Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I 'brought many people to Christ'.

I wasn't faking it, it was real to me.

But I now know it was psychological, not spiritual. If I had gone into politics I would have had the same extreme, charismatic type of fervour.

Ho hum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

I have come to believe that religious experiences and emotional "trips" are not to be trusted. Even the infamous "warm fuzzies" can be self-generated.

I am less clear about whether all of these things are faked (and by that I am not questioning the genuinely held beliefs of many participants, just that they are mistaking the things which trigger the bodily response for God) or whether it is just very very unusual.

Mostly, however, I have to say that I'm not inclined to believe in a God who does that to people.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm not a charismatic (most of us on this thread aren't) and don't feel I have a particularly intense spiritual connection. But I'm interested in the implications of what you're saying for Christianity as a whole.

Do you feel that Christianity would have been much better off if the Pentecostal movement hadn't appeared on the scene in 1906? Or even without the granddaddy of Pentecostalism - the emotional Methodist movement of the 1700s?

---

quote:

---

Would a more cerebral, restrained form of the Christian faith have a greater hold on modern Western loyalties if the laity had been strenuously discouraged from hankering after a 'personal relationship with Jesus'?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: Would a more cerebral, restrained form of the Christian faith have a greater hold on modern Western loyalties if the laity had been strenuously discouraged from hankering after a 'personal relationship with Jesus'?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Martin, I'm not sure you are in a great position to identify weirdness in others. Or if you are, you have an extreme form of written Coprolalia which obscures it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say this in Purg [...]

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

It would be interesting to see if charismatic church leaders could urge their congregations not to seek such a relationship with Jesus and still remain charismatic. Or still hold on to their congregations! I suspect that in most cases, it's just a question of time. Practice and expectations gradually drift towards a less intense form of spiritual connection. Today's charismatics will probably stop using that kind of language eventually. But newer Christian movements may arise that continue to do so.

Let's be clear, though: as we see from the comments on this thread, you don't need to be charismatic or go to a 'lively' church to believe that it's possible to have a deep sense of God's presence in your life. So perhaps we need to establish more clearly what we're talking about here.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There may be very lively churches that refuse to use the language or emphasis of 'personal relationship with Jesus'. LeRoc's church in the Netherlands may be one such church. But I suggest that such churches are in the minority. IME, traditional, 'restrained' worship - yes, often led by rather 'cerebral' clergy - tends to be the context that deliberately avoids such terminology and theology.

It would be interesting to see if charismatic church leaders could urge their congregations not to seek such a relationship with Jesus and still remain charismatic. Or still hold on to their congregations! I suspect that in most cases, it's just a question of time. Practice and expectations gradually drift towards a less intense form of spiritual connection. Today's charismatics will probably stop using that kind of language eventually. But newer Christian movements may arise that continue to do so.

Let's be clear, though: as we see from the comments on this thread, you don't need to be charismatic or go to a 'lively' church to believe that it's possible to have a deep sense of God's presence in your life. So perhaps we need to establish more clearly what we're talking about here.

---

Posted                      

• Mainstream denominations are in line with the dominant culture, Evangelical / Pentecostal denominations are in tension with it.
• Mainstream denominations are restrained, Evangelical / Pentecostal denominations are unrestrained
• Etc., I've seen more of these.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
My own very cerebral restrained denomination (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod--we force our pastors through minimum eight years of tertiary education, with Greek, with Hebrew) is jam packed with INTJs and stiff upper lip folks. And yet if you get us into small, trusted groups, the relationship talk and the spiritual experience stuff comes pouring--well, not pouring, the only thing we pour is beer--but let's say it's extremely thick on the ground. And we sure as heck aren't getting it from the sermons!* Nor has it gone away in 500 years and counting.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Lambchop said

quote:

---

As for cognitive psychology, I know as much as is necessary to get a master's degree in professional counseling.
[snip]
All that said, I'm struggling to see why you find it incompatible with Christian faith? I've found it really helpful, with its techniques for getting through bullshit, etc.

---

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
But I simply don't see how you can judge whole denominations in a single stroke like that. This kind of generalisations is likely to press some buttons, and I can see that this is potentially unhelpful for the discussion.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
My own very cerebral restrained denomination (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod--we force our pastors through minimum eight years of tertiary education, with Greek, with Hebrew) is jam packed with INTJs and stiff upper lip folks. And yet if you get us into small, trusted groups, the relationship talk and the spiritual experience stuff comes pouring--well, not pouring, the only thing we pour is beer--but let's say it's extremely thick on the ground. And we sure as heck aren't getting it from the sermons!* Nor has it gone away in 500 years and counting.

---

Why do you think that is?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
My own very cerebral restrained denomination (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod--we force our pastors through minimum eight years of tertiary education, with Greek, with Hebrew) is jam packed with INTJs and stiff upper lip folks. And yet if you get us into small, trusted groups, the relationship talk and the spiritual experience stuff comes pouring--well, not pouring, the only thing we pour is beer--but let's say it's extremely thick on the ground. And we sure as heck aren't getting it from the sermons!* Nor has it gone away in 500 years and counting.

---

Why do you think that is?

---

Well, here we enter the realm of speculation, but I suspect it is because this is one of the ways God has dealt with some human beings throughout history. And a generally shy, cerebral church culture isn't enough to overcome it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
As long as we continue to seek the truth, we are on the right course toward finding it. If in our past we have fallen into either of the traps above, we may need to recognise the truth of the past and clear its debris before we can be free to seek the truth in the present.

---

My question remains - is it worth the time and effort involved?

Upthread it was acknowledged that God works through atheists just as well as through committed Christians.

Can he not work just as well through those who don't bother trying to get this balance right and recognise the 'truth'?

Why not simply take Jesus as our role model and work to the best of our ability for the good others. But stop making the effort to 'know' him or have any kind of contact/relationship with him. Or worry about whether he rose from the dead or not. Alongside the worry of falling into traps or being convinced by the clever words of others. Simply scrap all that.

Thus saving precious time and energy for the real work of making the world a better place in our small corner, would it not?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

We don't have a denomination-wide small group program, we just have Christian education available for all ages--and it's usually in the form of a small group or class working through a topic or book of the Bible. A lot depends on the church, I suppose, but the ones I've been in are very participatory and opinionated--my group works through the weekly lectionary, and tends to fluster our group leader (usually some poor hapless first year seminarian who gets peppered with questions about the Greek and why does verse X appear to conflict with what it says in Deuteronomy whatsit). It's a lot of fun.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:


ETA: Thinking further, I can't help but notice the strong correlation between focus on the Scriptures and the kind of relationship stuff we've been talking about. It comes out most often and most naturally in those contexts. I don't know how LCMS types stack up against other denominations in terms of engaging with the Bible, but I suspect it's pretty high given the sola Scriptura emphasis.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:


ETA: Thinking further, I can't help but notice the strong correlation between focus on the Scriptures and the kind of relationship stuff we've been talking about. It comes out most often and most naturally in those contexts. I don't know how LCMS types stack up against other denominations in terms of engaging with the Bible, but I suspect it's pretty high given the sola Scriptura emphasis.

---

Of course, you are all entitled to think what you like, but to me that's utter self-grandising, over-spiritualised hogwash.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
For a start it perpetuates the fiction that if one reads the bible enough, you'll get a close relationship with God - the unanswered question being "how much is enough"?

Ignoring, of course, the fact that due to wide illiteracy, nobody other than clerics read the bible for themselves for centuries.

Second it suggests that those who do not feel this "relationship" are not trying hard enough.

I think these are both nonsense. For a start, you have absolutely no idea how much bible reading I've done.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:


ETA: Thinking further, I can't help but notice the strong correlation between focus on the Scriptures and the kind of relationship stuff we've been talking about. It comes out most often and most naturally in those contexts. I don't know how LCMS types stack up against other denominations in terms of engaging with the Bible, but I suspect it's pretty high given the sola Scriptura emphasis.

---

Of course, you are all entitled to think what you like, but to me that's utter self-grandising, over-spiritualised hogwash.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
The group aspect is important - I agree with them that it happens in a group in a way it doesn't alone. That's not to say reading the Bible alone isn't important, but there is something different about a Bible study group in terms of how the relationships and community help the Spirit to flourish.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Because I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking the ideas you've put forward: I think they're hogwash.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
The group aspect is important - I agree with them that it happens in a group in a way it doesn't alone. That's not to say reading the Bible alone isn't important, but there is something different about a Bible study group in terms of how the relationships and community help the Spirit to flourish.

---

I don't call it brainwashing because it isn't, but there is a lot of group reinforcement going on and the questions tend to be within a worldview rather than questioning it.

My SIL sees it very much as brainwashing. She went to a Cathedral service and was appalled at what she saw the choirboys having to listen to and sing day in day out.

---

You have no idea what Bible studies I have attended - many if not most have been between people of very different worldviews. There is zero group reinforcement going on - that's not to say that other groups won't have it. But it's not right or fair to accuse everyone of it.

Also your SIL is talking nonsense - aside from there being nothing wrong with what the choristers sing and listen to, it is utterly wrong to call it brainwashing and is an insult to the victims of real brainwashing. Many choristers don't have a faith themselves and that has no impact on their singing - it is a job. Brainwashing is a specific act of abuse against another person deployed in cults and other abusive situations, and comparing singing in a choir to it is shameful.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't call it brainwashing because it isn't, but there is a lot of group reinforcement going on and the questions tend to be within a worldview rather than questioning it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The scriptures have been collected and passed on because they are holy, ie the living God may be seen in them. Some, like you, can't understand that. Nor did I, once, but now I love going to Bible study groups.

Learning, and growing spiritually, i.e. becoming more conscious of God, is not hogwash.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:


You have no idea what Bible studies I have attended - many if not most have been between people of very different worldviews. There is zero group reinforcement going on - that's not to say that other groups won't have it. But it's not right or fair to accuse everyone of it.

---

quote:

---

Also your SIL is talking nonsense - aside from there being nothing wrong with what the choristers sing and listen to, it is utterly wrong to call it brainwashing and is an insult to the victims of real brainwashing. Many choristers don't have a faith themselves and that has no impact on their singing - it is a job.

---

quote:

---

Brainwashing is a specific act of abuse against another person deployed in cults and other abusive situations, and comparing singing in a choir to it is shameful.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Luigi, thanks for the clarification, and the sources for cognitive psychology. Who were you reading on ancient religions? Sounds fascinating.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:


ETA: Thinking further, I can't help but notice the strong correlation between focus on the Scriptures and the kind of relationship stuff we've been talking about. It comes out most often and most naturally in those contexts. I don't know how LCMS types stack up against other denominations in terms of engaging with the Bible, but I suspect it's pretty high given the sola Scriptura emphasis.

---

Of course, you are all entitled to think what you like, but to me that's utter self-grandising, over-spiritualised hogwash.

---

Thank you, Mr. Cheesy, your respect for other posters and your kind way of putting things knows no bounds. Why don't you just call me to Hell instead of sniping from the bushes?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Bullshit. Tell me what about the term "self-grandising" isn't personal.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Bullshit. Tell me what about the term "self-grandising" isn't personal.

---

Explain to me how I can express disagreement with your statement - and the nature of the idea expressed - without you taking it as a personal attack.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Because I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking the ideas you've put forward: I think they're hogwash.

---

The scriptures have been collected and passed on because they are holy, ie the living God may be seen in them. Some, like you, can't understand that. Nor did I, once, but now I love going to Bible study groups.

Learning, and growing spiritually, i.e. becoming more conscious of God, is not hogwash.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
For a start it perpetuates the fiction that if one reads the bible enough, you'll get a close relationship with God - the unanswered question being "how much is enough"?

Ignoring, of course, the fact that due to wide illiteracy, nobody other than clerics read the bible for themselves for centuries.

Second it suggests that those who do not feel this "relationship" are not trying hard enough.

I think these are both nonsense. For a start, you have absolutely no idea how much bible reading I've done.

---

LC is free to correct me, but I don't think this is what they are saying. To me it's that Bible studies in groups help build the community that leads relationships horizontally and vertically (ie with each other and with God) to grow. The group aspect is important - I agree with them that it happens in a group in a way it doesn't alone. That's not to say reading the Bible alone isn't important, but there is something different about a Bible study group in terms of how the relationships and community help the Spirit to flourish.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:


I hope you don't mind me asking, but which Christian denomination, movement or perhaps theologian do you think gets it more or less right when it comes to making Christians think in less personal terms about Jesus? Have any of them impressed you as far as this is concerned?

This is relevant because your criticisms seem to go beyond the usual suspects - charismatic evangelicals - and imply that much broader swathe of Christians have got this wrong.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The implication of this form of language is quite stark, I believe.

1. If you do the right things God will like you and come "into relationship with you".
2. If you are in "relationship with God" and provided you pray enough (in the right way) then good things will happen to you and bad things will not happen to you.
3. In fact, bad things not happening and good things happening is evidence that a) God loves you and b) you are in right relationship with you.

---

quote:

---

And this malaise extends so far that the natural end point is to suggest that those who are not wealthy, not in stable employment, not healed when sick and so on are not spiritual enough.

---

quote:

---

This is all part of the package that is being spread in many low evangelical churches of many different denominational labels - because, I believe, of the thoroughly wrong idea of a "relationship with God".

I don't believe that this language is part of any of the doctrines of the mainline protestant churches, reflects over-individual forms of religion which have developed as a response to secularisation and have very little to do with the faith we're supposed to be believing in.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
This is where I would part company with you, as I don't think that this is necessarily a natural progression.

---

quote:

---

I disagree strongly here. After all, there were medieval mystics - and even St. Paul! - who talked in very personal ways about God, long before secularisation was ever thought of.

---

quote:

---

And I am sure that there are many "liberal" religionists who would still use personal - but different - language to talk about faith. I don't think that one has to drive a wedge between personal expressions of faith and religion as a transforming power for society. Indeed the one may provide the impetus to work towards the other.

---