[soc.religion.christian] The Bible and Us: a book review; comments on Mary and Protestantism

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