Comments on: The Defining Majority http://lifeasmission.com/blog/2006/06/the-defining-majority/ exploring the mystery of life and mission as one and the same Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:31:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: JR Rozko http://lifeasmission.com/blog/2006/06/the-defining-majority/comment-page-1/#comment-335 JR Rozko Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:57:35 +0000 http://lifeasmission.com/blog/?p=213#comment-335 Hard as it is to face, we must deal with the fact that when God commanded Isreal to obliterate the nations which occupied the land into which he was calling them, that obliteration included women and children (not that women and children are always guiltless, but they certainly were far less guilty than the men if for no other reason than the fact that they were treated as property and had no real voice). Not only that, can you possibly imagine an entire nation of people who were totally individually corrupt? I can't. More than that, it is inconceivable to me to imagine that when God judged Israel by allowing their enemies to defeat them and carry them into exile, the only people who suffered were those who were somehow directly responsible. I also think of some of Jesus' words in Luke 13:1-5 where he speaks of people who suffer, perhaps unjustly, but innocent nonetheless. Or, what about Jesus' words to his disciples in Luke 10? He sends them out to announce the Kingdom of God and he says of those who reject the message, "I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town." Certainly we can't be expected to believe that each individual person in that town had a specific and adequate opportunity to respond personally to the work and message of the disciples. Or, what about in Mark 6 when Jesus was only able to do a few miracles in his hometown because of the collective lack of faith of the people in that town. My point is simply this, there is a communal dimension to sin and righteousness, blessing and cursing that we often miss because we are so individualistic in our thinking. I don't claim to be able to explain this perfectly or even well, I just want to point it out. Hard as it is to face, we must deal with the fact that when God commanded Isreal to obliterate the nations which occupied the land into which he was calling them, that obliteration included women and children (not that women and children are always guiltless, but they certainly were far less guilty than the men if for no other reason than the fact that they were treated as property and had no real voice). Not only that, can you possibly imagine an entire nation of people who were totally individually corrupt? I can’t.

More than that, it is inconceivable to me to imagine that when God judged Israel by allowing their enemies to defeat them and carry them into exile, the only people who suffered were those who were somehow directly responsible.

I also think of some of Jesus’ words in Luke 13:1-5 where he speaks of people who suffer, perhaps unjustly, but innocent nonetheless.

Or, what about Jesus’ words to his disciples in Luke 10? He sends them out to announce the Kingdom of God and he says of those who reject the message, “I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.” Certainly we can’t be expected to believe that each individual person in that town had a specific and adequate opportunity to respond personally to the work and message of the disciples.

Or, what about in Mark 6 when Jesus was only able to do a few miracles in his hometown because of the collective lack of faith of the people in that town.

My point is simply this, there is a communal dimension to sin and righteousness, blessing and cursing that we often miss because we are so individualistic in our thinking. I don’t claim to be able to explain this perfectly or even well, I just want to point it out.

]]> By: Nick G http://lifeasmission.com/blog/2006/06/the-defining-majority/comment-page-1/#comment-330 Nick G Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:21:49 +0000 http://lifeasmission.com/blog/?p=213#comment-330 JR, I enjoy reading your posts and I often share similar frustrations with American churches. There is one thing that concerns me however about this post. It may or may not be true, that's not my point, but you say "though there would have certainly been “innocent” people among them." as a means to build your justification/critique. Isn't that an assumption or is there a scriptural basis for it? I don't necessarily disagree with this idea, but you follow with some pretty bold statements based on this idea. JR,
I enjoy reading your posts and I often share similar frustrations with American churches. There is one thing that concerns me however about this post. It may or may not be true, that’s not my point, but you say “though there would have certainly been “innocent” people among them.” as a means to build your justification/critique. Isn’t that an assumption or is there a scriptural basis for it? I don’t necessarily disagree with this idea, but you follow with some pretty bold statements based on this idea.

]]> By: Sam Andress http://lifeasmission.com/blog/2006/06/the-defining-majority/comment-page-1/#comment-322 Sam Andress Wed, 21 Jun 2006 04:53:53 +0000 http://lifeasmission.com/blog/?p=213#comment-322 well said J.R. I agree that our contemporary churches think they are above critique or even propheic rebuke. It is so wierd that while most of them following the same script sold to them by purpose-driven and willow association, none seem to think they are like the other? You should write an article on this post and get it to Christiaity Today or, okay, at least the SEMI! Peace bro. well said J.R. I agree that our contemporary churches think they are above critique or even propheic rebuke. It is so wierd that while most of them following the same script sold to them by purpose-driven and willow association, none seem to think they are like the other?

You should write an article on this post and get it to Christiaity Today or, okay, at least the SEMI!

Peace bro.

]]>