Sunday, February 28, 2010

wrath 1

i have always wanted to be able to explain the wrath of god in ways that made sense to unbelievers and believers alike. in the times we live, when one speaks of god, it has been my experience that there is so much reaction that is quite different from the next. you have many camps of beliefs in a god just not the one i am referring to. there are some who really could care less because their view of god is that he does not exist...or at least i think they want to believe he does not exist but truly in their heart they know he does. there are some who believe in god and hold to the gospel according to oprah. this is the thought that all roads lead to your heavenly creator and no one path is more righteous than the next. there are some who believe in god but when it comes to issues that are familiar with the fallen state of humanity they could not believe a god who would have an adverse affect to sin. in other words, they choose to not see god as a "hater," but rather a lover of all things even the very immorality they so choose to indulge. then there are some who are quite and completely different than what we hear about in the mainstream media and they are the fundamentalists who build compounds, foster many children through many wives and are unwavering believers in god's eventual wrath that is meant to annihilate the existence of man...except for them of course. but for me, i believe it is real, i believe there is and will be judgement, i believe also that god's incarnation made atonement and even though the debt cannot be cleared, it has been paid for. so what should be said for the wrath of god?

"to an age which has unashamedly sold itself to the gods of greed, pride, sex and self-will, the church mumbles on about god's kindness but says virtually nothing about his judgement."

i know the church has been destined to be many things in the communities in which they are represented. that being said, it is funny to find many changing their very identity to reflect that of the community. if leadership desires monetary status planting a church in a financially respected district seems practical. likewise, a desire for a thriving spanish speaking community will not prove to be advantageous if it seeks to establish the congregation in anchorage alaska. this convinces me that despite my desire for the church to be one what i view as one comes in another form. i have no desire to be apart of a brazilian church. so i will trust the leaders of the brazilian congregations will hear from god for their church and what they do at this particular juncture does not concern me. but even though the image of the church changes on the outside, (whether that is viewed as righteous or not is not what i find important here in this post) i do believe that the teaching of the all powerful god in the inside remains constant for the entire body of christ. that means from the conception in acts 2 til now, the principles of god and all his attributes DO NOT CHANGE for his bride.

i guess the two characteristics or the attributes i would like to discuss are god's anger, wrath, and fury and that of his love and tenderness. some might say the two are not mutually exclusive. i would whole heartedly agree. but as it is what i have seen of the church, i find that it is not equally represented, therefore giving me the suggestion that they ARE in fact different. so when the already confused individual who has endured tribulation his whole life is presented with god as an option, the imagery of the choice is chocolate or brussels sprouts. who in their right mind would choose brussels sprouts? however you read the bible to understand who god is you might find it interesting that a study of the concordance will show that there are more references to god's wrath and anger than there are to his love and tenderness. "the bible labors the point that just as god is good to those who trust him, so he is terrible to those who do not."

No comments: