Looking Into Things
Erwin McManus’ latest book Soul Cravings has been receiving a lot of heat at CRN in some recent posts. The writer at 9 Marks Review took offense with this quote from the book.
Jesus said that the kingdom of God is within us….It seems what he is implying is that we have a better chance of finding God in the universe within us than in the one that surrounds us. And it is on this path that I invited you to walk with me. I invite you to engage in an exploration of the human spirit, to journey deep inside yourself and search out the mystery of the universe that exists with you…
He had this to say
The problem is, it’s patently untrue that all human beings are all really seeking God, as you put it. Mr. McManus, please, find me one verse in the entire Bible—just one!—that says human beings in the flesh are seeking God.
The problem with this is Mr. McManus never said “that all human beings are all really seeking God†within the quote. In fact, in the podcast that the author refers to earlier in this letter, Erwin talks about how many people are seeking after other elements to satisfy their soul cravings. The basic premise of the book is not that all humans are seeking God. The premise of the book is that God has placed within human beings certain cravings that can only be satisfied by Him.
This reveals a huge problem in much of the finger pointing and hostile rumors that run all over the internet. If we have a preconceived notion about what an emergent or purpose-driven or fundy believes, then we can add to and twist a person’s writing to fit that notion. It’s something we all need to be careful with, especially when you have placed yourself in a position of influence. After reading an article by Alex S. Leung citing this letter, one commenter wrote
I love it when you bring up these types of topics for me to think over and learn how to pick out heresy when I see it… Excellent. Keep this kind of stuff up.
I wonder how many people are now walking around thinking Erwin McManus is a heretic due to one man’s bad exegesis of his work.
July 20th, 2007 at 6:49 am
Is it fair to say that Erwin is also writing to believers and not nonbelievers? I should hope that Christians are seeking out God every day.
July 20th, 2007 at 6:52 am
I stand corrected. I just read the review of the book. Erwin was writing to nonbelievers.
I wish I could delete my comment.
July 20th, 2007 at 7:54 am
This is like a bad re-run. We all know how the story goes at this point.
1. C?N writes a negative review of Erwin McManus/Rob Bell/Tony Jones.
2. CRN.info takes 10 minutes to read the quoted portion.
3. One short post later it becomes obvious the C?N review was a hit piece that at the very least terribly misguided and at worst is a deliberate lie.
Its like the James Bond franchise of movies. You don’t know who’s going to play Bond, and you don’t know how he’ll do it, but you know what inevitably will happen.
July 20th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Only believers seek God. The Scriptures are clear.
That being said,
I find this statement problematic;
“I invite you to engage in an exploration of the human spirit, to journey deep inside yourself and search out the mystery of the universe that exists with you…”
No offense but, that is not seeking God. Such a notion cannot be found in Scripture.
Don’t be so intent to discredit the “watchblogs” that you fail to call McManus to account.
Whether one calls him a heretic or not, he needs to explain his statement.
July 20th, 2007 at 8:13 am
You mean like doing a podcast that explains what the book is about?
July 20th, 2007 at 8:48 am
One can “explain” a book without clarifying specific statements.
This is more or less what is done to the bible on a daily basis.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Chris P,
Oddly enough he seems to communicate quite well with, well, everyone but all you watchpoodles.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Matt,
What are your conclusions about what Mcmanus means, now that you know that he was addressing unbelievers?
Tim,
The last few weeks I have immersed myself in scripture, as well as in Wiccan and other neo-pagan philosiphies, the latter because I’m hoping to help someone who seems to be becoming indoctrinated with such ideas. Mcmanus statement resonates better with the latter part of my “immersion” that it does with my immersion in scripture. many of the “non-scripture” resources I’ve been reading already accept what Mcmanus is saying.
I do believe even many discerning ten year olds who have been taught basic scripture could see a potential problem with Mcmanus statement. I don’t mean that as an ugly slam to anyone who sees it differently; it’s simply a statement of fact. Knowing scripture and recognizing philosophies that go against that scripture is something that all Christians should strive for.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:18 am
I read the review and I think he is nit picking. I’m not a huge fan of McManus and think he is too “discover your full potential.” I don’t think he is heretical, though.
Amy, what did you think of my post Evil at the Roots?
July 20th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Amy,
As I pointed out before, for some reason only a small minority of people interpret what McManus says as heretical to the point of being anti-Biblical (and that small minority tends to all come from the same theological tradition). Everyone else falls into the category of Matt B where there are certain problems seen, but hardly to the point of claiming that McManus teaches Wicca more than Christianity.
I would suggest that the reason McManus ruffles so many of those particular feathers is because he doesn’t communicate the exact same way as his critics. He doesn’t use their key words, and so they throw a fit over it. It comes down *sigh*, once again to placing tradition on the same level of scripture.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:55 am
I think this is getting to the issue of “straining a gnat”. Which, by the way, would have been the Pharisees straining a bug from their wine, or whine, as the case might be.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:22 am
The basic idea of the book is that every human being’s soul craves God. We have an common void in our souls that can only be filled with God. We all crave intimacy, destiny and meaning. Most people are on this earth trying to fill those voids with alternatives (ie. sex, money, fame, religion). If we can show people that what they are really craving is found in the person and work of Jesus Christ, then maybe they will enter into a relationship with Him.
It’s the idea that God can be found in our simple need for him. So many people treat salvation like a sales pitch. If they say the right things, then people will realize they want Him and accept Him. However, in a postmodern era that strategy is proving to be more and more fruitless.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:24 am
“I would suggest that the reason McManus ruffles so many of those particular feathers is because he doesn’t communicate the exact same way as his critics.”
I understand what McManus is saying. That is why it is problematic. Are you one of those “words don’t mean anything, we all speak in metaphor” types?
Accusing me of beiing a “watchpoodle” is your way of avoiding the question.
This has nothing to do with tradition vs scripture. that is another diversionary tactic. I am thoroughly anti-rome as all of you well know. They are the greatest purveyors of tradition/cultural experince, as equal with Scripture.
Where are McManus’ arguments found in scripture? As I said I understand completely what he is saying, and what he is saying has no biblical foundation.
I am afraid you are the one swallowing a camel.
Please answer my question and quit tap dancing.
BTW Amy, you are right on!
July 20th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Nathan,
The times do not dictate the message.
We do not have a void waiting to be filled. Where in scripture do we read that? My Bible says no one seeks God. They will seek after anything or anyone but Yahweh.
If it was simply a matter of filling a void, then we would not have need of a savior who atones for us by his heath, blood and resurrection, and we would have no need to be born again, a new creation. or even reckoning ourselves to be dead, a term which in the Greek means that we in fact dead. He took us with Him. This is significantly beyond “void filling theology”
July 20th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Chris P,
Everyone else who has listened to McManus has come up with something along the lines of what Nathan wrote:
Now, do you believe McManus was saying something different? If so you and the other watch poodles have no ability to understand him.
Or do you just disagree with the idea that the meaning and purpose humanity craves can only be filled by God?
July 20th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Chris P,
Agreed
Agreed, as well.
The method is not the message. In the modern era, systematic arguments were the most effective means to convey a message. In both the post-modern and the first century eras, it is stories/narrative forms which often are most effective means - the picture (whether real or figurative) carries much more weight than the words.
I think that criticisms of both PD and EC teaching methods miss this point.
July 20th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Amy,
I would love to hear some sources of Wiccan theology that says God has placed longings within our hearts that can only be satisfied through Jesus Christ. I have yet to hear that in any of my studies of Wiccan practices. Maybe it is new.
July 20th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Chris P,
Where is your mind located?
Seriously…
The bible teaches we are to have our mind renewed by the Word… is your mind outside you body? Outside you person at all… or is it you inner being?
Seriously, it seems you are ready to criticize instead internalize…
The truly problematic thing I see again and again from your style of critiquing is what is on the surface… and seems to not go much deeper… It seems the outside of the cup is of more concern that the inside of the cup… hmmm could that be the contrast again of the inner being you say is not referenced at all in scripture…
I could go on but maybe that is enough to help you see beyond the outer man and maybe acknowledge that scripture is more concerned with our inner being than you realize.
Be blessed,
iggy
July 20th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
This is true.
Arguments and the systematic and logical ways of proving something do not work like they used to. The resulting proofs don’t have the weight of “winning” i.e. being true just by logically working through an argument to the end. They are merely “possible truths” whereas a story tends to reveal “real truth” because the person can identify with the story rather than a list of argumentative points.
It is the story, the narrative, now, that people are drawn to. I think that explains a lot of the generationl discord we see in different blogs and why an older generation of Christians have difficulty (and frequently bemoan the impending doom of the Christian faith) understanding or being willing to accept how some of these younger generations of Christians function.
That’s kind of clunky wording, but I think the point is that it is disturbing for an older generation to see a younger generation of Christians not adhering to the methods that worked for them, and it is often interpreted as a “falling away” when it may simply be a higher placement on narrative rather than argumentative techniques. This is really clear in the comments sections of these blogs.
Interesting — I’ll have to think more about it and find a better way to word it.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Nathan says, “I would love to hear some sources of Wiccan theology that says God has placed longings within our hearts that can only be satisfied through Jesus Christ.”
You won’t find that in Wiccan as far as I know. But you will find in much current philosophy (and I’m not really qualified to separate Wiccan from every other neo-pagan philosophy, so I won’t try) are ideas that promote this idea: ” . . . we have a better chance of finding God in the universe within us than in the one that surrounds us. And it is on this path that I invited you to walk with me. I invite you to engage in an exploration of the human spirit, to journey deep inside yourself and search out the mystery of the universe that exists with you…”
Tacking “Jesus” onto unscriptural viewpoints doesn’t make those viewpoints biblical.
God was never anywhere close, literally or metaphorically, “in the universe within myself” before Jesus washed me of my sin that separated me from Him. I could have explored the depths of my human spirit to infinity and not found Him, before I was washed with His blood. To teach people that they can find Him by searching inside of themselves is simply, WRONG. To focus into looking inside of one self for divinity is Pagan. Period.
Interpreting “the kingdom of God is within you” as Mcmanus has is an interpretation that doesn’t fit the rest of scripture. It does however fit very well into unbiblical beliefs about “god within.”
July 20th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Matt,
What did I think of your “Evil” post? I’ve already gone into great detail discussing some of the ideas you brought up. What else could be brought up, that hasn’t already been discussed, I can’t imagine.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
iggy
I haven’t a clue what you are talking about as I did not say what you claim I am saying. Par for the course for you though.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Amy,
if you are going to argue against the fact that every human heart is in desperate need for God and actually craves Him, then we will part paths theologically. I am under the assumption that every human heart is in disparate need of a Savior, and that by paying attention to those Cravings, they will search for and find THE One who satisfies.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Tim,
Who is this “everyone else” that you keep referring to?
As for the interpretations that this is talking about everyone having a void that needs to be filled, (which interpretation must be taking into account more than the quote given by 9 marks?) I will simply be lazy and quote Chris P: “If it was simply a matter of filling a void, then we would not have need of a savior who atones for us by his death, blood and resurrection, and we would have no need to be born again, a new creation. or even reckoning ourselves to be dead, a term which in the Greek means that we in fact dead. He took us with Him. This is significantly beyond “void filling theology†”
If man is essentially looking at “god within,” then is there, somewhere, deep in ever man, a natural hatred, aversion to his sin? I thought people sinned because their natural desire was to do what self wants. I thought they sinned because their desire to meet their own needs was GREATER than their desire to obey God. And I thought that that was a Biblical idea, not a “traditional” idea.
Do one of the young boys who recently gang raped a mother and forced her 12-year old son to do the same, the one who SMILED when he was captured, need to look deep within his mysterious human spirit to see his longing for God, or does he need to understand, through God’s Spirit, that there is NO good within Him, but that Jesus is willing to forgive Him for what he has done?
July 20th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Hmm.
Chris P started off with some insights that were written concisely and without put-downs.
A bunch of you responded by putting him down. He asked a valid question, which no-one answered, but trotted out the “watchpoodle” label instead.
Hmm…
July 20th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
You’re going to have to go into the why here. That is a huge non sequiter.
Merely having a God-shaped void doesn’t atone for our sin, nor does it make it spiritually alive.
In fact a God shaped void can be seen as a direct result of sin and the death it brings. Sin separated us from God, for who we were created to be with. Sin enters the world and brings with it death, we were created to never experience death, now that we have experienced death we know there is something deeply and terribly wrong. Notice all the emphasis on health, and yearning to avoid death indefininetly at every turn, even in fictional accounts (not to mention in many non-Christian religions). If this isn’t a God shaped void (or at least a yearning for things the way God meant them to be) then what it is?
July 20th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Chris P,
To the statement by McManus:
“I invite you to engage in an exploration of the human spirit, to journey deep inside yourself and search out the mystery of the universe that exists with you…â€
You stated:
“No offense but, that is not seeking God. Such a notion cannot be found in Scripture.:
Which i stated:
“Chris P,
Where is your mind located?
Seriously…
The bible teaches we are to have our mind renewed by the Word… is your mind outside you body? Outside you person at all… or is it you inner being?
Seriously, it seems you are ready to criticize instead internalize…
The truly problematic thing I see again and again from your style of critiquing is what is on the surface… and seems to not go much deeper… It seems the outside of the cup is of more concern that the inside of the cup… hmmm could that be the contrast again of the inner being you say is not referenced at all in scripture…
I could go on but maybe that is enough to help you see beyond the outer man and maybe acknowledge that scripture is more concerned with our inner being than you realize.”
Which you stated:
“iggy
I haven’t a clue what you are talking about as I did not say what you claim I am saying. Par for the course for you though.”
So… instead of insults can you answer as to why this washing the outside of the cup seems more important than seeking out the mystery that is in you? Which I take as meaning “Christ in you, Who Paul refers to as the “Mystery”.
It seems you have just followed through on this persons shallow and inaccurate understanding of something rather deep that McManus is talking about…
So, are you sure it was me that did not seem to understand this conversation? It seems you are the one that has gone par for course.
(Chris, I am hope you are not taking these as being mean… I am truly trying to grasp your view… though I think since I came out of it I have a pretty good grasp… i also think that we have more in common as you found you had with Chris L… so I am not trying to offend you… but maybe hope to push you a bit more in looking closer before you judge the person.)
Blessings,
iggy
July 20th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
robby,
I would agree, as well…
I hesitated going into the modernist/postmodernist argument just because of the labels involved, but as these are two different thought processes (rather than lumped groups), I chose to use them.
Is it possible to have a conversation on the subject w/o denigrating to name-calling (or broad-based assumptions)? As I read the original post, I would have an issue with the McManus quote if it were the only thing said on the subject. However, it seems that what the 9Marks review has done is eisogeted the quote apart from the body of work in such as way as to misrepresent the entire body of work.
This is often the case with criticism of emerging authors (like McManus) and cutting edge authors (like Bell, who won’t claim the emerging label for a number of reasons). Their writing style is a narrative one and not a logically-linear one.
In the systematic style, a hypothesis is first laid out. Then, evidence is brought forth to support it, finishing with a summation which may (or may not) contain a surprising or provocative application.
In a narrative style, an opening thought is often introduced which is surprising or provocative. Then, time is spent giving background and narrative in a way to deconstruct the opening thought. Finally, a summation is given which reflects the actual thesis of the story.
So, for example, when Rob Bell wanted to discuss how faith in God goes beyond just having faith in the Bible, and how we also have to have faith that those who canonized the Bible codified all of the correct writings (for instance), and that we have to have faith that God is leading us today, he started with a provocative statement (in VE):
Then, he built a narrative around this:
Then, he reaches a summation (which in modernist writing, would have been his thesis):
Now, when someone with a modernist mindset reviews this passage, they will read the opening statement and react as if it were the thesis of the argument. Thus conditioned, if they have allowed pre-suppositions to taint their review, they will ignore the remaining narrative, and cite only the first paragraphs to “prove” that Bell does not believe sola Scriptura, when a full reading of the section and chapter does not render the same conclusion.
With the McManus passage above, it seems that the interpretation by 9Marks of the eisogeted quote is not in concert with the thesis of the overall work (which would make the 9Marks argument a straw-man, if this is the case).
Additionally, suggesting that McManus should have addressed the specific sentence(s) in his podcast is somewhat disingenuous, unless someone was questioning him about that particularly paragraphs.
July 20th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Chris L and Robby,
I for one see that we use both the “tools” of modernity and post-modernity… in that those opposed to post modernity see anyone a threat that uses the tools… yet many of us do who critique modernity miss that we too use those tools…
The main issue I see is that those of us who see this, see that those entrenched in modernity miss that fact… or even say they oppose modernity also yet fail to recognize they still use the tools (such as objective/subjective truth) and such and miss that there are some bad things that have infused themselves in the church… some things that seemed to be cherished and guarded as if it was truly biblical and it is not.
So, on one level there is also two different languages engaging with each other… it is like two people arguing over the rules of the game… yet both fail to see that one is playing football and one is playing basketball… or that they are trying to play basketball with a football.
The games goal is the same… the rules are similar, but the styles of play are much different.
Now that analogy can go too far of course.
If we can agree that both use the “tools” and not argue over the different style they can go a long ways in discussion. But if one insists that their tools and style of using them are the only way, then communication is shut down.
Blessings,
iggy
July 20th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Nathan,
You said, “if you are going to argue against the fact that every human heart is in desperate need for God and actually craves Him, then we will part paths theologically. ”
Every human heart is in desperate need for God. Every human heart does not crave Him.
What do you mean “actually crave?” I guess you mean that this is happeneing subconsciously. This implies that the human heart is basically good, and wanting what is right. Yet scripture says that the heart of man is desperately wicked. Deceittful.
Isn’t there even a passage that says that the heart of man craves evil? I’m not sure of that . . .
July 20th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Have any of you besides Nathan read this book? If so, would you interpret the book as he has?
Nathan says, “The basic idea of the book is that every human being’s soul craves God. We have an common void in our souls that can only be filled with God. We all crave intimacy, destiny and meaning. Most people are on this earth trying to fill those voids with alternatives (ie. sex, money, fame, religion). If we can show people that what they are really craving is found in the person and work of Jesus Christ, then maybe they will enter into a relationship with Him.”
Who is the “everyone else” Tim refers to? You all, or other people that have written reviews of the book? I’m just wondering, because the discussion seems to have been turned into a discussion of Nathan’s interpretation of the book (which may be correct, or not) instead of a discussion of the paragraph that gave “9 marks” a problem.
July 20th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
No, this is the one book by McManus that I haven’t read. Amy, have you read the book?
July 20th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Amy,
In the heart of man there is the need of dependency… if not God, then drugs, sex, alcohol, work, friends, spouses, ego, science, or whatever will be in the place of God and be that persons god to them.
That is what Romans chapter 1 is all about… they looked at creation and instead of believing in the Creator, worshipped created things… so GOD GAVE THEM OVER TO A DEPRAVED MIND.
Notice they were no born with a depraved mind, but turned over to it?
So in that all men turn away from God… and worship the creation, they sin. So, all men have sinned and fallen short the Glory of God, (which is Jesus if one does a study on that).
So everyone “craves” for God, but may not turn to God to satisfy that craving.
Again, Romans 1 teaches this pretty clearly if one does not let their own theological bent get in the way…
We are to turn to God though Jesus and live totally dependant on Jesus as He was with the Father… of live in sin (or under the covenant of death which is another great study) and depend on something other than God….
Blessings,
iggy
July 20th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Robby,
I actually think I answered Chris P very nicely and sincerely… I think he took it wrong in “Where is your mind located?” to his assertion that there is no scripture dealing with “looking within ones self and searching the mystery of the universe that is with us…
His response was really a put down and he gave no answer…
So, I guess that I do not agree that Chris P just asked a question and then was called a “watch-poodle” as some of us did try, but were told he had no understanding of what I was talking about with a put down…
I never called him a name at all… Yet Chris P reacted as he always has.
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 20th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
For what it’s worth, I get creeped out when people start telling me to look inside me to find some glorious something or other that will lead me out or amaze or guide or what have you. Of course, there’s the whole “kingdom of God is within you.”
I don’t know yet.
But I still shy away from this “look inside for power, beauty, etc.” stuff, because I know what’s inside me and it isn’t pretty, it isn’t powerful, it isn’t anything I’m finding but destructive and base.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Julie,
That’s a far more reasonable position than the one taken by the watchbloggies.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Julie,
Interestingly it seems easier to see Christ Jesus in others and harder to seem Him in ourselves.
Blessings,
iggy
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:39 am
Matt,
No, I haven’t read the book. And my point in asking if anyone had was that I have been wondering if people are taking Nathan’s interpretation of the book as what the book means, because the conversation switched to the interpretation that he gave rather than the paragraph brought up by nine marks.
I have studied “kingdom” in scripture, not thoroughly, but enough to know that the interpretation of “kingdom of God is within you” as “implying is that we have a better chance of finding God in the universe within us than in the one that surrounds us. And it is on this path that I invited you to walk with me. I invite you to engage in an exploration of the human spirit, to journey deep inside yourself and search out the mystery of the universe that exists with you…” is not supported by any other scriptures.
As I said before Matt, I have read a lot of stuff like this paragraph, by people who are not Christians. I find it difficult to try to attach any biblical meaning to this paragraph. And if I had a reason to read any book by an author who was claiming to be Christian with this sort of thinking in it, I would be on my guard the whole time.
God is NOT in the “universe” inside of any Christian. Why would any Christian want to defend such an idea? Why must you call a Christian who has a problem with this idea a “watchpuppy,” Tim? And why DIDN’T you have a problem with what Julie said? If you already had her classified as a watchpuppy wouldn’t you have been disturbed by her words: “I get creeped out when people start telling me to look inside me to find some glorious something or other that will lead me out or amaze or guide or what have you.”
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:50 am
Amy,
I didn’t say I agreed with it, I said it was more reasonable than what the watchpoodles had written. She made clear that she was having a visceral reaction to that statement, while the watchpoodles pretend like they’re making a reasoned argument when they’re manipulating the text/speech to mean something the communicator didn’t intend it to mean.
In other words I find it more reasonable to have a visceral reaction to a statement than to deliberately distort it in order to condemn it.
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:39 am
Tim,
I’ve been condemned on this site for “visceral reactions” . . . you should have been around to support me.
You say that, “The premise of the book is that God has placed within human beings certain cravings that can only be satisfied by Him.” Maybe this is true; I haven’t read the book. Nathan actually goes beyond this in his assessment. He says that “every human heart . . . actually craves Him.” I’m going to assume that Nathan has learned this from Mcmanus.
You and Nathan are saying two different things. Who is right about what Mcmanus is actually teaching? Do you believe that Nathan is also misinterpreting Mcmanus? If so, then what he is doing is no different than what 9 marks did.
Nathan’s interpretation is closer to 9 marks interpretation than yours is, and both of their interpretations back up the paragraph about looking into oneself to find God.
No matter what the premise of the book is, the statement “… that we have a better chance of finding God in the universe within us than in the one that surrounds us . . . ” is not biblical.
Aside from the issue of whether or not 9marks is correctly interpreting what Mcmanus is teaching, isn’t the whole “god within us” idea something that should make the Christian beware? And shouldn’t Christians be free to be concerned about such teaching?
“It’s inside the body that the Mysteries reside.” I came across this quote a couple of weeks ago. And on the site that quoted it, they also mention Christ, even the divinity of Christ I believe. Another part of this teaching is that the “womb is the center of divinity.” The place I found this quote (pregnantearth.com) has a section about Jesus. It’s part of “oneness” teaching, and part of “mother-goddess” teaching.
The “god within” idea and other ideas that Mcmanus teaches are common outside of Chrstian teaching.
The only way to support Mcmanus interpretation of Jesus statement “the kingdom of God is within you” is to assume that Jesus was telling the Pharisees themselves that the kingdom of God was within them. Surely that interpretation cannot be backed up from any scriptures.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:10 pm
This may have been said already, and if so, I apologize.
The premise of Soul Cravings is not that every human craves God, but that they crave meaning, destiny and intimacy. All three of those things are found in God.
The idea that all people crave those three things is not necessarily based in scripture, but more in psychology, anthropology and sociology. However, the idea that God embodies those three desires is firmly rooted in scripture. McManus is bridging that gap by saying when people crave those things, in reality, they are craving God, whether they know it or not.
Is there a problem with that thinking?
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Amy,
I am going to be upfront with you, I work with McManus personally on a weekly basis (sometime daily). I cease to be amazed at how people twist and turn and interpret McManus’ writings. Look at the quote
“we have a better chance of finding God in the universe within us than in the one that surrounds us”
He did not say that God is in all of us. He said that we have e better chance of FINDING God in the universe within us. If you read the book, or even listened to the free podcasts, you would know that he is talking about our Soul’s Cravings. I have said it once, and I will say it again. God has placed within us cravings and voids that only he can fill. When people realize that our soul is not craving sex or money or power or fame, but HIM, then these people have a better chance of connecting with HIM.
Apologetics like “The Case for Christ” are great. But in today’s world, just having a very convincing argument is not going to cut it. We have to connect people with what their soul is craving, so that they can find Christ.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Nathan,
You said, “He did not say that God is in all of us. He said that we have e better chance of FINDING God in the universe within us.” How can we find God in the universe within us if He isn’t there in the first place?
I honestly can’t think of any scripture that supports the idea that everyone’s soul is craving God.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
amy,
Does scripture deny that people crave meaning, intimacy and destiny? Do you deny that God meets those three cravings?
As stated, THAT is the premise of the book.
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Amy,
To deny that we do not all crave God is to deny that we are all broken. If we are all broken, and there is a solution out there, then we all crave God. Here’s an analogy:
If I was walking through the dessert and had not had water for three days, my soul would crave it. If I started eating sand to fill that need, you would probably tell me that my body was not craving sand, but water. The best way to do that would be to connect my body cravings with the thing that will satisfy. You probably would not give me a five good arguments on why I should drink water vs. eating sand
If you believe that we were designed to be in relationship with God, then our souls NEED him to be whole. If we can show people that they are lost, and their soul need HIM to be whole, then we have a better chance at helping them.
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Amy,
You wrote:
I can think of an entire book within the Bible that is about nothing but that: Ecclesiastes
The entire premise, lived out by Solomon, is that we have cravings which have been hard-wired into us and that even if we get everything we believe we crave, we will not find meaning and happiness apart from God.
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Amy,
Context means a lot doesn’t it…
So are you saying that if a person is in Christ and Christ is in them that Jesus is not in there the universe with in us?
Try to think that this is a sentence out of a book in which some other thoughts have brought one to this sentence…
Meaning one cannot just take a sentence at random out of a book, or scirpture for that matter and then place their own meaning into it. I hope you agree…
Yet, that is what is being done over and over and over.
I hope again you see that as wrong and a bit dishonest.
be blessed,
iggy
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:08 pm
I think we are getting into a predestination vs free will debate here. Since Christians on both sides haven’t been able to resolve that matter for the past 2K years, I’m not sure we can here.
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Amy,
“I honestly can’t think of any scripture that supports the idea that everyone’s soul is craving God.”
Psalms 42
1. As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, O God.
2. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When can I go and meet with God?
3. My tears have been my food day and night, while men say to me all day long, “Where is your God?”
4. These things I remember as I pour out my soul: how I used to go with the multitude, leading the procession to the house of God, with shouts of joy and thanksgiving among the festive throng.
5. Why are you downcast, O my soul? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and
6. my God. My soul is downcast within me; therefore I will remember you from the land of the Jordan, the heights of Hermon–from Mount Mizar.
7. Deep calls to deep in the roar of your waterfalls; all your waves and breakers have swept over me.
8. By day the LORD directs his love, at night his song is with me– a prayer to the God of my life.
9. I say to God my Rock, “Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?”
10. My bones suffer mortal agony as my foes taunt me, saying to me all day long, “Where is your God?”
11. Why are you downcast, O my soul? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God.
I think that is pretty clear of the Bible stating that man’s soul craves after God. This is but one verse in many that teach this.
Now also draw back to Romans one as i think I already stated… man is design to be dependant on God, yet he chooses to depend on other things instead. That inner need of dependency is this “craving for God” that man either accepts or rejects.
Be Blessed,
iggy
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Todd,
Is that the premise of the book? Nathan hasn’t put it that way and he is with Mcmanus on a sometimes daily basis. Nathan is saying that unregenerate souls crave God Himself. And Mcmanus, according to Nathan, (if I’m understanding him right) is saying that people need to look within themselves to find this craving for God. According to Mcmanus, in the much discussed paragraph, people need to look within themselves not just to find that craving for God, but to find God. (I’ll take that last statement back if Nathan can answer my question: ““How can we find God in the universe within us if He isn’t there in the first place?”)
Can you can give me some scriptures that support these statements, addressed to non-Christians:
1) The Bible shows us that “we have a better chance of finding God in the universe within us than in the one that surrounds us.”
2) The Bible shows us that we are to “engage in an exploration of the human spirit, to journey deep inside (ourselves)”
3) The Bible shows us that we are to “to journey deep inside yourself and search out the mystery of the universe that exists in (us)”
4) The above three ideas are what Jesus was talking about when he said that “the kingdom of God is within you”
5) The Bible says that unregenerate souls are craving God.
As for your assessment of the book’s premise, I’m not sure I can respond to it well but I’ll try. Unregenerate souls crave meaning apart from God, intimacy apart from God, and destiny apart from God. God doesn’t meet their ungodly cravings. People who crave Godly meaning, Godly intimacy, and Godly destiny, are people who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit.
I’m not sure I’m happy with that answer and would like to think on it some more, but that’s the best I can come up with for now.
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Sorry did not finish the thought above… that this design of dependency is in both the saved and none saved…
But I did doubly bless ya! : )
iggy
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Amy,
this is going to sound really harsh, but it isn’t intended to be. Would you ever consider actually reading one of the books you so often criticize and then make an educated opinion. It works alot better than taking two sentences with no context and doing a complete exposition on them?
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Iggy,
Whoever (s) wrote Psalm 42 said, “I will yet praise him, my saviour and my God.”
How can this possibly be or even represent the soul longing of some pagan?
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Amy, is it possible to not believe in predestination and still be a Christian?
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Nathan,
Actually the paragraph I’m discussing has more than two sentences.
Tim took 9marks 2 sentence response and made an article out of it. I don’t believe he’s read the book either (???). Maybe you should scold him as well.
I don’t have money to buy all the books discussed here.
I wouldn’t normally buy any book with a paragraph such as the one we’ve been discussing. I can find plenty of books for free with thinking like that at my local library. I found one last week. It’s called “The Encycopedia of Witchcraft” and is essentially a defense of Wiccan.
Why don’t you simply explain how the concepts in the paragraph can be supported by scripture?
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
my bad… three sentences.
You have made accusations against a minister of the word (McManus) that he is practicing Wiccan theology without even reading his material. I find it funny that you have money to buy Wiccan reading material, but can’t afford a book to read before you basically call a pastor Wiccan.
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Okay, then, Iggy, show me some scripture that shows me that this “design of dependency” is in the saved and unsaved.
Matt,
I am not the person to ask about predestination issues. I believe in both predestination and free will. Maybe I am confused . . . maybe not. Believing in both is the only thing I’ve been able to come up with after studying scripture.
I don’t think a person can become a Christian without being drawn by the Spirit.
I am sure a lot of Christians have probably never even heard of predestination or free will, yet they are Christians.
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
and the questions keep changing…
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Wait…David was a Christian? Only those who have Christ are regenerate.
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Nathan,
The questions keep changing? Is that in response to my asking Iggy to clarify how the “design of dependency” is in the saved and unsaved? Seems like a fair question.
Can anyone respond to these questions? Show me where
1) The Bible shows us that “we have a better chance of finding God in the universe within us than in the one that surrounds us.â€
2) The Bible shows us that we are to “engage in an exploration of the human spirit, to journey deep inside (ourselves)â€
3) The Bible shows us that we are to “to journey deep inside yourself and search out the mystery of the universe that exists in (us)â€
4) The above three ideas are what Jesus was talking about when he said that “the kingdom of God is within youâ€
5) The Bible says that unregenerate souls are craving God
July 23rd, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Again, was the writer of Psalm 42 regenerate? Only those who have Jesus are regenerate.
July 23rd, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Nathan,
Please read more carefully.
You said, “You have made accusations against a minister of the word (McManus) that he is practicing Wiccan theology without even reading his material.” But I have not made such accusations. As I have said before, the thinking in that paragraph resonates with some Wiccan/neo-pagan ideas. He may be “practicing some neo-pagan theology.” But I have not said so.
“I find it funny that you have money to buy Wiccan reading material” I did not buy that book, I got it free at the local library, as I clearly stated.
Could you answer this question? You said, “He did not say that God is in all of us. He said that we have e better chance of FINDING God in the universe within us.†How can we find God in the universe within us if He isn’t there in the first place?
July 23rd, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Matt,
I really don’t understand what your question has to do with the discussion. Are you trying to insist that David was a pagan whose soul was longing for God so that we can actually take that passage and say, “David was a pagan, therefore pagans’ souls are longing for God?” We’ll also have to say that they can call God their Saviour and “their God” and “the God of their life.”
(Actually I don’t think David wrote Psalm 42 but no matter . . . . Whoever wrote it considered themselves someone who belonged to God, and since it was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit I’ll assume that they did.)
July 23rd, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Psalm 42 was written by someone who had to sacrifice at the temple. They were not regenerate. Because of the death and burial of Jesus, we are regenerate and no longer have to sacrifice. Christ is the sacrifice.
Christians always have the HS, another sign of being regenerate. The writer of Psalm 42 did not.
July 23rd, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Matt,
How does what you’re saying relate to this discussion?
July 23rd, 2007 at 5:15 pm
[Caution: A bit of hyperbole to follow in a lazy attempt to both recap, critique, and make somewhat clear observations]
BLOG A: JOHN DOE wrote “A Big Cow” (ABC). In three sentences out of the five thousand within ABC, John said XYZ.* Now, by XYZ (which you can see is wrong), John really meant PDQ**. Therefore he is apostate and is bound for hell.
Please don’t read anything he’s written, and proceed with slandering him and his so-called “Christian” followers. Shelling commences in 5…4…3…
*If you have read ABC, please ignore that XYZ and our interpretation of XYZ have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual thesis of ABC and that we have pulled it in out of context.
**We don’t like John Brown’s hair, music or his church, and even if ABC didn’t state PDQ explicitly, it’s what John meant, whether he knew it or not. Trust us. We know.
BLOG B: Here is what was recently written by BLOG A, which is horribly biased and not representative of what John meant.
COMMENTER A: I work with John and BLOG A has not accurately covered what he wrote or what he meant.
COMMENTER B: John should explain himself.
COM A: Why should he have to explain himself every time a nutter takes him out of context? How about the nutter explain himself and why he took John out of context?
BLOG A: (cue chirping crickets)
ALTERNATE BLOG A: You obviously are an unregenerate idiot, or else you would know that God sent me to smite John and his evil writings. Please refer to John 7:24 to see why I’m right. If you ignore me, you’re ignoring God.
COM C: Why did John write XYZ?
COM A: ABC is about QWERTY, and XYZ as “explained” by BLOG A is a total distortion.
COM C: I just read a book about navel-gazing and XYZ sounds like navel-gazing.
COM A: Did I mention that I work with John and that I’m not sure he’s even got a navel? His book is about QWERTY, and XYZ is a completely incomplete thought.
COM C: So why did he say XYZ then?
COM A: It is an incomplete thought. What about story GHJ in the Bible?
COM C: What does GHJ have to do with it?
COM D: Here… [detailed explanation follows]
COM C: So why did John write XYZ? It sounds like navel-gazing.
COM A: I work with John and he does not support navel-gazing in any fashion. If you read the entire book instead of the three sentences in BLOG A, you would understand what he meant.
COM C: John wrote XYZ. What if I was a new Christian and I used to be into navel-gazing? Won’t reading ABC lead me back into sin?
COM A: If your friend read ABC, she would see that John is not writing about navel-gazing.
COM C: Then why did John write XYZ?
COM E: Why did BLOG A choose to eisogete XYZ when its obvious that their interpretation was not John’s intent? Why not ask that question?
COM A: Commenter C, Perhaps you should read the book and find out.
COM C: Sorry, I’m reading about navel-gazing right now. And I got it free at the library.
COM A: Maybe you should visit a library that carries John’s book, then, rather than trusting BLOG A to do your thinking for you…
[We now return to the sarcasm and hyperbole-free thread in progress...]
July 23rd, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Usually I look forward to Chris L. entering the conversation to clear it up.
(Nah. It helped. And it could apply to many, many, many conversations.)
July 23rd, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Amy,
I recommend starting from Genesis chapter one verse 1 until Revelations last chapter last verse…
The whole bible is about Jesus and our need for him… both saved and unsaved. I guess I am confused that you miss Jesus;’ own statements of dependency in John Chapter 5.
So, please instead show me a verse that states this is not true.
Be blessed,
iggy
July 23rd, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Iggy,
Look back at the question that you answered with Psalm 42.
Amy,
“I honestly can’t think of any scripture that supports the idea that everyone’s soul is craving God.â€
You then said “Sorry did not finish the thought above… that this design of dependency is in both the saved and none saved…”
I assumed that “sign of dependency” must be related to everyone’s soul craving God since that is what we were talking about. You haven’t shown me scripture that shows me that unsaved people crave God.
I never said that unsaved people don’t need God. You’re putting words in my mouth.
Chris,
Why not use some of your talent for detail to answer the questions I’ve posed that no one else is answering:
“He did not say that God is in all of us. He said that we have e better chance of FINDING God in the universe within us.†How can we find God in the universe within us if He isn’t there in the first place?
Can anyone respond to these questions? Show me where
1) The Bible shows us that “we have a better chance of finding God in the universe within us than in the one that surrounds us.â€
2) The Bible shows us that we are to “engage in an exploration of the human spirit, to journey deep inside (ourselves)â€
3) The Bible shows us that we are to “to journey deep inside yourself and search out the mystery of the universe that exists in (us)â€
4) The above three ideas are what Jesus was talking about when he said that “the kingdom of God is within youâ€
5) The Bible says that unregenerate souls are craving God.
I don’t think that there is a biblical answer that supports any of these. Whatever the premise of the book is, whatever right or wrong judgement someone has made about it, I have yet to see how these statements are scriptural.
July 23rd, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Amy,
In fact i have at least two or three times pointed you to
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22: Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23. and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.
Notice that though they knew God (though not in a way one saved does) the exchanged being dependant on God (THE TRUTH) for a lie (a poor substitute for God and His Truth).
I will add another verse.
In Luke 18: we have the story of the Pharisee, who is symbolic of the “righteous” and a tax collector who is thought to be unsaved…. yet it is the tax collector that cries out, “`God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ ” showing that he as a lost person had a craving for God and His Mercy…
I shall go on…
Romans 9 is a great chapter that shows that God has chosen the vessels of wrath to be now vessels of mercy… and some of the vessels of mercy will be vessels of wrath. In the end Paul points out “That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.” As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” ”
It seems that as God calls the Gentiles responded as they recognized their need for God… they in fact saw that the cravings of their spirit was better than that of their flesh.
I will go on…
In 1 John 2:29 john speaks of the “cravings of a sinful man” this is the misplaced cravings that are dependant on something other than God as I spoke.
It is how we are to live as Jesus Himself stated in John 5:19
“I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.”
Jesus was dependant on the Father as we should be in Him… in that is the missing ingredient in a unsaved persons cravings… as i have stated, that they exchange this truth with a lie.
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 23rd, 2007 at 7:40 pm
By the way Chris, the focus of my remarks has not been on what “blog A” had to say about this remark. It’s on the remark itself. The focus for everyone else seems to be other’s or their own interpretations of the statement, whether or not they’ve read the book. There are differences of opinion among yourselves on what the book means, and whether or not the statement can even be agreed with, but that doesn’t seem to bother anyone, you all stand united defending Mcmanus.
If you don’t even agree on what he is saying, how can you defend him?
Regarding Commenter C, you don’t realize why I’m researching what I’m researching and you don’t know what you’re scoffing at. I’m not sure if I’ve checked if the library system I’m in carries Mcmanus; they don’t carry Bell, so I doubt they carry Mcmanus.
Do you always run to the library to check out the book being discussed before asking any questions/observations about it?
A person DOES NOT have to read a whole work to ask questions about a concept that is presented therein. The questions I’ve asked should have answers, biblical ones, if they are biblical statements.
You should be thinking and analyzing and checking what a person says with scripture instead of mocking.
“In three sentences out of the five thousand within ABC.” What about a more complete picture. There have been other things that Mcmanus has said that have been discussed on this blog that are troubling, things that Nathan always gives an alternative explanation for. Take his testimony, for example.
If the concepts that Mcmanus presented in that paragraph were in some fundamentalist Christian’s doctrinal statement, or if Macarthur had made them, I believe you would be all over them, picking them apart. But for some reason it’s “hands-off,” they couldn’t possibly mean what they seem to mean. Why? Is Mcmanus above questioning?
July 23rd, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Amy,
First off you stated i am putting words in your mouth…no… I am clarifying statements… so please let’s not start the “you are putting words in my mouth” thing.
The thing is by my statement IN CONTEXT was, “The whole bible is about Jesus and our need for him… both saved and unsaved.” in which we were discussing whether an unsaved person “craved” God and replaced this “need” with other things.
In that your constant replies to prove this left me with the impression that you did not see that an unsaved person need to be dependant on God… which was a bit confusing… but that would be the other view.
This is also the point that is being discussed, that one can take a statement out of context and infuse our own understanding into without realizing it… it seems pretty easy to do.
Let’s do this…
You stated here: “…we have a better chance of finding God in the universe within us than in the one that surrounds us. And it is on this path that I invited you to walk with me.”
Note this is just taken from a statement you made… but i want you to see how some often build from a statement like this in the middle of a discussion or book or article… and take it to mean the opposite… I AM NOT SAYING YOU BELIVE THIS OR STATED IT TO MEAN IT THIS WAY… this is only an illustration.
So, lets take a look at your statement… here is a mock article that will show what we are talking about.
“…we have a better chance of finding God in the universe within us than in the one that surrounds us. And it is on this path that I invited you to walk with me.”
I was shocked when i read Amy make this statement in the comments. How can she believe this” She believes we can find God in the Universe within us, than in the one that surround us? Not only that she is telling people to walk with her on this “journey”. Doesn’t she know that this is what pagans believe?
I will stop there, as I think that the point is clear that one can take a part of a comment and turn it into the opposite that it was intended. I cannot tell you how much this happens to me and to others in my “camp”.
Now, again it is not about McManus being above questioning, rather if he is to be questions, would it not be better to have the question reflect what he means and is stating instead of just using the statement to make up a ridiculous statement about what someone THINKS they know about what he stated?
I mean we would not do this to the bible… why do it to a brother in Christ Jesus.
In fact I have faced this so often that I cannot tell you how often someone tells me what I believe and then calls me a liar when i say that is not so.
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 24th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Iggy,
I can’t follow your twists and turns. The scriptures you presented as demonstrating that “Every soul craves God” don’t demonstrate that.
If, for example, you want to use the man praying “God be merciful to me a sinner” as proof, then, quite simply, I’ll be expecting everyone in the universe to pray that prayer.
As for your illustration of taking me out of context, to demonstrate how Mcmanus was taken out of context, it doesn’t work. You’ve taken a quote of me quoting Mcmanus and making a pretend scenario of someone attributing that belief to me.
9 marks has taken a quote of Mcmanus quoting Mcmanus, saying something that he deeply believes. It was not “part of a comment.” It can stand alone, and it can’t be supported from Scripture.
July 24th, 2007 at 8:30 am
“It can stand alone, and it can’t be supported from Scripture.”
Maybe you all should add a statement of beliefs to your site. It could say, either:
) We believe that “we have a better chance of finding God in the universe within us than in the one that surrounds us.â€
2) We believe that we should “engage in an exploration of the human spirit, to journey deep inside (ourselves)â€
3) We believe that we should “ journey deep inside (ourselves) and search out the mystery of the universe that exists in (us)â€
4) We believe that the above three ideas are what Jesus was talking about when he said that “the kingdom of God is within youâ€
5) We believe that the Bible says that unregenerate souls are craving God.
Along with that statement you could find some new symbols to add to your web page. How about “new-age friendly” “bible-believing shunned” “neo-pagan.”
or, if you don’t like those ideas, simply write:
1)We believe that some beliefs held by certain men, though unbiblical, should not be addressed because of who these men are.
July 24th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Sorry, I was just finishing Harry Potter and didn’t have time to respond.
You keep claiming that unregenerate don’t want God:
“Unregenerate souls crave meaning apart from God, intimacy apart from God, and destiny apart from God. God doesn’t meet their ungodly cravings. People who crave Godly meaning, Godly intimacy, and Godly destiny, are people who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit.”
So, was the writer of the Psalms 42 regenerate or not? Scripture says only those in Christ are regenerate.
July 24th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Matt,
If you want to write an article on the differences of the state of men who belonged to God before Christ versus after Christ, and an indepth discussion of the word “regenerate” then be my guest.
July 24th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Amy - you used the word regenerate. If you want to take back that word, then by all means, please do.
July 24th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Amy,
“Unregenerate souls crave meaning apart from God, intimacy apart from God, and destiny apart from God. God doesn’t meet their ungodly cravings. People who crave Godly meaning, Godly intimacy, and Godly destiny, are people who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit.â€
By this narrow definition you have I think you still miss the point…
1. Can a person who does not know Jesus want and crave intimacy?
2. If we look at the at your “Godly destination” I see that this in itself shows a very narrow view of salvation… but instead of trying to explain that I will just say that people do want some sort of destination, be it power, fame, money, prestige or whatever one can replace this “Godly destination” with.
With that using your own definition, I am stating that this craving for God is confused and replace by desires of the flesh. It is a corruption of the true craving we have for God.
If that still makes no sense… I give up.
as far as the verses, again the whole of scirpture is the story of God creating man for a purpose and putting His Spirit in man, man losing that life giving spirit as he gave into the cravings of the flesh, and God working with man to bring man to his original proposed Godly cravings. Romans states creation groans for the revealing of the Sons of God so it also has its own cravings for God. Note man is part of this creation also… so creation cries out for its freedom from bondage to death and decay.
Also, as far as the example I tried to use… it is the basic idea that one cannot just take a sentence out of a discussion and build from it accusations as are built on against Mcmanus.
I could just have taken this quote from you that has nothing to do with Mcmanus…
“That’s not what scripture says. Scripture says that Christ himself is a stumblingblock to unbelievers. And that noone can come to Christ unless the FATHER draws them.” quote Amy.
Taking your quote here rather random from a post a few months back lets jam into this context…
Does Amy think that God is some sort of artist in heaven with a big pencil doing drawings!? how ridiculuos is that to think that the Creator of the universe is sitting around with a pencil “drawing all men”. Also, Amy is quoting scripture as saying this… is this a paraphrase? I know of no scripture that states this as she quoted… and one more thing… what is a “noone”? Is she stating that only at noon we can come to Jesus? Boy this is really messed up.
Amy, I am exaggerating a bit, but if you took the time to look at the your own quote in context, it is about American Idol… can you believe that?
So we must be careful not to just take a sentence from somewhere and then explain it as we see fit.
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 24th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Amy,
If people are not drawn to God to fill in what they lack then why is anyone a Christian at all? You’ve got a couple of options.
1. God forces people to become Christians ala calvinism. If this is the case then why don’t we see Christians that really don’t care for God? Or more precisely, why wouldn’t we simply accept that some people are in the church unwillingly and we can’t expect much enthusiasm from them?
2. People are attracted to God and so become Christ followers.
Then you also have the problem of general revelation. Paul writes in Romans 1 that God has written the Law on everyone’s heart so that they are left without excuse. As a result many non-Christians are drawn to Christ/God/the Bible because what they see there they already agree with because of the Law written on their heart. For example, you have Ghandi saying that he has no problem with Christ, only with Christians. Or the outrage expressed over Vick’s dogfighting charges. Or how about the trials of Nazis who were kidnapped by Israeli commandos? The argument was that what they did was legal according to the laws of Germany, but that they still knew what was moral. If people aren’t naturally drawn to God to fill voids that exist, then what are these?
July 24th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Amy,
I am currently torn on whether to answer your questions, which Iggy (and others, including myself) have already done. The primary problem is that, ignoring the early discussion on narrative versus systematic/analytical forms, you continue to insist on a systematic/analytical defense of a small piece of a narrative work.
I do not have a copy of the book, nor have I had time to go look one up. However, I do have Nathan, who understands the narrative and the author first hand and has given a satisfactory answer for any concern I might have held. I also have a personal friend, who is also an intellectual, who reads McManus, with whom I’ve discussed various issues regarding him and his books, at length.
So - at this point, trying to give you a systematic answer to what is a fragment of a narrative is rather pointless (and plays right into the flawed methodology of the watchdawggies), because I do not have the full narrative, and I am rest assured that you’ll have a “bad feeling” about it, regardless of whether my defense is ironclad or not. You have already proven that you’re willing to assume the worst of McManus, and that you’ll play GBA to a fare-thee-well with him. So really, what’s the point?
At this point, if you want a systematic answer, the onus is on you and any questions you have, to first go to a bookstore or a library and read the entire narrative in which this eisogeted comment is contained.
Now, to your observations:
If I am going to be critical of passages therein, actually, I do. If it is a book I would not mind on my bookshelf, like Velvet Elvis, I will purchase it. If it is a book I wouldn’t want to be seen on my bookshelf, like MacLaren or MacArthur, I will either check it out at the library or - more often - walk down to Borders over lunch a couple days and give it a read/skim.
What I won’t do, though, is pull a single quote and try to make it the sum total of what the book is about, and then make silly pronouncements like “We believ