|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: A "personal" relationship with Jesus
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
When I spoke of a personal relationship, I did not have in mind situations where emotion is involved. On the contrary, I think that Orthodox Saints were right to stress that direct and face to face experience of God is "done" without the use of imagination and without the use of emotion. On the contrary, when emotion is involved, it's most probably something that has its origins in man himself, rather than God...
But I have never had any direct, face-to-face encounters with God. Does that mean I dn't have a personal relationship with Jesus?
Will nobody answer my question: do the words personal relationship when applied to Jesus mean something quite different than when applied to any other person in our lives? Because all of the definitions so far, except the ones involving direct experience, imply that very strongly, if not presuppose it.
1. If PRWJ means some kind of numinous experience, a Damascus Road type of thing, or some kind of feeling (not necessarily an emotion) inside or hearing a voice, or anything like that, then clearly I do not have a PRWJ.
2. If it doesn't mean that, then I think we must conclude that PRWJ means something quite different than PRWAE.
Will no-one either affirm this, or explain why it is not so?
ETA One last question: if a PRWJ falls into category 2 above, how can I tell I have a PRWJ and am not just "going through the motions" (an odious phrase meant to castigate people who are Not Like Us, but once it's on the table...).
[ 27. April 2007, 22:55: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Peter says something about a joy that cannot be spoken with words. I think that the "enlightenment" I spoke of earlier is that joy. It's inner and constant and it's what we aim for during purification. What's your take MouseThief on 1 Peter 1.8?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
You describe, Andreas, something precious to the Christian mystical tradition. But why on earth describe it as a personal relationship? Apart from anything else, that seems rather to contradict the assertion that it cannot be 'spoken with words'. This thing I cannot describe, well it's just like a personal relationship....
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
[QUOTE]e
And now, to paraphrase a Buffy quote:
Random girl: "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?"
Buffy: "Uh, you know, I meant to, I just got really busy."
I knew there was a reason that Buffy's my hero ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
What's your take MouseThief on 1 Peter 1.8?
That he must not be talking to me, because I don't feel any inexpressible and glorious joy. I do love [Jesus], and believe in him. But that's still a one-way thing.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Will nobody answer my question: do the words personal relationship when applied to Jesus mean something quite different than when applied to any other person in our lives?
I wouldn't describe myself as having a personal relationship with Jesus unless I wanted to end a conversation with someone who used the phrase as a shibboleth.
But I don't think I'd ever describe myself as having a personal relationship with anyone other than Jesus.
So I don't think it's fair to say that it means something entirely different when applied to Jesus from what it means when applied to anyone else.
I think 'personal' can equally well mean 'involving the whole person' as mean 'individual'. One problem is that the word allows for confusion between the two.
Dafyd
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Feminine Force
Ship's Onager
# 7812
|
Posted
Hey MT,
I'm going to give this a try.
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
But I have never had any direct, face-to-face encounters with God. Does that mean I dn't have a personal relationship with Jesus?
Will nobody answer my question: do the words personal relationship when applied to Jesus mean something quite different than when applied to any other person in our lives? Because all of the definitions so far, except the ones involving direct experience, imply that very strongly, if not presuppose it.
I think this is a question you have to answer for yourself. What kind of definition do you impose on the term "personal relationship"? Since He apparently doesn't make a habit of materializing in people's living rooms a la Emmaus, then what kind of parameters would you use to circumscribe a "personal realtionship" with someone you (to your best knoweledge) have never met?
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
1. If PRWJ means some kind of numinous experience, a Damascus Road type of thing, or some kind of feeling (not necessarily an emotion) inside or hearing a voice, or anything like that, then clearly I do not have a PRWJ.
OK, so if this is your definition, then here is your conclusion.
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
2. If it doesn't mean that, then I think we must conclude that PRWJ means something quite different than PRWAE.
Will no-one either affirm this, or explain why it is not so?
Well, I can't affirm it or explain it because it's not my definition to assign. I know people who maintain that they have a personal relationship with friends they have not seen or communicated with in decades, or loved ones who are deceased. There's something precious and sacred I've observed about these relationships that goes beyond clinging to the past: they're present and immediate even though they are not physical.
Shalom
LAFF
--------------------
C2C - The Cure for What Ails Ya?
Posts: 2115 | From: Kingdom of Heaven | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
I think this is a question you have to answer for yourself. What kind of definition do you impose on the term "personal relationship"?
I don't. It's not a term I use. I don't know whether or not I even want to use it because nobody can explain to me exactly what it means in a way I can understand. Not blaming anybody; that's just how it is.
If everybody uses words to mean what they want them to mean, then we'll stop communicating altogether.
quote:
Since He apparently doesn't make a habit of materializing in people's living rooms a la Emmaus, then what kind of parameters would you use to circumscribe a "personal realtionship" with someone you (to your best knoweledge) have never met?
I don't think it makes any sense to say I have a personal relationship with somebody I"ve never met. I'm not likely to try to describe what that would look like because I don't think it exists.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
But I have never had any direct, face-to-face encounters with God. Does that mean I dn't have a personal relationship with Jesus?
Will nobody answer my question:
Mousethief, I tried to answer your question several times and at least once directly to you. Please stop saying that no-one is trying to answer your question.
The answer is a very simple - no, not having had a direct face-to-face encounter with God does not mean that you don't have a personal relationship with Jesus.
I'm not sure why that's incomprehensible? (Sorry if that sounds "snotty", but I keep saying this and you keep saying that no-one is answering your question.)
I've not had a direct face-to-face encounter with God either, but I consider that I have a personal relationship with Jesus.
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
2. If it doesn't mean that [a numinous experience], then I think we must conclude that PRWJ means something quite different than PRWAE.
Will no-one either affirm this, or explain why it is not so?
I shall try for the THIRD or FOURTH time!
As I said, I think that it means that you own your own Christian discipleship. To use the words of a book (a completely different context, but appropriate words): "That you come to follow Christ for yourself and not simply conform to any expectations or demands imposed by others."
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
ETA One last question: if a PRWJ falls into category 2 above, how can I tell I have a PRWJ and am not just "going through the motions" (an odious phrase meant to castigate people who are Not Like Us, but once it's on the table...).
I think that the siimple answer to that question is because you are here and asking these questions. Can you explain to me why a person who didn't give a flip about God or who who was just conforming to social expectations would be on a Christian discussion board at all?
I do realise that there are a lot of people who use the question "Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus?" in a very judgemental way. Even as a Free Church Protestant, I would be wary of someone who asked me that question. As others have articulated, I would be wary that such a person thought that the way they have experienced God and even Christian worship is "the only right way" and that there was a risk that they would be looking to judge my faith.
However..."personal relationship with God/Jesus" is still a concept that is used by a lot of mainstream Free Church Protestants who wouldn't necessarily dream of saying "I have the only right way to God".
I do realise that not everyone will agree with my definition, but I also don't think that I have some sort of unique or outlying view of what PRWJ means within mainstream Free Church Protestantism.
Perhaps people don't realise it but this trashing of PRWJ feels a bit like me telling an Orthodox person that they worship idols because they use icons or telling a Roman Catholic that they idolators because they "worship" the Saints.
Finally, Mousethief, I don't mind if you disagree with me. I do mind spending time and effort trying to answer your questions and having you repeatedly say that no-one will try to answer your questions. I'm not really sure why it's worth trying to communicate across traditions if what I'm writing is not going to be read.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Finally, Mousethief, I don't mind if you disagree with me. I do mind spending time and effort trying to answer your questions and having you repeatedly say that no-one will try to answer your questions. I'm not really sure why it's worth trying to communicate across traditions if what I'm writing is not going to be read.
I feel a bit the same way. I have attempted on more than one occasion to engage MT in a discussion about various POVs on this subject, including the idea that perhaps there is no need for anyone to have either a unified definition of the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus" (we have many phrases in life for which we don't all agree on what they meam) and also the idea that perhaps not having a personal relationship with Jesus that can be recognized (by oneself or by others) is even necessary or meant to be.
So far, not much response.
I do sense that MT is frustrated with this discussion, but it's very hard to try to continue it when your attempts to respond to a person's questions do not receive much in the way of response.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
Missed the edit window.....
MT, may I respectfully suggest that perhaps this is an issue that you might need to work out for yourself. You seem to be very frustrated that we on they thread cannot provide an answer for you that makes sense to you, and I'm not sure how much responsibility we actually have in that regard.
Generally speaking, in life, when we have a hard time getting answers we can relate to immediately, it usually means that it's something that a person needs to work on within his/her own frame of reference.
And if your frame of reference suggests that you do not need to answer the question at all--that your religious life is ok without answering it, then I'm not sure what the problem is.
If your frame of reference tells you that this is a question for which you need answers to make life better, and you aren't getting answers here, perhaps these things can help: 1) look elsewhere (your own spiritual advisor, books, church tradition, ecumemnical writings, etc.) or 2) look at what has been posted here again in a few days when the frustration of not gettin the answer that makes sense to you is less salient, and 3) assume that this might not be as crucial an issue as it appears to be for you at this time.
At any rate, I hope some find what you are looking for--or at least rest easy in the knowledge that if you don't have a PRWJ in terms you can understand, it's ok.
sabine
[ 28. April 2007, 09:23: Message edited by: sabine ]
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
I would say Yes, a personal relationship with Jesus is different from a personal relationship wtih another human being. It is both less and more.
Less, because you're right MT, we don't get the kind of feedback we get from another human being. Even from someone far away we will get letters or phone calls or emails. I would be very happy to get an email from God but it hasn't happened so far. Mystics claim to get direct communication from God but even that is sporadic and perhaps not reliable.
More, because what God does bring to the "relationship" is more than any other human being could ever bring. I can have a nice exchange of emails with my old college friend, but she cannot sustain my life through her power every minute of the day and grant me the Holy Spirit to inspire and encourage me and help me do right and resist sin. Obviously everything God brings to the relationship has to be taken on faith on our part -- but if the PRWJ is based on belief, not on emotions, as I've posited earlier, then we BELIEVE that it is a two-way relationship, and that God is giving back to us, not phone calls or visits or emails, but life and power and strength and hope and purpose. And eternal life eventually too of course.
So, short answer -- no, the PRWJ is not dependent on (though it can be helped by) experiences of "feeling" or "knowing" God's presence. So yes, it is qualitatively different from a PRWAE -- because it's with an entirely different type of being. Thus, again, I can see why you might not like to call it a "personal relationship." But I do.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
I think evangelicals such as myself often use the term "personal relationship" in contrast to, say, a corporate relationship, such as between God and with humanity in general, or in contrast to having to go through another human person or institution as a mediator.
It isn't just that Jesus died and rose for mankind in general, he did that for me. What's more, I can pray to him and hear him speaking to me personally, not just through a priest or Church institution or whatever. God is at work in my life specifically as well as the world generally. He knows me intimately, and I can have an experience of God myself, rather than it just being for some super-holy religious elite or anything like that.
That's the kind of thing that I'd understand by "a personal relationship with God", not some Damascus Road experience or a special feeling or hearing a voice.
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
I can pray to him and hear him speaking to me personally, not just through a priest or Church institution or whatever.
Would you mind explaining to me a bit more about what you mean by this?
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
You describe, Andreas, something precious to the Christian mystical tradition. But why on earth describe it as a personal relationship?
Because this is what I understand Jesus' saying that they will come and dwell in us to mean. Since they are persons and I am a person, this mutual indwelling is a personal relationship.
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
What's your take MouseThief on 1 Peter 1.8?
That he must not be talking to me, because I don't feel any inexpressible and glorious joy. I do love [Jesus], and believe in him. But that's still a one-way thing.
I do agree it seems as a one way thing, even though I do think that one also realizes God's response at some points of his life... But I want to focus more on that joy that cannot be expressed and which does not stop. Perhaps I'm a bit awkward and clumsy when I discuss about these things on the Ship, but I will try to be sensitive, since, after all, you have opened up your heart here.
I think my limited personal experience allows me to relate to both what you and Saint Peter said. I can see what you describe as a stage in one's journey and I can affirm that more lies ahead. I don't think that the fact that most people do not experience that ineffable and continuous joy means that they are not Christians or not saved. On the contrary, because it's the foundation to what will come (either in this life or in the life to come) it's a very precious stage in one's spiritual journey.
My concern is for those that want to go ahead, that they know this is possible and that they know there is a know-how on how to achieve it.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
But more important, I think, is the fact that the personal relationship language comes with a lot of baggage.
Because I live in Athens, personal relationship language to me do not come with a lot of baggage. On the contrary, I hear about the personal way in which we can relate with God by using the church and the means available to us from Orthodox priests and theologians. My experience tells me that there is something very real somewhere in that language, and I am not prepared to let the people you referred to "own" the phrase and terminology.
[ 28. April 2007, 10:42: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
You describe, Andreas, something precious to the Christian mystical tradition. But why on earth describe it as a personal relationship?
Because this is what I understand Jesus' saying that they will come and dwell in us to mean. Since they are persons and I am a person, this mutual indwelling is a personal relationship.
Well I disagree that 'the Father' is a person in the same sense that we are. We've had this argument before, so let's put it on the back burner. Anyway, Jesus qua human being certainly is a person in that sense.
But, even allowing your exegesis of the Fourth Gospel, are all real relations between persons 'personal relationships'? I live next door to Fred. This is a real relation. It does not follow, I suggest, that I have a 'personal relationship' with Fred. I might have, but I needn't.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
Mousethief,
You seem to be stumbling on the fact that "personal relationship" can mean something different when applied to Jesus than to anyone else. If so I offer a couple of thoughts in the hope they may help:
1) Relationships differ. My relationship to my best friend is not like my relationship with my mother or my relationship with my work colleague. My relationship with you, who I have chatted with but never met, is different again. I would even say I have a "relationship" with my bank though it is not a very personal one.
Some relationships are more or less intense, emotional and, and this seems important, communicative. A mother whose disabled child is unable to communicate may be said to have a "one-way" relationship but she still has a relationship and a very personal one.
All I'm saying is that "relationship" has a range of meanings and that whilst my relationship with Jesus is very different to my relationship with others, it's still meaningful to say "I have a personal relationship with Jesus".
2) What you're dealing with is a piece of religious jargon* from a different religious tradition to your own. Jargon in general often uses every-day language in a specialised way, sometime radically different from how it's used colloquially. Religious jargon even more so and with the added complication that the same words mean different things across religious divides (salvation for example).
I understand that the Orthodox have a concept called "economy" which refers to how you apply general principles to specific pastoral situations. That's not what I immediately think of when I hear the word "economy", which is either the state of a nation's finances or possibly saving money. However now I'm aware of it, I can recognise it as Orthodox jargon when I see it in context.
Now suppose I didn't agree with this concept, that I thought that moral rules should be applied inflexibly. I could still discuss it with you and we both know what we meant. If necessary (as is probably the case) you could explain more clearly the meanings of "economy" that I've missed in what I've picked up simply from reading these boards. However it would be unreasonable of me to not accept your meaning of "economy" for the purposes of such a discussion, in spite of your explanations and simply because my previous experience of the word had all been about money. You'd be very frustrated indeed if you wanted to discuss ideas about pastoral care and I kept arguing about what the word "economy" meant.
Not that I think you're acting in anything other than good faith and genuine desire to understand, but I wonder if you realise that come across as not willing to accept a definition of "personal relationship with Jesus" unless it makes sense in the same way as "personal relationship with <someone else>" would.
On a personal note, I do understand how frustrating it is when people either insist if you haven't got a PWRJ you're not a Christian or, which in some ways is worse, argue that you have and just don't recognise it. Re-interpretting my own experience in their theology, feeding back to me and expecting me to accept it was one of the big problems I had with my last church.
(*some people who use this phrase undoubtedly think they are getting away from using jargon. Nevertheless jargon it is.)
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Lots of the posts since Mousethief's most recent post above say part of what I've been groping to say.
Nevertheless, I resonate with anyone else who has discomfort with this phrase. For me it's because the definitions or explanations don't match what I would expect PRWJ to mean. That's hardly fair of me -- to overlay my own meanings onto what others mean. But I think for me it's why after each definition I'm left thinking "Oh OK.... hey wait! but! uhhhh!"
For me to hear them as definitions is a very formal exercise. I have to divorce "PRWJ" from the meanings it evokes for me, memorize the meanings someone else has given, and formally replace them each time the phrase comes up.
Seeker963's definition as a definition for the entire undifferentiated phrase "PRWJ" to me defines it as an idiomatic phrase personalrelationshipwithjesus which does indeed mean something quite different from "personal relationship with anyone else." Which is OK, it just means I have to memorize that definition and abandon trying to relate it to my usual meanings of the individual words.
The Revolutionist's first paragraph above was starting to make sense to me. Especially because it related to ways I might use PRWAE. But the second paragraph started to lose me -- not over disagreements about whether any particular denomination teaches you have to go through an intermediary, but because the second paragraph to me leads to the conclusion "everyone (Christian or not) has a PRWJ (in TR's definition), it's just that some people don't act on it or realize it." Which didn't seem like a conclusion The Revolutionist intended to encompass, from the definition/description in the first paragraph.
I think for most of the descriptions/definitions offered, I would use other phrases to describe them. So PRWJ continues to seem strange to me, because what it evokes for me automatically is very different from the way others explain "no, it evokes something different for us." I find myself thinking "but that's not a PRWJ, that's a ...." -- and to accept the PRWJ language, have to go back and do the "mathematically substitute this person's definition into the sentence, and erase my usual meanings."
It may be as sabine suggests that PRWJ is for me language that is not useful for my path at this time. Although -- the descriptions of "how you relate to your religion" that have come up here do interest me, even if I would completely avoid the phrase PRWJ to talk about them.
Contrast with "a full perfect and sufficient oblation and satisfaction" -- which if I tried to define for someone who doesn't have it as part of their religious language already, would fall as flat as a lot of the PRWJ definitions and conclusions fall for me -- and yet that phrase doesn't bother me at all that I can't pin it down (whereas, say, it bothers me a great deal that I don't understand what "sanctification" and "justification," two other Big Important Christian Words, mean) -- and indeed carries a lot of important meaning to me -- even if I would have a hard time explaining to someone else.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
I can pray to him and hear him speaking to me personally, not just through a priest or Church institution or whatever.
Would you mind explaining to me a bit more about what you mean by this?
I don't mean hearing a literal voice in my head, but I believe that the Holy Spirit is at work in me as I read God's word in the Bible, so that God communicates to me truths about himself, encouragement, rebuke, challenge, and so on and so forth.
Church leaders, maturer and wiser Christians, and going along to church are all ways in which God may also speak to me, and through which I become more receptive to listening to God, but it isn't like some mystery religion where your only access to the mysteries of God is through the priests and the temple, or anything like that.
I think that maintaining a sense of both the corporate and individual aspects of our faith is very important. To favour one to the exclusion of the other is unhealthy, imo.
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Seeker963's definition as a definition for the entire undifferentiated phrase "PRWJ" to me defines it as an idiomatic phrase personalrelationshipwithjesus which does indeed mean something quite different from "personal relationship with anyone else." Which is OK, it just means I have to memorize that definition and abandon trying to relate it to my usual meanings of the individual words.
The Revolutionist's first paragraph above was starting to make sense to me. Especially because it related to ways I might use PRWAE.
May I just say that when I read The Revolutionist's post that my reaction was that s/he was using this phrase pretty much in the historic context that I outlined further up this thread. To me - although I might disagree with some details - Revolutionist's overall description is, I think, fairly classic.
So, yes, maybe it is just about recognising that a phrase has a different meaning than we are normally used to hearing.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
But more important, I think, is the fact that the personal relationship language comes with a lot of baggage.
Because I live in Athens, personal relationship language to me do not come with a lot of baggage.
That's both good and bad, I think.
I don't know whether this example would resonate with you, but in the American South, there are still people who display the Confederate battle flag. It's pretty controversial, because it can mean different things to different groups. Some who display it are saying, "I love the part of the country where I was born and raised," no more and no less. Others who display it are saying, "I'm a white supremacist, and black folks should all be sent back to Africa." And many people in the first group think that, when others see their Confederate battle flag, those others should realize they don't mean that they are white supremacists, and they aren't saying anything demeaning about blacks, and they're really, genuinely offended that someone could misunderstand them that way.
Unfortunately, because people in the second group use the same symbol to mean something else, the symbol itself has become tainted, and it's become impossible to use it without causing offense. It doesn't matter any longer what one person means by it, the fact that, to others, it means, "folks like me are good, folks like you are bad" has destroyed its value for any other use.
And I would argue that the term "a personal relationship with Jesus" has suffered the same fate. It's not just that it is a jargon word, and doesn't mean what the words would be expected to mean in ordinary usage. What bothers me is that the term is extremely offensive, and when I hear it, I don't just have to remind myself (as Autenrieth Road does) that it doesn't mean what it sounds like it means, but I also have to remind myself that the person using it is likely not intending to give offense.
That's a difficult thing to do in ordinary conversation. And, to be absolutely honest, I sometimes have difficulty accepting it when people say, "I don't mean it that way; what I mean by it is this." The phrase is, to me, so clearly offensive that it's hard to take that at face value. I try. But just so those of you who use it know, I'm not the only person who reacts this way to that particular expression.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
I can pray to him and hear him speaking to me personally, not just through a priest or Church institution or whatever.
Would you mind explaining to me a bit more about what you mean by this?
I don't mean hearing a literal voice in my head, but I believe that the Holy Spirit is at work in me as I read God's word in the Bible, so that God communicates to me truths about himself, encouragement, rebuke, challenge, and so on and so forth.
Church leaders, maturer and wiser Christians, and going along to church are all ways in which God may also speak to me, and through which I become more receptive to listening to God, but it isn't like some mystery religion where your only access to the mysteries of God is through the priests and the temple, or anything like that.
I think that maintaining a sense of both the corporate and individual aspects of our faith is very important. To favour one to the exclusion of the other is unhealthy, imo.
I see what you are saying. I would, personally, have trouble describing that as a personal relationship.
But this thread makes me wonder whether most of the difference are semantic.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
To me - although I might disagree with some details - Revolutionist's overall description is, I think, fairly classic.
Here's what I heard when I read Revolutionist's description:
quote:
evangelicals such as myself often use the term "personal relationship" in contrast to, say, a corporate relationship, such as between God and with humanity in general, or in contrast to having to go through another human person or institution as a mediator. Because we all know that you can go directly to God, and priests are unnecessary, and sacraments and saints are just evil and vile things that get in the way of a personal relationship with God, so if you go to a priest to confess your sins instead of confessing directly to God, or if you think the prayers of the saints are of any benefit to you, and you pray to them instead of praying to God, then you don't have a personal relationship with Jesus and aren't really a Christian at all.
It isn't just that Jesus died and rose for mankind in general, he did that for me. And if you haven't had a conversion experience like I had, you're not really a Christian. What's more, I can pray to him and hear him speaking to me personally, not just through a priest or Church institution or whatever. And if you think Church and priest are important to the way you relate to God, you're just flat wrong.
God is at work in my life specifically as well as the world generally. He knows me intimately, and I can have an experience of God myself, rather than it just being for some super-holy religious elite or anything like that. Because, of course, any tradition that has things like monks and nuns and priests and saints believes that God only works in those people, and doesn't work in or care about ordinary people, and if you benighted people would just believe what I believe, and accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior (because, obviously, you know, you haven't done that, since you use incense and icons and your church has a priest that wears funny robes, and you call your priest Father and you all say prayers in unison, which God doesn't like), you could have a personal relationship with Jesus, too, and be just like me, because I'm a real Christian and you, obviously, are not.
And, since I don't know Revolutionist as well as I know some other Shipmates, I'm not sure whether he means it that way or not. I'd like to believe he doesn't. But it's hard for me to hear it any other way.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And I would argue that the term "a personal relationship with Jesus" has suffered the same fate. It's not just that it is a jargon word, and doesn't mean what the words would be expected to mean in ordinary usage. What bothers me is that the term is extremely offensive, and when I hear it, I don't just have to remind myself (as Autenrieth Road does) that it doesn't mean what it sounds like it means, but I also have to remind myself that the person using it is likely not intending to give offense.
I might be wrong, but I don't think that the phrase comes with quite that baggage in the UK.
And I have to confess that I don't understand why it's a potentially offensive phrase? Possibly the question "Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus?" might be offensive. But - at the risk of bringing down wrath and accusations of bigotry upon my head - I don't understand how the phrase itself is offensive.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear Josephine
I understand that because of the abuse, the term sounds offensive. I also think that abusive behavior and a personal relationship with God do not go hand in hand. Therefore, I would like to challenge the abusers and reclaim the term back for sanctity the way Orthodoxy traditionally understood it.
MouseThief says that he does not identify with what e.g. Peter wrote on that joy that cannot be expressed in words. This is something more important than linguistic differences. This is what I would like to address, but I am not the right person to do that. It would be better if the Church spoke boldly about how people can make that continuous joy their possession. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be very high on the agenda of the Church officials.
In my view the Gospel gives us new ways to live. Such a way that has been made wide open by Jesus and the Apostles is God and man relating in an intimate and direct way. What the fathers called man being born from above. And this, in my opinion, distinguishes Christianity as a religion from Christianity as a Way. Not that I have something against religion. I think that it's good since it helps many people through their lives and gives hope and vision. But I feel it's important to affirm that there is more to Christianity than what an average Christian experiences today.
Without devaluing anybody's life, there is a difference between the way an average Christian today experiences life in Christ and the way e.g. an Apostle experienced life in Christ. That high-quality life, which is described in terms like getting born from above or having a joy that is not disrupted, is my main concern, because it is shadowed and obscured nowadays.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And, since I don't know Revolutionist as well as I know some other Shipmates, I'm not sure whether he means it that way or not. I'd like to believe he doesn't. But it's hard for me to hear it any other way.
Josephine, I'm really finding this entire conversation painful.
I hear what you are saying. I'm not sure whether you want me to tell you what I heard.
If I wanted to, I could be insulted that techincally your tradition de-churches and de-Christianises me as much as this phrase you find so insulting. But I see our traditions as having different ways of understanding what God wants from us. I feel I do understand intellectually the position of the Orthodox Church even though I disagree with it.
And this what I see Purgatory on the Ship as being for - trying to understand intellectually even though we disagree. I don't feel that this is happening a lot at the moment.
Maybe I'll come back to this conversation later when I've calmed down. At the moment I have some errands to do anyway.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Josephine, I'm really finding this entire conversation painful.
I'm very sorry, Seeker. Truly. I was not trying to hurt, and I'm sorry that's what has happened.
I do think, like you do, that this kind of conversation is in some ways what the Ship -- especially Purgatory -- is about. Trying to understand each other across all our differences, differences of faith, of culture, of language, of experience. It's hard work, of course, and maybe there's no way to avoid it hurting sometimes.
But I've found this thread valuable, because I've never before been entirely sure that there was anyone who used the term "personal relationship with Jesus" who wasn't using the term as a shibboleth, defining who was in and who was out. I am now. Of course, that's my benefit and your pain, so not an even trade, I know.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I’m also a little surprised that the Orthodox shipmates on this thread aren’t more unanimously in favour of “personal relationship” language.
Well, for one thing, it's not language that you can find in the Bible, or in the writings of the Fathers or the saints, or in the prayers of the Church.
The exact words “personal relationship” might not be in the Bible, but relational language certainly is. The images of God and Jesus relating to Christians as King to subjects, hen to chicks, shepherd to sheep, landlord to tenants, Master to servants, and Father to children are all images of personal relationships. To pray “Our Father…” is to affirm a personal relationship in the ordinary sense of those words.
quote:
The implicit message is "I have a personal relationship with Christ. You, on the other hand, are not a Christian, even though you think you are." And that message is extremely offensive.
That's clearly not what you mean when you speak of your personal relationship with Jesus. But there are people, many of them, who mean it exactly that way. The words carry that baggage. It seems to me that it would be much easier to find a different way to say what you mean than to rehabilitate this particular expression.
I don’t know anyone who uses the words in that way, and God forbid that I ever should use them that way myself.
I have heard people claim a personal relationship in a way that means “I don’t just go to church because I was raised that way – I really do have a personal faith and commitment to Jesus”. I don’t know if you would find that excluding or offensive - I wouldn’t. I suppose it does imply that there are nominal or conventional Christians, and that the speaker is not one of them, but one can believe that without thinking that one can or should criticise any particular person as not being properly Christian.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anna B
Shipmate
# 1439
|
Posted
Relational language in the Bible supports, to my mind, the notion of a corporate relationship with God or Jesus. It's the adjective "personal" that bothers me because it is so very, well, modern.
(FWIW, I have known Southern Baptists who were missionaries in the Soviet Union, and who used the phrase exactly as Josephine says. It doesn't translate well into Russian, but they tried anyway.)
--------------------
Bad Christian (TM)
Posts: 3069 | From: near a lot of fish | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Here's what I heard when I read Revolutionist's description:
This would be my gloss on the same text:
quote:
evangelicals such as myself often use the term "personal relationship" in contrast to, say, a corporate relationship, such as between God and with humanity in general, or in contrast to having to go through another human person or institution as a mediator. I matter to God! Yes, me, personally! Not because I’m a member of a particular religious group or because I know someone whom God likes, but because God made me and loves me.
It isn't just that Jesus died and rose for mankind in general, he did that for me. God loved me enough to die for me. He loves every single person who has ever been born that much. What's more, I can pray to him and hear him speaking to me personally, not just through a priest or Church institution or whatever. And he cares about what I want to say to him. I don’t need any particular rituals or formulas to ensure a hearing from God – if I find them helpful to me I can use them, but they are there to help me say what I want to say, not to persuade a distant or unwilling God to listen. God already wants to listen to me.
God is at work in my life specifically as well as the world generally. He knows me intimately, and I can have an experience of God myself, rather than it just being for some super-holy religious elite or anything like that. And all that is true even though I know that I’m not a very nice or pious person – in spite of all my faults, what Jesus has done allows me to approach an unspeakably holy God with the same love and trust that an innocent child has to a loving father or mother. God knows how weak I am, and I don’t pretend he’s happy about that, I know he will want to make me better, but even so I need never be scared to approach him because his love is stronger than my faults.
I don't know, of course, that that is what was meant. I don't read into it any baggage implying a criticism of Catholic/Orthodox/High Anglican spirituality or worship.
There might well be an implied rejection of the idea that a particular (liturgical) spirituality is necessary to be a Christian - but that isn't a criticism, simply the mirror image of what you are saying when you deny that a particular (evangelical) spirituality is necessary to be a Christian. It's not a reason for anyone to take offence.
[ 28. April 2007, 14:48: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The exact words “personal relationship” might not be in the Bible, but relational language certainly is.
If that's what you mean, personal language is used throughout our prayers and services. So, for example, The Akathist of Thanksgiving, The Akathist to the Sweetest Lord Jesus, and akathist prayers to the saints (like this one to my patron, St. Joseph the Betrothed) are intensely, poetically, personal.
We don't have any problem at all with personal language.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anna B:
Relational language in the Bible supports, to my mind, the notion of a corporate relationship with God or Jesus.
Oh, I agree absolutely. But I don't think "personal" implies a rejection of the corporate. I would say that I am personally called to a corporate relationship, and that the Church is corporately called to a personal relationship.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
I still don't see why "personal" in this context has to be opposed to corporate. As I said before, to me the opposite of "personal" in this context would be "impersonal" -- i.e. a Deist concept of God, remote and uninterested in my life. I wouldn't expect a Deist to have a PRWJ. But I have always assumed that Catholics and Orthodox and all other kinds of devout Christians had PRsWJ even if they did not use that language to describe it. The greater emphasis on the corporate experience (which is important too, even in most evangelical Protestant traditions), and even the use of priests as mediators, does nothing (in my mind) to decrease the "personal" nature of the individual's relationship with Jesus. It is both personal AND corporate -- we share it and deepen it through worshipping with other believers -- neither excludes the other.
As others have said, and as I pointed out above with the rather extreme example of Catherine of Siena and her foreskin wedding ring, the language of relationship with God -- of intimate relationship -- seems to have been part of every Christian tradition for as far back as it goes ... and that is what I am thinking of when I use the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus."
Josephine, it was really interesting (though painful, in a way) to read your gloss on The Revolutionist's statement. It made me angry while reading it, because I would have said almost exactly the same things TR said about PRWJ, and I was thinking, "No! That's not what I mean when I say those things!!"
But I realize your post was not about what I say, but about what you hear ... and it's always valuable to get a glimpse into how other people hear what you're saying. In my pre-Ship days it would never in a million years have occurred to me that "personal relationship with Jesus" was a loaded term, or a term that some would see as drawing boundaries. Now I understand the baggage attached to the term a little better ... although I still use it because I find it defines my experience of God better than any other. But at least I'm a little more aware that what others hear when I say it, may not be what I intended to convey.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Can we be clear about whether we are talking about a personal relationship with God qua God, or with Jesus? It seems to matter. In the latter case we are talking about a relationship with a human being, albeit one who has Ascended. In the former case, we should remember that (classically, at least) the word 'person' is used of God analogically.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
The word "person" is NOT used in God analogically. Jesus is God-the-Son-appearing-in-the-flesh and NOT a human person. Relating with Jesus is relating with the divine Word.
[ 28. April 2007, 16:33: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Josephine, it was really interesting (though painful, in a way) to read your gloss on The Revolutionist's statement. It made me angry while reading it, because I would have said almost exactly the same things TR said about PRWJ, and I was thinking, "No! That's not what I mean when I say those things!!"
But I realize your post was not about what I say, but about what you hear ... and it's always valuable to get a glimpse into how other people hear what you're saying. In my pre-Ship days it would never in a million years have occurred to me that "personal relationship with Jesus" was a loaded term, or a term that some would see as drawing boundaries. Now I understand the baggage attached to the term a little better ... although I still use it because I find it defines my experience of God better than any other. But at least I'm a little more aware that what others hear when I say it, may not be what I intended to convey.
I agree with all of the above. I don't think I'd use the phrase outside my tradition for fear that others would misunderstand it and think it judgemental. I don't think I realised, however, that people actually thought that I was trying to trash their tradition by saying "a personal relationship with Jesus". That was a bit of a shocker, really.
And yes, Josephine, I think that Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have these "personal" elements to their approaches. Wesley, for goodness sakes, got a lot of his ideas about Christian Perfection and growth in holiness from the Eastern Church. On the Roman side, what are Benedictine and Ignatian prayer practices if not "personal"? I think Mousethief deemed it arrogant to see other traditions as having a personal relationship with God, though, so I certainly wasn't going to pursue that line of thinking further.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'm afraid this is not going to be a terse, one-line post like some (present company excluded) have claimed are all I post. (Who has eyes to see, look already.)
quote:
Seeker963 says:
Mousethief, I tried to answer your question several times and at least once directly to you. Please stop saying that no-one is trying to answer your question.
The answer is a very simple - no, not having had a direct face-to-face encounter with God does not mean that you don't have a personal relationship with Jesus.
That isn't the question I was saying nobody answered in the bit you quoted. If you skip ahead to Trudy's answer you will see she actually grabbed the right question, and actually answered it directly. So I know it's possible. I wonder if some people here, through no fault of their own, just aren't understanding what I'm saying because the frames of reference are so different. Which has no doubt affected my ability to understand what they are saying, to the mutual frustration of all.
Nevertheless, I am rather affronted at your suggestion I'm not being genuine. Either call me to Hell or cool it with the personal (as traditionaly meant) accusations.
quote:
Sabine says,
And if your frame of reference suggests that you do not need to answer the question at all--that your religious life is ok without answering it, then I'm not sure what the problem is.
You know, part of the problem is that this phrase PRWJ has been used as a club to beat me with over and over in my life. Retrospective psychoanalysis on oneself is always risky, but I begin to wonder if part of the reason I fled screaming from Evangelicalism wasn't that kind of usage of this very phrase. So I admit that colours my entire relationship (if you'll pardon the expression) to this whole discussion.
But what matters to me right now is understanding people. What I find in this thread is that there are a lot of people for whom (taking them entirely at their word, which I am more than willing to do) this is an important understanding of their Christian Walk (I hate that phrase but couldn't think of another one to put there), and not a shibboleth or a weapon. So I want to understand what they mean by it, for as several have pointed out here, that is one of the (wonderful) purposes or and uses of the Purg board.
And I'm sure, despite my honest intentions to engage with people, my previous experiences are no doubt getting in the way of my being able to do that effectively.
Nevertheless.
(and this part is not just to sabine (well not that the above paragraphs were either but I digress)) I did ask what I thought was a very straightforward, uncomplicated, yes-or-no question. Hoping for a yes-or-no answer. In PRWJ is PR being used in a different way than PRWAE? Having someone give yet again their understanding of PRWJ doesn't answer the question. The answer to a yes-or-no question is "Yes" or "No."
Which brings us to Trudy: THANK YOU! for coming straight out and answering the yes-or-no question. And I do understand and accept your point that our relationship with God is with an entirely different type of person than our relationships with our fellow human beings.
quote:
The Revolutionist said:
It isn't just that Jesus died and rose for mankind in general, he did that for me.
I'm not sure quite what the distinction is here. Clearly if He died and rose for mankind, and you're a part of mankind, then he died and rose for you.
quote:
What's more, I can pray to him and hear him speaking to me personally
I'm having a hard time with this "hear him speaking to me personally" -- especially since you go on to say you don't mean a voice. I think you flesh this out in a later post, though, so I'll wait until I get there to try to work this through.
quote:
not just through a priest or Church institution or whatever.
Has anybody on this thread suggested that God can only be approached through an institution, or through the priests, or whatever? As Josephine pointed out (isn't she a smart one?) this kind of talk really does come across as a slap-in-the-face to people in traditions that have priests and have a more communal understanding of our relationship to God. It's refighting the Reformation all over again, saying "YOU people think we need priests and the church, but US BIBLICAL people realize we can go straight to God." It really is that grating. I realize you probably don't mean it to be that grating, but there it is.
Andreas, thank you for your concern and the gentleness with which you phrased it. O! that God would vouchsafe for me this inexpressible joy. Of course having my own demons in the area of mood -erm- regulation, makes me wonder if maybe God just doesn't love depressives or manic-depressives as much as "normal" people, which I'm sure isn't what you're trying to say, but there it is. Still, maybe (hopefully!) the fact that not all feel this joy isn't all down to their being inferior Christians to the apostles.
Divine Outlaw Dwarf's post doesn't seem to have been directed to me at all, so I will pass that over.
quote:
Late Paul said:
You seem to be stumbling on the fact that "personal relationship" can mean something different when applied to Jesus than to anyone else.
I thought I made that rather explicit, but yes, thank you, that is indeed one of my huge stumbing points here.
Your further comments comparing PRWJ and "economia" are right on the money. However when you say:
quote:
but I wonder if you realise that come across as not willing to accept a definition of "personal relationship with Jesus" unless it makes sense in the same way as "personal relationship with <someone else>" would.
All the warm fuzzies fade away again. It's not that I'm not willing to accept that. It's that it becomes quite clear that PR within PRWJ is quite different than PR within PRWAE but people seem to be insiting that it isn't. It would be as if I insisted over and over that "economy" in the specialized Orthodox understanding of the term is exactly the same meaning of "economy" that it has when talking about fiscal policy or household budgeting. Of course I wouldn't because I recognize that its use within Orthodoxy is a specialized use, quite different from what it means in other contexts.
But when somebody describes their PRWJ in terms that are clearly different from a PRWAE, and yet insists that PR means the same thing in both places, it is confusing at best. (And please nobody say "who has said it's the same?" I can proof text from the thread if you like, but you can go back and read it just as easily as I can.)
Autenrieth Road's post also doesn't seem directed to me personally, so I will skip to the next.
quote:
The Revolutionist again:
I don't mean hearing a literal voice in my head, but I believe that the Holy Spirit is at work in me as I read God's word in the Bible, so that God communicates to me truths about himself, encouragement, rebuke, challenge, and so on and so forth.
This is understandable as far as it goes. Although "personal" here still seems kind of straining because the Scriptures are accessible to all. If you mean that the HS gives you a different (personal) understanding of the scriptures than He does to anybody else, that I would find problematic.
quote:
Church leaders, maturer and wiser Christians, and going along to church are all ways in which God may also speak to me, and through which I become more receptive to listening to God,
Fair enough, I would say the same thing. Clearly on this point it's just the semantics (if that's the right word) that separate us.
quote:
but it isn't like some mystery religion where your only access to the mysteries of God is through the priests and the temple, or anything like that.
You will come back to this single note. It is rather off-putting.
The rest of the thread doesn't seem particularly directed to me and my concerns, so I will let it stand for the people involved, and not feel an impulsive need to slather my reaction all over it.
A couple of general notes:
"Personal" in the sense it appears to be used in such phrases as "I don't think I'm a christian because my parents were; I have a personal relationship with Jesus" is a very new word. It seems to have been introduced into the world's vocabuary with the Enlightenment.
It is hard for me to see how a concept that has only existed for a few hundred years is a necessary part of understanding God's relationship with humankind (or vice versa). Reading it back into the Bible is eisegesis (sp?) of the worst sort.
But finally I'm starting to wonder, over the course of this thread, what exactly the utility or usefulness of the phrase PRWJ can be, if everybody means something different by it. Even among the people that accept and use the phrase, the range of meaning seems to be pretty broad. It's a lot of work for one phrase to do. And words are, ultimately, about communication. In order for two (or more) people to communicate, there must be a stock of words/phrases that mean more or less the same thing to both (all) of them. A phrase that means something different for every person who uses it may be comforting and helpful to each person who uses it, but it would seem to be of minimal value in communicating with other people.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
I think we are talking past each other.
Orthodox from what I understand believe in a personal relationship with God
at least per this website
quote:
Through an understanding of the story behind Christ's Holy Cross, as protected through Holy Tradition, God comes into our lives, and we develop a personal relationship with God which changes the way we see the world around us.
Goarch on a personal relationship with God
I believe evangelicals use the phrase with Jesus as an evangelistic tool as they can then introduce non Christians to God as both human and divine.
In reflection it is not accurate but I think it is as inaccurate as defining Mary as the Theotokos - in that God being from eternity to eternity could not have not existed - but that
"Born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to the manhood"
--------------------
I'm holding out for Grace......, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity
Bono
Posts: 395 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
That isn't the question I was saying nobody answered in the bit you quoted. If you skip ahead to Trudy's answer you will see she actually grabbed the right question, and actually answered it directly. So I know it's possible. I wonder if some people here, through no fault of their own, just aren't understanding what I'm saying because the frames of reference are so different. Which has no doubt affected my ability to understand what they are saying, to the mutual frustration of all.
Nevertheless, I am rather affronted at your suggestion I'm not being genuine. Either call me to Hell or cool it with the personal (as traditionaly meant) accusations.
Mousethief, if you think I was saying you weren't genuine, then I apologise. I did not intend to say that.
I think people have been saying "It is and it isn't like speaking to another human being". I've given many long explanations of that here. But I'm just going to give up any thought of you and me communicating at all in this thread.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The word "person" is NOT used in God analogically. Jesus is God-the-Son-appearing-in-the-flesh and NOT a human person. Relating with Jesus is relating with the divine Word.
I'm not sure how sentences two and three relate to sentence one, so I'll pass them over. Response to sentence one: yes it is.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fauja
Lesser known misfit
# 2054
|
Posted
When it comes to expressing your point of view about your own spiritual beliefs, there isn't necessarily a right/wrong, correct/incorrect, appropriate/inappropraite way of doing it. I wouldn't often use the phrase 'personal relationship with Jesus' myself but I don't see much harm in it. The idea sounds far more beneficial than 'I've got this hefty book called a Bible, a degree in theology, and a million life issues to sort out with a bunch of cynics who aren't sure if they are related to God or not.'
Would we rather have an impersonal relationship with Jesus?
Doesn't the Bible have something to say about fellowship with the Spirit?
Posts: 829 | From: uk | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fauja:
When it comes to expressing your point of view about your own spiritual beliefs, there isn't necessarily a right/wrong, correct/incorrect, appropriate/inappropraite way of doing it.
Sometimes, yes there is. If my way of describing my spiritual beliefs results in my talking nonsense, for example. If I believe that God can create a stone too heavy for God to lift. Or if I say, 'God is a square circle', you can pull me up on it. In spite of the supposed sanctity, in these days of consumer spirituality, of 'my way of expressing my beliefs', you would be correct so to do.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Still, maybe (hopefully!) the fact that not all feel this joy isn't all down to their being inferior Christians to the apostles.
Not inferior! At a different stage of their journey. I don't think that the average martyr and the average modern Christian share the same state in their hearts. And I think there are many reasons for that difference... but this discussion is not within the scope of this thread. I see a prospect here. Those in union with God can lead others towards the same union. We are all moving, towards different directions, but there is a know-how that can lead us towards what "I in them and you in me" means...
quote:
It is hard for me to see how a concept that has only existed for a few hundred years is a necessary part of understanding God's relationship with humankind (or vice versa). Reading it back into the Bible is eisegesis (sp?) of the worst sort.
In ecclesiastical jargon we use the term "communion".
Divine Outlaw Dwarf, you said that this is the classical understanding. Can you show that this is accurate? I have not seen any distinction between what a person means in patristic thought as far as God is concerned and as far as man is concerned. A human "individual" is a human person, a divine "individual" is a divine person. What's the difference in the term "person"?
You said we can relate with a human being, Jesus... But Jesus IS NOT A HUMAN BEING. He is a Divine Being (since you want to use the term being in the way ordinary people nowadays use it) Who manifested Himself in the flesh. We can relate with a Divine Being through His human flesh... but we do not relate with a human being (i.e. with a human individual).
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Andreas, I've debated your odd christological formularies with you before. It would be beside the point of this thread to do it here.
The analogical predication of personhood of God is more or less explicit depending on where you think 'classical' stops. It's certainly there explicitly in Aquinas. That's not going to cut much ice with you, I understand. But the point is this: it would simply never have occured to an ancient author to think that we say things of God in the same way that we say them of human beings. Your argument from absence is thus a little odd.
Incidentally, I fail to see how your position on individuality and personhood avoids tritheist heresy.
[ 28. April 2007, 17:32: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
You are grossly misunderstanding what the ancient fathers said.
"we cannot say things of God in the same way that we say them of human beings." This means that WE CANNOT SAY THINGS ABOUT GOD'S NATURE in the same way we say them of the created order. This is very different to say that there are three divine PERSONS, because that term DOES NOT HAVE TO DO WITH A CHARACTERISTIC OF WHO GOD IS. It is merely denoting the Who; it doesn't say anything about the What.
Tritheist heresy? Do you have a clue what you are talking about? In my view you reject trinitarianism as tritheism. In the ancient church tritheism was an onscure monophysite heresy that taught that there are three divine NATURES. It is not a heresy to speak of the trinity the way I do. In fact, this is all the ancient church did. To reject that would be unitarianism.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
quote:
The phrase is, to me, so clearly offensive that it's hard to take that at face value. I try. But just so those of you who use it know, I'm not the only person who reacts this way to that particular expression.
I know it Josephine.
Would you believe there are many people who think that because I am a Christian I therefore not only voted for George Bush, but that I support everything he stands for? If you have not experienced this narrowmindedness, I can provide at least 3 examples from my own narrow social life.
I also worked with a woman who found Christmas trees quite offensive - not only brutal to trees, but somehow a symbol of all that she believed negative in old German culture.
Sorry, and with all due respect, but I think it is for people whose minds have to group people in categories to expand their horizons, and not for me to stop either calling myself Christian, or using Christian symbols - or even Christian jargon if it is deeply meaningful to me (and PRWJ is not a phrase I would use, except to myself - the occasion has just never come up; I'm not a proselytizing type).
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
from MT quote:
Still, maybe (hopefully!) the fact that not all feel this joy isn't all down to their being inferior Christians to the apostles.
No one on this thread has put that view forth.
On the contrary, I personally happen to interpret Jesus' words to Thomas about "blessed are those who have NOT SEEN and yet have believed) to refer to people who struggle without the feedback that some others are blessed to have.
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
... But Jesus IS NOT A HUMAN BEING. He is a Divine Being (since you want to use the term being in the way ordinary people nowadays use it) Who manifested Himself in the flesh. We can relate with a Divine Being through His human flesh... but we do not relate with a human being (i.e. with a human individual).
That is surely heresy. Jesus is fully human and fully divine - not merely 'manifested' as a human being. The latter is like Wesley's 'veilded in flesh the Godhead see' - Docetism.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
DOES NOT HAVE TO DO WITH A CHARACTERISTIC OF WHO GOD IS
If you are claiming that personhood is not a property then you are simply talking nonsense. I utter a falsehood if I say, of a biro, that it is a person. That is because in saying it is a person I am saying something additional to 'the biro exists', I am saying it is a particular sort of existent. If the fathers claimed otherwise, they too were talking nonsense, although I doubt they did.
Leo, I tend to agree with you. But I and others have had the same debate with Andreas several times before. Probably not worth having it again.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
I did ask what I thought was a very straightforward, uncomplicated, yes-or-no question. Hoping for a yes-or-no answer. In PRWJ is PR being used in a different way than PRWAE? Having someone give yet again their understanding of PRWJ doesn't answer the question. The answer to a yes-or-no question is "Yes" or "No."
Yes, you did ask a yes-or-no question. But I think that what constitutes a yes-or-no question to some may be a depends-on-the-circumstances question to others. So even as we all don't always see words/phrases meaning the same thing, we also don't always see the question as being the same kind of question.
I'm glad that Trudy was able to provide the kind of answer you were seeking. Those of us who do not conecptualize this question as a yes-or-no one will not be able to respond that way.
Discussions can be very difficult sometimes, and I'm glad that we have so many people reading and posting here so that at least a few can see the question framed as you do and respond accordingly.
I hope some progress has been made in ways that allow you to participate in the discussion, MT. I have to admit that much of what has been posted here goes beyond my own experience of the phrase.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
