Who is My Savior?

Published on August 19, 2004 By Gideon MacLeish In Religion

OK....for some reason I'm in a "deep" mood today, so you'll have to bear with me.

One of the most frequent errors many Christians make between themselves is in dismissing a very real and a very pressing prayer request with a promise to pray for the supplicant. This is a clear misunderstanding of the commandments and commissions left for us as Christians by Jesus Christ.

When Christ ascended, following His meeting with the disciples, He laid upon them the charge to care for His Children. His message to Peter ("Feed my sheep", John 21:17), coupled with Acts 1:8 ("But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth") make clear that the EARTHLY work of the church was left to the charge of His followers until that time when He returns. We are, in essence, "little Christs" ("I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, bears much fruit, for without me, you can do nothing"). As "little Christs", we are to witness to those around us. This doesn't mean to stand on a streetcorner seeing how ridiculous we can look, but rather, to let our thoughts and actions witness to our standing in Christ. As one early church teacher put it (St. Augustine, I believe) "in all things, bear witness. If necessary, use words".

What this means is that the practice of BEING a Christian is a serious charge, one that we should not take lightly. As we are commanded to bear one another's burdens, we need to reach out and actively minister to the needs of a hurting world.

Now, here's where I lose the conservative crowd.

Though I eschew the teachings in general, there's truth to be found in the teachings of transcendence in the Eastern religion cultures. Christ explicitly stated "inasmuch as you did it to the least of my brethren, you did it to me" (Matthew 25:40); and conversely, "inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me" (Matthew 25:45). The implications of the passage are clear: we ARE our brother's keeper, and we bear a great deal of moral responsibility for their plight if it is within our means to remedy. We also bear a great deal of responsibility if we heal them and lift them up.

So, who is my savior? You are, my friend. And I am yours.

signing off,

Gideon MacLeish

Comments (Page 1)

Texas Wahine

on Aug 19, 2004

Very insightful post, Gideon.

I am a sorry excuse for a Christian, but my humble understanding of the Bible leads me to believe that the most important thing we can do as Christians is to love and care for others. We can bring others to Christ by example, by meeting their needs, and by showing them Christ-like love and mercy. I think pointing out the flaws in others is the worst way to go about bringing someone to Christ.

First we should minister to their needs and show the love of Christ to them. Then, as they decide read the Bible and asess their situation, they will learn what changes might need to be made in their lives. I think we Christians tend to be very callous and cold toward the plight of others and it is very sad.

Excellent post.

OckhamsRazor

on Aug 19, 2004

It's a nice thought, Gid, but logically not true.

You are your own savior, and I am mine.

Consider,
Jesus Christ returns...comes to your very door this evening! He explains everything about how to be, what is right and what is wrong in words even the dog understands.
So mad props to Jesus for telling you what you need to do to ascend to the kingdom of the heavenly father, right?

Wrong. Who acts or doesn't act on the information?

You.

Whatever readings you interpret, whatever religious leaders you favor, all of this information is processed and acted upon by you, so if you succeed (allowing the premise that this is how things work), YOU will always be the one that saves yourself.

If your will is free, no one else can possibly do it besides you, not even God.
If your will is not free, then you have nothing to account for because you have been made the way you are, and that puts you beyond the province of morality.

For whatever it's worth, I find it more likely that the correct interpretation of the Matthew passages that you listed is that whatever ill we bring to another we feel in ourselves. Whatever good we bring to them we also feel. Doing something wrong to someone is exactly the same as doing it to ourselves. Doing something right to them is ALSO the same as doing it to ourselves. This is an element of karma. But notice the other two permutations as well. Doing something right to myself, is the same as doing something right to everyone, and I'll let you fill in the blanks for the last one.

With that in mind, Texas you mention that "the most important thing we can do as Christians is to love and care for others." but I say that though it might fly in the face of knee jerk reasoning, the most important thing we can do as Christians (or humans, or whatever) is to love and care for ourselves, and that caring for ourselves is the single best thing we can do to care for others.

Christ never showed suffering people the love of some other being...he showed them the love of himself and then gave a pretty straight directive "Be like me".

I apologize for the thread hijack. I love this subject (as you may already know)

Texas Wahine

on Aug 19, 2004

OckshamsRazor: I disagree with you in that, according to Christian belief, we do not save ourselves. Our personal "works" will never be enough to grant us entrance into Heaven. What saves us is the blood of Christ, shed for the remission of our sins. Christ is essential to our salvation.

Doing something right to myself, is the same as doing something right to everyone, and I'll let you fill in the blanks for the last one.

How does buying yourself a blanket help make someone else warm? How does ordering yourself a Big Mac feed a hungry child across town?

the most important thing we can do as Christians (or humans, or whatever) is to love and care for ourselves, and that caring for ourselves is the single best thing we can do to care for others.

I'm not sure I'm following your line of thought . . . although I agree that it is important to care for ourselves (we are commanded to do so) I do not see how that in and of itself is a sufficient way to care for others . . . Can you expand on that a little?

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 19, 2004

Consider, Jesus Christ returns...comes to your very door this evening! He explains everything about how to be, what is right and what is wrong in words even the dog understands.So mad props to Jesus for telling you what you need to do to ascend to the kingdom of the heavenly father, right?

My point, and the point I clearly made in this article, is that Christians have been given the keys to Christ's ministry on earth while He is gone. I could cite at least 50 verses to support this position. We are to be His witnesses, he makes it quite clear that if we are truly Christians, we are ONE body (again, I supported this position already, not going back over it). This means our fate is inextricably linked.

For whatever it's worth, I find it more likely that the correct interpretation of the Matthew passages that you listed is that whatever ill we bring to another we feel in ourselves. Whatever good we bring to them we also feel. Doing something wrong to someone is exactly the same as doing it to ourselves. Doing something right to them is ALSO the same as doing it to ourselves. This is an element of karma. But notice the other two permutations as well. Doing something right to myself, is the same as doing something right to everyone, and I'll let you fill in the blanks for the last one.

Which makes more sense: That God would speak in strange, esoteric messages that only the enlightened had a clue to comprehend, or that He would communicate in a way we could understand? For a messiah that eschewed the "learned" scribes and Pharisees and hung with fisherment, prostitutes, tax collectors and rabble rousers, I'm willing to stake a lot on the latter position. The Matthew passage is actually a QUITE blunt and clear passage, I did not quote it in its entirety. It is VERY clear that we are responsible to care for the needs of "the least of these". This is not a "liberal" message, it's not a "conservative" message, it's the simple and unvarnished TRUTH.

The reason I oppose these compassions as government programs is simple: Christ laid the charge on THE CHURCH, NOT on the worldly governments.

I often put it this way:

some see themselves as standing on firm ground, reaching to rescue those in the mire;
some see themselves as standing in the mire, reaching to the ones on solid ground,
I see we're BOTH in the mire and its up to us to find our way out together.

Thanks for your comments, though.

OckhamsRazor

on Aug 20, 2004

OckshamsRazor: I disagree with you in that, according to Christian belief, we do not save ourselves.

So do you have footage of people being saved? I'd like to see it. How about a newspaper article or a magazine exposee?

How does buying yourself a blanket help make someone else warm? How does ordering yourself a Big Mac feed a hungry child across town?

Is that the same question as "How does your making money help poor people?" The answer is the same in either case. This is not an issue that is specific to that one freezing person that needs a blanket. It's an issue of all cold people. I am one of the set of cold people. I make myself warm by working to own a blanket, and now the set of cold people = the set of cold people - 1. THAT is virtue.

In your world, if I am warm because I have a blanket, and I give it to a cold person, there is no change in the set "Cold People". Now he is warm and *I* am cold and the number of cold people is the same. Is it somehow virtuous that I have chosen to accept his suffering and be the cold one? I say it is not only not virtuous, but in fact it is sinful. God, assuming one, does not wish one of us to be cold over the other and for me to take that matter into my own hands is to play God.

So what do I know for sure? I am alive. I was granted that life. My first and foremost priority is to cherish it and nurture it, and that does not include giving my blanket away.
The phrase is "Love thy neighbor as thyself" NOT "Love thy neighbor at the cost of yourself."

So you might say, "Ok, then keep your blanket and start working some more to get one for the next guy, too, because clearly you are able and he is not, and therefore it is your duty to help him." But if you follow what I said above, you might see that my work that creates something where there was nothing and does so only through my own choices and actions and manipulations of matter are the only objective value in life. Define "objective" before you react.

When I die, any value that was ever a part of me will exist in the work that I did while I was here and nowhere else. You might say I can work for other people, but this is a transferrence not a creation. I am working to allow another to create, and during the time I have to put into that, I am not able to create myself.

So back to the blanket metaphor, as sad as it is if this fellow dies in the cold, if I continually take care of him and he continually does not, I will be robbing him of the only virtue he can possibly obtain. Perhaps you think he'll feel great about himself knowing that if it weren't for all the blanket-givers and food-givers and money-givers and job-givers he'd be cold, hungry, broke, and vagrant. What I'm trying to tell you is that if he doesn't earn those things for himself, that is how he will feel regardless.

Perhaps you think to just take care of him long enough to get him on his feet, but who did you leave to die while you saved him? He is not the only one that is cold, right? How do you choose who is best to save? Who will pay for all the blankets? You? Will you sell all you own to get blankets for the masses only to see them starve to death because while they had no ability to get warm they also had no ability to get full?

I am not unsympathetic to the plight of many people in the human race, but when it gets right down to it, there is only one person I can save without damning a second, and you guessed it, it's me.

Can he truly be warm from a blanket that was not earned or will he not sit underneath the blanket now warm of skin but cold of self esteem. Do you truly think that the man who cannot earn a blanket to keep himself warm will jump for joy that now he has one and life is grand and wonderful? If you really think that, go talk to some people on welfare. It is not virtuous to help other people that cannot help themselves at the expense of your own time to help yourself.

Hopefully that explained a bit more, Texas. I am at work and writing this piecemeal, so forgive me if any of it is difficult to follow.

Now to Gideon.

You cannot use quotes from the bible to prove the bible. (Well you can, but I won't recognize it as valid argument

)

Which makes more sense: That God would speak in strange, esoteric messages that only the enlightened had a clue to comprehend, or that He would communicate in a way we could understand?

This implies that I had to somehow extract some bizarre twisted meaning out of what I read, and that isn't the case. It's how I see it. It's the meaning I get when I read it.

Whatever the case, you can hardly claim that the bible is a straightforward do a.) b.) and c.) and we'll see you in heaven. It's a book full of contradictions or things that make me say "What? Why?"

When that occurs, instead of saying the book is full of crap, I try to resolve the issue by reinterpreting. Here's an example. In the beginning God made what? Light.

Then he made the stars.

Ok, that's clearly retarded. Stars produce light, so what moron would create light first when stars do it just fine?

Yet there is a close relationship between light and time. And if one were to create a universe where anything can happen, a time continuum would be handy. I therefore reinterpret that "In the beginning God created time" and figure that the concept would have fell well short of a species just learning to make fire - thus the confusion.

Now fundamentalists will get their backs up at this point, because who am *I* to be rewriting the Bible?

I am man. And I think. And I am a son of God. And so I create. If the Bible were divinely inspired as it is claimed, well maybe my interpretation of it is, too. Who is anyone to say that it isn't? I'll tell you who. People that do not want to question the way things have always been due to the fear instilled in them by the ones who have always kept it that way.

That sentiment won't fill many collection plates, but I'm pretty sure the Assumed One is gonna be proud anyway.

The reason I oppose these compassions as government programs is simple: Christ laid the charge on THE CHURCH, NOT on the worldly governments

And how different do you see your church and the government? They look exactly the same when you're outside of both. Just FYI.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Gideon.

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 20, 2004

You cannot use quotes from the bible to prove the bible. (Well you can, but I won't recognize it as valid argument )

And I respect that. This message was meant primarily for those who do respect the bible as an authority, and as possible inspiration for those who don't. When I discuss religion I am coming from a pressupposition of the bible as valid; to lay the basis for my faith over and over again would be tedious and would quickly chase readers from my blogs...lol

And how different do you see your church and the government? They look exactly the same when you're outside of both. Just FYI.

I am in these areas speaking in a philosophical sense. My stance on the government is that its goals should be preserving order within and protecting from without; and that decisions beyond that should be left to the people (a minarchist view).

The government and church are separate institutions, with a separate purpose. The "church" (for lack of a better word; there are many different faiths that would take issue with this very terminology) is the source of our moral beliefs and understanding; and should not have to do with the secular government, in my opinion.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Gideon.

And thank you for your comments. I always enjoy enlivened, respectful discussion, and appreciate the balance that can be brought to my thread by posters such as yourself.

Shovelheat

on Aug 20, 2004

I wasn't going to give blood today. I didn't want to deal with the lines and the wait. After reading this, I changed my mind and went. This last pint brings me to the four gallon mark. If my pint saves a life, look what YOUR blog accomplished!

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 20, 2004

Thanks for the testimonial, shovel. I do hope I succeed in making a difference every now and then

Abe Cubbage

on Aug 21, 2004

Ock, you expressed my view on the subject better than I could have. Thank you.

Gideon, if more Christians were like you I wouldn't cringe (internally) everytime someone tried to "turn me on" to "God".

Johnny Masuda

on Aug 21, 2004

if you can walk away from the puke of society--you risk goat over lamb. Omission is never a pass, love is a desision that requires action. It's the doing of love that is the defining of Christ. Adherence to the law is just good citizenship. Obiedience simply compliance. Without love-ing it's all empty air.

J.

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 21, 2004

Ock, you expressed my view on the subject better than I could have. Thank you.Gideon, if more Christians were like you I wouldn't cringe (internally) everytime someone tried to "turn me on" to "God".

Abe, I understand, and agree completely. That's a large part of the reason why I abandoned "the church" to follow Christ (I might have to use that as a blog title someday).

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 21, 2004

"Though I speak with the tongue of men and angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal" --1 Corinthians 13:1

Thanks, both Johnny and Abe, for your replies

olikara

on Aug 21, 2004

What this means is that the practice of BEING a Christian is a serious charge, one that we should not take lightly. As we are commanded to bear one another's burdens, we need to reach out and actively minister to the needs of a hurting world.

But Gideon, doesn't this go counter to the 'protestant work ethic' which was the main reason for 'superiority' of 'western civilization' over the rest of the world-especially the more spiritual Eastern one.

And this ethic says:

'He who will not work neither shall he eat.’ - Minister Robert Rollock of Scotland.

This one is interesting too:

“It is wanton and violent that they do not want to be bondmen. This article proposes to free all men, and turn the spiritual kingdom of Christ into a worldly one, which is impossible. For a worldly kingdom cannot exist where there is no class distinction, where some are free, some are prisoners, some are masters, and some are vassals, etc. As St. Paul says in Gal. 3:28, that in Christ both master and vassal are one.” – Martin Luther’s Large Catechism, Book of Concord.

There is a good selection of these ethics at
Link

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 21, 2004

Ock,

Interesting that you should bring that up. Perhaps one of these days I need to put on my computer my treatise on why the "protestant work ethic" was not for a post industrial society. In summary, here the meat of it:

When Paul wrote this, he wrote to a time and a place where the individual had a choice, to be a member of the community, and as such, to contribute to the community, or to remove himself from the community if he chose not to participate. If he removed himself from the community, he did have to himself the option of finding some unclaimed hunk of land, defending it and farming it; he just did so without the benefit of protection and communal cooperation offered in the cities.

Because he had a choice, it was proper to refuse him services if he refused to participate. In the post industrial world, you have little choice. You really don't have a choice to make your own way in the wilderness, as for the most part, the government will not allow it. And, for this reason, we must make accomodation for the poor and needy because we have removed their other options.

Another point I would like to raise is, compassion and kindness do not need to be exclusive with work. One can very easily couple these concepts, and, in fact, it is more ennobling to the individual receiving assistance to have something to give back than it is to beg.

As always, thanks for your reply.

Texas, sorry for not replying earlier. I did see your post, but had little to say. I don't think you should get down upon yourself for what you're not doing, though, that was never the intent of the Gospel. Just keep believing, and living your life as faithful to God as you can, and I believe He will honor that.

MyViewsAndMuse

on Aug 31, 2004

Abe, I understand, and agree completely. That's a large part of the reason why I abandoned "the church" to follow Christ (I might have to use that as a blog title someday).

So, do you not attend service anywhere? Just curious.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!