect a King? Wasn't it because they felt they still needed some kind of protection? Wouldn't you say that this would (out of necessity) give rise to social inequality? Doesn't it just seem to be a necessity even way back then?

 

[RDKirk]

We don't actually know everything the Apostles preached or did in their individual lives, even much of what they may have done on a daily basis on behalf of any Greek pagans. So, while you're one of a dozen people here on CF whom I truly respect as a Christian thinker, I'm going to disagree with you that the Apostles "didn't" ever preach it or ever do it. I think sometimes they did, but Luke doesn't tell us every detail of every moment of life lived by all Christians in the time frame he accounts for in his book of Acts. However, I think we could still glean some things about 'ministry to the world' from the rest of the New Testament writings, especially if Jesus is our Supreme Model and our Lord and Director, as recounted and represented in the Gospels alone.

Additionally, since it's on my mind, I listed four books up in a previous post (#176). Should I burn those books since quite a few of the much more right leaning Evangelical Christians will tend to completely ignore those sorts of alternative-evangelical positions/writings? Should I also burn my copy of James H. Cone's, God of the Oppressed, and ignore all that he had to say simply because he was a Liberation Theologian and that he may have been wrong on a few counts, despite perhaps also having a few very salient points to make otherwise? I think not. Why? Because I think "Jesus Gets Us!" But, in an inverted way, we only partly 'get Him.'

Anyway, have a blessed day!

What I see them preaching and doing is making sure people in the congregations are taken care of. That's got multiple witnesses.

What I do not see them preaching or doing is social justice over the rest of the world. I won't entertain speculation without some evidence...and there is none at all.

 

[QvQ]

Yes, and what He meant by that statement was "there is something you disciples need to do instead right now, but you'll have time to minister to the poor like you should in the very near future."

And forever until Judgement Day

During the last supper, Christ gave each a piece of bread.
"He said, "This do in remembrance of Me.
So when a person gives, it should be an act of communion, a compassion for the shared sorrows of the world, given from the fulness of the heart.
It is not a work to save the world or gain points in Heaven.

 

[HarleyER]

Y'now? You're pretty spry for a 72 year old, but even so, I think you missed the part where I never said I dismiss the OT. No, I just assess it in light of everything that is said about it in the...................New Testament.

As for the topic of Hades, Gehenna and Tartarus, we're not going to have that discussion here. Not only because I'm fairly certain every Tom, Rick and Sally Skeptic already knows that 'hell' isn't a good place to be, but because what is more relevant to the topic at hand is the fact that this forum thread is about the theology of the "He Gets US" commercials. Let's stick with that and leave the "shadows" to those moments when we decide to read the book of Hebrews from START to FINISH together ...

OK, fair enough. I bring up those topics simply to point out that the issue isn't about washing people feet. It isn't about doing something nice to someone because we THINK we are doing something that God would be pleased with. It isn't for believers doing nice things to other believers because we think we're doing God a favor.

Washing unbelievers' feet, let alone believers' feet, means nothing. Why do it? We are never going to get unbelievers to like us. Those who desire to live godly lives will face persecution. If we're not facing persecution, then perhaps we really are not living godly lives.

Rather....We should love God with all our hearts. If our hearts are full of love of God, then out of it will flow good works from God-but we don't measure those works (e.g. I washed 10 people's feet this week). We should live our lives in obedience to God's commands because we desire to bring glory to God's name. God commands us to pray for one another so we do so because it brings glory to God. God wants us to have fellowship with one another because corporate worship brings glory to God. If God tells us we are to go and tell the world to repent and turn to Him for healing then, yes, we do that as well. Witnessing has to be the greatest illustration of showing love to God, for it truly shows our love to others. It is also the most difficult. It is far easier to wash a person's feet than to gently explain to them that they're a sinner in need for Christ to enter their heart.

BTW-To me, proper witnessing is also the most difficult but it is also the most direct command we are given. I'm not very good at it. Being obedient to God is a very daunting task that shows me how far I fall short and in need for constant repentence.

 

[Hazelelponi]

And forever until Judgement Day

The poor will always be with us.

 

[Lukaris]

I just watched the video of their superbowl ad which emphasizes the account of the Lord washing the disciples’ feet in John 13:1-17 in which we are to serve others. This is true and within the overall account of John 13:1-38 is the fall of Judas Iscariot & that Peter will deny the Lord 3 times. They seem to emphasize works and criticize doctrine of belief yet what do the examples of Judas & Peter represent but the danger of unbelief?

Here is a link another message from “He gets us” in which they claim John 8 as their reference inspiration.

Jesus didn’t feel welcomed by religious people either.

Jesus was a Jew. He attended the local synagogues. He frequented the temple in Jerusalem. But he was often not welcomed. Why? In Jesus’ case, he openly questioned the clergy and their religious practices. They bristled with anger when he challenged their doctrines, beliefs, and long-held...

hegetsus.com

Their emphasis is on “inclusive” & “struggle” and the Lord as an attendee and challenger to the “elites”. ( John 8:1-59 account here).The Lord was the teacher ( John 8:2). Even the hypocrites who tried to set up the poor adulterous woman acknowledged so ( John 8:4).

The overall emphasis in John 8 is on the Lord as God almighty and the rebuke of sin ( John 8:7-12, John 8:21, John 8:34, John 8:56-59).

Their stuff seems fishy to me. I guess read John 8:1-59 & their link and see how their claims balance with scripture.

 

[Hazelelponi]

BTW-To me, proper witnessing is also the most difficult but it is also the most direct command we are given. I'm not very good at it. Being obedient to God is a very daunting task that shows me how far I fall short and in need for constant repentence

We all fall short, but we are growing in Christ.

Me personally when people open up the conversation, I tell them why and why I believe.

It may not be a perfect witness, but it's my story of coming to Christ. Most people really are interested, even if they come from other faith backgrounds.

But I just wait for an opening, there's lots of them if you look sometimes.

 

[Michie]

The “He Gets Us” advertisements do not display true Christianity but, instead, a regime-approved Christianity.

Continued below.

The False Christianity of “He Gets Us”

The “He Gets Us” advertisements do not display true Christianity but, instead, a regime-approved Christianity.

crisismagazine.com

 

[HarleyER]

We all fall short, but we are growing in Christ.

Me personally when people open up the conversation, I tell them why and why I believe.

It may not be a perfect witness, but it's my story of coming to Christ. Most people really are interested, even if they come from other faith backgrounds.

But I just wait for an opening, there's lots of them if you look sometimes.

Yes. God understands and uses us even though we are imperfect. It is all part of His sovereign plan to make us more like Christ.

A lot could be said about evangelism probably because it is the main purpose Christians are here.

 

[FameBright]

None of us are responsible for someone else's sin.

Exactly. If this was all by itself, I would have given it a like

The claim that rejecting homosexuals, or criticizing them, will cause them anguish, or even to commit suicide, is equivalent to saying we should not criticize alcoholics or drug addicts, and let them "live their lives". That we should not try to steer them in the right direction.

Which direction do you mean? To change their nature of being a homosexual or to seek the grace and forgiveness of Jesus Christ?

Do you believe that latter is the direction that most Christians are steering? Let's be honest here.

Let me be very clear: the reason I reject things like homosexuality and transgenderism (especially in children) is not because I hate these people--it is the exact opposite. I do care about people, and I want them to live happy, fulfilled, lives. Not only in accordance with God's wishes, but also on a practical and human level.

I totally get that, but what about keeping the Sabbath Holy or Thou Shalt not Covet which are actually listed in the 10 Commandments?

Why is homosexuality such a glaring sin that people seem to need to correct? Do you think Christians reject people who covet have big houses and nice cars as much as they would a homosexual? It seems to me to be quite the opposite; They seem to rather want to be accepted by theses people rather than reject them.

Christians like to point this out because it's an easy sin for them not to commit if they weren't born or made that way. Wouldn't you agree? But they won't spend much time pointing out the ones that aren't so easy.

According to some studies, 15-20% of gay and lesbian people have had thoughts of suicide, and the rate of suicide is much higher among those groups than the general population,

How much of that is because of the constant condemnation and rejection?

 

[Merrill]

Exactly. If this was all by itself, I would have given it a like

Which direction do you mean? To change their nature of being a homosexual or to seek the grace and forgiveness of Jesus Christ?

Do you believe that latter is the direction that most Christians are steering? Let's be honest here.

I totally get that, but what about keeping the Sabbath Holy or Thou Shalt not Covet which are actually listed in the 10 Commandments?

Why is homosexuality such a glaring sin that people seem to need to correct? Do you think Christians reject people who covet have big houses and nice cars as much as they would a homosexual? It seems to me to be quite the opposite; They seem to rather want to be accepted by theses people rather than reject them.

How much of that is because of the constant condemnation and rejection?

"Why is homosexuality such a glaring sin that people seem to need to correct?"

I think this is the crux of the matter. Homosexuality is not only a lifestyle, it is an ideology.

Now this doesn't mean that every gay or lesbian is a raging leftist who wants to subvert cultural and gender norms (Dave Rubin is conservative--as one example), but the vast majority of them are. That brings them into conflict with the Church

homosexuality in itself, isn't much different from any other sin, and should be considered as such by Christians. We should not say "a homosexual is worse than a thief".

The other problem, as I stated above, is entryism --as Christians, we need to be careful not to "let people in" who are bad actors, and seek to undermine the faith and the structure of the church. We can see what happened to mainline protestant denominations who began to cater to homosexuals, then began making excuses for the behavior, and then finally "affirmed" homosexuality, and even started appointing actively homosexual people to leadership positions and pastor status. Those churches lost members, split, or even failed.

So I say proceed cautiously. We should NOT "shut the doors" to anyone seeking Christ, and who honestly wants to turn his or her life around. But we need to be vigilant about our theology, our practices, and the Gospel.