Thread: Personal Jesus Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026469
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I was very interested to hear the morning worsahip this morning from a Jesuit Church here in the UK where, in the introduction the priest spoke about Christ the King Sunday being a time for Christians to affirm that Jesus is their personal friend and Saviour!
And there was me getting the impression from the Shipmates here that such talk was just shallow evangelicalism.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
It depends what such talk means on a practical level, ie whether one accepts that Jesus is the friend and saviour of others too! Given Jesuit action in areas of social activism, education, anti-poverty campaigning etc, it's clearly not shallow. Jesuits are also unlikely to use that as their only description of Jesus. It's how the statement is put into practice that determines whether it's shallow or not (and IME evangelicals are more prone to shallowness in this area because for those of us who take Tradition seriously, it protects us from shallowness to an extent - although clearly not all evangelicals have a shallow theology).
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
The evangelicals aren't going to use that as their only descriptor either though, are they Jade? Maybe they do in Sunday school, but most things are simplified in Sunday school. Once you get to the adult sermons, Jesus is also Lord, judge, redeemer, ... you get the idea. I've been travelling a lot these past few months and have been to quite a number of evangelical churches, and this has been true for all of them.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Indeed Jade, and your description of the Jesuits could also apply when referring to the activities of The Salvation Army, a highly evangelical movement with very conservative evangelical doctrines.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, indeed - although don't take this the wrong way, Mudfrog, I think the difference lies in form rather than content ... in that there is an element of sentimentality within the more Wesleyan traditions (such as yours) which you wouldn't necessarily find among the Jesuits or in more Catholic circles more general.
Or, if you do, it'd be expressed in a different way - icky and tatty religious art etc.
I think one of the most evangelical sermons I've ever heard was one given by a Benedictine monk and had he not been wearing a habit but - say - a suit and tie or a Salvation Army officer's uniform or a Hawaiian shirt and chinos - he could have easily been mistaken for an evangelical Protestant preacher of some kind ...
I can't speak for other Shipmates but my view of terms like Jesus being our 'personal saviour' and so on isn't so much that such a concept is trite and trivial - far from it - but the way that it is sometimes articulated in evangelical circles one could be forgiven for getting the impression that it is.
That said, I fully accept Dinghy Sailor's comment that there's greater variety and breadth/depth within the evangelical traditions than they are sometimes given credit for.
There's nothing wrong with demotic language and presenting things 'straight' but there can be a fine line between that and veering into a rather cloying sentimentality at times.
I ought to know, I come from South Wales. We wallow in sentimentality down there. We love it.
I'm easily moved and can get misty-eyed at the drop of a hat ... be it the Treorchy Male Voice Choir, a northern brass-band or a Salvation Army one come to that, and old ladies cycling to evensong in the mist ...
All of which is fine, provided you recognise it for what it is and not the thing itself.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I understand that 'personal friend' might indeed sound a little trite. It could make him sound like a pet or an imaginary friend.
I think that actually it's a term used to highlight that faith in Christ is a personal response of the heart. It's not private, it's not individual, but even within the community of faith it is something that is deeply held, a personal, meaningful faith.
We're not talking about a 'personal Jesus' as if it were some kind of 'angel on the shoulder' thing - merely an expression of personal devotion to Christ.
The friend thing is simply a reflection of Jesus' own words, 'I no longer call you servant, I call you friends.'
The phrase 'personal friend' is often couple with 'Saviour'; again expressing the individual response made even when within the household of faith.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Interesting that the festival of Christ the King should chosen as the occasion for such pietism. In seems to me that Christ the King is more about Christ in his ascended glory at the right hand of the Father to a place of unparalleled spiritual authority in the spiritual realms - Christ Pantokrator. God Almighty, not God all matey.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
When they combine the personal and friend with miracles, then there's trouble. I get the happy ecstasy feelings, but like the lust, giddiness and puppy love at the start of a relationship, it's not something of steady diet. There's the cartoons and ads before a movie and then the movie itself. The national anthem and the concert. Happy hour and the meal.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Interesting that the festival of Christ the King should chosen as the occasion for such pietism. In seems to me that Christ the King is more about Christ in his ascended glory at the right hand of the Father to a place of unparalleled spiritual authority in the spiritual realms - Christ Pantokrator. God Almighty, not God all matey.
Yes, very clever 'God all matey'
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
But who is this King? As well as him being ruler, head over all things, etc, he is also the servant-King who shows a different way. Is there no room in Christ the King for one who is enthroned in the hearts as well as being the cosmic King?
[ 24. November 2013, 14:32: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Heh heh ... I didn't hear the broadcast, daronmedway, but I suspect the Jesuit preacher was simply suggesting that as well as being King and Saviour, Christ can be known/apprehended on a 'personal' level - both/and not either/or ...
Yes, it does sound terribly pietistic but perhaps more so to ears that are attuned to pietism.
There's pietism and there's pietism, as it were.
I think that, had I heard the broadcast and had I been wearing the same or similar shoes as Mudfrog then my reactions would have been similar to his -
'Oh, listen, here's a Jesuit preacher affirming the need for a personal faith in Christ. That's exactly what the Salvation Army preaches only we get stick for that on Ship of Fools ...'
I think all of us know what's being said here, it's just that the language/terminology can be inadequate - as Mudfrog acknowledges.
It's all got connotations, of course, like the Johnny Cash song, 'Your own personal Jesus'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpYW3qng78E
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
When they combine the personal and friend with miracles, then there's trouble. I get the happy ecstasy feelings, but like the lust, giddiness and puppy love at the start of a relationship, it's not something of steady diet. There's the cartoons and ads before a movie and then the movie itself. The national anthem and the concert. Happy hour and the meal.
Before we go any further - let's get it straight that whilst all charismatics and pentecostals are evangelicals, not all evangelicals are charismatic/pentecostals. Most evangelicals I come across are level-headed Bible-focused (as opposed to experience/miracles/hype focused) normal people. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Interesting that the festival of Christ the King should chosen as the occasion for such pietism. In seems to me that Christ the King is more about Christ in his ascended glory at the right hand of the Father to a place of unparalleled spiritual authority in the spiritual realms - Christ Pantokrator. God Almighty, not God all matey.
Yes, very clever 'God all matey'
But who is this King? As well as him being ruler, head over all things, etc, he is also the servant-King who shows a different way. Is there no room in Christ the King for one who is enthroned in the hearts as well as being the cosmic King?
There most certainly is! In fact, there's nothing more chilling than a spirituality which strongly preaches the reality of the former without teaching the reality of the latter. In fact, this is where I think non-charismatic conservative evangelicalism is at its weakest. That way lies the emotionless formalism and textualism of the "frozen chosen'.
[ 24. November 2013, 14:37: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's all got connotations, of course, like the Johnny Cash song, 'Your own personal Jesus'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpYW3qng78E
Which of course is what neither the Jesuit father nor most evangelicals are on about. We don;'t get to have our own personal Jesus. What we do have is the one Lord and Christ who is apprehended personally
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, yes, which allows seems to be what daronmedway is saying too ...
I don't think we're disagreeing here.
That said, I do think the Johnny Cash song captures a particular danger within certain brands of particularly US-style evangelicalism ... Christ as some kind of marketable commodity.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Interesting that the festival of Christ the King should chosen as the occasion for such pietism. In seems to me that Christ the King is more about Christ in his ascended glory at the right hand of the Father to a place of unparalleled spiritual authority in the spiritual realms - Christ Pantokrator. God Almighty, not God all matey.
Yes, very clever 'God all matey'
But who is this King? As well as him being ruler, head over all things, etc, he is also the servant-King who shows a different way. Is there no room in Christ the King for one who is enthroned in the hearts as well as being the cosmic King?
There most certainly is! In fact, there's nothing more chilling than a spirituality which strongly preaches the reality of the former without teaching the reality of the latter. In fact, this is where I think non-charismatic conservative evangelicalism is at its weakest. That way lies the emotionless formalism and textualism of the "frozen chosen'.
Oh yes, I have met some of them as well! The joy is so deep down in their hearts it's never let out! Agreed. There are a few off the wall Pentecostals at one end and a few ice age Presbyterians at the other!
But of course, the majority of them are as warm and spiritual as the rest of us
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Interestingly, and I'm not sure daronmedway would like this, but Fr Gregory (remember him?) an Orthodox priest who used to frequent these boards once said to me in real-life conversation that he believed that the Wesleyan strand in Western Christianity represented a 'golden thread' that ran through both Eastern and Western Christianity, if properly apprehended and understood - and that was a sense of 'warmth' and also the fact that the divine and numinous could be personally apprehended.
I keep getting into trouble on these boards for suggesting that certain forms of Scholastic Christianity - late medieval Thomas Aquinas style and certain forms of Calvinism - do veer into speculative and rather cold, calculating and somewhat arid forms of faith.
We need the warmth of the Wesleyan dimension, for want of a better term ... although there is a corollary with that which we need to be aware of - and that's a tendency to emotionalism - rather than emotion per se.
There's a balance somewhere.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, yes, which allows seems to be what daronmedway is saying too ...
I don't think we're disagreeing here.
That said, I do think the Johnny Cash song captures a particular danger within certain brands of particularly US-style evangelicalism ... Christ as some kind of marketable commodity.
Oh indeed!
I think the 'personal' issue is a reaction to any perceived nominalism where someone assumes they are Christian because of heritage or church custom and practice, but for whom personal faith and discipleship is foreign.
It's the 'going to church doesn't make you a christian any more than going into a garage makes you a car' kind of thing.
You need to have personal faith.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
When they combine the personal and friend with miracles, then there's trouble. I get the happy ecstasy feelings, but like the lust, giddiness and puppy love at the start of a relationship, it's not something of steady diet. There's the cartoons and ads before a movie and then the movie itself. The national anthem and the concert. Happy hour and the meal.
Before we go any further - let's get it straight that whilst all charismatics and pentecostals are evangelicals, not all evangelicals are charismatic/pentecostals. Most evangelicals I come across are level-headed Bible-focused (as opposed to experience/miracles/hype focused) normal people.
I can remember this being a particular hobby-horse for Gordon Cheng. He was of the view that to be properly Evangelical one must hold to a Reformed soteriology and to be deeply suspicious of anything charismatic. This, in fact, seems to be the view of most Sydney Anglicans and can be traced almost directly to the anti-charismatic polemics of Philip and Peter Jensen. However, this very narrow definition of Evangelism isn't so common outside of Sydney, but it does exist especially in Proclamation Trust circles.
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
Just a thought:
In my experience many yes but not all charismatics are evangelicals, I know several RC Charismatics....
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's all got connotations, of course, like the Johnny Cash song, 'Your own personal Jesus'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpYW3qng78E
I wondered who'd be the first to bring that up.
It's actually a Depeche Mode song.
Marilyn Manson's also covered it. Are we getting into Matt Black territory here?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, I knew it was a cover-version and not penned by Cash. But doesn't he make a good job of it?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Sorry for posting and running, I was just heading out to church when I posted. Yes, things are more simplistic in Sunday School....but I've heard plenty of evangelical sermons that are equally simplistic, they just repeat the point endlessly. At least 10 minute sermons get the job done and then that's that ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
While I certainly don't think that thinking of God as our Friend is inappropriate - God talks about 'Abraham my friend' in Isaiah - it's the lowest-common-denominator tone of 'God all matey' which feels inappropriate. I would imagine that a SA service is rather more dignified than that. I've been to both open and conservative evangelical churches (mostly Anglican but also NFI, independent charismatic, Baptist - a wide range) and 9 times out of 10 it feels irreverent, and not just because it's not 'high'. Methodist services (for instance) have felt perfectly reverent, as have Quaker meetings. I think it is possibly the combining mateyness with miracles? It's a kind of trying to be with God that misses the point of connection with God if that makes sense. My instinct would be that the Eucharist usually gets to what they're looking for and miss, although I have been to RC Mass that has felt much less reverent than a Quaker meeting....
That is all a bit of a stream of consciousness - apologies!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
God Almighty, not God all matey.
That's actually quite good.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think there can be a sense of reverence and indeed awe in some evangelical/charismatic settings at times ... I can certainly remember times like that from my involvement with that end of the spectrum.
However, I think there's been a growing tendency within that particular scene of equating informality and 'matey-ness' with spiritual authenticity.
Hence, in some quarters, the use of guitars and drum and bass is somehow seen as intrinsically more spiritual than, say, having an organ or a robed choir.
It works the other way round too, of course.
I do think that there are times within most evangeli-matic churches when there is certainly a sense of awe and reverence - and some of the songs are calculated to induce that.
But it's very inconsistent.
On the whole, a kind of sloppy, 'Hi God ...' type approach has become something of a standard ... partly, I submit, through the influence of the Vineyard.
That said, back in the 1980s I'd suggest that the Vineyard with its laid-back Californian style did bring a valid counter to the kind of huffing and puffing and pompous posturing of certain kinds of charismatic pulpiteering.
For 6 years I was happily part of a slightly emergent-style Baptist church which had some Vineyard influences and it had much to commend it ... but it did feel rather sloppy and irreverent at times, I must admit.
Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on
:
I can respect the comment Mudfrog reports, but I also think today is about the Universal nature of Christ, the grandeur, the Alpha and the Omega. I think an emphasis on the universailty of Christ in all creation is a wonderful end to the liturgical year and gets faith in context too - at least my faith, for me
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
God Almighty, not God all matey.
That's actually quite good.
Funny, I thought quite the opposite. If Almighty were the most important aspect, why Jesus?
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
God Almighty, not God all matey.
That's actually quite good.
Funny, I thought quite the opposite. If Almighty were the most important aspect, why Jesus?
Hence the incarnate Christ's mighty resurrection, glorious ascension and eternal session.He has been glorified with the glory he had with the Father from the beginning.
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on
:
You mean Jesus is NOT your personal friend and saviour?
I am shocked. And appalled. But carry on worshiping your impersonal God who may or may not save you if you must.... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Hence the incarnate Christ's mighty resurrection, glorious ascension and eternal session.He has been glorified with the glory he had with the Father from the beginning.
Again you emphasise the mighty. God had mighty and impersonal at the time of Jesus. God had the distance, the reverence. Jesus methods and demeanor were much more personal. This is how I see the message of personal Jesus. Not that it is to displace awe, but to compliment.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Hence the incarnate Christ's mighty resurrection, glorious ascension and eternal session.He has been glorified with the glory he had with the Father from the beginning.
Again you emphasise the mighty. God had mighty and impersonal at the time of Jesus. God had the distance, the reverence. Jesus methods and demeanor were much more personal. This is how I see the message of personal Jesus. Not that it is to displace awe, but to compliment.
I'm quoting Christian liturgy. I'm not sure if the phrase is just Anglican via the BCP or if it has more ancient origins.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Where does this notion come from that somehow only the 'worst sort' of evangelicals are over emotional and subjective in their faith come from? Or that that sort of thing is reprehensible and faith is only respectable if it's restrained and rather enervated? What about
quote:
Soul of Christ, sanctify me
Body of Christ, save me
Blood of Christ, inebriate me
Water from the side of Christ, wash me
Passion of Christ, strengthen me
O good Jesus, hear me
Within Thy wounds hide me ... etc
Do all Shipmates recognise which famous prayer these words come from?
Or is 'enthusiasm' OK if it's clad in a soutane or illuminated by six candles? And otherwise, may hearts only be strangely warmed if the ribcages in which they were once cased have been under the earth for at least 200 years?
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I keep getting into trouble on these boards for suggesting that certain forms of Scholastic Christianity - late medieval Thomas Aquinas style and certain forms of Calvinism - do veer into speculative and rather cold, calculating and somewhat arid forms of faith.
You'll never get into trouble with me. I agree with you..
Not only that. IMHO neither Aquinas nor Calvin themselves are guilty of this. It's more a failing of what I'd call sub-Thomists and sub-Calvinists, who treat their respective master as a vade mecum in his own right.
Going back to the OP, it's interesting but less surprising than one might think, that St Ignatius is quite popular and highly regarded among many more serious evangelicals. They may not be very keen on thinking with the Pope, but much in the exercises and the importance of one's personal response resonates with them.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
God Almighty, not God all matey.
But if God is the Almighty (which, of course, He is), then He has every right to be "all matey" with whomever He wants, without certain Christians telling Him what He can and cannot do.
I always find it ironic that those who are so eager to stress the more authoritarian aspects of God, often then imply that God can only act in certain ways consistent with their particular rather austere picture of Him. If the sovereign and supreme judge wishes to have close, intimate and, one could almost say, pally relationships with His people, then none of us has any right to tell Him that He cannot do so.
So it really could be a case of God being both Almighty and all matey.
[ 24. November 2013, 21:45: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
When they combine the personal and friend with miracles, then there's trouble. I get the happy ecstasy feelings, but like the lust, giddiness and puppy love at the start of a relationship, it's not something of steady diet. There's the cartoons and ads before a movie and then the movie itself. The national anthem and the concert. Happy hour and the meal.
Before we go any further - let's get it straight that whilst all charismatics and pentecostals are evangelicals, not all evangelicals are charismatic/pentecostals. Most evangelicals I come across are level-headed Bible-focused (as opposed to experience/miracles/hype focused) normal people.
And sometimes-- just maybe-- you might even find a level-headed Bible-focused normal Pentecostal. It happens.
Present company excepted, of course. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
... So it really could be a case of God being both Almighty and all matey.
Isn't that what grace is about? A supreme paradox?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Why is it a paradox?
I see no contradiction - apparent or otherwise - in a being who is both supreme and able to relate intimately to every person.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Why is it a paradox?
I see no contradiction - apparent or otherwise - in a being who is both supreme and able to relate intimately to every person.
Indeed. I believe understanding the transcendence of God-- the Almighty, Holy, omni-ness-- makes the imminence-- the nearness-- of God all the more amazing and wonderful.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I guess I'm somewhere in the middle. I don't have a very authoritarian view of God, but I wouldn't find it very helpful to call Him my buddy either.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Abba, Father- authority over me and the one who holds me in his arms.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
Is it wrong that I can't see the phrase "personal Jesus" without Kelly's rendition of "Your Personal Penguin" popping in to my mind?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So it really could be a case of God being both Almighty and all matey.
It could be. But the question isn't what could be, but what is. Because we can imagine God being this way or that doesn't make it so.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So it really could be a case of God being both Almighty and all matey.
It could be. But the question isn't what could be, but what is. Because we can imagine God being this way or that doesn't make it so.
That is a relevant comment no matter which way you view God.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So it really could be a case of God being both Almighty and all matey.
It could be. But the question isn't what could be, but what is. Because we can imagine God being this way or that doesn't make it so.
That is a relevant comment no matter which way you view God.
Absolutely. Including if you view God as not existing. What should matter is what is. Or what isn't, if what is isn't.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
But how does one determine what IS?
My concern with the those who dislike a Personal Jesus is that they are championing a distant, vengeful, rigid God. One who values form over function. Why do I, an outsider care? In part it is selfish. Those folk tend to be the less tolerant. And that affects me, as such judgement rarely stops at cathedral door. An additional reason is the contempt I hear in it. Contempt is a form of bullying, and I dislike this, no matter who is being bullied.
Lastly, I think such attitude completely misses Jesus time on Earth, the manner in which he dealt with those around him. So, IMO, it is logically inconsistent with what is written in your book.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
God Almighty, not God all matey.
But if God is the Almighty (which, of course, He is), then He has every right to be "all matey" with whomever He wants, without certain Christians telling Him what He can and cannot do.
I agree. My comment was about the theological emphasis of the festival of Christ the King. If Christ the King is about the transcendence and sovereignty of the ascended Christ (God Almighty), then Christmas is about the immanence and humanity of Christ (God all matey). It'll soon be Advent when traditionally we contemplate the parousia, Christ as Judge. It seems to me that a balanced view of Jesus holds all of these things together: sovereignty, humanity, authority, compassion and so on. However, we have certain days when we focus on certain things more closely. Hence my comments.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Better to think that the far off has become near?
quote:
As a friend talking with a friend, man speaks with God, and drawing near in confidence, he stands before the face of the One who dwells in light unapproachable. St Symeon the New Theologian
I'm not Orthodox, rather nonconformist, but I find that helpful. So far as the paradox issue is concerned, of course God is Mystery. If He were not, He would not be God. Think that's another saying of an early church father, as well. And unarguable.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Why is it a paradox?
I see no contradiction - apparent or otherwise - in a being who is both supreme and able to relate intimately to every person.
Neither do I.
My problem with God isn't either of those things. It's the lack of detail! Whether relating as Almighty Father or Abba Father, God is fuzzy to me.
Yes, Jesus helps - His time on Earth gives many lessons, but even these have to be dug out.
I want an easier God!
[ 25. November 2013, 07:33: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
lilBuddha, as someone who is very rude about the personal Jesus I see some people keep in their pockets it's because I see that belief go along with prayer as a shopping list and thanks being given to God for any help received whilst ignoring the human agency through which that help was given.
I would see prayer as alignment with God's will and a chance to listen to hear that will rather than issuing a list of demands. The worst I've heard in that situation was a demand that all the other Christians in ton stopped obstructing some wizard wheeze and fell in line with the one true vision.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But who is this King?
He's that bloke bleeding to death, nailed to a piece of wood.
I'm not surprised at the "personal Jesus" thing coming from a Jesuit. One of the standard practices of Ignatian spirituality is to imagine yourself into one the the gospel stories. You imagine Jesus involving you in the narrative, you may be asked to describe your feelings towards Jesus and imagine his feelings towards you. I've never been able to do it, myself, and I don't like being asked to try. Evidently the Jesuits haven't heard of Derrida's "there is nothing outside the text". (Not an exact quote, I know, but usually considered close enough.)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I've never been able to do it, myself, and I don't like being asked to try. Evidently the Jesuits haven't heard of Derrida's "there is nothing outside the text". (Not an exact quote, I know, but usually considered close enough.)
Isn't that a non sequitur?
It doesn't work for me.
∴ it must be wrong.
AND I can quote a hip philosopher in my support.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Why is it a paradox?
I see no contradiction - apparent or otherwise - in a being who is both supreme and able to relate intimately to every person.
I think it depends on who initiates that intimacy.
If the Almighty deigns to approach any one of us with love and hugs, then that is truly lovely. If we approach him with a degree of familiarity which we would not use when approaching a Head of State or an Archbishop, that is another matter.
When meeting an Archbishop, we would use (I hope) respectful language, and leave it to him to determine whether we stay at hand shakes or move in time to a kiss on the cheek and hugs. If we immediately rush in ourselves with first name terms and hugs, we are unlikely to be invited back, imo.
It is a matter of appropriateness, and letting God determine the quality of the relationship. We do not all get to sit at the Lord's right hand and recline on his breast; some of us remain as gatekeepers, and that is all perfectly fine.
God's will be done.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Why is it a paradox?
I see no contradiction - apparent or otherwise - in a being who is both supreme and able to relate intimately to every person.
I think it depends on who initiates that intimacy.
If the Almighty deigns to approach any one of us with love and hugs, then that is truly lovely. If we approach him with a degree of familiarity which we would not use when approaching a Head of State or an Archbishop, that is another matter.
When meeting an Archbishop, we would use (I hope) respectful language, and leave it to him to determine whether we stay at hand shakes or move in time to a kiss on the cheek and hugs. If we immediately rush in ourselves with first name terms and hugs, we are unlikely to be invited back, imo.
It is a matter of appropriateness, and letting God determine the quality of the relationship. We do not all get to sit at the Lord's right hand and recline on his breast; some of us remain as gatekeepers, and that is all perfectly fine.
God's will be done.
Depends on the Archbishop, surely
It must be the Protestant in me, but I do believe that God invites us all to the same level of intimacy with Him - whether we take up that offer is a different matter.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I've never been able to do it, myself, and I don't like being asked to try. Evidently the Jesuits haven't heard of Derrida's "there is nothing outside the text". (Not an exact quote, I know, but usually considered close enough.)
Isn't that a non sequitur?
It doesn't work for me.
∴ it must be wrong.
AND I can quote a hip philosopher in my support.
If you think Derrida is "hip", you're about 20 years behind the times. I quoted that because it illustrates the personal problem I have with this kind of spirituality. And I wasn't seeking to turn my personal problem into a universal one.
However, I do question a spirituality which in part (there's a lot more to Ignatian spirituality, some of which I find vey helpful) asks me to take a gospel text and turn it into a work of first-person fiction. I know perfectly well that my attempts to imagine "what Jesus is saying to me" will never be free of an element of wish-fulfilment, and for myself I don't think that's a legitimate use of the gospel. If I'm going to engage with the text, I prefer to take it as it is.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've quoted it before and I'll quote it again, I'm predictable that way - 'Derrida? He's got Foucault to do with it ...'
Meanwhile, what daronmedway said.
I don't think that in anyway makes for a cold, distant and impersonal Deity. Far from it.
At the same time, I share Curiosity Killed's concern about some of those who act as if they've got God in their pocket or on tap ...
There are dangers at both extremes, of course, the kind of sub-Thomist or sub-Calvinist side of things that Enoch has identified and the 'It's-all-me-and-my-pal-Jesus' approach.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Depends on the Archbishop, surely
Why should my politeness differ, depending who I am talking to?
I would greet any Archbishop in exactly the same way.
quote:
It must be the Protestant in me, but I do believe that God invites us all to the same level of intimacy with Him - whether we take up that offer is a different matter.
This is not Biblically sound; Scripture shows very clearly that God has a different relationship with different people; some get intimacy, some greater distance.
Even if what you say is true, I do not think it is for us to presume on that intimacy; any more than we would with the President of the US, or the Queen. They might well invite us to sit down and make ourselves at home, but I doubt if we would actually kick off our shoes, put the telly on and help ourselves from the fridge.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Depends on the Archbishop, surely
Why should my politeness differ, depending who I am talking to?
I would greet any Archbishop in exactly the same way.
quote:
It must be the Protestant in me, but I do believe that God invites us all to the same level of intimacy with Him - whether we take up that offer is a different matter.
This is not Biblically sound; Scripture shows very clearly that God has a different relationship with different people; some get intimacy, some greater distance.
Even if what you say is true, I do not think it is for us to presume on that intimacy; any more than we would with the President of the US, or the Queen. They might well invite us to sit down and make ourselves at home, but I doubt if we would actually kick off our shoes, put the telly on and help ourselves from the fridge.
I was just joking about the personable-ness of various archbishops - Tutu is rather different to Jensen, that's all I meant ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
In any case, politeness varies from person to person and is just a construct, which is more or less helpful based on the situation. I don't think familiarity is rude, and an archbishop is certainly rather less important than a head of state.
Aren't we all equal before God? Neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, etc. Therefore we all are invited to the same relationship with God, which is one of intimacy. A God who keeps some people at arm's length is a bit of a bell-end and I can't find any evidence for that in the New Testament.
Edited to add that the Quakers (historically at least) would certainly treat heads of state etc as absolute equals, since we are all equal before God. It's certainly what I would sympathise with, although I probably would give in to some degree of social protocol.
[ 25. November 2013, 14:06: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Even if what you say is true, I do not think it is for us to presume on that intimacy; any more than we would with the President of the US, or the Queen. They might well invite us to sit down and make ourselves at home, but I doubt if we would actually kick off our shoes, put the telly on and help ourselves from the fridge.
Sorry if I'm taking this more seriously than you meant it, but in this situation I think perhaps we would only not kick off our shoes and so forth if we felt the invitation was more of a formality than a genuine offer. Whereas God's invitations can be trusted to be wholly genuine and intended to be taken up.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
A God who keeps some people at arm's length is a bit of a bell-end...
Get thee to the Quotes File!
[ 25. November 2013, 14:07: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Even if what you say is true, I do not think it is for us to presume on that intimacy; any more than we would with the President of the US, or the Queen. They might well invite us to sit down and make ourselves at home, but I doubt if we would actually kick off our shoes, put the telly on and help ourselves from the fridge.
Sorry if I'm taking this more seriously than you meant it, but in this situation I think perhaps we would only not kick off our shoes and so forth if we felt the invitation was more of a formality than a genuine offer. Whereas God's invitations can be trusted to be wholly genuine and intended to be taken up.
I wouldn't try to look for beer in his fridge though!
(He's more of a wine person.)
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Even if what you say is true, I do not think it is for us to presume on that intimacy; any more than we would with the President of the US, or the Queen. They might well invite us to sit down and make ourselves at home, but I doubt if we would actually kick off our shoes, put the telly on and help ourselves from the fridge.
Sorry if I'm taking this more seriously than you meant it, but in this situation I think perhaps we would only not kick off our shoes and so forth if we felt the invitation was more of a formality than a genuine offer. Whereas God's invitations can be trusted to be wholly genuine and intended to be taken up.
Agreed. I find the idea of God keeping some people at arm's length and some people close very troubling, and at odds with the democracy of the NT. We all have an equal relationship with God in His Kingdom.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
I have an enormous difficulty when people start talking about "intimacy" with God. I don't think there's any such thing, because surely for intimacy to mean what it usually means, it has to be reciprocated? And God doesn't do hugs. Hell, forget the hugs - he'd have my undying affection even if he managed to do the washing-up before I get home this evening. Lazy sod.
Or is "intimacy" another one of those (increasingly many) words that has to take on a special meaning when we use it about God, completely different from its normal meaning?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I have an enormous difficulty when people start talking about "intimacy" with God. I don't think there's any such thing, because surely for intimacy to mean what it usually means, it has to be reciprocated? And God doesn't do hugs. Hell, forget the hugs - he'd have my undying affection even if he managed to do the washing-up before I get home this evening. Lazy sod.
Or is "intimacy" another one of those (increasingly many) words that has to take on a special meaning when we use it about God, completely different from its normal meaning?
I totally get spiritual hugs from God and I can actually feel it. I am not much into charismatic stuff but I can certainly feel the nearness of God in a way which I can best describe as intimate and it is definitely a mutual thing. So while you might not experience it, it certainly exists for some of us.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
We all have an equal relationship with God in His Kingdom.
I think that is a very dubious assumption, and is not Biblically based.
If the Bible tells us anything at all, it is that people have different relationships with God. We simply do not all get the same relationship; even the Lord himself had one disciple whom he loved particularly; that was understood by everyone.
I think imposing this kind of modern indiscriminate equality upon God is not appropriate. We each have a relationship with him, as each child has a relationship with their parents. Every child is equally loved, but not all in the same way.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
We all have an equal relationship with God in His Kingdom.
I think that is a very dubious assumption, and is not Biblically based.
If the Bible tells us anything at all, it is that people have different relationships with God. We simply do not all get the same relationship; even the Lord himself had one disciple whom he loved particularly; that was understood by everyone.
I think imposing this kind of modern indiscriminate equality upon God is not appropriate. We each have a relationship with him, as each child has a relationship with their parents. Every child is equally loved, but not all in the same way.
Perhaps we mean different things by 'equality'? By equality I mean 'of equal status'. Like I said, we are all equal before God. Unless you don't think Galatians 3:28 is Biblically based? Because that's what I'm going by, as I said before. If God favours some people more than others, then how come God is 'no respecter of persons'?
But even so, a parent who loves their child will not keep them at arm's length. That's not a healthy parental relationship for humans, let alone God.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I totally get spiritual hugs from God and I can actually feel it. I am not much into charismatic stuff but I can certainly feel the nearness of God in a way which I can best describe as intimate and it is definitely a mutual thing. So while you might not experience it, it certainly exists for some of us.
Lucky you. God hates me and mostly smacks me around. Or to be more precise, has human henchmen and henchwomen do it. But God did allow me to make a lot of money, so that I can buy happiness. So it's all good.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
We all have an equal relationship with God in His Kingdom.
I think that is a very dubious assumption, and is not Biblically based.
If the Bible tells us anything at all, it is that people have different relationships with God. We simply do not all get the same relationship; even the Lord himself had one disciple whom he loved particularly; that was understood by everyone.
I think imposing this kind of modern indiscriminate equality upon God is not appropriate. We each have a relationship with him, as each child has a relationship with their parents. Every child is equally loved, but not all in the same way.
Perhaps we mean different things by 'equality'? By equality I mean 'of equal status'. Like I said, we are all equal before God. Unless you don't think Galatians 3:28 is Biblically based? Because that's what I'm going by, as I said before. If God favours some people more than others, then how come God is 'no respecter of persons'?
But even so, a parent who loves their child will not keep them at arm's length. That's not a healthy parental relationship for humans, let alone God.
You are disregarding what I say, and arguing against something else entirely.
Enjoy.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Lucky you. God hates me and mostly smacks me around. Or to be more precise, has human henchmen and henchwomen do it. But God did allow me to make a lot of money, so that I can buy happiness. So it's all good.
I get smacked around too, but this is a sign of God's love, not the opposite; 'The Lord chastises those whom he loves.' I suppose by extension we could conclude that he can't stand the sight of those who think he gives them hugs.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
We all have an equal relationship with God in His Kingdom.
I think that is a very dubious assumption, and is not Biblically based.
If the Bible tells us anything at all, it is that people have different relationships with God. We simply do not all get the same relationship; even the Lord himself had one disciple whom he loved particularly; that was understood by everyone.
I think imposing this kind of modern indiscriminate equality upon God is not appropriate. We each have a relationship with him, as each child has a relationship with their parents. Every child is equally loved, but not all in the same way.
Perhaps we mean different things by 'equality'? By equality I mean 'of equal status'. Like I said, we are all equal before God. Unless you don't think Galatians 3:28 is Biblically based? Because that's what I'm going by, as I said before. If God favours some people more than others, then how come God is 'no respecter of persons'?
But even so, a parent who loves their child will not keep them at arm's length. That's not a healthy parental relationship for humans, let alone God.
You are disregarding what I say, and arguing against something else entirely.
Enjoy.
Galatians 3:28 isn't an affirmation of undifferentiated equality in all things. It's specifically about equality of opportunity for all people with regard to salvation. Galatians 3:28 certainly affirms that everybody is saved in the same way by the same work of same person. But it doesn't really say anything about about the subjective experience of an individual's relationship with God.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Lucky you. God hates me and mostly smacks me around. Or to be more precise, has human henchmen and henchwomen do it. But God did allow me to make a lot of money, so that I can buy happiness. So it's all good.
I get smacked around too, but this is a sign of God's love, not the opposite; 'The Lord chastises those whom he loves.' I suppose by extension we could conclude that he can't stand the sight of those who think he gives them hugs.
You think God can't stand the sight of me? What a cruel thing to say ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
We all have an equal relationship with God in His Kingdom.
I think that is a very dubious assumption, and is not Biblically based.
If the Bible tells us anything at all, it is that people have different relationships with God. We simply do not all get the same relationship; even the Lord himself had one disciple whom he loved particularly; that was understood by everyone.
I think imposing this kind of modern indiscriminate equality upon God is not appropriate. We each have a relationship with him, as each child has a relationship with their parents. Every child is equally loved, but not all in the same way.
Perhaps we mean different things by 'equality'? By equality I mean 'of equal status'. Like I said, we are all equal before God. Unless you don't think Galatians 3:28 is Biblically based? Because that's what I'm going by, as I said before. If God favours some people more than others, then how come God is 'no respecter of persons'?
But even so, a parent who loves their child will not keep them at arm's length. That's not a healthy parental relationship for humans, let alone God.
You are disregarding what I say, and arguing against something else entirely.
Enjoy.
Erm no, I'm not disregarding what you say at all, I just don't see any evidence for it in the Bible, nor is it logical. Yes, parents love their children equally yet in a different way, but that doesn't equate to keeping some of those children at arm's length which is what you said God does with some people.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
The sermon referenced in the OP could well have been meant as a corrective of at least 3 things:
- The fact that "Christ the King" language is seen as problematic by some, epecially some feminists. People think the "king" language is too easily misunderstood in our culture and leads to an image of Christ as domineering. It's also been used in the past to justify human hierarchies that place men above women and humans above the rest of creation, leading to exploitation of women and creation.
- The tendency among the various catholic traditions for people to not feel a sense of intimacy with God. As a convert from an Evangelical/Pentecostal tradition to the Episcopal Church, I notice this. It's not that Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and others have no concept of friendship with God - quite the contrary. But in practice, it's too often seen as something reserved for mystics and saints.
- The human conception of what a king is like. Christ the King is not like human kings; in fact, he turns the whole idea of a king on its head. Christ redefines "king." Access to a human king, who is limited as all creatures are, is, necessarily, restricted. Access to Christ the King is not.
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
I think the Jesuit practice of thinking (or praying,or meditating)your way into a biblical scene is much misrepresented.
After a weekend's study led by a Jesuit, I tried this with the "Epilogue" scene at the end of the fourth gospel. It was bugger all about finding a personal message from God. I was able to see the argument between Peter and Jesus for what it was.
When I challenged the Jesuit later with "this is a reinstatement of the Beloved Disciple, not Peter" he didn't turn a hair. "Hmm, I've never seen it that way..." he said, and suggested that I read The Community of the Beloved Disciple" by R.E.Brown. It's not about what God is or is not telling me, it's about what hidebound tradition is too fucking scared to let go of.
[ 27. November 2013, 11:08: Message edited by: pimple ]
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
Oh dear. There I go again. Perfect little pimple throwing his rattle out of the pram and nobody picking it up for him.
I'll be better behaved when I have all my (grown up) teeth. Promise.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0