Posted by Helen on: 08.15.2006 /
In comment #31 of A Christian Language? Dan wrote (emphasis mine):
I’m interested in the negative reaction here to “personal relationship with Jesus”. I understand there’s a danger in over-personalising the faith - i.e. it can become all about me and sod the rest of the world, but I still do believe that God is interested in us personally and he wants to have a relationship with me. Although that relationship isn’t quite the same as the relationship I have with my friends, to me it is still a relationship and I think I would say it is the most personal relationship I have.
Comment by: Helen
1Dan, I thought I had one of these for a long time. Then I got confused and wasn’t sure if it was just me talking to myself.
My response was a decision to end all attempts to talk to Jesus and to hear what he might be saying back to me. Instead from then on I was just going to talk to myself. That way I eliminated the risk of giving undue weight to something I told myself, due to me erroneously thinking Jesus said it rather than me.
Not talking to Jesus that way helpfully eliminated all the stress of trying to figure out what Jesus might be saying to me. It was definitely an improvement once I got used to it.
There is a nuance to this which is important to me although it probably goes under the radar of Christians who have a relatively narrow view of what ‘a personal relationship with Jesus’ comprises.
I don’t talk to Jesus and I don’t make any effort to listen to Jesus BUT I am open to the possibility that he nevertheless is quite involved in the way I internally process things.
That’s up to him. I never said “I want you out of my life”. All I said was “I can’t talk to you and listen for you this way any more”.
If God is as big as he might be based on the characteristics I’m told he has, then he is easily able to get around me not wanting to talk to him in a cognitive-intellectual way. If the heart of a king is in his hand and he can direct it like a watercourse, wherever he pleases (Proverbs 21:1) then it would be crazy for me to think I could shut God out of anywhere he wants to be.
Comment by: NCxian
2I think that you are exactly right, Dan, that this is where folks are getting impatient with the “personal relationship” thing.
Also, we have gotten away (chronologically and philosophically) from the time when everyone was a Christian because of their citizenship in an Christian culture. Once “personal relationship” may have been intended to sound more inclusive–”anyone who wants to can have a personal relationship, and need not have that relationship rubber stamped by a church/state”. Today I think it has begun to have an exclusive ring to it–”Jesus is my personal buddy, and God is my personal Daddy. You go get your own”. (This attitude is what makes me despise a lot of contemporary “praise” music–you know, “God is so good, he’s so good TO ME”).
Comment by: Julie Marie
3yes…when you have raised your flock on this, it becomes very difficult to turn it around to “otherliness”. Add to this the belief that informing others about Jesus and the 4 point plan of salvation is the best way to meet others needs and you can easily wind up with a group of people who are well intentioned but frightfully insensitive to the pain of other humans.
which is really the antithesis of what a disciple should be.
Comment by: Dan
4Wow - Helen, thanks for your honesty!
I’ve often wondered about this myself - as I’m sure most rational and inquisitive people would do! I guess the conclusion I’ve come to is that some of the time at least it probably is! I’ve also had experiences though that have convinced me that at other times there has been a lot more to it.
This makes me feel quite sad - the second bit I mean, not the first bit! I wonder how Jesus felt about it? Did you feel that you were talking to Jesus when you said this, or did you just “say” it metaphorically?
I think this is quite key. I would say that a lot of my “relationship” with God is like this - including probably some of the times when I’m talking to myself! It’s like a kind of dance I suppose, where I think it’s sometimes difficult to say where God starts and I finish. I think this is probably how it should be when I’m a creature who’s made in God’s image and his spirit lives inside me. (That last phrase could probably kick off another jargon debate all on it’s own!).
Comment by: Dan
5You’re right Julie. I think this is something I’m still learning to come to terms with.
I do believe though, that God is and has been good to me. I guess for me, part of the journey has been realising that it’s meaningless to believe that I’m special to God unless everyone else out there is also just as special in their own way. There’s nothing that marks me out as any better than anybody else or any more valuable to God so a good self-image has to include, probably even be based on a good others-image as well!
Comment by: Helen
6“At least some of the time it probably is”
LOL :) - if more Christians talked like this I’d probably wouldn’t have quit church.
When I metaphorically said it to Jesus, Jesus metaphorically replied “No problem - I completely understand“. That’s the neat thing about Jesus - he does completely understand - always!
So, no need to be sad about it. We might be closer than ever now. Don’t you find that the closer you are to someone, the more able you are to communicate in other ways than with words?
Exactly!
Probably :) - but I understood what you meant!
Comment by: Julie Marie
7I love this picture. It reminds me of a song we used to sing when I was a Catholic .
I danced in the morning when the world was begun
And I danced with the moon and the stars and the sun
I danced in the heavens and I danced on the earth
In Bethlehem I had my birth
Dance then, where-ever you may be
I am the Lord of the Dance says He
I’ll meet you all where-ever you may be
And I’ll lead you all in the dance, said He.
Comment by: Helen
8I used to sing that too, at my Church of England (Anglican=Episcopal) high school. I never liked it at the time - I wasn’t Christian (I went there for academic reasons only) and it seemed weird - but later I came to appreciate it.
Here’s the full text in the cyberhymnal: Lord of the Dance
Creative is good; if we’re made in God’s image we’re made to be creative and God wants us to express our creativity.
Comment by: jim
9Dan
My question about the “personal relationship” langauge/phrase/jargon relates to why…
Why do we feel the need to assert that we have one?
What does it provide or do for US?
Whats does it generally sound like to others?
Why don’t we have common phrases available as well that relate to something more akin to our mission - serving others - loving others- being interested in others?
How did the evangelical tradition we have inherited and by which we measure ourselves (not to mention our interpretation of scripture) arrive at such a self focused place?
Why are we so comfortable definining reality by “our personal relationship with Jesus and so uncomfortable defining it by “our personal relationships with others”
Feel free to respond to any one of the questions.
Comment by: JG
10Jim,
I can only express a personal view based on my experience here in the UK. I’m not sure about the phrase “personal relationship” as such but how I see things (based on scripture so some will switch off I know) is as follows.
We are told not to worry - even the very hairs on our heads are numbered - Matthew 10:30.
We are encouraged to pray and told that if we ask it will be given - Luke 11.
John 1:12 talks about becoming “children of God” - all these and many others speak of relationship.
Matthew 22:34-40 speak of the greatest commandments - to love God and to love one another. 1 John talks of how we show our love for God by the way we love one another. And Ephesians 4:16 talks of how:
“From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.”
1 Corinthians 12 carries a similar image of the body and of how important each part of the body is.
Given that “evangelical tradition” focuses on the importance of scripture I do not recognise a tradition that focuses on “personal relationship” without seeing this in the context of relationship with others.
To the extent this has happened, I agree with you it is wholly wrong - and contrary to scripture.
The answer is not to deny relationship with God but to emphasise the importance of relationship with others AS WELL not instead of relationship with God.
If God does not exist or if scripture is not inspired by God then I accept any concept of relationship with God is probably self delusion, unelpful and perhaps even dangerous. I do believe God exists and I do believe scripture is inspired but accept others do not share such beliefs.
Comment by: Ian
11I think what I was criticizing was the use of “relationship” instead of “religion” to us unchurched folks. It’s clever but it is still 6 of one..half dozen of the other…
Comment by: Rachel
12I agree, NCxian. To me, the phrase “personal relationship” can sound like Jesus is my employee - my personal assistant, my personal secretary, my valet, my butler. I see it as all part of the image of God as our fairy godfather and Christianity as a benefit package. But my faith understanding is that I signed up to serve God, not have God serve me.
Comment by: Rachel
13Sort of like you are the target audience and the same old product has been repackaged to make it more appealing? Like a new marketing ploy?
Comment by: Paul
14Am reading some fascinting history of evengelicalism - its surprising me how modern the concept of a personal relationship with jesus is - partly it relates to the reformation and the impact that had and partly to people wanting to get an answer to the question of assurance that they did have a personal relationship - afterall if you can feel it somehow and personalise it then heh presto you can summon up that feeling and you are assured of your relationship - how personal is that, are very own God on tap…
Comment by: Ian
15Rachel : bullseye ! :)
Comment by: Dan
16Jim - some good questions!
Here are some of my (attempts at) answers:
Well, personally (there’s that word again!) I guess for a couple of reasons:
1) I’m asserting it because I think it’s true.
2) I think relationship is at the heart of what God is about. Most Christians believe that God is trinity (another hot potential debating topic!) - father, Son and Holy Spirit. The word “trinity” never appears in the Bible - it’s a theological term which was coined later on, but to my mind it still reflects what the Bible says about God. This means that God was in “relationship” before he ever created us. In the Biblical creation story, God walks in the garden with Adam and Eve. This is a picture of un-interrupted, intimate relationship between us and God. Jesus refers to God as “Abba” and teaches us to do the same. If I understand the term correctly this is a deeply personal word for “father” - something akin to the English “daddy”. The Bible also asserts (can’t remember where, sorry!) that God is love. For me, love is so central - it’s the one thing that makes sense of God, of life, of everything. But again, love is a relational word. It implies caring, taking an interest, wanting to know and be known. For all these reasons and more, I think relationship - with God and with others - is central to who God is and to my understanding of what it means to be a follower of Jesus.
Hopefully I’ve just answered that, at least to some extent.
I think it probably sounds like we’re a bit batty! - at least to begin with in any case! Hopefully, if we can communicate it well enough and people can catch hold of what we’re talking about then they might find it quite appealing!
One example I’ve come across in the UK is “servant evangelism”. I’m sure there are many others but perhaps they don’t get a high enough profile? Certainly, as evangelicals, we do often tend to “sell” Christianity on the basis of, “come and have a personal relationship with Jesus”, rather than, “come and join God’s mission to make the world a better place”. Perhaps appealing to self-interest isn’t the best way forward on this?
I’m not qualified to answer this one I’m afraid!
This one’s got me a bit baffled I’m afraid. I’m not quite sure I understand what you mean by “defining reality”? I suppose I think reality is defined ultimately by God, who created it. My identity comes ultimately from God but is also shaped and expressed in community with other people. Not sure if this goes any way towards answering your question?
Comment by: Helen
17Jim wrote:
Because we are told by many Christians that our relationship with Jesus is all that counts as far as getting into heaven goes.
Even though, according to the Bible Jesus said “Loving God” and “Loving other people” are the same (’like’). If Jesus wouldn’t answer that “loving God” was the greatest commandment without adding that “loving others” was like it then on whose authority do some Christians today separate them as much they do?
Similarly, John wrote that if a person doesn’t love others he/she isn’t even a child of God.
Nevertheless, some Christians have ascribed infinitely different importance to a right relationship with Jesus and right relationships with other people, claiming the former is the only way to heaven, whereas the latter are simply ‘desirable’.
Comment by: Dan
18Because we are told by many Christians that our relationship with Jesus is all that counts as far as getting into heaven goes.
Yes, I agree that’s very dangerous! It produces selfish, judgemental Christians who have been lulled into a false sense of security!
Comment by: Dan
19Sorry - messed up the block quotes - the first bit was a quote from Helen (above).
Comment by: Helen
20Yes indeed!
Thanks for your comment, Dan.
Comment by: JG
21Helen,
As my previous comment indicates, I fully agree with you on the importance of relationship with others and see this as wholly in accordance with scripture.
I think this requires a little clarification. I believe people fail to have “a right relationship” with God/Jesus just as much as they fail to have right relationships with each other. So it is not that one is essential and the other desirable.
Can anyone really honestly claim that they ‘Love the Lord their God with ALL their heart and with ALL their soul and with ALL their mind.’ ?
If a child has no contact with his or her parents, the important thing is to bring that child into or back to relationship with them. (Okay - this is another analogy with its drawbacks I know.) When relationship is established this is not just relationship with the parents but with brothers and sisters as well. Quality of relationship is something that takes time to work out and it will have its ups and downs.
So I would not differentiate between relationship with God and relationship with others. But I would differentiate between existence of relationship and quality of relationship. Existence is essential, quality is desirable.
Comment by: NCxian
22JG (and all), do you think the “existence” of relationship with God involves holding certain beliefs about God? I ask because of Ian’s comment that “relationship” is just “religion” in different marketing packaging. Religion has a set-of-beliefs sound to it. Does relationship also involve a set of beliefs? If so what our they?
I guess we could start with this:
1. There is a God.
(I started to put “(2) It is possible to have a relationship with God”. But then I realized that defining “relationship” was a big problem! Is “relationship” a piece of Christianese?)
Comment by: NCxian
23To clarify my last question above (Is “relationship” a piece of Christianese?):
What I think I am sayng is, we have mostly been discussing the “personal” in “personal relationship with JC” But if you take the “personal” out, isn’t it also hard to say exactly what you mean when you say “relationship with JC” (or God)? Isn’t that a piece of language that we use to shorthand something very complex and ill-defined? Can that be unpacked?
Comment by: Helen
24JG wrote:
JG, thanks for your response.
I understand the distinction you’re making between ‘existence’ and ‘quality’.
Do you think that existence of a relationship with other people is necessary to get into heaven? If not then I suggest that you are differentiating somewhat between relationship with Jesus and relationship with others.
Comment by: Helen
25NCxian wrote:
YES - I would like to unpack that. In fact it’s essential to me since I have problems with the whole package deal as it is usually presented to me.
If I unpack it then I can say I have a non-traditional relationship with Jesus even though I can’t honestly say I have a traditional one at present.
Comment by: JG
26NCxian,
Thanks for your comments. As to your first question, please see my posts ion:
http://conversationattheedge.com/2006/08/09/only-seekers-will-understand-the-bible/
and in particular comment 39 where I said at the end:
I agree the whole concept of relationship with God is complex though I would not say it was ill defined. I think ALL words and phrases that we use could be said to be “human - ese” as words are simply used to convey meaning.
As to what Christians mean when they refer to relationship with God, that should probably be picked up in a separate article.
Comment by: JG
27Helen,
Thanks for your comments. Personally I dislike the whole “who gets into heaven” debate as:
1 “Getting into heaven” is not in my view what it is all about and
2 It is not for us to determine who “gets into heaven” (if we must use that phrase) in any event.
To respond to (but not wholly answer) your question, I would simply say the story of the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18:21-35 seems to be quite clear that his attitude towards his fellow servant was of critical importance.
Given that we all fail in relationships, I see it not so much as an impossible target that none of us can meet but rather the other way round. It is the conscious refusal to relate or forgive that causes the problem.
To be part of a family, you need to be willing to relate to all members of the family. What I see 1 John saying is that you can’t claim to love God whilst hating your brother. It is both or neither.
Comment by: Helen
28Thanks for your thoughtful answer, JG.
Comment by: Rachel
29NCxian, I agree that both the terms “personal” and “relationship” have limitations and deserve to be “unpacked” and examined…
In regards to the word “personal,” I see that as a reflection of our modern Western ethos of radical individualism. I think it is all part of our consumerist understanding of Christianity, where faith is a product that I buy into because of promised benefits for ME. (Unfortunately the “personal” benefits of the product are often oversold by those marketing it, leaving many consumers with an eventual case of buyer’s remorse.)
The way that the Lord’s Supper has been served in my own denomination has become, for me, a symbol of this radically personalized understanding of the Christian faith. The Lord’s Supper begins with the distribution of tiny plastic cups of grape juice and a tiny bit of crunchy cracker I call the “chiclet wafer.” Each person sits quietly, without any interaction with others, awaiting the signal from the pastor to “partake of the elements.” While I understand this to be deeply meaningful in many ways, it seems like something is missing.
At the original Last Supper, Jesus and his disciples passed around a shared glass of wine and loaf of bread, participating together in a communal exercise. And in the early church, the Lord’s Supper continued to be a meal shared by the faith community, a symbol of their communion with Christ AND with their brothers and sisters in the faith.
In fact, Paul told the early believers that if they were estranged from a brother or sister, they should not receive the Lord’s Supper. He said that they should actually walk away from the communion table and be reconciled to the other before they were fit to participate. Does this go beyond interpersonal relationships to estrangement between groups of people? If I harbor anger or hatred or prejudice in my heart for a specific group of people, am I unfit to receive the Lord’s Supper?
The famous 19th century evangelist and social activist Charles Finney understood the Lord’s Supper in that way and publicly refused communion to anyone who owned slaves. If I must first be reconciled to my neighbor before I can receive the Lord’s Supper, a symbol of my communion with Christ, what does this say about a “personal” relationship with Jesus?
BTW, my church recently changed the way they serve the Lord’s Supper in the “new contemporary” service. Now people walk up to a table at the front of the room, pick up a small piece of bread and dip it into a common goblet. The change seems to have been very well-received.
Comment by: Rachel
30Well said, JG!
Comment by: Mike O
31To Ian’s question way up there, I understand why it seems like a repackaging of the same old product (religion) in a new package (relationship). But that’s because you don’t fully understand “the product.”
Here’s how the Christians sort it out, and you can, too, for definition purposes. Religion is man’s attempt to please God, and Relationship is God’s way of relating to us.
For example, what does “marriage” look like? Is it nothing more than a man and a woman buying each other a ring and moving in to same house? Maybe they have children and raise them together. Maybe they pool their finances for the common good of the household. Is that what a marriage is? No. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman (I know!). And because of their relationship with each other, they do all the other things. In this analogy, all the “things” would be the religion part, and the love is the relationship part.
That’s how it is with religion and relationship with God. Because we love him and he loves us (relationship) we do certain things that he wants us to do (religion). They’re related, but they’re not the same.
Comment by: Dan
32That’s one way of reading the word “personal” and I would agree that unfortunately that’s sometimes what comes across in our churches. I’d agree with the modern emphasis on individualism as well and the way that has (negatively) influenced us.
Another way to understand “personal relationship” though, is a relationship involving communication or interaction between “persons”, as opposed to say a “geographical relationship” for example.
Maybe “interpersonal relationship” would be better?
Comment by: Dan
33That sounded wrong! I think you know what I meant…
Comment by: Mike O
34And regarding the word personal, it is curious to me that people are stuck on that word and are making it something selfish. Isn’t the whole point of this OTM blogworld to help people have personal relationships with people? We don’t want a corporate relationship when dealing with others … that would be repulsive. Yet you want Christians to have a corporate (not personal?) relationship with God? I guess I just don’t get the point.
Everything is on a personal level. Particularly our dealings with others. But it’s a “giving” idea … being nice to others. It’s the same between Christians and God … it’s “personal,” but not in a greedy way, in an intimate way. Not to be crass, but when you sleep with your wife, it’s personal. Is it a giving relationship, or are you just “taking sex from her?” Is she your “personal assistant” just because it’s personal? Of course not.
Have we fallen into a trap of “figuring out a way” to take it wrong, and then defining it that way. “Personal” Hmm, that could be a greedy thing. Let’s go with that. Relationship … Hmm, that could be nothing more than a way of repackaging the same old thing. Let’s go with that.
I understand the misunderstanding, but if people hold to the misunderstanding even after having someone explain it, then you’ve decided to be bothered, regardless of what Christians say, and there’s nothing we can do about that. I heard a good quote one time … “It’s pretty easy to get offended once you set your mind to it.”
Comment by: NCxian
35Mike: I’m not offended by the words “personal” and “relationship”. I guess what I am wondering in regard to those terms is what they mean. I think we say them and mean something important, but, in fact, they just mean something to us, not to people who hear them. Or they mean something different to the hearer than what the speaker intends.
So when I say let’s “unpack” them, I mean, why don’t we explore what the words really mean and decide if we are “saying what we mean and meaning what we say.” I find that to be a useful exercise with any kind of language and even more so when I’m trying to say something important about ultimate things.
As I was typing the post about “personal” and “relationship”, it occurred to me that the modifer personal probably was an attempt to describe what the word “relationship” means in this context. Do you think? LIke Dan said:
That makes a lot of sense to me, and is a good start. But it could use more work, I think, and you guys are just the ones to do it. :)
Comment by: Mike O
36OK here’s an interesting question … I just happened to be out on a jewish website … http://www.aish.com. I don’t know anything about it except that I was there watching a video that was sent to me. Anyway, they use words like Torah, aish, Re’eh, shtetl, Purim, etc.
Having been out here in this blogworld a lot recently, I got to thinking about “Christianese,” or I guess “judaism-ese” in this case, and got to wondering … I was pretty much able to figure out what they’re talking about even though I don’t understand a few of the words. And it would never occur to me that they should change their language (their culture?) to accomodate me. Yet we pick and scratch at Christianity because if they cared about me, they’d communicate on my terms and they wouldn’t have their own language.
Now, I’m not saying Christians shouldn’t drop the Christianese, they should (at least in mixed company). I’m just raising the question. Do we expect the same from the Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, whoever? Should we?
Somehow, as an American culture, I suspect we would think we have no right to impose our preferences upon them. But for Christians, for some reason, we do. Why is that? Is there anything to it or am I suspicious of something that really isn’t there?
Comment by: Mike O
37Actually, let me rephrase that last little bit … are Christians being over-sensitive to the Christianese thing? If the general public is smart enough to understand everyone else, shouldn’t we assume they are smart enough to understand us? Is it really that much of a barrier?
Again, I do think we need to drop the Christianese, I’m just raising the question if maybe we’ve gotten hyper-sensitive about it.
Comment by: NCxian
38Mike, I think part of the difference is that Christians have a mandate, or at least a desire, to communicate the Good News (now there’s a phrase to unpack!) to non-believers. If words are not communicating, or worse, are mis-communicating, then why speak? My impression from my interaction with non-believers at this site is that Christianese is often a stumbling block toward authentic conversation. (And I see that you recognize that, I’m just confirming it from my experience).
As far as I know, there is very little evangelical impulse in Judaism. I could be wrong about that.
Comment by: NCxian
39We cross-posted Mike!
Comment by: Dan
40Something else occurred to me about the way I use the word “personal”, and I don’t think this is exclusive to me or to other Christians. Mike’s also picked this up in one of his posts above.
In my original post which started off this topic, I described my relationship with Jesus as, “the most personal relationship I have”. In this context, the word “personal” implies intimacy, and I would describe my relationship with God as an intimate relationship in the sense that God knows me better than anyone else does - better even than I know myself - and I feel I can share anything with Him. I don’t need to try and hide anything from Him (what would be the point?) and I don’t ever need to worry about being misunderstood. Learning to relate to God in such a “personal” way has helped me to better understand myself and I think has also improved my ability to relate “personally” to other people!
Comment by: Eliza
41I think the issue comes up because Christianese doesn’t use words from a foreign language, unfamiliar to non-Christian listeners and thus clearly part of a different communication system. For the most part, in the US and UK, Christianese uses common English words, but with a special meaning or nuance which non-Christian listeners are unfamiliar with - such as “born” or “sin” or “love” or “bread” or saved”. (Where Christians use English words not commonly used outside of Christianity, or similarly unique Greek words, this confusion seems not to be an issue - for example, “crucifixion” or “justification” or “Christ” - those are recognizable as “Christian” words.)
Comment by: Rachel
42Mike, my own concern about Christianese is not just that it can be a barrier to communication with those outside our faith community, although I think that is often the case. But I am also concerned about the use and meaning of certain terms within the Christian community. I believe that it is important for us to look at the underlying values being expressed by the language we use and to ask ourselves how those values have effected our faith understanding.
For example, I grew up in a conservative evangelical community where the primary emphasis was on having a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” or “accepting Jesus as personal Saviour.” This was seen as a spiritual transaction between God and the individual. The purpose of a confession of faith was so the individual could be forgiven of sin and go to heaven after he died. People were divided into two groups - “saved” and “unsaved” - and the saved people were to focus on being separate from and untainted by the world around them while they waited for their eternal reward.
Believers were expected to adhere to a set of personal ethical principles such as not cheating on one’s spouse or lying on one’s tax return. But there was little or no emphasis on the social aspects of the Gospel. Issues like poverty, racism, economic injustice, militarism or environmental stewardship were rarely if ever discussed. Words like “social justice” or “social action” were frowned upon as worldly and not the concern of those with a “personal” relationship with Jesus.
Jim Wallis has often shared how, as a young man, he approached an elder in his church to express his concerns about racial injustice. The elder responded, “Christianity has nothing to do with racism; that is a political issue and our faith is personal.”
I agree with Dan’s original statement that God is interested in each of us personally and wants to have a relationship with us. That has been my faith understanding and experience, as well. But my concern is that the faith community which I have been a part of has largely ignored the social ramifications of the Gospel. I see the language of “personal” faith as both a cause and a consequence of this problem.
Comment by: Eliza
43From outside Christianity, it has looked to me like the idea of a “personal relationship” with God - and especially with Jesus - has probably been a big part of the draw of Christianity. Not only do Jews not try to converts gentiles to their faith, they also don’t have a personable, appealing, vigorous, and loving human-God to offer as one’s personal savior, both to (at some level) identify with, and also to be loved and watched over by.
People and communities may think of Jesus as looking something like them - there is plenty of artwork showing Jesus as black. In Haiti, Jesus is black (and Satan, I’ve heard, is white). I’ve seen artwork from China showing Jesus with Asian features. This is probably a normal human tendency, but also speaks to the “personal connection” people feel with Jesus, and the importance - I’d guess - of being able to feel he’s like you.
Comment by: Dan
44I guess I don’t believe that me talking to Jesus, and even Him occasionally talking back to me or making his presence felt in some way, are necessary prerequisites for or guarantees of my salvation.
Jesus said that “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” It is possible to have a personal relationship with someone and still dislike them or be ambivalent towards them. The sort of relationship Jesus is looking for is one that involves obedience.
I agree with Rachel about the unhelpful split between what we might call “personal” and “social” morality. I don’t think that split exists in the mind of God and we do Him a gross injustice when we represent Him in that way.
Eliza - interesting comments about the way in which Jesus is represented within different societies. I’ve heard some commentators describe this as a good thing - that people are portraying Jesus in a way they can relate to and not just seeing the gospel as a product of white supremacy. To some extent I’d agree although personally (I may be in the minority here!) I think it’s a shame Jesus was ever represented as white caucasian in the first place. I would like to see Jesus portrayed as middle-eastern, so that I can think of him within his original context as for me this is where his words and actions as portrayed in the Bible make the most sense.
Comment by: Helen
45Eliza wrote:
Yes, I agree.
It fascinates me how internet communication is free from the judgments we make based on what the other person looks like or what their accent is. It’s also free from gender-based judgments when people have usernames which don’t indicate gender.
In that sense I think it’s very ‘pure’ communication.
But of course it is limited by our inability to use tone of voice and facial expression to convey how we are saying something - are we serious or not? Angry or not? Playful or not? Frustrated or not? And generally we don’t know each other well enough to know what’s most likely - so, in my experience, people often do guess wrong about ‘tone’ in online communication. We forget that the same words often can be said and meant in a variety of ways and we wrongly assume our first ‘guess’ about tone is correct.
On the other hand, at least we do have something objective to work with - we have words on the screen that we did not write - someone else did.
When I talked to Jesus in private prayer, I had nothing ‘objective’ - only my suppositions about what he might be saying, in my head.
Yes, I had the Bible. That was the book I’d concluded was big enough and varied enough that whatever I wanted Jesus to be saying, I could find a verse that seemed to indicate he might be saying it to me. So it was not any help in pinning down these guesses in my head about what Jesus might be saying.
Comment by: Dan
46Helen, I’ve had to content myself with the knowledge that Jesus is there and that sometimes he communicates with me in ways that are more obvious than at other times. A lot of the time I’m quite certain that I can’t “hear” anything!
Sometimes Christians are made to feel that if they don’t have a constant 2-way verbal hotline to God then their “relationship” is somehow deficient! I think this relationship thing works differently for everyone.
You seem to have an approach to this relationship thing that is working for you - I’d go with that, but I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of Jesus occasionally communicating in a more obvious way if He wants to. Also, I wouldn’t stop talking to Jesus just because most of the time there’s no immediate or obvious feedback. I’ve found communicating with Jesus in this way very beneficial and I often do get answers but they often come a lot later on when I’m not quite expecting them!
Comment by: JG
47Helen,
I think this issue of how Christians believe God communicates with them is really a new topic in its own right. I like Dan’s response.
The one short point I would make for now is I have reservations over people who say “God has told me …” Even if you are totally confident about what you believe you have heard, I would prefer it expressed as “I believe God is saying…” - as much as anything, this gives other people space to believe something different.
I also think the whole issue of how God communicates with us and guidance is linked in to the question of how we are living and what our direction in life is. If our focus is on self and not on God AND others then I would expect the reality of God’s actual communication to be mainly by way of challenge to get our focus off ourselves rather than to be by way of satisfying our personal desires.
Comment by: Helen
48Dan wrote:
Thanks for being generous enough to say that rather than invalidating my ‘relationship’ because it doesn’t look like yours.
I won’t, but - by definition - if it’s obvious then it will be obvious so I shouldn’t need to worry about missing it… :-)
Comment by: Mike O
49I’ve heard it put like this … sometimes it’s hard to tell what God is saying because we’re listening on FM98.5 and he’s speaking on TV channel 23. He’s talking and we’re listening, but we’re not on the same channel.
I pray every day for specific things and for general things. And John 10:3-5 says, “The shepherd walks right up to the gate. The gatekeeper opens the gate to him and the sheep recognize his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he gets them all out, he leads them and they follow because they are familiar with his voice. They won’t follow a stranger’s voice but will scatter because they aren’t used to the sound of it.”
I always intend to follow his voice, and I pray for direction all the time. Sometimes I get it right, sometimes I don’t. But my heart is to follow his lead, so I think it’s all good.
I hear what you’ve said about not talking to him any more, and how Prov 21:1 says that God is capable of directing your heart like a watercourse (you said that somewhere, I can’t find it now) so you don’t need to talk to him … you’ll end up doing what he wants anyway (I think that’s how you meant it). I guess I don’t understand how someone who doesn’t care what Jesus says, how they can assume they have a good relationship with him? If what you’re saying is true, doesn’t that then mean that everybody will end up doing what God wants because he is capable of directing their heart like a watercourse, too. But look around you … that’s obviously not happening. Even atheists, then, will end up doing what God wants (believe in him???) because he can just direct their heart like a watercourse, right?
I don’t mean this to sound flippant, but what is the difference between you and a non-Christian if what you’re saying is true? In fact, if what you’re saying is true, we Christians don’t need to OA or doableevangelize at all because God is fully capable of directing their heart like a watercourse when he’s good and ready. Isn’t he?
Again, I don’t mean to sound flip … this is a real question … is there a difference, spiritually, between you, who considers herself a Christian but never talks to God or goes to church and posts on a spiritual blog, and a non-Christian who never talks to God or goes to church and talks on a spiritual blog? Even if you believe in him and they don’t, the God you believe would be capable of turning their heart like a watercourse.
I’m not trying to change your mind necessarily, I just wonder how do you reconcile that. What sets you apart from them? Or me from them, for that matter? What is the value of OTM if what you propose is true?
Thanks. Mike.
Comment by: Helen
50Mike O wrote:
But Mike, I never said I didn’t care what Jesus says, did I?
Mike, I don’t know what the difference between me and someone else is because I can’t get inside their head to know what it’s like being them.
Only God knows the answer to your question.
It doesn’t matter to me that I don’t know because I don’t find it to be a useful question. Here’s what I consider a useful question: “What do I need to do to get ready to go on vacation in 2 days?”
Comment by: Mike O
51Fair enough!
Comment by: NCxian
52Dan wrote:
This is an aspect of being a believer that I think a lot of Christians (of all types) would point to as a huge benefit of their faith. My take on it begins with the notion that the human experience includes an essential aloneness–I am the only person in my skin. The “relationship” aspect of faith focuses on the “immanence” of God–God is in here with me!
The “immanence” characteristic of God is often juxtaposed in theological lingo with God’s “transcendence”–God is also infinitely beyond me. It’s an interesting area of tension, I think.
Comment by: Dan
53Just thought I’d add something else that I came across in “God’s Politics” by Jim Wallis this morning (UK time). I thought it summed up quite well a lot of the things we’ve been talking about:
Original emphasis.
Comment by: Rachel
54Great quote, Dan! I appreciate Wallis’ understanding of a personal faith which transforms and empowers us to then go out and serve the needy and speak for justice. This is in contrast to the image of faith as a personal benefit package and a source of moral superiority. The “I am better than you” version of Christianity is the version I grew up with and if I believed that it was truly representative of the Way of Jesus, I would no longer be a believer. Understanding the Way of Jesus as a call to service and sacrifice is challenging and uncomfortable, but I’m not interested in giving my life to something that is easy.
Comment by: NCxian
55Dan, I like Wallis’ quote and Rachel’s take on it. I am interested in how it strikes you in the UK. The reason I say this is because, whenever I read Wallis, I agree with nearly everything he says but I get this uneasiness related to my pretty strong, American-Christian view on the separation of the church and state. You know, like . . .what is the role of the church in civil discourse? What is the role of religious people in civil discourse? Do you preach “political” points of view from the pulpit?
I’m not interested in exploring the answers to these questions so much as I am interested in whether you talk about that kind of thing in the UK? Does reading Wallis raise those kinds of questions in your U.K.-Christian mind?
Comment by: Dan
56Hi NCxian.
I think perhaps we need a new topic for this? - I’m not sure how to go about creating one though.
Briefly, I’m not sure exactly what a “U.K.-Christian mind” is! - I guess we have all sorts of different Christian minds here, just like you do in the US!
For myself, I guess my church background is similar in some ways to Rachel’s (from the sound of it) although possibly not quite as extreme. Most of the emphasis has been on “saving the lost”, with not a lot of emphasis on what we’re saving them for, other than to get them into heaven. This is an over-simplification and doesn’t do justice to the full range of teaching I’ve had over the years but I do feel that it’s only in the last few years that I’ve really begun to develop a social and political conscience.
As a slight aside, my wife’s a member of the Evangelical Alliance, which I think is pretty representative of the state of the UK evangelical church at the moment. We get their quarterly (I think!) magazine, and it’s been very encouraging for me to note that there seems to be an increasing social and political awareness in the evangelical church generally over the last few years, although I think there are still substantial pockets of resistence!
So, to answer your question in the light of that bit of background - I’ve only just started reading Wallis so he hasn’t raised a whole lot of questions for me just yet although it has made me think already about the church/state thing. It’s interesting to note that you have official church/state separation in the US (unlike the UK), and yet your politicians - particularly the Republicans I guess - seem a lot happier talking about religious stuff in public than ours do. Tony Blair was shot down in flames in our press a couple of months back because he dared to say that he believed he was answerable to God for his actions in Iraq. I totally agree with him, although I don’t agree with what he did, and I’m glad he has that sense of accountability even if it leads him to different conclusions from mine. (It’s a pity however, that he doesn’t seem to want to be quite so accountable to the electorate sometimes!) From the press’s point of view though, he’s trying to drag God into politics and that’s generally seen as a big taboo over here!
Comment by: NCxian
57Yeah, I guess that was a kind of weird way to put it. I wasn’t trying to get to what do UK Christians think about it, but simply DO you all think about it, given that it’s not a big constitutional thing over there. Which you answer later.
And yeah, it is interesting to me too how readily our politicians talk about their religious beliefs. My gut tells me that it is too much, or too manipulative, or something. But I wonder to myself (and now to all you!) if that’s not just because I disagree with the particular politicians who do it, for the most part. That’s why Wallis’ views often put me a quandry. He is politically more like me, but at the same time he promotes religious conversation in the public sphere. I really can’t put my finger on what is ok and what is not (and why), and he always makes me have to worry about it!
And yeah, this should be a different thread but I don’t know how to do it either. :(