- Exactamundo! Reminding me of my recent attempt to convey a deeper understanding of the concept of the transitive verb “to redeem” to someone by providing a Collins-dictionary list of examples. Because most of the examples involved “financial terms” [e.g. currency/money/common alternates, the individual concluded that “redemption” = “financial transaction”, and “Jesus the Redeemer” = “Jesus, the Banker”. Unfortunately, the individual completely glossed over what I thought was the most salient of the examples: i.e. “to redeem” = “to fulfill a promise/pledge”, money doesn’t have to be involved at all. A spouse can, upon their death, be said to have redeemed their wedding promise(s).
- More to your point, tagging the goal of a relationship between God and humans with the word “rewards” can, and often does lend itself to characterizing the goal of a relationship with God as striving for a reward from a rewarder when, IMO, Proverbs 10:25 tells me otherwise: “When the storm has swept by, the wicked are gone, but the righteous stand firm forever.” Sticking with God ends up with a human survivor.
2 Likes
Between the marriage of my childhood (briefly in my early 20’s) and my actual marriage I was inspired/driven to think some about the purpose of relationship. In part we want to really know an other more than superficially. But I came to realize that being known by an other was as important or even more so. You can know another without a feeling of belonging but if another knows you (and doesn’t flee) then there is belonging. If you feel God knows you and you are honest in that relationship that can have similar though different value.
2 Likes
Absolutely! I agree wholeheartedly. Where’s the fun in being a stand-up comedian, if you can never find an audience?
3 Likes
My sense of humor ranges from off beat to silly. My wife is fond of saying the trouble with my humor is it isn’t funny. I think that’s the funniest thing she says.
3 Likes
Precisely!
(30) Knowledge of God
To say Thou art God , without knowing what the Thou means–of what use is it? God is a name only, except we know God .
That was a short one today (from Lewis.) I’ll also include below the entire paragraph from which that thought was extracted, for those who want more context. And as always, nothing beats just following the link and reading the entire sermon.
But as this temptation in the wilderness was an epitome and type of the temptations to come, against which for forty days he had been making himself strong, revolving truth beyond our reach, in whose light every commonest duty was awful and divine, a vision fit almost to oppress a God in his humiliation, so we shall understand the whole better if we look at his life in relation to it. As he refused to make stones bread, so throughout that life he never wrought a miracle to help himself; as he refused to cast himself from the temple to convince Satan or glory visibly in his Sonship, so he steadily refused to give the sign which the human Satans demanded, notwithstanding the offer of conviction which they held forth to bribe him to the grant. How easy it seems to have confounded them, and strengthened his followers! But such conviction would stand in the way of a better conviction in his disciples, and would do his adversaries only harm. For neither could not in any true sense be convinced by such a show: it could but prove his power. It might prove so far the presence of a God; but would it prove that God? Would it bring him nearer to them, who could not see him in the face of his Son? To say Thou art God , without knowing what the Thou means–of what use is it? God is a name only, except we know God . Our Lord did not care to be so acknowledged.
As found in “The Temptation in the Wilderness” sermon.
3 Likes
In French there is a verb savoir that means “to know’ regarding simple facts and another connaitre for knowing more complex ‘things’ such as people and places which you never know entirely but can become more familiar with as the relationship endures and deepens. I think what is indicated by “God” requires a still more extensive expansion of what it means “to know”.
As with persons you can have a relationship with God but unlike with persons you cannot record the conversation on audio or video tape. That doesn’t mean you can’t have one. Maybe you can but that isn’t my experience. The way I think of it is as parallel play with a silent partner. There isn’t a back and forth sort of exchange just a sense of meeting whatever the world brings alongside one that knows more but doesn’t speak. I think of insight, inspiration and intuition as a kind of wordless premonition of how that one is sizing up out situation.
2 Likes
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the french word that you’ve mixed up with the English word “savior” is “savoir”. “à savoir” translates to “to know”. The french word for “savior” is “sauveur” (masculine) or “sauveuse” (feminine).
1 Like
In other hands that would surely have been a gotcha moment. Thanks for not roughing me up.
3 Likes
Good one, Mark.
German makes this same distinction with “wissen” for facts (Wissenschaft is the word for “science”) and “kennen” for persons or things you can be familiar with but can never fully apprehend.
In fact, I had a book or something called, Gott Kennen.
Wait! I bet that’s the German title for J.I. Packer’s book (Knowing God).
2 Likes
For You Are My God By John Foley,S J
-
You give marvelous comrades to me:
the faithful who dwell in Your land.
Those who choose alien gods
have chosen an alien band. -
You are my portion and cup;
It is You that I claim for my prize.
Your heritage is my delight,
the lot you have given to me. -
Glad are my heart and my soul
Securely my body will rest
For you will not leave me for dead
Nor lead your beloved astray -
You show me the path for my life
In your presence the fullness of joy
To be at your right hand forever
For me would be happiness always
3 Likes
Beautiful song!
1 Like
We’ll, … I didn’t know any of that either.
If you want an uplifting message (and a great tune stuck in your head) for the day, every since we sang this in church yesterday, I can’t get it out of my head. Not that I want to.
“Together” by Nathan Grieser.
1 Like
Need this.
In case I’m not the only one who can never quite make out lyrics of songs here is a version for us. After he sings the first verse alone the lyrics are included in this Zoom.
Nice.
1 Like
Thanks, Mark - I had seen that one and really liked it too! The reason I opted for the other version just for the immediate post was because its lyrics matched what’s in our church’s “Voices Together” hymnal (#389) Here those lyrics are:
I will sing with you, my brother, will you sing with me?
I will sing with you, my brother, will you sing with me?
The notes won’t always come out as I’d like,
But I will learn to see the log in my own eye.
Lord, I’ll surrender.
Bring us together. X 2
I will sing with you, my sister, will you sing with me?
I will sing with you, my sister, will you sing with me?
My words will be imperfect, but I’ll try
bringing my assumptions to the light, I’ll pray:
Lord, I surrender.
Bring us together. X 2
I will sing with you, my rival, will you sing with me?
I will sing with you, my rival, will you sing with me?
Difference is a place where God is found.
In seeking peace we’re walking on to holy ground.
Lord, we surrender.
Bring us together. X 2
We will sing our song together, sing in harmony.
We will sing our song together, whether two or three.
Jesus heals our pain, he sets us free.
God has given us this song of hope to sing.
Lord, we surrender.
Bring us together x 5
1 Like
@merv and @MarkD, thanks for the lyrics. Like Mark, I can barely understand sung lyrics in any language.
These are worth understanding. Particularly before tomorrow’s events.
“I will sing with you my rival; will you sing with me?”
To be clear, while I am suggesting a postmodern witness should be grounded in kerygma (proclamation or announcement of the Christian gospel), I’m not suggesting it is ever reducible to it—except to the
degree any proper kerygma is thoroughly immersed in the culture in which it is proclaimed (its conceptual categories, concerns, practices, modes of address, etc.). There will always be more in kerygma than witness, and apologetics or witness will necessarily take us to different places than those reached through mere proclamation—most notably into dialogue with others. When I witness, I do not take up a self-centered, asymmetrical stance closed off to the needs, wants, desires, goals, dreams, story, or insights of the person to whom I witness? That is to say, witness is not a monologue but is dialogical in nature. Precisely in faithfulness to Christ and to the truth to which I witness,
I must be open to others when I witness. To be sure, witness involves taking a stand on what I believe and making a commitment to the place I occupy. But witness is inherently social. It involves listening to others, as well as speaking, and it involves being with others. It requires what Miroslav Volf calls a “catholic personality,” whose identity is always with others precisely because it is shaped by the gospel and engaged in the transformation of the world.Thus in witness, as I engage in dialogue with others, I speak and understand God’s Word differently because of my personal interaction with them.” But witnesses are not necessarily people who understand their confession in all its theoretical details and rational implications. What is of primary importance is that the witness believes it and is committed to understanding it, and in that commitment is edified in all the ways truth edifies others. To say it differently, prophetic witness is good hermeneutical practice and is crucial to making an interpretive tradition a living one.”
The End of Apologetics / Myron B. Penner, pp. 83-84.
We usually think of apologetics as a tool for opening a way to presenting the Gospel. But because we do sometimes/often/always see that brother or sister in the pew next to us as a rival, we also need apologetics to help us talk about how we, who believe the Gospel already, should be applying it, or living it out. Without dialogue , we will only ever see that rival as such, as someone to argue with or against, to avoid or counter.
Dialogue is riskier to both parties, because both could change. To some degree, if the rivalry will end, both will need to change, though. But community in dialogue is not natural or common.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.