These past two days, home with family and back in church this morning, surrounded again by friends who agree and who disagree with my thoughts but who live the reality that Jesus’ love is far more important than anything else, have been beautiful and soothing.
I have read every comment and again thank everyone who wrote. Thanks for not only taking the time to read my words, but taking the time to share your thoughts. So many I found encouraging. Others weren’t so encouraging, but I read every criticism with great appreciation--how rare it is to have people who will just tell you what they think.
This evening I noticed a post that is either from a friend I haven’t seen or talked to in 10 years, or someone who shares her name. I want to highlight it here:
"Hello David.
I feel great concern for the way you are allowing yourself to be used by the current media. You are walking on a very slippery slope. We are not to be of this world but set apart. The approval of a liberal audience is not being set apart. While God does indeed love all and died for all, he desires that all turn from sin and become a new creature. Be careful, David, believing your own press. God calls us to a humble, servants walk. This walk you are "just walking" could lead you down the wrong path of self indulgence. I pray it does not."
Karen Kelly | 10.22.06 - 1:54 pm
Whether it was my old friend who wrote this or someone with the same name, it was striking and I wanted to explore it.
Am I being used by the media? Sure. Everyone who ever appears on any news or entertainment show is being used. Every show, every person is used to fill the space between advertisements. But I am using them, too, to get my message out. So I guess that is a wash.
What troubled me in the comment were these two sentences, seemingly linked: “We are not to be of this world but set apart. The approval of a liberal audience is not being set apart.” The "set apart" part is key. If the world looks at those who call themselves Jesus’ followers and sees no difference from the world, that is a horrific indictment. Jesus’ followers can be many things, but "the same as the rest of the world" shouldn’t be one of them.
I just fundamentally disagree that any approval from a liberal audience means that I would not be set apart from the world (unless the definition is political instead of spiritual). I am excited if anyone--a communist, a socialist, a libertarian, a conservative, a Yankees fan (sorry)--is more interested in Jesus, and I think Jesus thinks the same thing.
BUT, BUT, BUT--her point, her greatest, most profound and most convicting point is this one--“God has called us to a humble servant's walk.” Yes, Yes, Yes.
Is there a silly, easy temptation to feel like I am important right now? Yeah, sometimes. It is kind of cool that anyone would listen to what you say and that anyone would take the time to share their thoughts back. Encouragement feels good. too.
But if anyone has read the book--and I don’t think that this woman has--they will quickly see that I have exposed myself very vulnerably to the world. While "Tempting Faith" has been seen as a political book and there are certainly very political parts, it is a deeply personal book. I talk about finding Jesus after a friend’s death in high school and about being part of an abortion in college. I am so very clear that I am the one who was first seduced to trade Jesus for political gain, and I am hardest on myself. In other words, I have tried to humble myself.
That leads me to another important comment from an anonymous poster:
"Mr. Kuo,
I am very impressed and heartened by your blog, and by the responses.
I did feel to remind you, however, to recognize that just like politics can be a temptation, so can worldly popularity. You are entering on a journey that is unique - a Christian writer and blogger who has attracted widespread appeal. Recognize that you will face temptations on this journey no different than what you encountered in the political realm. You seem to have a sincere and gentle style, which matches your faith, and that is wonderful. Please don't let it be corrupted by the worldly temptations that are sure to follow your book-and-blog success."
- a fellow lover of Christ
a Christian | 10.22.06 - 11:03 am | #
As you probably know, I had a brain tumor a few years ago. Some of it remains and grows very slowly. Every now and again I have small seizures, about 30 seconds long, in my left leg and foot. I wish I could say that this means I am always holy and always humble and always aware of my own mortality and never caught up in a moment. I can’t.
But all of this seems to me to be part of my journey in walking with Jesus. There is this false notion out there that walking with Jesus is a neat, pretty, packaged, got-it-all-together thing. It isn’t. I think Jesus knew that, however. That is why he talked about his followers as sheep...kinda dumb things that are stinky, surly, and easily influenced, but also with a deep recognition they need their shepherd.
Sabbath thoughts
Sunday October 22, 2006
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
About J-Walking
This blog is no longer updated and is closed for comments. We welcome your comments about Christianity in our Christianity forums.
Read David Kuo's bioSearch This Blog
Dovid said: No, the Hebrews did not think God approved of lesbianism. However, Jewish tradition says it is merely not modest, but not an abomination.
This is not completely true. The issue does not concern how Jews began to wrestle with the Law nearly 1500 years after the Tanakh. It instead concerns how God saw the practices of Egypt and Canaan (Lev. 18:1-2), practices that included many sorts of sexual sin. We need to be mindful of the historical context of the Leviticus verses. God had taken His people into strange lands, and He quite clearly wanted them not to adopt the culture of the inhabitants of those lands. It will not take the most intuitive person to understand that merely because not every sinful practice of the Canaanites was listed in Leviticus, it didn t mean ancient Jewish women thought themselves free to have merely immodest sex. Ancient Hebrew culture did not seem able to imagine women enjoying sexual relations in a way that did not objectify them. The culture was strongly patriarchical. When it came to law and human expression, the culture dealt largely with men. Women were simply expected to follow their husbands, fathers, and the male leadership of their villages. Nearly a millennia and a half later, long after Canaan s practices had passed out of direct relevance to the Jews, long after the Jews had become Hellenized and therefore exposed to lesbianism to a greater extent than ever, indeed long after Christ, and even after the destruction of the Jewish temple, rabbis struggled and debated how lesbianism would affect a woman s eligibility to marry priests. The sinfulness of lesbianism was not up for debate. All agreed it was sinful. The debate was over just how sinful it was, showing that a relatively easy hand on lesbianism was not a defined part of Jewish tradition even then. When we consider that women under Jewish law were not treated in the same way as men, that the law was defined and executed from a male s perspective, we see that this aspect you are mentioning here is irrelevant. Men, not women, were the leaders of Jewish society. Women were not even co-leaders. They were subject to their men. Since the scriptures curse homosexuality for men, it automatically cursed it for everyone else. I am not interested in arguing over the issue. In fact, I see here it is entirely unnecessary. If you think the ancient Jews did not think God approved of lesbianism, but that they thought lesbianism was merely immodest , you still don t offer much of a defense for the acceptability of lesbianism.
Thank you, David, for making yourself vulnerable. It is in this vulnerability that one is shown to be strong. How vulnerable Jesus was on the cross, how weak, how miserable. But if he didn't go there, where would we be? His vulnerability came out of great faith that God would NOT FORGET HIM and out of that faith he found the strength to humble himself and die. I am impressed with your humility. It is in short order in our political realm and in teh hearts of some of the comments left here. Why does anyone feel a need to defend Jesus? He is Risen! Defend yourselves, if you can.
Thank you, David, for making yourself vulnerable. It is in this vulnerability that one is shown to be strong. How vulnerable Jesus was on the cross, how weak, how miserable. But if he didn't go there, where would we be?
His vulnerability came out of great faith that God would NOT FORGET HIM and out of that faith he found the strength to humble himself and die. I am impressed with your humility. It is in short order in our political realm and in teh hearts of some of the comments left here. Why does anyone feel a need to defend Jesus? He is Risen! Defend yourselves, if you can.
To Dennis C. I addressed your skeptism however I cannot addressed your inability to accept the truth about what is being done to others by some touting they are doing God's work or protecting family values or whatever tag lines are used. I gave you names and locations, you must now do your homework if you want to find the truth of what you say you doubted. The bottom line is when one forces their own religious beliefs upon others via the political arena, they are turning our nation into a theocracy and we will no longer be a democracy with true freedom of religion.
Carolyn Wagner ~ As mentioned earlier in this thread, though not directly addressed to you, I searched through the archives of the Boston Globe and found no mention of the assault you have shared to validate your indignation. Although 2 gay websites go into detail about the event, when I use the date and author referenced on those web pages nothing comes up. When I "google" the various details (date, location, activity, author) of the event as described on the gay websites, only 2 those websites mention it. No other news service describes your story. Because cruel people hurt others, that does not take away everyones ability (but yours and those who agree with you) to participate in what kind of society we wish to live in. You believe that all who participate in various sexual behaviors should have rights on the same level as those based on race. Others believe that behavior is different than species, one is what you do the other is who you are. Special rights proscribed to those who participate in a particular behavior strikes many of us as unfair. It is fine that you disagree with that position, I wouldn't want it any other way. That is what makes America great. What you are attempting to say is that those of us who disagree with you are responsible for others who are cruel to people. I am against making America a theocracy, I am also against making America ruled by PC-minded authoritarians who would use manipulative arguments based on spurious claims of victimhood. If you have a valid point, just make it. Even if your story is true, it does not make your views any more (or less) accurate.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.