|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: A not so personal relationship with God/Jesus
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
So, then, thankfulness is out. With it, five parts of what Christianity is all about.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So, then, thankfulness is out. With it, five parts of what Christianity is all about.
I think I missed a step. Was there a particular post you were responding to? Mine were the previous two but I'm not seeing how lack of thankfulness follows from my posts?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
It's all well and good to say let the people who have personal relationships with God get on with it. But they don't let those of us who don't experience a personal relationship with God alone in return. Instead we get told we're not open to God, we don't want the relationship enough, we have a wrong conception of God, we're not patient enough, we don't have enough faith, we pray for the wrong things.
I DO say, "Go ahead and get on with it," whether what you have is a PR with God or something else. Who am I to judge another of God's servants? However God deals with you, go ahead and get on with it.
But by lumping me together with those who have hurt you, well... it kind of stops the conversation. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a PR (loathe that term) and yet refrains from making a nuisance of myself toward those who don't.
However, LC, you did say, on the first page of this thread, "I do think that in spiritual things, ultimately, those who want, get". There is then a bit of semantic wriggling about 'ultimately', but I can see that someone who has wanted very badly, for a long time, and not got, might feel accused by such a statement. I mean, if a personal relationship with God is not in the category of 'spiritual things', then what on earth is?
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So, then, thankfulness is out. With it, five parts of what Christianity is all about.
I think I missed a step. Was there a particular post you were responding to? Mine were the previous two but I'm not seeing how lack of thankfulness follows from my posts?
It was a bit earlier. Two pages ago, actually, but things moved on a bit since I last posted.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Anoesis, notice the words "ultimately" and "in spiritual things." I used those very deliberately, because I was talking to a poster who was wishful on the subject, and wanted to be encouraging while at the same time acknowledging that God takes an ungodly long time about some of our desires, even the ones you'd think he'd hop to immediately. I was NOT speaking about or to people who are perfectly fine with the non- personal relationship-way God deals with them at present. They don't want, and that's fine, clearly God is dealing with them in a different way, good, done and dusted.
But the person who wants a change is in a different situation. He has reason to hope that this, too, will be given to him in the end, because it is unusual (to put it no higher) for God to inspire a desire for him and refuse to fulfill it. I suspect the same holds true of any spiritual desire that is really for God and not just some earthly temptation masquerading under a show of holiness. For example, the person who wishes to be drawn closer to God in the Lord's Supper would doubtless get that wish as well, regardless of whether there was a "personal relationship" felt or not.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Should have added--in case you think I'm implying something negative about a person who spends years in the "wanting not having" category--
I'm not. God is notoriously laggard about answering our prayers for some things. The wanting, for this person, is clearly there. Nothing more remains but for God to get a move on and answer it. In the meantime one must just be patient. Which is always the hardest bit.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
I do realise that No Prophet, to whom you originally addressed the remark, DID place himself in the 'wanting, not getting' category, but AR hasn't specified a position beyond 'it's not something I experience'. I was only trying to explain how, in my view, you may have got 'lumped in', with the group AR was expressing frustration with. A frustration I have certainly shared in the past. It's all pretty much academic now.
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So, then, thankfulness is out. With it, five parts of what Christianity is all about.
No, I think it's a really important thing to address, actually, and I would have liked to do so yesterday evening, but my S.O. came home and spent all evening on the computer, rendering me mute with respect to this board...
But anyway, here goes:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
No one really touched on the conundrum I introduced, viz., thankfulness.
If I get a parking space, can I be thankful? If my son comes home from the war, can I be thankful? If my wife's cancer goes into complete remission for 20 years, can I be thankful?
Are we as Christians to be a thankful people, or not?
Sure, be thankful. It's certainly a better state of mind than continually being aware of all the things that are going wrong. But isn't thankfulness more of a continual state - probably, in Christian terms, an awareness of grace, or something like that? I'm not explaining this very well, but basically, I'm meaning, surely what you're really meant to be thankful about with respect to God is the fact of your salvation. Because that, you can rely on - you can hang on to that, no matter how many parking spaces you miss out on - and, it seems to me, this point of view doesn't require any sort of intense personal relationship with the Big Man Up There.
Interestingly, though, I remember very specifically having a conversation with a friend, while I still identified as a Christian, in which I said that I found it difficult to imagine a worldview without God, because then who would I be thankful toward? I have to report it hasn't turned out to be any sort of problem at all. You don't have to be thankful toward anything - you can just be thankful.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is being thankful tantamount to saying God is a monster because he doesn't bring every son back or heal every wife?
What about it, guys?
No - though I think this has a great deal to do with the point picked up on earlier by, I think, hatless, that these things don't have a fixed distribution like parking spaces. No-one misses out on a blessing by you getting one, in these scenarios. But although it doesn't make him a monster, if the spreading around of blessings and/or protection is apparently capricious, and those who benefit are allowed to be thankful, are those who don't benefit allowed to question/complain? Without there being something suspect about the quality of their devotion? I mean, if your friend could have helped you with something really important to you, but didn't, and never offered any sort explanation as to why, and indeed stonewalled any attempt by you to bring up the issue, would you still consider them a friend?
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
So I take it you are calling me a liar, for claiming to have a personal relationship with God? Think, please.
No, because liar makes it sound like you are doing it deliberately and/or dishonestly reporting something you know to be untrue.
I don't know you, but I am going to assume you are an honest person. As far as I am concerned, you are deceiving yourself on this point.
As I already said, this might well be a very useful and helpful deceit, but in my view it has nothing to do with the truth or with God.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
People who talk about God speaking to them generally put "talk" in inverted commas, so I assume they mostly don't mean they hear a voice. Some people, I know, do hear voices, but interesting though that is, I think it's a separate subject.
I'm a little unclear what does seem, though, like the speaking of God. Is it just a question of labelling? I watch a powerful film and I am gripped by sense of the beauty and fragility of life and resolve to make more time for my family, especially my son who, it now occurs to me, I haven't spoken to for three weeks. I don't call that God speaking to me, but it has a Godly feel for me - it's about a deep truth, and I take it very seriously, and I'm glad to have had the experience of the film.
Is that the sort of thing some people here would describe as God speaking to them?
It's the sort of thing that happens to me all the time. I am always reading the events of my life, finding lessons in them, and being aware of my reaction to them, the disturbance and growth they potentially hold.
I also do label things, tentatively, as being of God - a conversation I overhear at the food bank, an act of affirmation free of contrivance, received with simple pleasure.
It's very often secular things I label like this. I am always aware that God is devilishly slippery, and we can be devastatingly wrong about God.
So how similar, how different is that from your experience, b-r, LC, Paul. and others?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Should have added--in case you think I'm implying something negative about a person who spends years in the "wanting not having" category--
I'm not. God is notoriously laggard about answering our prayers for some things. The wanting, for this person, is clearly there. Nothing more remains but for God to get a move on and answer it. In the meantime one must just be patient. Which is always the hardest bit.
People often die waiting. Bit harsh to demand more patience of them, IMV.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Let me just say this - it would be marvellous if Christian faith really was the way it was portrayed, namely that people who were sick got healed in relation to the amount of prayer they'd put it, that all Christians experienced the same sense of the divine, that Christians in all kinds of bad situations were clearly and obviously helped tangibly by their Christian faith.
As it is, none of those things appear to be true. Indeed, most of the things ascribed as being healings can be explained, and most of the experiences of the divine can be given very ordinary explanations - such as group hysteria, wishful thinking or the power of suggestion.
Given the problem that the wealthy appear to want to believe that God is blessing them in minute detail, whilst at the same time don't really want to try answering the question of why he is not blessing those who live with considerably less - the two simplest explanations are either a) God doesn't exist and/or b) God doesn't work in the way that most rich people think he works.
And another point I was just thinking about - surely there is actually something quote/unquote sinful about ascribing things to God that have not actually come from God.
We all tend to work within tiny spheres within larger spheres.
For example: in my social strata of society, one might think that an ethical purchaser would shop in Waitrose (and/or a farmer's market) in preference to, let's say, Tesco.
Many/most people in my society are not working within this paradigm, and a considerable number of people cannot afford to shop in Waitrose, hence the 'ethical shopping' option doesn't even come up for them.
But then the whole country is working in a paradigm which is addressing problems which are quite alien to a significant proportion of the planet, who would look in confusion at those who think Waitrose shopping is an ethical option. Orange-glazed outdoor-bred pork might sound like an ethical option until one considers the environmental cost of eating any meat, which in turn from the prospective of many in the world many things about our lifestyles look like an impossible extravagance.
So to get back to the point: getting a car space implies that God is justifying our use of a car. Maybe he isn't. Maybe he is disgusted by our wasteful attitude and is in no way interested in our car use. Maybe these things only look like 'good' things because we do not have the full perspective, maybe the truth is that they're sinful all the way down and all we are doing with this kind of thankfulness is invocating God's name over something he actually finds sinful. How about that?
edit: other supermarkets are available.
[ 06. February 2015, 08:58: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thanks Cliffdweller ... my background theologically and in terms of spirituality - 'spiridewealidy' as they'd say in California - is similar to yours - and indeed Belle Ringer's - so please don't misunderstand me - I am not suggesting that either of you - nor Lamb Chopped - are delusional.
In a sense, my post was playing 'devil's advocate' ... I do believe that God answers prayer and that he can and does work in and through people.
It's interesting that over on another thread where Belle and IngoB have been disagreeing over approaches to the sacraments and the idea of a sacramental priesthood, IngoB has been careful not to dismiss nor deny the experiences and healings that Belle Ringer claims to have had.
Neither would I.
I think the issue for me is more about the way we express these things ... how it can come across. 'I hear from God, you don't ...'
I know Belle Ringer wasn't laying claim to superior spiritual insights or worthiness and yes, I take on board your comments about the context for her remarks.
Ship can be a rough and spikey place at times and as hatless says, it is hard for different world-views to co-exist.
For my own part, I'd like to balance the insights of both a Belle Ringer and a hatless, an IngoB and a Mudfrog, a Lamb Chopped and a Liberal Backslider ...
Of course, it's impossible to do so.
But like Walt Whitman, like us be 'large' and 'contain multitudes'.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
mr cheesy wrote:
Let me just say this - it would be marvellous if Christian faith really was the way it was portrayed, namely that people who were sick got healed in relation to the amount of prayer they'd put it, that all Christians experienced the same sense of the divine, that Christians in all kinds of bad situations were clearly and obviously helped tangibly by their Christian faith.
As it is, none of those things appear to be true. Indeed, most of the things ascribed as being healings can be explained, and most of the experiences of the divine can be given very ordinary explanations - such as group hysteria, wishful thinking or the power of suggestion.
The other thing which used to puzzle me is that such phenomena - healings, responses to prayers, contact with God - are found in other religions round the world.
I suppose the simplest solution is that there is no God, and everyone is deluded. Possibly, also, there is God, and everyone is deluded.
Or, there is God and he does have contact with everyone. Or, he has contact with one favoured group, and the others are deluded.
Well, there are probably some other combinations!
Anyway, I learned to stop worrying about it, but I suppose many groups would opt for the 4th option, with the proviso that they are the favoured group!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
I'm not sure that God is Moslem or Catholic or Protestant or Hindu or any other denomination.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
So I take it you are calling me a liar, for claiming to have a personal relationship with God? Think, please.
No, because liar makes it sound like you are doing it deliberately and/or dishonestly reporting something you know to be untrue.
I don't know you, but I am going to assume you are an honest person. As far as I am concerned, you are deceiving yourself on this point.
As I already said, this might well be a very useful and helpful deceit, but in my view it has nothing to do with the truth or with God.
Well, in that case, we're down to plain assertion ("I experience X." ans. "No, you don't, you're deluded." "Yes, I do." "No, you don't." and so forth) and no further discussion is possible. Though you might consider that it would be just as easy to turn the tables on you and claim that you are deluded/misrepresenting your OWN experience! But that would be rude. As your own assertion is, but let that go.
Anoesis, I appreciate the attempt to show how the problem came about. I did not realize that was what you were up to, and I'm sorry.
Hatless, you ask about my experience, and I'll try to give a precis of it here. Generally speaking, I don't hear physical voices. (I think there was one exception, but I can't be sure about that.) In day-to-day mode, my communication with God is the usual stuff, Bible reading, prayer, communion, all that. The stuff that he set up as the normal modes.
There's also mindfulness, which is partly a matter of habit--but those brief recalls of the mind to God's presence have an impact on whatever I'm doing at the time. Usually by sudden humility (it's slightly embarrassing to notice/recall all of a sudden who is there with you), often with love, sometimes with frustration or annoyance ("why won't you just go AWAY and stop bothering me, Lord?"). Which last is generally a sign that I've gotten myself tangled up in something I shouldn't--a resentment or gossip or some ambitious plan I've made without bothering to consult him, which is foolish. In a sense, the mindfulness thing is a kind of short leash. It keeps me from going too far astray. But of course it has to be always informed by Scripture reading, teaching, etc. and whatever mental impressions I may be receiving have to be taken with a grain of salt (or more!), as it's very hard to distinguish between "God sent this" and "my own mind sent this". For example, I would never dare say "God wants" or "God is leading me" to even the clearest mental impressions, because I could be wrong. Better to stick to Scripture when you want something that can't be your own self talking to you. That said, I can't discount these other things entirely, as you'll see next.
There have been a handful of occasions when the "voice" (yes, I'm using the quotey thing, I'm doing that because I doubt anyone else there would have heard it) has been SO unmistakable that I could quote it to you word for word. Plus, it has been impossible to take as the movement of my own mind (it tends to say something surprising that knocks me on my butt--often something unwelcome, but not always). Plus, most of all, it comes true--that is, subsequent events bear out whatever the voice said. I'll add that it is rare for the voice to come except to benefit someone else (not me), and on all but one occasion, it has been for the purpose of telling me to do something I really didn't want to do. Bleah.
Examples, then. The first instance I can recall was when I was a typical So. Cal. teenager trying to choose a career (and a university) and got up the courage to ask God what he wanted. Heh. After some few days I got one devastating word: "Missions." My immediate answer was "Shit!" I spent the next two hours pacing the backyard and arguing with God, to the impression of divine laughter. I thought he meant stereotypical Africa--tall grass, lions, pith helmets--hey, I was only seventeen and wholly ignorant of modern missions, don't hold it against me! I had no idea I would wind up Stateside, working among immigrants--yes, a missionary indeed, but not a kind I even knew existed.
Another case (I've had several of these kind): Leaving grad school one night exhausted, I suddenly heard "Go to X's house" (X was a new immigrant). At the same moment my husband, who was with me, heard this too. After a brief debate (we were VERY tired), we turned the car and went. To find a neighbor trying to pick X up off the sidewalk, after a local gang had attacked him for two dollars and done serious damage to one eye. We took him to the hospital and he was eventually all right. (Scenarios like this have been repeated several times over the course of our ministry.)
The voice does NOT come when I want it to. I spent ten years grieving because the doctors said we'd never have a child, and I never heard zip from God during that time. Nor have I heard it during times of personal sorrow, though I've occasionally had impressions that were comforting. But not the voice. And why should he? If God spoke (or did the impressions thing) very often, I have no doubt I'd come to rely on that instead of on what he wants me to use, namely, the Bible, communion, and the care and counsel of fellow Christians. He's not going to hand me a crutch when he wants me to learn to walk by faith. Which is why, I think, he rarely speaks unmistakably. It creates bad habits on my part--or would, if he would do it more often.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well, in that case, we're down to plain assertion ("I experience X." ans. "No, you don't, you're deluded." "Yes, I do." "No, you don't." and so forth) and no further discussion is possible. Though you might consider that it would be just as easy to turn the tables on you and claim that you are deluded/misrepresenting your OWN experience! But that would be rude. As your own assertion is, but let that go.
I agree to the extent that we cannot weigh experiences on their own - because humans are notoriously bad at perceiving things accurately.
So to that extent, you are right that little further discussion is possible if you continue to assert the value of your experience over rationality, argument and evidence.
You may turn the tables on me, the difference between my position and yours is a) you are the one asserting that this 'relationship with God' is a real thing, hence it is really down to you to convince the rest of us b) I have reasons for not believing this, you don't seem to have any arguments at all for suggesting the experience is authentic and c) you are resorting to waaa waaa waa he doesn't like me.
Funny how often we get to the point where people try to defend their ridiculousness by suggesting that others are bullying them.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Oooh, nice stab!
Truly, it's not up to me to convince you of anything. If you wish to believe me deluded and ridiculous, you go right on ahead. It's no skin off my nose.
I really don't understand why you're getting so heated over this. Surely you can just pity me and move on?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Err.. excuse me, you asked if I was calling you a liar, I said no but I thought it was a delusion. You then said I was rude for calling you deluded. If there is anyone getting heated here it is you.
I repeat, delusions are not all bad, they happen to everyone and I think you are a honest person.
So can you discuss this without taking it personally, or not?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Perhaps it bothers Mr Cheesy, and me, because we feel we've been sold a pup.
I remember a mission we ran at University; I was a recent convert then. We had these tracts called "Knowing God Personally". We had this bloke singing this song "You've got to have a one to one relationship with Jesus". It was what we told people Christianity was. I was as I say a recent convert so I assumed this stuff would happen in due course.
It didn't. The main USP of Christianity as we were plugging it was a chimera.
That's why it matters to me.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Perhaps it bothers Mr Cheesy, and me, because we feel we've been sold a pup.
Can you decode this? This is an idiom or saying I don't understand. Does it mean you feel you've been sold something that's of promised quality but is actually inferior?
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Perhaps it bothers Mr Cheesy, and me, because we feel we've been sold a pup.
Can you decode this? This is an idiom or saying I don't understand. Does it mean you feel you've been sold something that's of promised quality but is actually inferior?
Yup. Sold a lemon. Taken for a ride.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think it bothers me because this is pretty much the only version of Christianity available, and yet it doesn't really seem to stand up to any scrutiny.
It doesn't make any sense.
It turns God into something that I don't want to believe in.
It prioritises experience, which can easily be faked
In addition:
It does not have the strength of biblical basis that proponents try to suggest it has
Ultimately it just makes Christian faith into a version of the just world hypothesis, which means it is pretty monstrous.
THAT is why it bothers me.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped, the day to day stuff interests me. Bible reading, prayer and communion are also part of my experience, and I get ideas during them. My mind might be distracted, or because I've been led to think about something or other I might come to a new understanding, or some problem I've been living with might resolve itself during prayer rather than while I'm cleaning my teeth. And these ideas might be rubbish or brilliant (in my opinion). They will sometimes feel very important personal turning points. During times of personal change and stress they have been much more common. But they still, as you say, need checking against the understanding of God we get from other people and from scripture.
Is you day to day contact with God anything more than that?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
Why do those who are anti-charismatic here feel God must interact with everyone in the same way? I don't interact with my children the same way, and not just because of their age too. For instance, my daughter does not particularly like rough play, and my older son is not (yet) capable of complex discussion. I do not assume I am capable of interacting with God in the same ways Lamb Chopped or hatless does or that I should be doing so. Mind, maybe I would like to be doing so, but that is neither here nor there. I don't generally think I hear from God in my daily life. Maybe I have heard from Her occasionally since I grew up and maybe not, but I don't particularly think I'm ever likely to start hearing God in that sort of way. That doesn't mean they don't. I've known enough serious quiet charismatics to safely believe some of them at least probably do seriously hear from the divine. And I presume most people out on the street or in churches who say they have words from God don't. But because I don't believe <big name> doesn't mean I have to believe <edit make that DISBELIEVE!> hatless.
Besides, from non-Evangelical Christianity, the church looks more like a million (grouped) splinters than a monolith. I've never in my life gone to a church that talked about a personal relationship with Jesus and I've gone to very liberal and very conservative churches.
[ETA: Added an important negative]
[ 06. February 2015, 14:48: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
But although it doesn't make him a monster, if the spreading around of blessings and/or protection is apparently capricious, and those who benefit are allowed to be thankful, are those who don't benefit allowed to question/complain? Without there being something suspect about the quality of their devotion? I mean, if your friend could have helped you with something really important to you, but didn't, and never offered any sort explanation as to why, and indeed stonewalled any attempt by you to bring up the issue, would you still consider them a friend?
Where do you get the notion you're not allowed to complain? The largest category of Psalms is lament psalms-- or, as I like to call them, b***hing about life psalms. The Israelites went thru
[/I] [I]a lot-- some of it probably their fault, some of it arguably not. But they complained to God every step of the way. And that's a big part of what we mean by a "personal relationship" with God-- that when things get shitty (and they will) we're able to complain to the guy in charge.
Whether or not you'll get a satisfactory answer to the "why" question-- well, we've got a mixed bag there in terms of the biblical record, and in my own experience as well. Sometimes yes, more often, no. And that sucks, and may lead you to want to walk away. I get that. But you are certainly entitled-- indeed, encouraged-- to complain.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And another point I was just thinking about - surely there is actually something quote/unquote sinful about ascribing things to God that have not actually come from God.
I'd remove the quotes. It IS sinful. It is blasphemous. So, while I find the rare occasions when I feel God speaking to me very, very precious, I'm also very very cautious about labeling them with any sort of "thus saith the Lord" sort of thing. I've gotta be very darn sure of my footing before I go out on that limb.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Why do those who are anti-charismatic here feel God must interact with everyone in the same way? I don't interact with my children the same way, and not just because of their age too. For instance, my daughter does not particularly like rough play, and my older son is not capable of complex discussion. I do not assume I am capable of interacting with God in the same ways Lamb Chopped or hatless does or that I should be doing so. Mind, maybe I would like to be doing so, but that is neither here nor there. I don't generally think I hear from God in my daily life. Maybe I have heard from Her occasionally since I grew up and maybe not, but I don't particularly think I'm ever likely to start hearing God in that sort of way. That doesn't mean they don't. I've known enough serious quiet charismatics to safely believe some of them at least probably do seriously hear from the divine. And I presume most people out on the street or in churches who say they have words from God don't. But because I don't believe <big name> doesn't mean I have to believe hatless.
Besides, from non-Evangelical Christianity, the church looks more like a million (grouped) splinters than a monolith. I've never in my life gone to a church that talked about a personal relationship with Jesus and I've gone to very liberal and very conservative churches.
It's kind of confusing, isn't it? I'm not sure why you believe that X has heard from God, but Y hasn't. It also sounds very culturally bound to me - do you believe that Mohammed heard from the angel Gabriel? My old Sufi mate said that God was all around, closer than your jugular vein, and when he was really God-intoxicated, he would say that there was nowhere where God was not. It's all fun, innit?
[ 06. February 2015, 14:52: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Our respective mileages vary, Karl:Liberal Backslider.
I used to go round with the '4 Spiritual Laws' tracts too and all the 'personal relationship with God' promises.
I don't do that anymore, but I've still stuck with an essentially 'relational' approach even if I don't tend to put these things over in as simplistic (or crass?) a way as I might have done when I was 19, 20 ...
Way back then, though, for all my pietistic fervour, I don't think I ever believed that it was all about experiences, impressions and God telling me whether to eat porridge or cornflakes for breakfast ...
Sure, I look back and shudder at some of the stuff I was into way back then and some of the things I did too ...
But I don't believe I was 'sold a pig in a poke' or a lemon ... I went into it all with my eyes open. Sure, I adapted and conformed to the language and expectations - and yes, there's a certain element of self-fulfilling prophecy in all of this - as well as a degree of susceptibility.
I was pretty susceptible.
My wife isn't.
Consequently, when it came to the Toronto thing some years later, it was me who did the falling over stuff or praying for people who would then fall over ...
My wife continued as she was, completely unaffected.
I realised that a lot - if not most or even all - of that stuff was down to suggestibility, susceptibility and so on ... but then, some people are more susceptible to others to certain atmospheres in places too. What appears as a venerable old abbey, redolent with the prayers of the faithful over many centuries to some will appear as a heap of old stones to someone else.
'Some said it thundered,' and all that.
For all those caveats, though, I certainly wouldn't reject every aspect of what I was into back then ... I'd say it was still there but has developed and morphed as it's gone on ...
Dyfrig, who used to frequent these boards, once said to the late John Stott, the evangelical Anglican elder-statesman, that evangelicalism was a good place to start but a poor place to end up.
I think there's something in that.
I don't regret my pietistic, 'personal relationship', hot-line to heaven phase - for one thing, I can't turn the clock back and do owt about it - but more positively because it's contributed to who I am today ... for better and for worse.
I don't think there's anything 'wrong' with having a lively faith or some kind of apprehension that God is not only in his heaven but also involved with things - but it can lead to crassness and illuminism.
There's a fine line.
It's ever been thus.
No, it doesn't answer the thorny issues of theodicy and yes, it can be a distraction ... people heading into holy huddles rather than engaging holistically with the world.
But that's the world we live in - 'where every rose has got a thorn/But ain't the roses sweet?' as the crass old ditty runs ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's kind of confusing, isn't it? I'm not sure why you believe that X has heard from God, but Y hasn't. It also sounds very culturally bound to me - do you believe that Mohammed heard from the angel Gabriel? My old Sufi mate said that God was all around, closer than your jugular vein, and when he was really God-intoxicated, he would say that there was nowhere where God was not. It's all fun, innit?
Because I think Y is a damn liar, and God may well be speaking to Y, but He sure as hell isn't encouraging Y's behavior, IMO!
I don't know what Mohammed did or didn't hear. I certainly think some Muslims hear from God.
I have a book of Hafiz poems at the house. Love them.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
People who talk about God speaking to them generally put "talk" in inverted commas, so I assume they mostly don't mean they hear a voice. Some people, I know, do hear voices, but interesting though that is, I think it's a separate subject.
I'm a little unclear what does seem, though, like the speaking of God. Is it just a question of labelling? I watch a powerful film and I am gripped by sense of the beauty and fragility of life and resolve to make more time for my family, especially my son who, it now occurs to me, I haven't spoken to for three weeks. I don't call that God speaking to me, but it has a Godly feel for me - it's about a deep truth, and I take it very seriously, and I'm glad to have had the experience of the film.
Is that the sort of thing some people here would describe as God speaking to them?
It's the sort of thing that happens to me all the time. I am always reading the events of my life, finding lessons in them, and being aware of my reaction to them, the disturbance and growth they potentially hold.
I also do label things, tentatively, as being of God - a conversation I overhear at the food bank, an act of affirmation free of contrivance, received with simple pleasure.
It's very often secular things I label like this. I am always aware that God is devilishly slippery, and we can be devastatingly wrong about God.
So how similar, how different is that from your experience, b-r, LC, Paul. and others?
Seems pretty similar to me. See also my reply to Karl above. My experience is not audible voices or lights from the sky or anything like that. On occasion the results have been dramatic but the communication rarely if ever so.
Also very much agree about being tentative. We see in part etc. I try always to say "I think God is saying..." but even if I don't then it should be taken as implied. Not that I talk about it all the time because there are periods of silence and often the message is not very significant to anyone but me.
I really do think that aside to being comfortable with the phrase "personal relationship" my day-to-day experience of faith is not that different to anyone else's. Certainly not claiming to be superior - I struggle with the theodicy issues, suffer doubt and have lots of unanswered questions etc - like anyone else.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Since we're segueing (helpfully I think) into personal experiences, understanding what has now become obvious-- they are all vastly different-- here's mine.
I've had a lot of the sorts of experiences hatless has had-- where some sort of circumstances, movie, conversation, whatever gives me an impression/ insight/ direction that has a significant impact-- moving a relationship or situation forward in a way that is healing or helpful. My tendency in those circumstances is not so much to say "God spoke to me" but rather to label those sorts of things "a God thing", but that's probably just regional California Pentecostal-speak.
I've had less of the sorts of more explicit experiences Lamb has described (but I don't get the impression it has happened to her all that often), and similarly have had long stretches of painful "desert" times when God seems horribly silent in the presence of great suffering and pleading. Like Lamb, I don't know why.
The most direct "God speaking to me" experiences seem to happen to me in one of two patterns. I don't have any particular theological reason why these patterns would "work" and others wouldn't (although some have suggested some neurological explanations). I don't have any expectation that this experience is applicable to anyone but me, but I was sort of tickled to read in Dallas Willard's excellent Hearing God that he has similar sorts of experiences. So, for what it's worth, here's my personal experience which may or may (probably) will not align with your own:
When I am praying for guidance I have never "heard" God speaking during that moment of prayer, whether I'm desperately pleading ("oh God oh God oh God oh God please please please!!!") or whether I'm just quietly listening ("speak Lord for your servant is listening"). It just doesn't happen that way for me. (It apparently does for some others). But, I find that when I do pray and ask for guidance, and then step away and leave it with God, I will very occasionally experience what I will describe as "God speaking to me"-- generally in one of these two circumstances:
1. In worship services in certain places where I experience the Spirit as particularly present. (Not trying to say God is "more there" in Pentecostal worship than other churches-- just trying to describe my own experience. I'm guessing my experiences here are similar to what others are describing during the eucharist of the "Real Presence").
2. In doing something mindless and routine-- often going for a prayer walk in my typical routine (the loop around the high hill behind my home-- the "cliff" where I dwell).
In both cases it's not really a "speaking" sort of thing, whether audible or inaudible. It's rather an awareness, a confident assurance. But, surprisingly, it's not even usually a moment I can pinpoint. Rather, my experience in these times is that I will begin the walk (or enter worship) not knowing what to do in a particular situation. I won't be particularly focusing on it or trying to solve the problem, just in the moment-- walking or worshipping. At the end of the worship service/ walk I will know what to do-- with a strong confidence that feels different than when I make a decision, even a well-considered one, in my own power. I won't know when precisely I went from not knowing to knowing-- I won't be able to pinpoint the place on the loop walk where it happened. I just know when I come back-- that's it.
Your mileage almost surely will vary.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
A very interesting thread.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Let me just say this - it would be marvellous if Christian faith really was the way it was portrayed...
Portrayed by whom?
The experience of some Christians seems to be that God answers their prayers, in the way and in the time frame they wanted. A friend of mine, watching in amazement as a helicopter arrived at the perfect moment to rescue campers from a forest fire, observed that "God is sometimes willing to be literal with children." If those children had no other experience of God, that would be their defining moment.
Unfortunately, those happy folks can be the very ones running around saying how awesome God is and how everything works out fine. Letting these ones do the evangelizing is like letting newlywed nineteen-year-olds be sex therapists. They haven't seen shit, they don't know shit, and they don't know what to do when shit goes wrong except to look blank and say "Uh, maybe try harder?" They wind up building unrealistic expectations in others based on their own happy but limited experience. Which of course leads to feelings of betrayal in those who discover that "everything works out fine" ain't necessarily so.
ISTM we're all coping with betrayal. We do it differently. Some come to understand that the happy nineteen-year-olds are idiots in the broader and deeper experience of faith, and that God never promises anything of the sort. Some say, "I've had my trust broken, I'm leaving" which is understandable; everyone has their limits. Some are confused by the gap between experience and expectations and are trying to sort it out. None of us knows how it will end. We all have our theories, since it is unlikely that "betrayal" is the last word.
The real problem is what to do about the happy immature babblers. They are telling the truth as they see it, consonant with their experience, so it is hard to argue with them. I also think a real dirty truth is that, because of their enthusiasm and simplicity, the wider Christian body is complicit in allowing them to be de facto representatives because they are motivated salespeople with a product they believe in. It's just harder to promote something more complicated (involving suffering and waiting, oh grand, our two favourite things) through more battle-hardened people, even if it is more truthful. We rely on these as a second-string corrective, even if by that point people are disenchanted and walking away from the whole thing.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think the experiences being described also happen to non-religious people, (for example, the walking described by cliffdweller), and I tend towards a psychological view of them - that our unconscious Self will speak to us at times, will give us aid, or come up with suggestions, comfort, and so on. (It might also tell you something very uncomfortable or painful).
But there is a big crux here - is this Self part of God, or an image of God? Well, nobody can answer that really. Jung thought that it was, and I tend to agree, but obviously others disagree vehemently.
[ 06. February 2015, 15:37: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the experiences being described also happen to non-religious people, (for example, the walking described by cliffdweller), and I tend towards a psychological view of them - that our unconscious Self will speak to us at times, will give us aid, or come up with suggestions, comfort, and so on. (It might also tell you something very uncomfortable or painful).
But there is a big crux here - is this Self part of God, or an image of God? Well, nobody can answer that really. Jung thought that it was, and I tend to agree, but obviously others disagree vehemently.
Yes. That's the "neurological explanations" I referred to-- that relaxing and not focusing on the problem allows your brain to access other areas of memory, etc. in more creative ways. And I'm fine with that, and with the fact that it happens to nonbelievers as well.
But I would agree with your 2nd para as well-- that God is in this. Only because that's the way it feels (very subjectively) to me. It just doesn't feel like something I'm doing-- it feels so different from the other experiences I have where I have an insight/breakthrough that might seem brilliant (ha!) but "feels" like it comes from me-- I'm the one doing it. I'm so much more confident, so much more assured in the "God" experiences. I'm not worried about the outcome. If I have an insight that feels like "me" re: a sermon, or a relationship, or a problem, I'll be worried about the outcome-- will they like my sermon? Will this work to resolve the conflict? whatever. I'm a people pleaser/ conflict avoider, so ruminating about "what will they think?" and worrying about the endless "what ifs" is pretty much My Thing. But when I have these experiences that I attribute to God's leading I don't have any of that. I'm not worried about the outcome (but not in a "I'm doing God's will so screw you" sort of way, hopefully!). I am just fearless. I don't ruminate. I just move forward confidently.
God, I wish I could have that always.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I think that it's too easy for us to limit God in our minds, to try to squeeze God into human understanding, which is impossible. It's outside of our comprehension for someone to be both immanent and transcendent, invisible to the human eye but not to the human spirit, not confined to flesh and blood physical reality (apart from when with us as Jesus too).
Our spiritual senses are different from our physical senses. Some are more sensitive and attuned spiritually than others, but we are all spiritual beings as well as physical beings: mind, body and spirit are inter-connected. People throughout the ages have followed their spiritual senses in all kinds of directions, some good, some harmful, the latter especially so once tied into superstition. It has always been the case that some people are seen as 'seers' or 'holy men' as they 'see' and 'hear' what others don't.
The God shown to us in the Old Testament is consistently spoken of as the one and only living God, from whom all goodness is derived, who detests the evil perpetrated by people who worship false idols and superstitions. This is the God who 'spoke' to the prophets, whether through a burning bush, an audible voice, an angel, or the words that came to them.
When we invite the resurrected, living Christ into our lives at baptism or confirmation, we invite the Holy Spirit in prayer to come and dwell in us, to give us spiritual gifts, to guide us into service to God and to help transform us, as long as we are willing. We are given gifts. Some are given the gift of prophecy, so that they may 'hear' God's voice.
I don't hear an audible voice. The only way I can describe it is that God etches words into my spirit which feed into my brain as thoughts and words. My mind has to take every thought captive, to test it against all I know of God through the scriptures, the church, and tradition before being translated into spoken words or action. I would never say 'God is telling me....' anything. It's not about me, it's about God. And so, if anything said or done has been shown to glorify God, thanks are given to God.
All gifts from God are not given to all people. It's not for us to be jealous of each other, but to thank God for each other's gifts, imv.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the experiences being described also happen to non-religious people, (for example, the walking described by cliffdweller), and I tend towards a psychological view of them - that our unconscious Self will speak to us at times, will give us aid, or come up with suggestions, comfort, and so on. (It might also tell you something very uncomfortable or painful).
But there is a big crux here - is this Self part of God, or an image of God? Well, nobody can answer that really. Jung thought that it was, and I tend to agree, but obviously others disagree vehemently.
Yes. That's the "neurological explanations" I referred to-- that relaxing and not focusing on the problem allows your brain to access other areas of memory, etc. in more creative ways. And I'm fine with that, and with the fact that it happens to nonbelievers as well.
But I would agree with your 2nd para as well-- that God is in this. Only because that's the way it feels (very subjectively) to me. It just doesn't feel like something I'm doing-- it feels so different from the other experiences I have where I have an insight/breakthrough that might seem brilliant (ha!) but "feels" like it comes from me-- I'm the one doing it. I'm so much more confident, so much more assured in the "God" experiences. I'm not worried about the outcome. If I have an insight that feels like "me" re: a sermon, or a relationship, or a problem, I'll be worried about the outcome-- will they like my sermon? Will this work to resolve the conflict? whatever. I'm a people pleaser/ conflict avoider, so ruminating about "what will they think?" and worrying about the endless "what ifs" is pretty much My Thing. But when I have these experiences that I attribute to God's leading I don't have any of that. I'm not worried about the outcome (but not in a "I'm doing God's will so screw you" sort of way, hopefully!). I am just fearless. I don't ruminate. I just move forward confidently.
God, I wish I could have that always.
Yes. Psychologically, one can describe such experiences as non-ego, or transcending the ego's normal concerns. As to whether they are from God, there are obviously different views, and one can't prove either one.
I know a number of Buddhists who have similar experiences, but they also tend to collapse everything into a kind of one pointed 'I am', which to me sounds God-oriented, but not to them.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped, anoesis has pretty much nailed it. But I want to open up discussion, not shut it down. And it wasn't just you saying things on this thread that I was referring to in my post. I'm traveling today but I'll try to post something more detailed and hopefully more leading to discussion later.
Gwai, it would be great if space were opened up for people to be affirmed in having different experiences. That's not how I experience people talking about Christianity. I get told "God is a personal God" and "God wants a personal relationship with you" and "God is talking to you, you're just not seeing that that's what's happening" and (pityingly) "Someday you'll realize that we're right that God is right there for you all the time". I'm with Karl: Liberal Backslider on how much this is unlike anything else in my life that I would call a personal relationship.
For my money, Belle Ringer has said the most helpful thing in the entire thread. I don't take what she's said as gloating that she has an experience that I don't, or that she has more favor with God. I hear her as acknowledging that we don't all have the same experience -- and that that's OK, not a failing on the part of those of us who don't have the personal relationship experience.
As far as any relationship with God for me, I've concluded that if God exists and is the source of good things, then I conclude that he has given me a lot of skills and an ethical sense, and I'm to get on with trying to do good in the world standing on my own two feet without looking to God for any help or contact whatsoever.
[ 06. February 2015, 16:19: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Lamb Chopped, the day to day stuff interests me. Bible reading, prayer and communion are also part of my experience, and I get ideas during them. My mind might be distracted, or because I've been led to think about something or other I might come to a new understanding, or some problem I've been living with might resolve itself during prayer rather than while I'm cleaning my teeth. And these ideas might be rubbish or brilliant (in my opinion). They will sometimes feel very important personal turning points. During times of personal change and stress they have been much more common. But they still, as you say, need checking against the understanding of God we get from other people and from scripture.
Is you day to day contact with God anything more than that?
Well, I'm not sure. It's hard to compare internal experiences with someone else's! I think the main thing I would add is that there is a quality of otherness to them--a difference between "ah, I finally figured it out" (which I take to be from my own natural powers) and "what about this?" which is as if a friend were putting in his two cents. The second comes from someone other than me. And is never (as far as I can recall) just an affirmation of anything I happen to be thinking. It either opposes it, or else goes on to change or extend it in some way. More like dialogue than monologue.
But like--Cliffdweller, was it?--I would never dare say "Thus saith the Lord" of such things. That would be presumptuous--what if I was wrong? what if I misheard or something? Better to shut up. And if I do speak of something, better to do it tentatively, checking it against Scripture and other Christians' thoughts.
As for my background, I am a boring orthodox conservative Lutheran, and have never been involved with charismatic or Pentecostal movements, though I've been an onlooker (born in So. California, you can't help but be). On comparing notes with a bunch of other dyed-in-the-wool Lutherans, I've found my experiences are not really unusual. We just shut up really good about them.
It's true that if you let the young recent converts (say, past ten years or so) do the teaching, you are going to get obnoxious "you all have to be the same" crap. That immaturity is one reason why we put our prospective preachers through graduate school hell, so even the youngest of them is going to be thoroughly shredded on the rocks of Greek and Hebrew before being turned loose on a parish of hapless people! The extra years of suffering hopefully teach them some humility--and possibly that not everybody is just.like.them.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I don't come from a faith tradition where people refer specifically to a 'personal relationship with God' or to a 'personal Jesus', although the nature of the 'relationship' might be alluded to in sermons and devotional readings. But it's apparently something that Christians from a certain sort of evangelical background have to deal with in a more fraught context.
This is where churches are always going to fail, because they seem unable to encompass the experience and desires of every Christian who crosses their path. People often used to leave the established historical churches because they were hungry for more of Jesus than the detached, reserved approach to God would allow; conversely, people now walk away from evangelical churches because they feel pressured to admit to a close 'relationship' with God that they don't feel. There's no way out of the conundrum, is there?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I wonder if we can separate three things:
- receiving positive answers to prayer requests
- having an intimate relationship with God
- God as a person
The first is not something we can do much about. There is no magical formula for it. God does and does not do it as he wills. Being a better Christian as far as I know does not make any odds on whether God will answer unless the odds say it makes it less likely.
The communicative relationship with God in the sense of a two way discourse is a social construct as we are social beings. Whether it is true or not is very hard to tell from the outside, this is what happens to the social when you look too closely. It involves a discerning of response in circumstances where others might say there was not. Yet for me the sum of them adds up to more than the parts and creates an awkward presence that is undeniable for me.
The third is the theological part. This simply is a particular attempt to update some of the classical teaching of the Trinity. The minimum the statement requires is an acknowledgement that God has a will not under our control which might not function in the way we desire. It does not require an ongoing conversation. I will quite happily acknowledge that Dalai Lama is a person. I am certainly not had any sort of communication with him.
The elision from one of these statements to another seems to me to be dangerous. The move from ascribing a distinct will to God, to feeling you have to have communication with him is a jump. Personal does not in the theological sense does not entail that God relates to us as individuals but says something about the nature of God. The personhood of God is part of the classical understanding of God and denying it is problematic. However it is quite proper to say God is personal in theological sense and yet maintain he does not communicate with individual persons. It might be totally inappropriate for him to do so.
However to elide from the idea that God has communication with us therefore he must answer specific prayers affirmatively is as dangerous. It is no good saying "Because God did not answer this prayer affirmatively, he does not communicate with humans". Indeed it seems to me to maintain God must do that is to maintain God is not a person in the theological sense.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Perhaps not, but I would like to think it possible to hold both things in tension, SvitlanaV2.
At least, it's where I find myself these days.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This is where churches are always going to fail, because they seem unable to encompass the experience and desires of every Christian who crosses their path.
Why should they? It would be profoundly silly of them to do so, and would in some cases be actually dangerous to their mission to proclaim and teach truth.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Dang, that's a dangerous sentence, depending on where you put the comma! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
It's true that churches are never going to be all things to all people. But maybe that's the upside of having so many different flavors of church, so to speak.
At this point in time, my relationship with the church is pretty screwed up. I figure that is probably going to be useful to me some day in a backhanded way, because I'm getting all sorts of practice in loving the unlovable (yay ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ). And occasionally it reminds me of what I must look like to God and other people. Who was it who said "The church sucks, the church always has sucked, and the church always will suck"? Somebody on board...
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't come from a faith tradition where people refer specifically to a 'personal relationship with God' or to a 'personal Jesus', although the nature of the 'relationship' might be alluded to in sermons and devotional readings. But it's apparently something that Christians from a certain sort of evangelical background have to deal with in a more fraught context.
Speaking as an evangelical, I would say it's not really "fraught" in that context. At least in the evangelical churches I've been a part of, there's been a fairly explicit recognition of the "different pathways" thing and the fact that this looks very different in different people, ymmv, etc. and it's all good, it's all God. Although you will have those (as we've seen here) who don't hear from God, or think the "personal relationship" thing means God is supposed to answer all prayers/no suffering thing, and then feel cheated when it doesn't work out that way (that sounds flippant, and I don't mean it that way-- it's a real thing, a valid and deep suffering). But mostly where the "fraught-ness" comes from is usually in conversation with Christians from other traditions, as we've seen here, where we're separated in large part by our different vocabulary/language, the way we describe/name different sorts of experiences, and our assumptions/ expectations of those other traditions.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I'm not sure that many churches handle the 'tension' very well, though; that's one reason why there are so many disgruntled churchgoers and ex-churchgoers, no matter what sort of church we're talking about.
This issue of the 'personal Jesus' (can't help thinking of the song) seems to be a complication inherent in Christianity. Maybe we should all be Muslims instead. Islam may have 99 problems, but the personal relationship thing doesn't appear to be one....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
At this point in time, my relationship with the church is pretty screwed up. I figure that is probably going to be useful to me some day in a backhanded way, because I'm getting all sorts of practice in loving the unlovable (yay ). And occasionally it reminds me of what I must look like to God and other people. Who was it who said "The church sucks, the church always has sucked, and the church always will suck"? Somebody on board...
I am again fascinated by a response on this thread. We had to change churches because our previous parish got "amalgamated" and is otherwise defunct. The new-to-us parish has a more (what's the word) stately or reverent approach to liturgy. So specifically that's working for me, thus, God sucks, but the church not.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
