I think this is the most important question of all. God loves people, and not just because they understand, know, or do everything that he likes. I think we do the greatest harm when we convey (wrongly) that God doesn't love people because they don't get it right, or understand this or that.
The plot thickens.
In my picture of Jesus he was accessible, ate at people's houses, went to barbecues, and weddings. He did not go away from the people, but to the people. Then he also spent time with his disciples. Then he went off to be alone by himself.
There is a balance. And sometimes life took the balance away from him, when people pressed in on him because their needs were so great. So, even when you plot a course to find balance, it isn't alway possible.
He was confrontationol only in matters regarding being exclusionary and pushing people away, which in effect money changers in the Temple did. And I think it is the most vital message of all, that God is the God of all, and not a country club, which Jesus said when he implied that God's sunshine and rain fall on us all, which means God does what he commands us to do, "Love those who hate you...do good to those who spitefully use you..."
He never got mad at people for being filled with sins and contradictions, only saying, "The kingdom of God is a country club, and you aren't invited." In which case, he said, "The kingdom of God belongs to the little children..." Implying God loves people who can't even fully comprehend him.
And so in the parable in Luke fifteen, God has two sons. (By the way they represent all people in the world) which fall into one or two extremes, those who try to prove they deserve to be rewarded (self-righteous boasting, and those who give up and numb the pain of life by dousing themselves in pig slop. (AKA run of the mill sinners) Believe it or not, religious or not, we all tend to be one or the other brother throughout our life. And it is a good thing neither brother defines God. The father defines God.
And he was speaking to people who were saying, "We are righteous- they are sinners" (Paraphrased)
But it is pretty amazing that God didn't make a distinction between whether they lived in the house or did what he said. They were sons regardless. If they lived in pig slop, and spent their money on harlots- the younger son. They were still a son. Position didn't change how God saw them, although it impacted how the brothers saw themselves and each other. And at the end they were either sons who were lost, or they were sons who were found, but they were sons. And if you backtrack to the parable of lost sheep and a lost coin, the point was that lost or found they had great value to God.
Now it is important to make this disinction also. The younger brother was lost out of the house. He couldn't recieve the father's love where he was at, but the love existed. The older brother was lost inside the house. He was loved but saw himself as an indentured servant, "I have served you for all of these years, and yet, you never gave me...." Well, the father said, "All I have is yours..." In other words the older brother was just as alienated, but in his case it was because he never realized he was loved for who he was, not what he did.
So when the older brother- self righteousness -sees the younger brother, he disowns him. "This son of yours has...spent YOUR money on harlots...and riotous living." Not "This brother of mine..."
Sometimes the church fails to get that message. I doubt half the people who loved Jesus followed Jesus. They simply knew he loved them. He ate with them. He wasn't mean to them. He was very much an everyman to the point where those who criticised him said, "He is a glutton and a wine bibber..." Huh? They saw him hanging out with people that righteous people weren't supposed to hang out with. And this offended them.
If we send the message, "God only likes people who do such and such..." we actually send the wrong message. "For God so loved the world (people)
But the whole intent of our being, is not to be an exclusive country club, but people who get, "God loves these people" and I'm supposed to be an example of that.
I'm not saying we don't need an Oasis.- a place to go to get refreshed. But a church is not always going to be that. But the question again, is this, "what is a church anyway?" The church was not a place, it was a group of people with a common belief. And that group of people went out, came in, encouraged people, spent time with God. We all need refreshment. We all need to get away from the masses, whether Christian or not. And I think that is available. But here's the dilema. When I go into a building with needy people, I can't help but either be involved or to pull away from them. So church (as in a building community) can't always meet my need for encouragement. I might have to get together with an inner circle of friends or go away altogether for that.
Just some thoughts to ponder.
The plot thickens.
In my picture of Jesus he was accessible, ate at people's houses, went to barbecues, and weddings. He did not go away from the people, but to the people. Then he also spent time with his disciples. Then he went off to be alone by himself.
There is a balance. And sometimes life took the balance away from him, when people pressed in on him because their needs were so great. So, even when you plot a course to find balance, it isn't alway possible.
He was confrontationol only in matters regarding being exclusionary and pushing people away, which in effect money changers in the Temple did. And I think it is the most vital message of all, that God is the God of all, and not a country club, which Jesus said when he implied that God's sunshine and rain fall on us all, which means God does what he commands us to do, "Love those who hate you...do good to those who spitefully use you..."
He never got mad at people for being filled with sins and contradictions, only saying, "The kingdom of God is a country club, and you aren't invited." In which case, he said, "The kingdom of God belongs to the little children..." Implying God loves people who can't even fully comprehend him.
And so in the parable in Luke fifteen, God has two sons. (By the way they represent all people in the world) which fall into one or two extremes, those who try to prove they deserve to be rewarded (self-righteous boasting, and those who give up and numb the pain of life by dousing themselves in pig slop. (AKA run of the mill sinners) Believe it or not, religious or not, we all tend to be one or the other brother throughout our life. And it is a good thing neither brother defines God. The father defines God.
And he was speaking to people who were saying, "We are righteous- they are sinners" (Paraphrased)
But it is pretty amazing that God didn't make a distinction between whether they lived in the house or did what he said. They were sons regardless. If they lived in pig slop, and spent their money on harlots- the younger son. They were still a son. Position didn't change how God saw them, although it impacted how the brothers saw themselves and each other. And at the end they were either sons who were lost, or they were sons who were found, but they were sons. And if you backtrack to the parable of lost sheep and a lost coin, the point was that lost or found they had great value to God.
Now it is important to make this disinction also. The younger brother was lost out of the house. He couldn't recieve the father's love where he was at, but the love existed. The older brother was lost inside the house. He was loved but saw himself as an indentured servant, "I have served you for all of these years, and yet, you never gave me...." Well, the father said, "All I have is yours..." In other words the older brother was just as alienated, but in his case it was because he never realized he was loved for who he was, not what he did.
So when the older brother- self righteousness -sees the younger brother, he disowns him. "This son of yours has...spent YOUR money on harlots...and riotous living." Not "This brother of mine..."
Sometimes the church fails to get that message. I doubt half the people who loved Jesus followed Jesus. They simply knew he loved them. He ate with them. He wasn't mean to them. He was very much an everyman to the point where those who criticised him said, "He is a glutton and a wine bibber..." Huh? They saw him hanging out with people that righteous people weren't supposed to hang out with. And this offended them.
If we send the message, "God only likes people who do such and such..." we actually send the wrong message. "For God so loved the world (people)
But the whole intent of our being, is not to be an exclusive country club, but people who get, "God loves these people" and I'm supposed to be an example of that.
I'm not saying we don't need an Oasis.- a place to go to get refreshed. But a church is not always going to be that. But the question again, is this, "what is a church anyway?" The church was not a place, it was a group of people with a common belief. And that group of people went out, came in, encouraged people, spent time with God. We all need refreshment. We all need to get away from the masses, whether Christian or not. And I think that is available. But here's the dilema. When I go into a building with needy people, I can't help but either be involved or to pull away from them. So church (as in a building community) can't always meet my need for encouragement. I might have to get together with an inner circle of friends or go away altogether for that.
Just some thoughts to ponder.