I believe the point of the quote is that oftentimes people come to faith and think they have discovered something utterly new, unlike anything that has gone before. They see their new found faith as something that they have personally discovered. But the point that the authors are making is that their faith has not brought them into something entirely new, but something that began with God's first act and will end with God's last. It's a much bigger story and we are only stepping into it. We're not the focal point. We are participants in a much larger story that encompasses not just other believers, but other believers throughout time.
Well, I totally took it out of context. I suppose it makes a lot more sense in context.
Here's a rewrite of their quote that probably makes more sense on its own:
"Faith didn't arrive on my doorstep from out of nowhere. It has an origin." ... and to continue along the same line, "And faith won't just sit on my doorstep forever. It has a goal and it's headed there."
I was just reminded of something I read several years ago. I don't remember what it was I was reading or who wrote it. The premise was basically that at birth we know everything there is to know about God and as we grow, because of the circumstance around us, we forget the knowledge we were born with. So coming to a knowledge of God later in life is not so much a discovery as it is a remembering. With that in mind I see your original quote more clearly.
thanks, the context helps. I think part of my problem is the way they're using the word "faith", but I'm in knots trying to put into words the different meanings. something to do with the difference between faith as in a person having faith, vs. faith as in "the Christian faith" - I think they're talking about it in the second sense, they're talking about how the Christian faith doesn't come out of nowhere, it's a story that people have been discovering over time - but each of these people has had to discover it for themselves and own it for themselves and that's that individual person's coming to faith, in the first sense of faith. We do each of us discover it.
p.s. Michael - I've heard that idea, and that is exactly what worried me so much when I saw this quote initially, out of context, because I thought this is what they were implying.
Part of what I see in "new" church movements is a sense of "I have a new and wonderful understanding of something that you only seem to have the shell of knowledge about." There's a sense that the Christian Faith needs to be discovered, or re-discovered, because it's been lost or buried or desiccated by our parents and grandparents. But the incredible new ideas that these movements espouse generally aren't new at all.
As Americans, we are very "me" centered and if "I" haven't heard about it before, then it most likely didn't exist. Or it existed only in some misunderstood or hidden way. But now that *I* am on the scene, it's fresh and new and exciting and .... Rather than realizing that something new to me is something that's been around since the dawn of time, and that other's have grokked it as well as, or perhaps even better than me, we make it all about ourselves. We become the "experts" in this new idea or concept.
Here's some of the text that followed the original quote: "The story began without us, as a story of the peculiar way God is redeeming the world, a story that invites us to come forth and be saved by sharing in the work of a new people whom God has created in Israel and Jesus. Such movement saves us by (1) placing us within an adventure that is nothing less than God's purpose for the whole world, and (2) communally training us to fashion our lives in accordance with what is true rather than what is false."
When we're saved, it's not just about a change in status between us and God. That's a piece, but, as we show in baptism, it's an entrance into a larger story. Baptism is the sign of entrance into the church, the body of Christ. We're stepping out of our selfish, enclosed, "it's all about me" story and stepping into a selfless, communal, "it's all about God" story.
i believe it implies, maybe not reincarnation, but pre-life. if we know everything at birth, then where did we learn it? are we born pre-loaded with information like a computer that comes pre-loaded with software? or did we come from somewhere else where we had known those things, a former life of some sort?
I've never taken it to imply reincarnation. Maybe pre-life if it must be labeled (and don't we humans love to label things). Basically, we are created by God, we come from God. I hold the notion as a possibility. I didn't say I had bought the concept, I'm just not threatened but it. One of things I fear many Christians fail to realize is that there is much more to God than is contained between the covers of a Bible. I don't believe the Bible answers every spiritual question. God created a lot of world, a lot of universe, a lot of spirituality. There isn't a book in existence, nor could there be, that contains it all.
I don't think the Christian faith needs to be discovered, but in many cases it certainly needs to be dusted off. It is most certainly "all about God." However, (and I'm not implying this is you, I don't know you well enough) but I have come across many people to say with their lips "it is all about God" while projecting onto that "it is all about me."
thanks, Meg - knowing what it is they're arguing against certainly helps to understand what they're saying. yes, the Christian story is not a new one, though there is sometimes a need to re-discover elements of it that have got lost along the way. we don't always get the balance right - we need to be respectful enough towards the wisdom handed down through the ages, yet at the same time open to the possible discovery of mistakes that have been handed down through the ages.
yes, no, maybe - I'm not one to say if it ain't in the Bible then it definitely ain't true, but I'm wary of stories people put about which sound nice and are therefore adopted into some kind of folk theology and become accepted by many as true.
the way I see it, the crucial question for a Christian weighing up an idea about God is not: is it in the Bible? but: does it contradict what the Bible says?
my problem with some of these nice stories is that people often read them without weighing them up at all - partly because they are dressed up as a nice story and not offered as a serious essay. you get them floating around on the email, with pretty pictures and what have you, and nobody (except for awkward people like me) stops to analyse the theory, look at the possible implications, wonder about the source of these ideas - so I get to be the spoilsport that comes into the party and says: have you checked what's in those pills you've all been taking that are making you feel so merry?
I am forever challenging the senders of random emails. Especially the ones that come from my brother who is an associate pastor in a storefront kind of church. I think he's getting tired of hearing from me. I get far fewer emails than I used to get.
i'm the one doing the arguing against. i think their point has more to do with helping people realize that the story of faith didn't just start when they personally came to faith. the story of faith starts with God and what God has been doing in the world from the moment of creation.
Hmmm. I'll have to ponder that one.
ReplyDeleteFaith begins when and where God reveals
ReplyDeleteI believe the point of the quote is that oftentimes people come to faith and think they have discovered something utterly new, unlike anything that has gone before. They see their new found faith as something that they have personally discovered. But the point that the authors are making is that their faith has not brought them into something entirely new, but something that began with God's first act and will end with God's last. It's a much bigger story and we are only stepping into it. We're not the focal point. We are participants in a much larger story that encompasses not just other believers, but other believers throughout time.
ReplyDeletehmmm... what you're saying makes sense, Meg, but if that's what they meant to say, why didn't they say it?
ReplyDeleteWell, I totally took it out of context. I suppose it makes a lot more sense in context.
ReplyDeleteHere's a rewrite of their quote that probably makes more sense on its own:
"Faith didn't arrive on my doorstep from out of nowhere. It has an origin." ... and to continue along the same line, "And faith won't just sit on my doorstep forever. It has a goal and it's headed there."
Ok, I can more readily resonate with that.
ReplyDeleteI was just reminded of something I read several years ago. I don't remember what it was I was reading or who wrote it. The premise was basically that at birth we know everything there is to know about God and as we grow, because of the circumstance around us, we forget the knowledge we were born with. So coming to a knowledge of God later in life is not so much a discovery as it is a remembering. With that in mind I see your original quote more clearly.
ReplyDeletethanks, the context helps. I think part of my problem is the way they're using the word "faith", but I'm in knots trying to put into words the different meanings. something to do with the difference between faith as in a person having faith, vs. faith as in "the Christian faith" - I think they're talking about it in the second sense, they're talking about how the Christian faith doesn't come out of nowhere, it's a story that people have been discovering over time - but each of these people has had to discover it for themselves and own it for themselves and that's that individual person's coming to faith, in the first sense of faith. We do each of us discover it.
ReplyDeletep.s. Michael - I've heard that idea, and that is exactly what worried me so much when I saw this quote initially, out of context, because I thought this is what they were implying.
ReplyDeleteI don't see a problem with that implication.
ReplyDeletePart of what I see in "new" church movements is a sense of "I have a new and wonderful understanding of something that you only seem to have the shell of knowledge about." There's a sense that the Christian Faith needs to be discovered, or re-discovered, because it's been lost or buried or desiccated by our parents and grandparents. But the incredible new ideas that these movements espouse generally aren't new at all.
ReplyDeleteAs Americans, we are very "me" centered and if "I" haven't heard about it before, then it most likely didn't exist. Or it existed only in some misunderstood or hidden way. But now that *I* am on the scene, it's fresh and new and exciting and .... Rather than realizing that something new to me is something that's been around since the dawn of time, and that other's have grokked it as well as, or perhaps even better than me, we make it all about ourselves. We become the "experts" in this new idea or concept.
Here's some of the text that followed the original quote:
"The story began without us, as a story of the peculiar way God is redeeming the world, a story that invites us to come forth and be saved by sharing in the work of a new people whom God has created in Israel and Jesus. Such movement saves us by (1) placing us within an adventure that is nothing less than God's purpose for the whole world, and (2) communally training us to fashion our lives in accordance with what is true rather than what is false."
When we're saved, it's not just about a change in status between us and God. That's a piece, but, as we show in baptism, it's an entrance into a larger story. Baptism is the sign of entrance into the church, the body of Christ. We're stepping out of our selfish, enclosed, "it's all about me" story and stepping into a selfless, communal, "it's all about God" story.
i believe it implies, maybe not reincarnation, but pre-life. if we know everything at birth, then where did we learn it? are we born pre-loaded with information like a computer that comes pre-loaded with software? or did we come from somewhere else where we had known those things, a former life of some sort?
ReplyDeleteI've never taken it to imply reincarnation. Maybe pre-life if it must be labeled (and don't we humans love to label things). Basically, we are created by God, we come from God. I hold the notion as a possibility. I didn't say I had bought the concept, I'm just not threatened but it. One of things I fear many Christians fail to realize is that there is much more to God than is contained between the covers of a Bible. I don't believe the Bible answers every spiritual question. God created a lot of world, a lot of universe, a lot of spirituality. There isn't a book in existence, nor could there be, that contains it all.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the Christian faith needs to be discovered, but in many cases it certainly needs to be dusted off. It is most certainly "all about God." However, (and I'm not implying this is you, I don't know you well enough) but I have come across many people to say with their lips "it is all about God" while projecting onto that "it is all about me."
ReplyDeletethanks, Meg - knowing what it is they're arguing against certainly helps to understand what they're saying. yes, the Christian story is not a new one, though there is sometimes a need to re-discover elements of it that have got lost along the way. we don't always get the balance right - we need to be respectful enough towards the wisdom handed down through the ages, yet at the same time open to the possible discovery of mistakes that have been handed down through the ages.
ReplyDeleteYou are much more diplomatic than me but that is essentially where I'm coming from.
ReplyDeleteyes, no, maybe - I'm not one to say if it ain't in the Bible then it definitely ain't true, but I'm wary of stories people put about which sound nice and are therefore adopted into some kind of folk theology and become accepted by many as true.
ReplyDeletethe way I see it, the crucial question for a Christian weighing up an idea about God is not: is it in the Bible? but: does it contradict what the Bible says?
ReplyDeletemy problem with some of these nice stories is that people often read them without weighing them up at all - partly because they are dressed up as a nice story and not offered as a serious essay. you get them floating around on the email, with pretty pictures and what have you, and nobody (except for awkward people like me) stops to analyse the theory, look at the possible implications, wonder about the source of these ideas - so I get to be the spoilsport that comes into the party and says: have you checked what's in those pills you've all been taking that are making you feel so merry?
I am forever challenging the senders of random emails. Especially the ones that come from my brother who is an associate pastor in a storefront kind of church. I think he's getting tired of hearing from me. I get far fewer emails than I used to get.
ReplyDeletei'm the one doing the arguing against. i think their point has more to do with helping people realize that the story of faith didn't just start when they personally came to faith. the story of faith starts with God and what God has been doing in the world from the moment of creation.
ReplyDeletethis describes most of the "faith"-related emails i get from my gram.
ReplyDeleteif it includes a cute picture of a baby or a puppy that must mean it's true, right?
ReplyDeleterofl. but of course it does. and i'm particularly partial to the ones with ocean scenes.
ReplyDeleteI should take quotes out of context more often. We ended up with a better discussion that way. ;-)
ReplyDeleteIsn't it fun when that happens!
ReplyDeleteyup
ReplyDeleteof course. old chinese proverb say: cute pics mean profound wisdom.
ReplyDeleteand there was me worrying that you might not like the way we got sidetracked. I should know better by now, right?
ReplyDeleteSidetracks can be a good thing. Too much structure is dangerous.
ReplyDelete