Over at Internetmonk.com, I have some “Jesus Shaped” posts that need to see the light of day, so I’m going to roll them out every so often and repost them in a category here.
Stand by for: How Hanging Out With Jesus Is Changing My Christianity. Originally posted December 2005 at Internet Monk.com.
Dedication: A few weeks ago, I listened to an extraordinary sermon, but not extraordinary in the way you might think. The absence of Jesus in the sermon shook me.
Jesus was never mentioned. Not once. Not anywhere. Not ever. Not in any way. Not in the introduction. Not in the illustrations. Not in the conclusion. Not in some trailing reference to “accepting Christ” stuck on to the last paragraph a la Joel Osteen.
Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. Change the word “Bible” to “Koran” and the sermon could have been a hit in any mosque in the world.
Frankly, this kind of thing has caused me to start rethinking a lot of things. How can we be approaching Christianity as if it is the Oxford English Dictionary, where Jesus is an entry, but you can read thousands of entries without any reference to Jesus? That’s not right.
In the hopes of deterring some from the road that ends in giving talks about reformers and doctrine and the Bible and why we’re so right, but never even speaking about Jesus, here’s a (hopefully) provocative post.
I am going to give you a flawed and errant post. I’ll say that right off the top. What I’m going to recommend in this post as a method for doing theology is almost certainly flawed enough to inspire pages and pages of response in the blogosphere. So, if anything that admits its imperfections immediately offends you, move on to the cat pictures.
In fact, I can be pretty fairly specific about the error I am going to promote: I’m going to suggest an imonkish version of “What Would Jesus Do?” I’m read up on all the problems with that particular approach to Christian ethics, and I while I think it has its merits, I don’t recommend it to unlicensed drivers.
I’ll go on and say I’m not going to recommend my version to just anyone, either. What I’m going to suggest might be useful, however, to those of you who have enough experience with the Gospels to have some idea of what Jesus was like in the day to day.
I have no trouble admitting, by the way, that the Gospels weren’t written to give us a transcript of the day-to-day with Jesus, or to answer the kinds of questions about “A Day With Jesus” that our curiousity might suggest. The Gospels were front-loaded with the message that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah, while also being the resurrected Son of Israel’s God; “God with us”, in other words. Still, I believe we can use the Gospels’ presentation of Jesus as a guide to evaluation of much that we do and believe, and even with a “verse”, we can have a sense- an accurate sense- of how Jesus impacts certain questions.
My theological suggestion has now been substantially disarmed of any potential arrogance, so I’m going to get it out of the garage and take it for a spin:
“If you were to spend three years hanging around with Jesus as he is presented in the Gospels, do you believe you would come to the conclusion that [fill in this part with the theological issue being tested]?”
Let me repeat: this method has a lot of possible subjective mischief associated with it, and I would never recommend this in a discussion other than to describe why you have come to a conclusion about Jesus or the Christian life.
It is far from useless, however. It’s actually worked in my own thinking in ways that have been marvelously clarifying and helpful to me. (I’ll say it again: I’m not drawing these conclusions for you. You can just point at me and say I’m weird and wrong.) Despite the fact that every book I’ve read on Jesus has been full of statements that we really can’t know all that much about Jesus, I find myself constantly overwhelmed with what I have come to believe I can know about Jesus. While I don’t believe my version of Jesus is without subjective, cultural bias, I’m not living with a kind of hopeless cynicism about what Jesus would think about, for example, abortion.
Remember, the key to this exercise is the idea of seeing the integration of life, ministry, teaching, priorities, worship and relationships in the life of Jesus. It’s not “What conclusions can I draw from Jesus about predestination?” but “What would I be saying about predestination if I hung around Jesus for three years?”
The difference is essential: Not what conclusions would I draw, but HOW WOULD I BE DIFFERENT? What would I see differently? How would I conceive of life, priorities and the continuing Jesus movement?
So how about a few laps around the track?
“If you were to spend three years hanging around with Jesus as he is presented in the Gospels, do you believe you would come to the conclusion that the primary job of a pastor is to ensure a church gets as large as possible?”
“If you were to spend three years hanging around with Jesus as he is presented in the Gospels, do you believe you would present the doctrine of predestination the same way as contemporary Calvinists present it?”
“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that without the right kind of music, your church can’t grow?”
“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that systematic theology is as precise and as important as we’ve made it?”
“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that Jesus is best represented by western, American, middle-class white evangelicalism?”
“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that a sincere and faithful homosexual should be a leader of the church?”
“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that confessing Christians who disagree on the meaning of the Lord’s supper should disfellowship one another?”
“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that the best way to describe the Bible is inerrant?”
“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that pastoral ministry is primarily about defending our theology from those who differ from us?”
“…do you believe you would place as much value as we do on formal, school based, education?”
“…do you believe you would promote “family values” and the “culture war” as important causes that represent Jesus?”
“…do you believe you would identify with the Republican or the Democratic parties?”
“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that it’s very important to read from one translation of the Bible only?”
“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that Jesus would identify himself with the labels of your denomination or group?”
“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that the Christian life as explained by evangelical evangelists and church leaders today is true to Jesus?”
“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that the emerging church is unfaithful to Jesus and should be condemned?”
“… do you believe you would come to the conclusion that you are not one of the rich? Or one of the Pharisees-types?”
“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that you are, now, a disciple and follower of Jesus? Not a fan, but a follower?”
“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are really helpful?”
“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that the Reformation was the high point of Christian history?”
“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that Jim Wallis, James Dobson, Joel Osteen or Rick Warren were acquainted with Jesus at all?”
“…what kind of sermons would you preach?”
“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that your current approach to prayer is similar to Jesus?”
“…do you believe your treatment of people would change?”
“…do you believe you would spend money as you do today?”
The objections? Well, we already know that some will say that without the presuppositon of an inerrant Bible, I can’t even spell “Jesus” correctly.
And I can hear one of the BHT fellows already: “Jesus doesn’t live now, so we have no idea what he would say about these things.” Of course, but that’s not my experiment. My premise is how would three years living with Jesus change the way you answer the questions, live your life and conceive of Christianity?
I contend that we ought to be able to become conversant with the Gospels and make these judgments.
This is substantially different from, “Let’s select verses and build an outline of what the Bible says on predestination.” It is admitting that Jesus was seeking to make disciples, not to teach a class. The New Testament can be sorted through to produce a chapter or predestination, but isn’t this appeal to the imagination AND our knowledge a way to find an authentic answer to the questions we face?
In my experiment, I can not only take into account, “What did Jesus say about predestination?” but I can include how Jesus treated everyone. How did his stories and exorcisms and miracles combine to present his beliefs about predestination? How do I see predestination in his relationships and actions toward others? How did predestination come out of and work into, the life, teaching and ministry of Jesus? How does the topic interact with the Christian life?
There is always this question of “What do we see of a topic in the complete picture/impression of Jesus’ life?” And if we ponder this subject in the “light” of Jesus, what can we see ourselves saying, doing and stressing as faithful to Jesus?
[I am not, by the way, attempting to cut off the Gospels from the rest of the Bible, but I am frustrated and exhausted with the idea that Paul so accurately conveys Jesus that no contemplation or consideration of the Gospels is even NECESSARY. Paul is the first one to raise the issue of his own faithfulness to everything about the Gospel that came in Jesus. If he can be aware of his own dependence on Jesus- and the possibility of various on how much he can claim Jesus as standing behind his teaching at points- then so can we. But let me be clear: I absolutely reject any notion that there are theologies that “trump” the Kingdom theology of Jesus. Jesus’ chosen paradigm MUST have preeminence, and his life, ministry and actions are part of that Kingdom message.]
I am asking how much contemplation of Jesus actually goes into our thinking about Christianity. It is the Jesus-movement. We are the followers of Jesus. We are worshiping in, and through, Jesus. Jesus is Lord. Jesus is God with us. Jesus is Emmanuel. Jesus is everything.
If you spent three years with him, what kind of person would you be? What kind of theologian? Husband? Father? Man?
So much for my experiment. It may be an abject failure, but it is helping me every day, and maybe it will help you, too.
I believe this is a fundamental question. One of the things that really helped me was recalling that Paul studied Jesus for years before he started church planting. His “zeal” for the new Messiah wasn’t knowledge of the Messiah. Paul needed to be deeply “Jesus-saturated” in his thinking. When I read Mark and Luke, I realize I am reading the things Paul was hearing, and his life was being shaped by those Markan-Lukan stories.
I invite you to the Gospels, and to books that take you “further in.” And as you journey, contemplate this helpful question, and let it guide you as you are formed by the Spirit of Jesus himself.
What part of CHRISTianity don’t people get???
Michael wrote, ” I am frustrated and exhausted with the idea that Paul so accurately conveys Jesus that no contemplation or consideration of the Gospels is even NECESSARY.”
I heartily agree, Michael. And I didn’t know that Paul spent years studying Jesus before he started church planting. I really don’t have a good understanding of early church life.
You asked, “If you spent three years with him, what kind of person would you be?” It’s hard for me to even imagine that. But I am not happy with the way I am living my life right now (I will spare you the details) and would hope that if I spent three years walking the earth with Jesus I would be the person God created me to be…giving, hopeful, joyful, Spirit-infused.
Uh, yeah, I’d be entirely different and would have different priorities and ways of seeing. You seem pretty “on target” to me in what you say. I want to share this with others. Thanks.
To Michael Spencer,some of the sites I have read,i am able to register,however,it gives a log in space,not a new member
How can i register to many of these sites.I’ve taken them from the list on the right side of your pages.
I love reading your stuff.
Thank you ,Kim Harvey
I don’t understand your question. The site on the sidebar aren’t mine except for Internetmonk.com.
Brilliant, Michael!
The pastor asks:
“Rev. Paul T. McCain
What part of CHRISTianity don’t people get???”
The answer:
Everything except for the warm fuzzies.
I see nothing in the gospels or epistles that calls for “church-building” and all that is implied.
Our bloated and dying churches (and culture) testify that entertainment is still popular as always. Osteen, Dobson. ( I lived for a while in Colorado Springs, the epicenter for hate in America).
Michael pose so many challenges that I can’t really wrap my mind around them all in one evening.
I know this.
We are far, far from the heart of God.
I’m not referring to those who reject the entire journey as myths or wisdom like Buddha, Mohammed or Bahá’u’lláh.
I’m referring to the supposed keepers of the flame.
It is no wonder that former evangelicals are turning to the RCC.
Personally, I still cannot get past that whole Mary as God Jr. and the loss of salvation deal.
No one gives a hoot.
I’m just your average disaffected ex-church zombie.
Although I reached the right demographic for profit I strayed badly and also did not teach the Sunday School pablum for adults.
My bad.
Amen, Brother! I too am tired by all the interference WE call church! Lately I too have beeb tired by reading all the books that come my way about church, what we’re doing etc. I WANT to spend three years, no, my life!, intimiate with Jesus!
@Rev. Paul T. McCain
RE: “What part of CHRISTianity don’t people get???”
Said in other ways above, but my answer would be “CHRISTianity, didn’t you mean CHURCHianity?”
For some time now, what we understand as churches have become self serving. It’s so sad that each little Bible study that starts or each small new work planted can’t wait to have a building and all the bills that go along with it. As soon as that happens attention is taken off the “as you are going” part and is focused on the “get ’em in” approach to disciple making.
We cannot equate getting someone involved in church programs with disciple making. The millions of Churchites entering and exiting their buildings each week for decades and experiencing no change in their lives is evidence it won’t happen.
@michael
This is a great post. Thanks for continuing to push us to think about what we say we believe and whether we actively believe it or not. I for one have adjusted my process for weighing what I read in Scripture over the last two years. I’ve found myself trying to become ultra aware of all Jesus said and did, as well as what he did not say and did not do. Then I weigh everything else I read against his own actions or words. If there appears to be a discrepancy I find I have to make sure I understand what Jesus said, then try to figure out why I misunderstood the other passage(s).
I disagree with your statement “Paul studied Jesus for years before he started church planting.” Paul was not a church planter. I like what you say that “Paul needed to be deeply ‘Jesus-saturated’ in his thinking.” In fact, I would contend that he was saturated as you suggest… to the point that he left in the wake of where he went groups of new Christ Followers who gathered together to encourage, etc., one another. It’s not semantics here. It’s simply that we have put the cart before the horse because we’ve “always” only known church as the vehicle. We cannot without serious pause consider anything different. Because we are so focused on the method (church) we cannot do the work left for us (disciple making). I ask this simple question in any conversations with persons who claim to be Christ Followers: “Who are you actively pouring the Jesus in you into?” I’m not looking for the number of sermons preached, or the Bible studies taught, but the “what’s been invested in me by someone being turned around and invested into someone else.” Not a curriculum or a program, but The Way – The Way followed by the early Christ Followers which resulted in their being called followers of The Way. The Way I believe Jesus left for us to be living and spent the three years you mention above forming a new worldview in the twelve that he left for them to pass on as they were going. A way not marked by what you wear or what day you attend a service, but by the way you live your life actively believing the simple truth of the Kingdom of God. No longer being conformed to the way of this world but transformed to look at everything differently… with Kingdom understanding!
Okay, I ranted more than I planned. Great article. Keep pushing. We are rediscovering the movement Jesus left for those who followed his Way!
I’m probably romancing this question.I can only think of knowing everything I’ve ever wanted to know.
To imagine seeing that age old question “what would Jesus do”.How many times I ask myself that question,at first,I was always putting Jesus category,that yes would always be the answer,”He would fix everything” I guess while asking that question,I think I had the hippie Jesus,I was forgetting Jesus was God.In seeing it that way it turns into the song “I can only imagine”will i dance for you Jesus or in awe of you be struck.
I think that’s more the reality.I would want to know everything,but how do I ask?How do I really behave humble,this is God,who always was, and He knows everything about me,my every thought.I would never turn it away and I would give anything and everything to hang ou with Him for a day,it makes me realize by writing this,that’s what i’m yto do,anything and everything to see the face of Jesus,not for a day but for eternity
i did,it went away
Craig is spot on.
Here’s my dime’s worth.
Paul never planted a church. A church is in no way even remotely like the ecclesia. The ecclesia is what the Living Lord builds. All Paul did was introduce this Lord to those who would believe and then leave it up to Him to do the building of His ecclesia. Paul could move away after even a few days knowing that the new believers were in the hands of a competent Teacher and Shephard and this doesn’t mean human offices!
Church is what man builds. If you look for it in the scriptures the closest thing you will find is the synagogue, a thing instituted by the rabbinical leaders during the Babylonian captivity of the Jews prior to the incarnation of Jesus, and it was never part of the Mosaic Law given to the nation by God.
I agree 100% that people seem to skip what Jesus says and rush off to selected views of what Paul is supposed to say.
The more I relate to my Living Lord and allow myself to be taught by the Teacher (which seems to consist of un-learning a whole lot of so-called Pauline doctrines amongst others etc.) I find that Paul does not contradict the words of Jesus.
All isms like calvanism, methodism, and any otherism become meaningless as the Holy Spirit reveals the Truth that resides within.
Why wonder what it would have been like to walk with Jesus for 3 years? Start walking with Him now. You can! He is alive and He lives within your heart. But there’s a catch! You’ve got to let Him do the leading, in fact you’ve go to let Him carry you wherever He goes.
Paul said it this way; “It is no longer I that lives but Christ who lives in me”.
I find it really strange that those of us who have the advantage of having the scriptures rather go to them and our individual understanding of them than to the Guide Himself. Even when we read Jesus’ words in John 5:39 – ” You search the Scriptures, for you think in them you have everlasting life. And they are the ones witnessing concerning Me.”, and Jesus’ condemnation of those religious people, we can’t see He is talking about most of western christianity today! I know, I was one of them.
Is it Christianity? or Churchianity? They’re the same thing – religion. Religion means “to bind up again” from the Latin. Jesus came to set us free and that (especially?) includes free from religion.
Jesus came preaching the gospel. What gospel? Why, the gospel of the Kingdom of God, in the here and now. Believe INTO Jesus and you will find it. And Him!
So my rant is done.
Love to all in Christ Jesus
a stumbling brother.
(stumbling ‘cos I still find myself trying to get this dead thing walking rather than let Him carry it :-) . Let He who has ears to hear, hear!)
If I were to spend three years with Jesus, I’m not sure if all the theological disputes (predestination, lord’s supper/Eucharist, faith/works) would mean very much to me. Community, perseverance, love, mercy, the gospel, these are the things that would occupy my life.
When I read the NT after the gospels, I see people who are not interested in writing down lists of theological doctrine. (How easy would it have been to simply list doctrine?) Instead, they are encouraging fellow Christians on their Journey, proclaiming the gospel message of salvation, and trying their best to help others live out “Christ crucified.”
Sure, people can “select verses and build an outline of what the Bible says on [X],” and find truth. But the various divisions in the Christian world occurred because denomination A’s outline differs from denomination B. I’m all for trying to know the truth, but after three years with Jesus, I think I’d be more interest in unity.
Thanks for the post.
Nice exercise – I see how it points to what is really of Christ.
Just one point – Jesus’ ministry leads to the cross and I’m assuming that knowing him for 3 years implies knowing Him at His most difficult hour and when He foretold the cross. In last Sunday’s homily our priest made the point that Christ taught apart from the cross is false and of Satan. ( in reference to the St Martin of Tours vision of Lucifer without the wounds pretending to be Christ). The point is that Christianity without the cross is as empty as a sermon without Christ.
Amazing that someone can pretend to be Christian and exclude Christ altogether. I wonder how conscious they are of what they’ve done.
An excellent post, again. I would remind you all, tho, that hanging with Jesus for three years did not change the perspectives of the disciples completely — certainly not Judas Iscariot. And it was during the three years that the brothers still focused on being first. It took a post resurrection Jesus to open their minds to a correct understanding. So it wasn’t just a matter of three years but also a matter of revelation.
We have the advantage of perspective, but even so we must depend on revelation.
2 Tim 3.15 says “all scripture IS, not was, God-breathed,” and so, as I understand the meaning of those words, scripture is a vehicle that God may use to inspire with messages more profound than what a plain reading of the simple words convey.
Just as the disciples could not discern from three years of observation alone, neither could we. Revelation required.
This question, personally, is what I’ve found so helpful about the Navigators’ ministry. I believe they understand that much of what we learn is by seeing others follow Christ and not just through books or systematic theology. Life-on-life as it were.
I guess part of the answers then is to see how spending time with Christ transformed His disciples.
@ George
Great thinking George.
RE: “hanging with Jesus for three years did not change the perspectives of the disciples completely”
This is an interesting point about which God recently opened my own eyes. I had always read the Old and New Testaments as if there was a great mystical wall that divided the two. Like the nature of man illustrated through the stories of Genesis – Malachi was magically transformed from Old to New. What if the theme of the fickleness of persons continues into the New Testament. What if the view we have of seven of the 11 disciples at the Tiberias Sea going fishing is there to show us that even after spending three years face to face with Jesus and even after seeing him in the locked room and touching him following the resurrection, they continue to be drawn to their old ways of life? What if as we turn the page from John to Acts, the act of the disciples acting as a nominating committee to replace Judas and then casting lots (wonder if they ever cast lots with Jesus?) to pick between the three, which was the old way of doing things, was a picture of the rapid creeping in of the old ways to the new way Jesus had showed them? What if the inspired Word we have continues to show us the danger we all face of drifting back to the comfort of or familiarity with the old ways rather than The Way Jesus showed the disciples even face to face? For me, this realization has prompted me to dive all the more into knowing the ways and words of Jesus and weighing everything, even those in Acts – Revelation against what Jesus did and said.
Okay, having said that, I now sit prepared to be blasted as a heretic.
[…] tells how hanging out with Jesus is affecting his Christian faith. He also comments on Frank Viola (the home church guy, not the former Twins […]
Paul never planted a church? I am confused. What is acts 13-17 all about? What was the purpose of His letters to Timothy and Titus?
Sounds like ya’ll got a bug up your butt about Paul because he was a theologian and a pastor.
I will be the first to say that church as we do it in the good ole USA is a far cry from how the early church did it and theology has become a point of division and that we tend to let our system of theology dictate our interpretation of scripture BUT we can’t throw the baby out with the bath water!
I have preached getting back to Jesus for years but we don’t have to crucify Paul to do it! In fact, if I am not mistaken, I think he did spend at least a little time with Jesus in Acts 9.
Be careful folks that in your angst you don’t build a Jesus that is not in the gospels, and looks a whole lot like you!
@officerhoppy
Perhaps your comments above are not directed at any of my comments on Michael’s article. Nonetheless, after reading your comment I would turn around and redirect your “Be careful folks that… you don’t build a Jesus that… looks a whole lot like you!” statement back around to you.
Do you remember what life was like before the microwave? I do. But I have to think back really hard to remember how it affected my routine. My kids on the other hand don’t have any point of reference for anything other than a routine including the microwave because they have never known it.
Don’t misinterpret someone stripping away the conventions we can’t look past because we have no point of reference otherwise as someone in angst trying to crucify Paul or having a bug up their butts about Paul.
The point here is that formalized “church planting” was not what seemed to be on their minds. In Acts 13-17 the first century Christ Followers were focused on convincing individuals that Jesus was the Messiah on whom they had been waiting for generations; on carrying a message to people all around them and not on techniques, processes, or programs for launching a new place for ministry which would lead to people being saved. We read Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus through filters of our understanding of life within a modern church and projecting back on the words what we understand about “doing church” in centuries far removed from their own experience.
You see I’m not talking about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I’m just saying we can’t assume that the baby bathed the same back then as we think of bathing now, and that the way we bathe now is the biblical way of doing so.
We simply cannot assume because the New Testament talks about “church” that what we have and how we do it was how they also did it, thus making the current way of doing it “biblical” or anymore “biblical” than another.
We tend to project what we understand back onto what we read rather than the other way around. Yes, Paul’s work appears to have resulted in many “churches” (we won’t debate format, structure, etc. for the sake of this simple statement). But to say Paul planted churches in the way we see church planting being taught and done today is not synonymous.
We cannot “religionize” what we do today and project it back upon our understanding of what was done in the first centuries equating the familiar upon the unfamiliar. It must go the other way to responsibly interpret what we read and study.
Hello People,
I for one lam grateful for the letters that Paul wrote to address specific issues effecting the ecclesia living in different places.
I think Paul is still the best example of any follower of the Way that I have any knowledge of. Living or dead.
In fact it was the Damascus road experience that Paul had that instigated the revelation of the Son of God to me and brought the scriptures to life.
The problem I had in my good ‘ol days of legalism and doctrinal stances was thinking that “this” was “that”. I looked at what we call “church” and then read my doctrine back into Acts etc. When the Spirit opened the eye of my heart I could see the error of this.
So I still maintain that Paul never planted a single thing called church. What he did do was introduce the living God to those who would believe in Him and left them in His capable hands to teach and guide them. If you are a scholar of the Pauline epistles and Acts have you ever wondered why he left some believers after only a short time. Also we never see Paul appointing “Officers” or even so-called “Elders”. So how come he didn’t do what he preaches to Tim & Titus? Jesus, by example and by teaching tells a different story about heirarchical structures amongst those that would follow Him. See Matthew 23 (all of it!) .
Not only did Paul not plant a church but neither did Jesus come to start a religion but He came preaching the Kingdom, something that ecclesia belongs to and is built (not planted) by Him. Paul preaches that same Kingdom and how to live in it. Not by self effort but by the life of Christ in us.
So tell me where Paul preaches and teaches “Theology”!
Show me where he allows himself to be called “Shepherd” which is the real English word that for some strange reason is translated as “pastor” in one place and one place only in the whole 66 books that comprise the modern bible. And the verse that contains this mis-translated word has words added that do not appear in the original texts!
Could it be that the translators were guilty of making their interpretation fit what they saw in the “church” rather than what the character of the ecclesia as expressed by Jesus reveals?
Remember that Paul by his own admission called himself a Pharisee of Pharisees but once he had the revelation of Christ he counted all his theology etc. as dung. Read his CV in Philippians 3.
So if I am guilty of kicking anyone’s butt it is any person who searches the scriptures looking for eternal life but ignores the Living God who stands before them ,or within them if they are born from above.
One last thing on “planting”. If as most theologians claim that Paul planted churches and commend this as a great thing to do, why do we not also commend “church watering” as a useful thing to do?
In Christ Jesus, The All in All.
a brother
[…] Thought provoking article on whether the view that we “hang out with Jesus” is in effect…. By Michael Spencer, respected blogger and otherwise known as “The Internet Monk”. Hilarious in parts. I love it. […]
[…] Father? Man? Anyone who reads here regularly, knows I’m a fan of Michael Spencer, the internet monk. He recently re-posted an old essay of his, which I hadn’t read before and which I thought […]