Peter Rollins: The Insurrection Tour
30 Apr
Peter Rollins at Baylor University from Peter Rollins on Vimeo.
Money Quote: “Belief in the resurrection is participation in the insurrection.” (or something like that- it’s from memory.)
Another thing I found particularly interesting about this talk was the idea of re-thinking Christianity as a “material” faith and not just doctrines and beliefs.
If you haven’t read anything by Peter Rollins I’d suggest the book How (Not) To Speak of God.
I felt like he never quite got to actually talking about the insurrection. I guess that was the style he was going for, perhaps? Also, I’m left going “Ok so…now what? Are always left in this nebulous state of saying we don’t really believe in the resurrection if we don’t live it?” My question is, at what point CAN we say we’re a Christian? I think he’s spot on in saying that we can’t just give our nod to Jesus and then going on with our lives. Is he saying that we have to wait until we’ve “perfected ourselves” through social justice (for lack of a better term I guess) before we can really claim to believe all these things? Thoughts?
Hey Courtney,
Thanks for listening and sharing your questions. You asked, “At what point CAN we say we’re a Christian?” Obviously, I can’t speak for Peter but I think he might say something to the effect of, “We’re Christians to the degree that we’re living a life of love and becoming the the place where God manifests in the world. It’s easy to say, ‘I believe in God, I believe in the resurrection, I believe in love’, etc. but it’s another thing entirely to become the hands and feet of God, to become the site of resurrection, and live a life of love.”
Second, you asked, “Is he saying that we have to wait until we’ve ‘perfected ourselves’ through social justice (for lack of a better term I guess) before we can really claim to believe all these things?” I think his point is that our emphasis on “claiming to believe these things” has been misguided and created a Christianity that is focused on abstract beliefs and doctrines instead of being grounded in the reality of our day to day lives. Like the person who sits in a starbucks and discusses the evil of corporations. We’ve become a people who acknowledge all the creeds and doctrines but have yet to become the place where love manifests in the world.
I hope that helps.
Thanks, Brett. It kind of reminds me of that sermon you preached one time… You blamed our current situation in the Church on Plato. Sort of
I think it goes back to what we talked about in small group one week: the both/and thing. I think there is some of the Church that is totally in that “just Christians in name” boat. Completely. But, there are some, it seems, that might actually be swinging the pendulum so far the other way with “just doing stuff” that the Man Jesus Christ gets totally lost and the importance of confessing His divinity, death, resurrection, and return are gone. Do you know what I mean?
As many a person has discussed recently, I think James has a thing or two to say about this
I actually just read James and wow…I need Jesus.
I think most can logically conclude that the creeds and deeds are not lining up.
Peter Rollins seems to only cover the poor and alms giving and a poured out live in a service sense as a demonstration of belief in the resurrection.
My question for Rollins would be, is he abiding in what he first heard?
1st John 2:24 As for you, let that abide in you which ye heard from the beginning. If that which ye heard from the beginning abide in you, ye also shall abide in the Son, and in the Father.
I would not think based on what Peter Rollins himself is saying (the sum of all his teachings) that he believes the same things that Jesus and the Apostles believed, and we are called believers! Ist John is the litmus test for abiding in Christ reality.
Psalm 90:1 says: Lord, THOU hast been our dwelling-place In all generations.
It is abiding in Christ that is the secret place of the Most High. I capitalized THOU because I am seeing nothing from Peter Rollins about the supremacy of Christ. If the people we hand a cup of water to look in our eyes and only see loving volunteers doing things in human effort and human power but do not see that there is a real place called HEAVEN where the tears are wiped away and sin is no more than I think we are not being true disciples.
2nd Peter 3:11 Seeing that these things are thus all to be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy living and godliness,
Jesus Christ is the Ark of Safety in the tribulation that is coming. If Peter Rollins is sent by God then where is the real Jesus?
Hey Courtney,
I think I know what you mean but could you give an example of a Christian or specific group of Christians who you feel are “just doing stuff”. I think I can imagine this but it might help make it a bit more concrete. Either way thanks for chatting!
Hey Kyle,
Thanks for dropping by! Honestly, I’m not sure I’m tracking with your argument at all. You wrote, “I think most can logically conclude that the creeds and deeds are not lining up.” I’d like to hear more about exactly what creeds and deeds you’re talking about. I feel like this is probably also a description of what you mean by “abiding in Christ” and living in the reality of “the supremacy of Christ” but if not feel free to expound on those. I feel like those phrases and verses can mean different things to different people so until I hear your interpretation I can’t really comment further.
Btw although I wasn’t tracking with your argument, it seems like your hinting that Rollins is some kind of end times false prophet – which seems really over the top. I’m looking forward to hearing what you mean by the above phrases because I can’t imagine how someone who is encouraging people to live like Jesus, be the site of resurrection, and live like Mother Teresa is evil. I await your response with eager anticipation!
Hi Brett,
By ‘abiding in Christ’ I believe that is a ‘literal spiritual’ teaching. Literal because God’s Spirit is real and His people are His dwelling place. So to abide in Christ is to ‘walk as he walked’, and yes to do His will which is in part giving a cup to the least of these.
‘The supremacy of Christ’ well Christ is the head of the church, literally. He is to be the central focus of all that we do. ‘Turn our eyes upon Jesus’
Be creeds and deeds I just meant that after all these years I understand the hypocrisy of those that are have on doctrine and creed but lacking in being a servant of all. The concern I have is that the alternative to that is being heavily prescribed in church growth and especially emergent realms is not the will of God.
1st Timothy 14:6 Take heed to thyself, and to thy teaching. Continue in these things; for in doing this thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee.
I feel like there has always been a remnant that has held to good doctrine and has also lived in full devotion to Jesus Christ, fulfilling the great commission and being a servant of all. Hope I expounded on certain descriptions effectively.
Hey Kyle,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. This was extremely helpful in clarifying where you’re coming from. From what I know of Rollins I think He would be “abiding in Christ” and focused on the “supremacy of Christ” according to your descriptions. I say this because I feel he’s focused on “walking the walk” as Jesus exemplified, as well as keeping Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection the central focus of all his talks and writings.
If I’m understanding you correctly it seemed the crux of your disagreement with him was this: while you agree that more Christians need to be “living” the gospel with tangible expressions of loving thy neighbor (caring for the poor, looking after orphans and widows, etc.) you’re concerned that a focus on the deeds of the Christian faith are overshadowing the doctrines of the faith, maybe even eclipsing them entirely. Is that an accurate portrayal of your disagreement? If so, I think alot of our discussion probably needs to center around the word “believe” and what we mean when we say that.
I think one of the things Rollins is trying to communicate is that when the bible talks about belief it’s not simply talking about mental assent to ideas. Instead, to believe in something is to reorient our lives around that thing. In that way there’s two levels to belief. The first impacts the head while the second impacts the heart so to speak. Rollins communicated something to this effect towards the end of the talk when he said, “You ask me if I believe in God and I say ‘yeah sure I believe in God’ and then we go to the pub and philosophize and then go home at the end. But then you ask me, ‘as a Christian do you believe in God?’ Then I say ‘well honestly most of the time no.’” How could he say such a thing? Is he drifting from the faith? Does he not really care about doctrines or creeds? Does he have a “low view” of Paul or the Bible? No. It’s because he’s acknowledging that when Jesus said, “repent and believe in me” the invitation wasn’t to embrace Jesus at some sort of abstract philosophical level – like two guys chatting at a coffee shop about political, philosophical, or religious ideas. Instead, the invitation to “believe” was an invitation to participate in the kingdom of God. As Jesus said in Matthew 5, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
I disagree with your and Courtney’s perspective because I feel like the real concern for the church (emergent or otherwise) isn’t stemming from a lack of adherence to religious creeds, the problem is with a lack of obedience to the way of Jesus. At least that’s true in my life. I’m more than happy to declare “I believe in God” the problem is that I’m unwilling to become the site where God manifests in the world. I’m more than happy to say “I believe in the resurrection” but more often than not I’m unwilling to become the site of resurrection.
Hi Brett,
I think the focus on the deeds overshadowing the doctrines of the faith is much of what seems different. To believe is to do more than philosophically line up with that Jesus said and Him telling us the
revelation that He is the Son of God.
So when we discuss the word believe we than might bring into play Rollins view on penal substitution. There was a seminar for IKON I and someone there had the chance to ask Rollins about penal substitution. The interviewer was pleased to hear that upon being asked that Rollins does not agree with Mclaren and Chalke regarding their basic rejection of this doctrine, but Rollins when on to be honest to say that he is still not sure and that at IKON there are a number of views on the meaning of the cross.
So it seems that after 2000 years the jury is still out regarding the most important event in human history and the very heart of God’s Gospel. Yet all the above gentleman have a sure verdict regarding homosexuality being an acceptable lifestyle for a Christian, even though it violates Holy Scripture.
I think that Rollins has not yet believed.
Acts 16:30 and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
We see here that this is not just about jumping into a lifestyle of resurrection living. So when we talk about believe I think we must acknowledge who we are before we are saved. These men heard the Gospel, their eyes were opened and they realized they were not safe. As God drew them in with His love these things working together led them to see their condition (sin needing atonement) and in their awakened eyes and heart infused with hope they asked ‘what must I do to be saved’? The response was believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household. So to spiritually yield, and to in their hearts believe is what this is referring to. Of course God is supernaturally at work here, He always is when people are truly believing. The works will follow right? The Bible said that faith without works is dead, but that faith to believe and turn to Jesus is absolutely essential. Faith and believing are inseparable.
.
Hey Kyle,
First, you wrote, “So when we discuss the word believe we than might bring into play Rollins view on penal substitution.” Which you went on to say that he actually embraces (albeit tentatively). Then you finished that section off with the following, “I think that Rollins has not yet believed.” What am I missing here? Why are you upset that Rollins is embracing the penal substitutionary atonement?
Second, while I like certain aspects of your interpretation of Acts 16:30 I feel like it’s missing the backdrop of what the disciples were doing there in the first place and because of that ends up misunderstanding what the jailer means by “saved” and what the disciples mean by “believe”.
My understanding of this entire passage has the Great Commission as it’s backdrop because that’s what the disciples are doing there in the first place – obeying Jesus command to people like the jailer. Matt. 28:19-20 says, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you…” First, when the jailer is asking to be “saved” I don’t think he’s thinking of being saved from hell or some kind of unpleasant afterlife experience. As a first century Jew he’s recognizing Jesus as the Messiah and aligning himself with His agenda and the kingdom of God. Then the disciples do exactly what Jesus told them to do in Matthew 28. Second, they tell him to “believe in Jesus” and then “they spoke the word of the Lord to him” which I interpret as expounding on who Jesus was and what he taught (including things mentioned in the sermon on the mount). I also think atonement theology was likely part of this teaching. Third, they were baptized to show that they’re dying to their old selves and are new creations before God and committed to living the kingdom way.
Thoughts?
Hey Brett,
Well, based on the excerpt I read from the interviewer Rollins is still undecided. I felt relief too in reading that, I figured hey well maybe he has an honest desire for the truth and maybe this whole agenda I think he has, maybe it is not really like that so much. But seeing that he was unsure about something that seems so biblically clear, even as we look way back in the old testament is concerning. I would think the jury is still out in Rollins mind, but in the meantime he as become this well known leader/writer/etc and has a huge following. With my eyes to see I do not see the types of fruit and sense of a Shepard that I track with as being true. I tend to think that God has a preference of approach amongst His people. To much to get into but one reason is that God is about to bring His saints through the tribulation and correct doctrine, preparation, true faith/holiness we will find matters a great deal. when you might ask? Probably in our lifetime and possibly it could begin very soon, have you noticed the shaking yet worldwide? Anyhow.. Obviously the traditions of man have been ‘making of no effect the word of God’ so certainly when that winnowing fork comes some doctrines will go quick. Which ones they are who can really know, but to be unsure of key tenets of the faith and extremely buddy buddy with those that wholly reject it my logic then reasons that maybe Rollins has yet believed or something is off. Or maybe I could have used a different set of words there, but one of the considerations in my mind is that God has sent him strong delusion. I’m honestly trying to figure it out
I agree some my description may be lacking and I like some of how you were able to round it out. I am left wondering… what was a first century Jew like? There is something on my to do list haha. but not afraid of hell, or eternal consequences of sin I don’t know, but I do recognize that even if it as I say it may have been different than we understand it the last 300 years. Still Jesus said:
And he, when he is come, will convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.
1st John 16:8 (ASV)
I recognize what your conveying with believe in Jesus and some of the different attributes and teachings that show who He is. I think all of the disciples had an incredible focus on the person of Jesus Christ and I see that emphasis throughout the epistles and I saw it from Jesus Himself in the Gospels. When you were mentioning dying to self and being new creations I additionally prefer in this area a focus on ‘the lost doctrine of regeneration’. God in saving a man Paul Washer said does a work that is equal to or greater than the power that it took to create man. This is an example of God’s miraculous power, this so great salvation God offers us I think it is so worth mentioning on that individual level in preaching (in fact I think it is essential).. but what I really mean to say is that I think God has it’s emphasis there in the Bible on purpose and for our benefit.
I listened, and my curiosity’s peaked.
Whatever this vague, ill-defined requirement Rollins and you, Brett, would place on people in order for them to qualify as Christians, can it not be summed up in the one little word, “repent”? Just curious. You know me. I would always prefer not to stray too far from the language of the Bible. If this is the case, then I have no problem whatsoever with what was said above.
But of course I don’t think that this is the case. I echo Courtney’s initial concern. Mr. (Dr.?) Rollins has made being a Christian a very strenuous thing indeed. He has forgotten (although I’d wager he actually never learned) that one’s identity as a Christian is not tied up in what we do.
Christianity is not an activity. It is exactly the opposite. To be a Christian is, if I may introduce a Biblical phrase to the mix, to be at “rest”.
I also like how he completely dodged a straightforward question about the resurrection.
Who is really guilty of merely “checking off” doctrinal points without it affecting their lives? Those who take the time to understand issues of doctrine (theologians)? Or guys like Rollins, who go on speaking tours without having answers to questions they know they will arouse?
On the upside, that accent is smooth like butter.
Brett,
As I was considering a response to your question, your blog exploded with comments. I now feel that I am trying to enter into a very serious discussion. We’ll see how this goes
As far as a specific example, I don’t know how specific you want. What I’m referring to are the groups that are going out and giving things to people (be it food, houses, Christmas presents, etc.) in need and leaving the Gospel of Jesus out completely and purposefully because it’s not practical in the moment. Now, I understand that at times there is the issue of building up a relationship with people over time and then sharing the Gospel, and that is good to be sure, but I think if the intentions of a group are “Let’s just BE Jesus only” and the Messiah himself is never even talked about, or the need for recipient to repent and receive the glorious Truth is not mentioned, then, people still go to Hell and no one comes into the Kingdom.
A person I very much respect said one time “Even Jesus shut down the soup kitchen when the people weren’t getting the fact that He was what they needed.” Then the guy brought up John 6(:30-59). The crowds were wanting a miracle, and they were also wanting bread again (Jesus had fed the 5,000 earlier in the chapter). Jesus shut it down with “I am the bread of life.” He didn’t even give them literal bread. He talked about how He is the way to the Father and true life.
I also have a totally different question that I would like to bring up in this. As far as practical needs and the Gospel are concerned, what about healing the sick and raising the dead? Those are extremely practical, and they actually give this INCREDIBLE opportunity for Jesus to be put on display. Jesus said to give a cup of cold water for sure, and He also said go make disciples of all nations, but he ALSO said to heal the sick and raise the dead. Thoughts on that?
I also agree with a lot of the things that the Kyles have been bringing up, but I wno’t get into that right now.
…But, specifically, Kyle B., that accent is legit.
I’m getting triple teamed!
Hey Kyle S.,
I guess I could understand where you were coming from if Rollins denied any understanding of the atonement at all. However, writing him off because he seems a bit tentative in his acceptance of the “penal substitutionary atonement” seems uncharitable.
I would really encourage you to research more about 1st century Jewish culture as it relates to Jesus and the New Testament writers. I personally enjoyed “The Challenge of Jesus” by NT Wright http://www.amazon.com/Challenge-Jesus-Rediscovering-Who-Was/dp/0830822003/ref=sr_1_26?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273843302&sr=8-26
Also, I like your thoughts on the doctrine of regeneration and from what you described I think I would agree with you.
Hey Kyle B.,
Good to hear from you. I hope graduate school is going well. As far as the word “repent” I would give a resounding “yes!” Repentance is absolutely essential in becoming a Christian. Of course, the way I understand it repentance is a comprehensive change in a person: from the way they think all the way down to their actions. Also, in my understanding “actions” would include ceasing from sin as well as participation in good works.
As a Protestant myself I see where you’re coming from with the idea of our identity not being wrapped up in what we do or “good works”. Let me be clear that I’m not trying to get us back to some medieval understanding of faith where we “worked” for God in return for his love or to secure a better spot in the afterlife. I believe in the grace of God and I would never encourage anyone to do the good works of Jesus from a place of fear or obligation. However, I would encourage good works from the place of obedience to Jesus example and the things he taught us. A few verses that shaped my perspective on this are Matthew 7:21-23 and James 2:14-26. My interpretation of these verses is that actions prove what one really believes. They are the “fruit” that prove what kind of tree you really are so to speak. I agree that Christianity is not an “activity” however I also don’t think Christianity is a specific set of doctrines either. It’s both of these working together. Agreed?
I actually think theologians and Rollins are great examples of people who are in danger of checking off the doctrinal bullet points without ever putting into practice what they know. You know as well as I do that going to bible college is an awesome experience because of all you learn about the faith, however I’m sure you also know that it can be dangerous because you can confuse knowledge with love. In my opinion philosophizing and theologizing are important to the faith – but they aren’t living out the faith and they aren’t evidence of a love for God. I hope I didn’t get to preachy on you. My apologies if I did.
Hey Courtney,
How is IHOP going? I’ve run out of time to respond to your comments right now so I’ll check back later today or tomorrow. Thanks!
Hi Brett,
Plenty of my concern being legitimate is hinging on eschatology. I can explain that more later possibly. There is a link I’d like to send you and maybe you can forward it to Kyle B also. This stuff is amazing ya’ll it really is.
(Dan.9:27) And he shall make a firm covenant with
many for one week …
It all has to do with a seven-year Dragon/Beast covenant with all nations that will be both secular and religious. There are types and shadows of this coming tribulation in the bible.
(Eccl.1:9)
“That which hath been done is that which shall be done.”
Will check out the link, for sure thanks for that. I am 1/4th Jewish by ethnicity and my mom works for the Dallas Jewish Federation so we are sometimes discussing various things.
Definitely heard what you mentioned and please pray for me that I’ll do God’s will rather than being uncharitable. I’ll get there… I want to please God and obey his command to love one another without judging
Hey Courtney,
I totally agree that there is a time and place to verbally explain and share “the hope that we have” in Jesus. I guess I just don’t know of any groups of Christians like you’re describing. Do you feel like I may be becoming that kind of Christian? Maybe our home team is? All the communities of Christians I know focus heavily on getting people to believe in Jesus.
I think signs and wonders definitely have a place. I think they’re signs of the inbreaking of the kingdom of God that leave people in wonder. However, I would like to see them used on more of a one on one basis with people, which is where our perspectives may differ. I’m pretty wary of using them to put Jesus on display, specifically for evangelistic purposes. I think Jesus primary motivation for the miracles he performed wasn’t to get more followers or attention but instead was simply motivated by love. In fact there are times where he asks people not to tell anyone about their healing for fear that it would bring him more attention. I think this perspective is lost on most in the charismatic movement because to us signs and wonders are the perfect evangelistic tool for the masses! I’m not saying it can’t be evangelistic, obviously if a non Christian experiences God like this it will have an impact, I just wish we didn’t use it as a
Power play to woo the masses. I want people to follow Jesus because they love him and his vision of the kingdom-not because they were wowed by a sign or wonder. Does that make sense?
On a more personal level I’m kind of done with the charismatic tradition because of my own personal disappointment with that tribe. That’s why you don’t see signs and wonders or a string pursuit of them in my own life. I’m not saying my experience is biblical! It’s just where I am. However, I dont hold my experience forth as the way it should be for everyone
Hi, Brett. When you addressed my comment earlier you said some things which were very helpful to me in understanding where you’re coming from, and could possibly lead us to some sort of resolution to this ongoing difference in perspective we seem to have. Let’s follow the trail, shall we?
1. What words does Rollins have to use in order for you to become persuaded that he propagates a “medieval understanding of faith where we “work” for God in return for his love or to secure a better spot in the afterlife?” I ask this because, it seems that before you would charge him with this crime, you must see him in an embroidered robe, holding a staff, wearing the papal crown, issuing out anathemas like he was from the 16th century. Or perhaps wearing a camel-hair robe tied off at the waist with a piece of twine, with a shaved head and emaciated frame, like an ascetic. My point is, the same error can creep up disguised in whatever dress and whatever jargon happens to be en vogue. How do you know this isn’t the case with Rollins? Especially since…
2. Anyone who watches Rollins’ video above will come away from it feeling a deep sense of obligation (I hope you would not deny this). Courtney picked up on it. Yet you maintain that you “would never encourage anyone to do the good works of Jesus from a place of fear or obligation.” Is this not a little strange?
3. I agree that “theologizing” isn’t always evidence of love for God. Will you meet me halfway and say that it CAN be, sometimes?
Of course there is more, but I’m trying not to inundate your comments section.
Hey Kyle,
I think if Rollins repeatedly dangled the carrot of heaven or instilled a fear of hell in connection with good works that would be a red flag for me. I say “repeatedly” because I think Jesus made this connection a few times (Matthew 10:42, Matthew 25:41) so as uncomfortable as it is for me to admit it, I guess I couldn’t oppose someone mentioning the fact that they are connected. Also, if he were implying that God’s love for a person increased or decreased depending on how they acted that would be a red flag for me. I think the scandal of Jesus was that he loved sinners. I’m sure there are others but those are two that come to mind.
I feel like one of our problems in the evangelical church is that we’ve pitted “faith” over and against “good works” instead of holding them in tension. Theologically I think we were motivated by the fact that we didn’t want people to make the mistakes I mentioned above (i.e. thinking you can “earn” a better afterlife, god’s love, etc. by good works). However, in distancing ourselves from the worst of medieval Catholic theology we distanced ourselves from the biblical idea of good works. “We” are a religion of grace while “they” (Catholics, Jews, etc.) are a religion of works. I couldn’t disagree with that more. Somehow I think we’ve got to come to the uncomfortable conclusion that we’re saved by the grace and love of God, yet to be truly Christians we must live in a “Christian” way (not just ceasing from sin but pursuing good works). I think that’s the truth of not just the NT but the OT as well. Check out this article if you’d like more on this perspective http://criticalbelief.com/2010/04/21/the-false-antithesis-of-faith-and-works/ It goes a little deeper into my concerns with the Reformed tradition.
Finally, yes I think I that theologizing could be a love for God in and of itself. However, the only way for me to tell if it is, is by looking at the life of the theologian? Agreed?
Thanks for engaging with me Kyle. I know we have our disagreements but hopefully this is an iron sharpening iron process for both of us. I really appreciate your inquiries into truth and I do think that you’re a great example of somone who’s theologizing is an expression of a love for God.
Yo,
Interesting discourse here. thought I’d share the things I took away from the video. I actually heard Rollins in a longer version on the RevolutionNYC podcast a month or two ago. The main thing I remember taking from it, was this idea of experiencing the trauma of doubt, as a necessary component of faith.
as someone that’s grown up in an intense fundamental environment, I can relate to those of us that always want to dismiss human feelings without ever actually walking through the experience. “the Bible says…, so that feeling is wrong, now get over it” I feel like I’m learning that the journey (the good and the bad) is what grows our faith. It’s not enought to know the text, but rather to have it come alive in our circumstances, for then it has true meaning.
I also was raised in a very works-based environment. over the last number of years, i’ve slowly layed those things aside, layer by layer. I love the scripture that talks about us being Saved FOR good works. To connect to something greater than ourselves that compels us to operate from a place of Divine Love, is a very powerful thing. After all, without love…they don’t mean anything.
I’ve encountered those that don’t like the Evangelistic message diminished in the current “social justice” movements. It always comes down to a question of emphasis it seems. Emphasize sharing the Gospel or meeting someone’s physical needs. I personally don’t think there’s ever a specific formulaic response for everyone to live by. We are all different members of the body with unique gifts. If God is telling us to share the Gospel with someone, then we should. If God is compelling us to minister to someone’s earthly needs, then we should. Or both if the Spirit leads us.
I feel like I was saved from living for myself. That carries more meaning for me in the here and now, then being saved from eternal judgement. probably short-sighted of me, i know, but also more relevant.
I also know I cannot participate in benevolence, for some alteriar motive to share Jesus. I would rather put that in God’s hands. If there’s an opportunity to share my life, then so be it. If not, I am honored to be doing for the least of these.
I told Brett the other day, this is not an area of excellence for me. Something I feel God is growing me toward. Maybe He’s still aligning my heart, to be in a place that is most effective. Not sure, but I trust His work.
this is a bit of a thought downlowad, so apologies for the rambling. Just had to get them out of my head after listening and reading.
Thanks for the blog!