good ol' boys?

Do you think you’re good? C’mon now. . . do you? I mean, can you be trusted? Really, we all have our flaws, but overall, deep down inside, don’t you think you’re a good person? It’s not really healthy to think otherwise, is it?
How about me? Do you think I’m a good person?
If we’re going to get through this conversation cordially, we’d better acknowledge some goodness with each other, right?
Now it might seem necessary to admit that we used to be horrible, but then we gave our lives over to righteousness and justice through the wonder-working power of God; we’re not perfect, mind you, but we are much improved over our former qualities.
Sounds like flawed Pauline doctrine to me, and more of the same milk-toast diet of the universal church that Christ will judge.
Truth is, according to Jesus, we’re not any of us good at all. Truth is, Christ didn’t ask us to scoot over a little and make room for him to enter. Truth is, he eradicated us with his blood, sealed and grafted his righteousness onto us with his blood.
After Jesus settled matters with the seeker (rich young ruler) about righteousness and goodness, the commandments, and all that, he told him to sell all his goods and “Follow me”. That was what the seeker failed to do, and that made everyone feel sad. The seeker didn’t need to be made better; by his own words I’m convinced that he is a better man than me. But by Jesus’ words I’m convinced he needed to be saved.
Sometimes it only seems like Paul is urging the brethren in the churches and his close personal friends to be better. If we inspect more closely, we will see that he is generally just telling them to believe, to enthusiastically enter into the faith he holds. Sometimes he becomes overbearing, in my opinion, urging others to follow his example, itemizing his credentials and exploits, going for the heartstrings of the readers; he wasn’t perfect, after all.
Paul had a lot of issues to work out. He was responsible for a lot of suffering and many deaths. I would think that the martyrdom of Stephen would be pretty hard on any man’s conscience.
Saul who became Paul held the qualities of a driven man both pre-and-post the Damascus Road Experience. He was obviously a man who could galvanize men into action, but that doesn’t make him a good man. He was neither a good man before or after he surrendered his will to Christ; he just got saved.
The problem with Christianity is this constant forgetfulness that there are none good except God. Granted, we’re all each other has, and therefore we will have to make the best of the situation, but this tendency to place certain men in exalted reverence only proves just how foolish people really are. I have known many Christian leaders whose biggest stumbling blocks have been their fawning followers who insist that the anointed of God are error-proof. A lot of good that does in bringing forth Jesus’ message that he is the light of the world!
Those of us who tend to question any inconsistencies in leadership are often led to the teaching on Moses and the sons of Israel as they journeyed through the wilderness. The people defied God and his appointed one, Moses, and most if not all grievously regretted the act. However you and I are not following a cloud by day or pillar by night through a desert region, dependent upon mysterious manna for our next meal. We live in homes and go to our pantry or the store for food. Therefore the example of submitting to leaders is good, but not to be taken any more literally than the situation at hand!
Actually someone might have done Moses some good by talking to him about his anger management problem. It was his uncontrolled temper, after all, that made him a fugitive of Egyptian justice. And even after more than forty years of that experience behind him, it was still his temper that prevented him from entering the Promised Land. Moses is another great role model, but if we sugar-coat those aspects of his character that are less than desirable, we show a lack of depth and discernment as Christ’s disciples.