hedrick@cs.rutgers.edu (09/04/90)
I'd like to recommend a book that addresses a number of question that are under discussion here. It's "The Bible and Us", written jointly by Father Andrew Greeley and Rabbi Jacob Neusner. It is a conversation between them about the Bible, consisting of alternate chapters reacting to various portions of the Bible, and to each other. It does not pull any punches: This is not an attempt to show that Judaism and Catholicism are the same. In many ways what it does best is to clarify their differences. Yet it is based on the faith that both are part of God's people, and that Jews and Catholics (if not Judaism and Catholicism as institutions) have something to say to each other. At any rate, it is an introduction to the Jewish way of dealing with Scripture, with many examples taken from Talmuddic tradition. It is also an attractive presentation of Andrew Greeley's vision of Catholic Christianity. It is thus a good answer to a question asked by Walsh (which will appear tonight), as to whether changes in the Catholic Church have left any distinctive Catholic spirituality. In an attempt to whet your appetite, and to show something relevant to the discussions we've had here recently, I'm going to quote a few comments by Greeley on Mary. (Neusner's comments are just as interesting, but less relevant to the subject matter of this group.) Bracketed notations are mine. Note that Greeley is a sociologist, and he likes to cite his survey data. "Christianity needs both emphases [Catholic and Protestant]. But if you wish to understand Catholicism, you must realize that it alone of the religious traditions of Yahweh [Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, and Islam] has chosen sacramental optimism and with a vengeance: Mary and the angels and the saints and the shrines and the statues and the stained-glass windows and the incense and all the other practices that Protestants abhor and about which Jews tend to feel nervious (although they are more likely than Protestants or Muslims to have sacramental imaginations -- how could they not?). "God for Catholics lurks everywhere. S/He is not a radically absent God but a disturbingly present God -- Yahweh still pushing his way into the human condition, like Mary pushed herself into the crisis at the wedding feast of Cana. ... "The idea that the cosmos is a metaphor was not original to the Jesus movement and to the church into which the movement later evolved. Israel knew it too ... But in the volcanic optimism of the Jesus experience his followers were willing to push that idea much further than the prophets were willing to push it. The prophets were, quite properly from their perspective, reluctant to attempt any association with the pagan nature religions. Yahweh was not a fertility God..., but the Lord of creation, independent of all creation. "The early Christians knew no such restraint or fear. Their experience of Jesus was too powerful ever to be tainted by pagan errors. Therefore, they felt perfectly free to expropriate any and all pagan symbolism and practices that seemed to fit their purpose. "Their universalism enabled them to search everywhere for reflections of God. Their optimism enabled them to "baptise" whatever reflections they found. Hence they became sacramentalists: they used baptised pagan metaphors to describe their experience of God. ... "The gamble to absorb the world and everything in it that seemed good, true, and beautiful was a great risk. Sufficient evidence is not in yet to say whether the gamble was a success. The world continues to be sacred, as it was in pagan times, but now because God (and not just spirits) lurks everwhere. Such a view is an extremely attractive approach to life and make the world a warmer and more appealing place. ... "Mary represents quintessential Catholicism as a religion of incarnational universalism -- a religion that simultaneously asserts the value of that in humankind that transcends time and place and the value of that which is rooted in time and place. "Mary stands for the mother love of God. ... "The core of the devotion to the Mother of Jesus is that the relationship between the child and His mother depicted in the crib scene in in Chesterton's carol [which I have omitted] is a metaphor for the relationship between God and us. God loves us like a mother loves her newborn baby. ... "Now you may not buy any of this, and that is surely your privilege. In fact, you may find it horribly repellent. But don't dismiss it as silly and ignorant superstition practiced by men and women who religiously are still peasants. "The imagery is the result of a well-thought-out view of the world and a gamble that nature religions and world religions can be combined. Moreover, it is based ultimately on an experience of renewal of the world in salvation by Jesus and on metaphors that abound in the Hebrew Scriptures. If you want to fight with Catholicism about a symbol that Henry Adams said was the most important in Western history, argue about the premises on which this symbolism is based and not on what the nuns told you or your Catholic friends or the proliferation of votive candles in Italian American churches. ... "The Mary metaphor is based on the experience of sexual differentiation that is part of the human condition. Men experience women and women experience themselves as powerful, tender, life-giving, nurturing, inspiring, wise. Is that not, we ask, the way God is, too? ... Catholicism accepts such experiences as sacramental and encodes them in the metaphor, the story of Mary the Mother of Jesus. ... "In a study of young people we found that, despite the neglect of Mary by the parish clergy in recent years, the image is still the most powerful in the religious imaginations of young adult Catholics and very appealing to young Protestants, too. "There may be no more May processions, but Mary is alive and well and it would appear on the level of imagination an ecumenical asset instead of a liability. "Moreover, the assertion of some feminists that the Mary image has been too blighted by its association with an inferior role for women is not sustained by the data. Among young people there is no link at all between Mary and chauvinism. On the contrary, for men a strong image of Mary correlates with more frequent prayer, more liberal social attitudes and concerns, and better sexual fulfillment in marriage for both husband and his wife. "I am furious that this rich and ancient and powerful and most Catholic of metaphors has been disregarded in the name of shallow ecumenism by a badly educated clergy who can only remember the saccharine devotions they were taught in Catholic schools and the seminary." In my view [note that the quotation has ended], the interesting question is whether Protestants can offer an equally attractive vision. I believe we can. But just as Catholics are unsure what the Catholic vision should be in a post-Vatican II, secular world, there is a great danger that Protestants will lose their distinctive vision as well. What I believe the Reformers were fighting for, and the Protestant tradition at its best has preserved, is a direct experience of God. This is been popularized as the "personal relationship with Jesus", but of course that's only part of it. There is also the experience of awe and thanksgiving, love and obedience to the Father, and the power of the Holy Spirit. As the Catholic tradition is one that Charles Williams would call "the way of affirmation of images", the Protestant tradition is "the way of rejection of images," a feeling that no image of God or his love can be adequate, and a commitment to go directly to the source. Both of these traditions have their dangers. The dangers of the Catholic approach have been discussed here clearly enough. The danger of the Protestant approach is that in our rejection of images and our concentration on the primary revelatory events as described in Scripture, our religion will simply vanish, or turn into simple anti-scientific prejudice. Because we do not tend to see the world as sacramental, and we reject the Jewish approach of seeing religion in the way we do every daily activity (as Neusner says again and again, "God lives in the details"), Protestants must see the world as secular. That does not mean that God is irrelevant to what we do in daily life. Far from it. But neither do we see him through the world in the same way that the Catholic and Jewish traditions do. It is of course not fair to blame secularization entirely on the Protestant Reformation. The Renaissance was doing a fine job of moving attention from God to Man without Luther. No matter what happened in the 16th Cent., it is unlikely that the Medieval synthesis could simply have continued unchanged. It can be argued that advances in science and increased world-wide communication would have led to a secular concept of the world, and that a form of Christianity that attempts to deal with the world as secular would have been inevitable in any case. But whether inevitable or not, Protestants are embarked on an experiment that is just as audacious and in many ways even more dangerous than the Catholic experiment described by Greeley. For most of human history, the world has been a numinous place. Greeley would have us baptize this in Christ, so that the world is now a way to Him. In rejecting that, Protestants turn the world into something simply secular (though of course it is still an arena in which to show our obedience to God). We do so in order to free ourselves from inadequate symbols, and deal directly with God. But we are attempting to go in high places without a safety net. Should our direct relationship with God falter, we are not accustomed to seeing God's presence through the world to pull us back. As Catholic Christianity degenerates into superstition, Protestant Christianity degenerates into an arid commitment to the literal truth of the Bible, without the experience of the spiritual power that is conveyed by it, or into a liberal version of Christianity that has nothing to distinguish it from secular humanism.
bralick@osgiliath.endor.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) (09/04/90)
In article <Sep.3.19.23.23.1990.23239@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@cs.rutgers.edu writes: | | I'd like to recommend a book that addresses a number of question that | are under discussion here. It's "The Bible and Us", written jointly | by Father Andrew Greeley and Rabbi Jacob Neusner... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oops | ... It is also an attractive presentation of Andrew Greeley's | vision of Catholic Christianity. ~~~~~~~~~ Is there a nihil obstat or imprimatur? I would wager there isn't. Assuming that there isn't, please be clear that Greeley is speculating for himself and is not presenting Roman Catholic doctrine. | It is thus a good answer to a ~~~~? | question asked by Walsh (which will appear tonight), as to whether | changes in the Catholic Church have left any distinctive Catholic | spirituality. ~~~~~~~~ If it is authoritative, then it may address questions of Roman Catholic spirituality. If it isn't (and I suspect that it isn't), then it is likely as valuable an exposition of Roman Catholic spirituality as Greeley's novels. In short, I'd look elsewhere for Roman Catholic spirituality. Regards, Will bralick@cs.psu.edu with disclaimer; use disclaimer; It was a curious idea ... that the Church should adapt the faith to suit the world rather than the other way around, or that the "contemporary" intellectual ... should expect to find being a Christian comfortable. -- Anne Roche Muggeridge [There is no imprimatur. Since the book is half a presentation of Jewish ideas, I suspect it wouldn't be eligible. On the other hand, it is not clear that an imprimatur would make that much difference. It does not make a book authoritative. As many notices of imprimatur caution us, "The nihil obstat and imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the nihil obstat or imprimatur agree with the content, opinions, or statements expressed." I believe Greeley is controversial in ways that are probably not doctrinal or moral error. That certainly does not mean that all Catholics would agree with him, nor that he is stating authoritative Catholic positions. He certainly doesn't claim to be making authoritative statements, particularly not in matters of doctrine (for which he refers the reader to Catholic catechisms.) --clh]
lieuwen@mycella.cs.wisc.edu (Dan Lieuwen) (09/14/90)
[I commented in a book review: >>Because [Protestants] do not tend to see the world as >>sacramental, and we reject the Jewish approach of seeing religion in *************************************************** >>the way we do every daily activity (as Neusner says again and again, ******************************************************************** >>"God lives in the details"), Protestants must see the world as *************************** >>secular. That does not mean that God is irrelevant to what we do in >>daily life. Far from it. But neither do we see him through the world >>in the same way that the Catholic and Jewish traditions do. --clh] I don't think the distinction you make between Protestantism and Judaism is accurate. It describes some Protestants. However, in many Protestant traditions, there is a lot of emphasis on sanctification and the necesssity of holiness. If that is not having "God live in the details", I don't know what is. >>Protestants turn the world into something simply >>secular (though of course it is still an arena in which to show our >>obedience to God). We do so in order to free ourselves from >>inadequate symbols, and deal directly with God. I also don't think that Protestants are required by their belief to see the world as secular. Especially in Calvinism, there is the notion that every honorable task can be a Christian calling. No useful task is profane--it is part of ones religious vocation. Also, with quotes from orthodox Calvinist theologians like "There is not a square inch of the world that does not belong to God", it is hard to maintain that stereotype of Protestantism. Many Protestants believe that the world is profane, but that is often a result of the "folk religion" that every faith must deal with, rather than an essential belief. Dan [All three approaches I mention, Catholic, Protestant and Jewish, agree that there is not a square inch of the world that does not belong to God, and that we are called to holiness. However I think there are differences in the approach to being holy. I think there's a difference between what Neusner means when he says "God lives in the details" and what a Protestant would mean. Neusner means that there is a specific Jewish way of carrying out the details, given in the "dual Torah" (written and oral). While there are surely specifically Christian (or Protestant) ways of doing some things, the area in which decisions are religiously indifferent ("adiaphora") is larger. Furthermore, when we look for God's will, it is often more to be an attempt to find God's will for us, rather than a general Christian answer. For example, most Protestants consider almost all of the details about worship services to be indifferent. That doesn't mean they are not of concern to God, but God does not command a specific mode of worship, and we are free to choose any practices that further the worship of God. I'm reluctant to say much about Judaism, but my reading of Neusner is that he would expect to find advice in the dual Torah on all details of worship. Faithfulness in carrying out God's specifications of these details would be an important part of obedience to God. On my comments about seeing things as secular, let me clarify what I mean. How we deal with secular matters is of concern to God. To the extent that people are involved, they provide an opportunity to show God's love. As you say, any honorable task can be a Christian calling. But we do not tend to push the concept of everything in the world being a sacrament for God as far as Greeley suggests. By secular, I mean that something does not have a builtin religious significance. It takes on religious significance for us when we use it for God's purposes. None of these approaches is (or should be) followed in a pure form. All of us acknowledge areas in which God has specific commands, areas in which he wants us to exercise responsible and prayerful choice, and the fact that we see God in the world and the people around us. But each of the three traditions pushes harder on one aspect. Judaism finds specific guidance in their tradition in far more areas than the other two tradition. Catholics tend to see God as presenting himself to us through other people (Mary, saints, priests) and through things around us more than Protestants find comfortable. What I'm trying to identify is the things that Protestants push harder on. I believe some of it involves a greater emphasis on a direct relationship with God, and a greater tendency to see things around us as not having intrinsic religious significance, but instead as providing opportunities for us to exercise prayerful responsbility. --clh]
daveh@tekcrl.labs.tek.com (David Hatcher) (09/14/90)
What I am writing here comes from several years experience in touching both the Protestant and Catholic traditions, Yes as a non-Christian, but as a person who is very much a lover of God. With in the Catholic tradition I often go on retreat to a Trappist Abby. As a result of these retreats, I have had many wonderful and enlightening talks with various Trappist Monks about their inner spiritual life. I also go to Sunday Chruch services at a Protestant Chruch along with other Christian events. Charles Hedrick wrote in reply to Cathy Johnstons article: >[It's a matter of what you mean by mysticism. Normally it implies a >discipline whose goal is transcending our normal human consciousness, >to experience a union with God. The idea is for us to leave the human >plane and join with God in heaven, at least in some limited sense. Personally, I can see no way in which the spiritual life can be separated from mysticism. When one lives spiritually, the mystical aspect in ones relationship with God becomes vibrantly alive. They go hand in hand. Because of the lack of Protestant mystics, along with any real deep understanding among the Protestant community as to what it means to not only be spiritually aware of God but to also grow as close to Him in this life time as is possible, to these eyes, the Protestant thought and way of spirituality actually limit or hinders ones relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Now, I am not saying that I feel that Protestants do not have a personal relationship with Jesus. I want to make that very clear up front. But what comes *after* that personal relationship is established? I'm sorry, but I do not see a whole lot. At least in the way of that continual search for God. The Christian is invited to know the Father through Christ. But it appears to me that that aspect is not explored very much with in the Protestant tradition. It's as if only knowing the second person of the Trinity is all that one can hope for. Yet Christ pointed towards the Father even in His saying that "the way to the Father is through Christ"? To be fair, I also feel that much of the Catholic world also limits spiritual potential, but at least with in that tradition there are places one can go to further ones deeper spiritual experience of God. I can't say the same with the Protestant tradition. Even the concept of actually growing as close to God as possible in this life time seems to generally be an alien concept with in the Protestant tradition. Charles's example of comparing the spirituality of the great mystics to "spiritual athletes" and further implies that their way does not seem entirely healthy to many, to me is a practical example of the miss-understanding of what the mystical or inner spiritual life is all about. And that miss-understanding I feel had been sifted through out the Protestant world until any thought of wanting to grasp a deeper understanding of what it actually means to grow closer to God has been lost or fogged over. To me the result is a very limited spiritual life. The offering of a deeper union with God just is not available. All because of a miss-understanding of what that means the the soul. There is one exception though, and that is with the Quakers. They do have a history of producing some very spiritually aware beings. Charles's challenge to Protestants as to what is the goal of Protestant spirituality I feel is a very good starting point. But I'd like to also challenge the Protestants to just talk about what "spirituality is". Along with that, I would also like to see some talk on the spiritual aspect of growing close to God along with the various aspects of that journey. Also, I'd like to see some talk on what it means to "Worship God in Spirit and Truth". In a men's group that I participate in every Wednesday morning, (this is a Christian men's group by the way) we have been doing a study of Tozer's _In Search of God_. What has really stuck out the most (to me) is that these guys really know nothing about the experience of a deep spiritual life. Ya, they do know the proper beliefs, and they do hold to them. And they talk about their relationship with Christ, and the faith that they hold for Christ, yet in the same breath they know nothing about what it means to grow closer to God. And they know nothing about the deeper side of how to even live with in that spiritual awareness of God. It's like they are spiritually illiterate. They just do not know how to live spiritually. And from what I have seen, that is the norm throughout the Protestant world. The lack of Protestant mystics I feel is the proof of what I am pointing to because to me, spirituality and mysticism are inseparable. One last thought before I finish. Charles also said that: > Spiritual development seems to involve a greater understanding > of God's will for us, a greater ability to show love to others, > a stronger faith in God and reliance on him. I completely agree with Charles here. But I feel that these virtues are greatly amplified when one has opened up their soul to God. That, as far as I can tell, cannot be done with out a deep spiritual life. I do not claim that Protestants do not have these virtues. But I do feel that the way in which they approach the spiritual life, which is really not very deep compared to what it could be, does not offer the opportunity in learning how to open ones soul to the spiritual awareness of God's Grace which I feel we all can agree is the source of true spiritual wisdom. Basically, what it all comes down to is that it is the earnist searching for God that swells from the soul that I feel is lacking with in Protestant spirituality. Please read my .signature. David Hatcher Rabbi Barukh's grandson Yehiel was once playing hide-and-seek with another boy. He hid himself well and waited for his playmate to find him. When he had waited for a long time, he came out of his hiding place, but the other was nowhere to be seen. Now Yehiel realized that he had not looked for him from the beginning. This make him cry, and crying he ran to his grandfather and complained of his faithless friend. Then tears brimmed in Rabbi Barukh's eyes and he said: 'God says the same thing "I hide, but no one wants to seek me.'" This story is told my Martin Buber and is taken from _Gratefulness, the Heart of Prayer_ by Brother David Steindl-Rast who is a Dominican Priest.
mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) (09/14/90)
>This is not what Protestants mean by a personal relationship with >Jesus. Normally people who describe such relationships talk about >Jesus as a friend whom they experience in their normal lives. As a matter of interest, where in the Bible is this rather sentimental view of Jesus suggested as the core of religious belief? Is it, in any case, "traditional Protestantism"? It always struck me as a 20th century marketting trick. Matthew Huntbach
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (09/20/90)
Greeley, on the whole, has a bad reputation, but something that
he's saying is right on the money, and that's the emphasis on the
Incarnation in the Catholic religion.
To Catholics, all creation is a means of bringing us to God. Thus, as
Greely pointed out (quite well, I thought), the emphasis on statues,
images, relics, incense, pageantry in worship, Rosary beads, Mary, the
saints, processions, Catholic governments, nuns and priests wearing
religious garb, Christian greetings ("Dominus vobiscum"), roadside
crosses, Passion plays, etc., etc., etc.
The whole idea is to make God a commonplace thought, to live in an
atmosphere where God is an everyday part of life, your Father, Redeemer,
Sanctifier. To walk the streets of an American town and see virtually
*no* sign that anyone there believes that the Incarnation happened is
not good.
In Catholic spirituality, the commonplace is the ordinary channel of
God's grace. A beautiful flower, a religious picture, a bitter rebuke
from a superior, a summer vacation, a loss of a job, ALL are the means
that God gives us to grow in his grace and love, and to become saints.
For all men who save their souls, there is a gradual ascent to God. It
starts with a purgation, a turning of the affections away from
creatures, and to God. Once the soul is sufficiently cleansed, the ways
of greater union with God start.
The whole and entire aim of monastic orders is the increase of this
union with God. They're supposed to be filled with generous souls
counting no sacrifice too great to achieve conformity with God's will.
Joe Buehler
[I'm not sure what Greeley's bad reputation would rest on. I've
never seen any signs of doctrinal problems. In the book I was
reviewing he indicates agreement with all classicial Catholic
doctrines, including Papal infallibility. Perhaps people assume
that because he tends to use rather daring sexual symbolism he's
some sort of flaming liberal. I don't think so. --clh]gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (09/20/90)
In article <Sep.14.02.05.29.1990.9099@athos.rutgers.edu> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes: >>This is not what Protestants mean by a personal relationship with >>Jesus. Normally people who describe such relationships talk about >>Jesus as a friend whom they experience in their normal lives. > >As a matter of interest, where in the Bible is this rather >sentimental view of Jesus suggested as the core of religious >belief? Is it, in any case, "traditional Protestantism"? It >always struck me as a 20th century marketting trick. Hear then the words spoken by Jesus: "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." John 15:14, 15 (KJV) Further, we joint heirs with Jesus making us His brothers and sisters by adoption. So, No, it is not merely some 20th century marketting trick. And the view may seem sentimental to you, but it is reality to many of us. And herein is something that saints need to always remember, we have received the spirit of adoption whereby we cry "Abba (daddy), Father." To whom to we cry, the one, true, and living God Almighty. And if He is our Father and the Father of Jesus, then are we not brothers and sisters to the Son of God and part of God's family. Because He lives, Gene Gross
rjb@akgua.att.com (Robert J Brown) (09/23/90)
[In response to my comment about Protestants favoring a personal relationship with Jesus, Matthew Huntbach commented that the concept of Jesus as a friend is a "sentimental view", and a 20th Cent. marketing trick. --clh] Does brother count MH ? Jesus said anyone who does God's will is his brother/sister in Matt 12:50 and Mark 3:35. Isn't a brother or sister a friend (under the best conditions)? Is this a senti- mental view of Jesus? At your convenience, would you please expand on the "20th Century marketing trick" ??? BB
garyh@crash.cts.com (Gary Hipp) (09/23/90)
In article <Sep.14.02.05.29.1990.9099@athos.rutgers.edu> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes: >>This is not what Protestants mean by a personal relationship with >>Jesus. Normally people who describe such relationships talk about >>Jesus as a friend whom they experience in their normal lives. > >As a matter of interest, where in the Bible is this rather >sentimental view of Jesus suggested as the core of religious >belief? Is it, in any case, "traditional Protestantism"? It >always struck me as a 20th century marketting trick. > >Matthew Huntbach I don't know if you could call it the core, but it sure is the result of Christian belief. "Personal relationship" is terminology used to designate the relationship between an individual and his Lord as opposed to the following of a structured religion. Religion does not save, only Jesus can. One could say, I'm a Baptist or I'm a Catholic and still not have a "personal relationship" with Jesus. One must be saved (from the wrath of God) to have a personal relationship. The aspect of friendship is threaded throughout the NT. "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends, if you do what I command you." John 15:13,14. Belief and obedience are very similar terms used in the NT. (See John 3:16 and John 3:36) A personal relationship is one such that you "know" the other person, spend time with him/her, etc. A PR is also characterized with times of distance, coldness, aloofness. (If you're married, you know what I mean) The same is true in a PR with Jesus. There are conditions set on the quality of the relationship (sometimes referred to as fellowship). "...and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son, Jesus Christ." IJohn 1:3. The greek for fellowship is koinonea which means sharing, communion, partnership. "If we say we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice truth;..." IJohn 1:6. For further enlightenment on this subject, I suggest reading IJohn. I hope this explanation gives you a better understanding and shows you that it is much more that a marketing tactic of the 20th C. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you.--Gary
mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) (09/26/90)
In article <Sep.23.02.57.40.1990.5214@athos.rutgers.edu> garyh@crash.cts.com (Gary Hipp) writes: >I hope this explanation gives you a better understanding and shows you >that it is much more that a marketing tactic of the 20th C. > I am not convinced. I think the acknowedgement of Jesus as Lord is far more in line with Christianity than Jesus as "friend". I think it is important that we fear God as well as love Him. Treating Jesus as a sort of cuddly comforter, like a Teddy bear, makes Christianity appear a very childish religion. I think there has been too much juvenilation in Christianity (Catholic as well as Protestant) in recent years. Matthew Huntbach
garyh@crash.cts.com (Gary Hipp) (09/27/90)
[There was some discussion of my comment about Jesus as a "friend". Matthew Huntbach say this as a sentimental image, compared with that of Jesus as Lord, and compares it to a "marketing strategy". --clh] I am in full agreement with you as to the fear of God and the Lordship of Christ. Friendship with the Lord is conditional upon these relational aspects, however, I did not see this as the topic at hand.
mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) (10/01/90)
In article <Sep.23.01.49.20.1990.4573@athos.rutgers.edu> rjb@akgua.att.com (Robert J Brown) writes: >Does brother count MH ? Jesus said anyone who does God's will is >his brother/sister in Matt 12:50 and Mark 3:35. Isn't a brother >or sister a friend (under the best conditions)? Is this a senti- >mental view of Jesus? > Yes, with a bit of searching you can find things like this. My point is that the scriptural justification for the notion that Christianity is all about "establishing a personal relationship with Jesus" is no more than the scriptural justification for the Catholic church. I think concentrating exclusively on the "personal relationship" idea is unbalanced; I don't deny it as one aspect of Christianity though. >At your convenience, would you please expand on the "20th Century >marketing trick" ??? > Sales techniques involve things like building on people's fears. One of the greatest fear in the 20th century is the fear of loneliness. There are a lot of lonely people looking for personal relationships - if Christianity is put to them on this basis they'll accept it. But I don't think Christianity should be sold like a consumer product, particularly if this leads to an unbalancing of the Christian community. Matthew Huntbach
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (10/01/90)
In article <Sep.26.04.12.58.1990.2307@athos.rutgers.edu> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes: >I am not convinced. I think the acknowedgement of Jesus as Lord >is far more in line with Christianity than Jesus as "friend". >I think it is important that we fear God as well as love Him. >Treating Jesus as a sort of cuddly comforter, like a Teddy >bear, makes Christianity appear a very childish religion. I >think there has been too much juvenilation in Christianity >(Catholic as well as Protestant) in recent years. Matt: I understand where you are trying to go, but it isn't quite so onesided as this. Yes, we must never forget who Jesus is, but at the same time we have entered into a new relationship with God when we become Christians. That relationship is predicated upon the spirit of adoption and the power He gives us to become "sons of God." Through that spirit of adoption we can call Him "Abba, Father." Abba being interpreted as "Daddy." I do not see that this makes Jesus Christ some sort of cosmic Teddy bear. It does convey the sense of family and belonging that is part of the Faith. It does convey that He is more to us than one dimensional. He is Savior, Lord, King, God, and friend and brother. He is the first-born of many brethren, or so the Word says. We should not be flip about this, but nor should we ignore such a wonderful intimate relationship. But there is liberty in Christ Jesus, and you do as you feel led to do. No one should impugn you for this. Because He lives, Gene Gross