How do you consider yourself a evangelical - what are the parameters that you use to define that in your life? I have not for instance seen you quote or refer to your relationship with Jesus. Are you sure you are saved?
This (provocative?) question was posed by marhorse in the thread ‘What is the “emerging church”?’ This is by no means a complete or even a very coherent response, but the question is important and helpful - partly for personal reasons but also because it brings sharply into focus a critical area of contention between evangelicalism and emerging theology. For a personal statement of faith you could also have a look at ‘My (tentative) beliefs’.
My sense of still being ‘evangelical’ probably has more to do with personal history than with theological conviction, to be honest. I am in many respects a product of modern evangelicalism and probably share more of its presuppositions and shortcomings than I care to admit. But I have to say that my relationship to modern evangelicalism as an intellectual and cultural movement has always been strained - I simply do not believe that it gives an adequate account, either in theory or in practice, of what it means to be in continunity with the biblical narrative.
Am I sure that I am saved? I do not think that the Bible defines ‘Christianity’ fundamentally or centrally as a religion of salvation, and certainly not of the highly individualized personal salvation that is characteristic of modern evangelicalism; so I do not think that the question ‘Are you sure you are saved?’ really gets at the heart of the matter. I believe that the God who called Abraham has called me to be part of his own people, and that my inclusion in that people is a matter of grace and is a consequence of Christ’s death and vindication. It could not have happened without the victory over Israel’s sin, its alienation from God, the prospect of judgment, and the opposition of the powers that ruled over Israel, that - to my mind - is best captured in the story about the suffering Son of man who receives ‘dominion and glory and a kingdom’ from God. This is a narrative of salvation but it is worked out primarily at a corporate level and it is set within a larger narrative of the calling or election of a people to be a place of God’s dwelling in the world.
So for me, as someone who was ‘alienated from the commonwealth of Israel’, what I have received from God by faith, as an outworking of his grace, is incorporation into a people in the midst of which the living God dwells through his Spirit and whose ‘king’ or ‘lord’ is the messiah Jesus. That ‘incorporation’ is my ‘salvation’, I guess you could say - it is what has made me whole, it has brought me into a new humanity, it has reconciled me with the living God, it has set me free from all other kingdoms - Christ is my king.
Am I sure? Why shouldn’t I be sure? I have been baptized into a worshipping community. I am part of that community. What’s not to be sure about? It’s like asking a footballer if he’s sure he’s part of the team. He’s signed the contract, he trains with the team, he gets paid by the club, he’s wearing the club strip, and he’s on the pitch playing, well or badly, with other members of the team. Of course he’s part of the team. In other words, the question ‘Are you sure that you are saved?’ reflects the over-subjectivized, over individualized bias of modern evangelicalism.
There is another reason why I hesitate to speak of a personal relationship with Jesus at the moment. I think that much of the New Testament language that suggests this (eg. Phil. 3:10) refers specifically to the experience of communities of believers that had to share in sufferings of Jesus - the sufferings of eschatological transition, the birthpangs of the age which has now come. This is a major part of the argument of The Coming of the Son of Man. Otherwise, I am rather inclined to think that the doctrine of a ‘personal relationship with Jesus’ is almost as much a modern invention as the Catholic doctrine of the assumption of Mary. It may have been a legitimate and necessary reaction against rationalism and formalism, but it had the unfortunate side-effect of reinforcing modernism’s obsession with the individual ego.
I’m sure this is all going to sound far too complex, if not downright evasive - but in a way that is precisely the point. I think that we need to recover the complexity of the biblical narrative, the larger theological and historical context that must frame any narrative of personal ‘salvation’, and that inevitably resists the modern myth of individualism. My suspicion, marhorse, is that when you talk about holding to the Word of God, you are silently running it through a tightly controlled and restrictive interpretive grid that ‘modern evangelicalism’ has built into you. You’re welcome to object to that - and also to point out that we all have our interpretive grids. But that does not exempt us from the struggle to understand ourselves, our world, and the Word of God better.
Maybe a bit too evasive
Many of us are actively involved in personal relationships with Jesus. I strongly suspect you are as well. Do you think this is a delusion brought on by evangelical indoctrination?
Also, it doesn’t seem to me that being part of the community of believers and having a personal relationship with Christ are mutually exclusive.
The phrase “personal relationship with Jesus” is a bit of a turn off because it sounds like part of a hokey tent revival sales pitch but I don’t think we should throw it out simply because it is part of a stereotype.
A personal relationship with Jesus
I certainly don’t regard it as a ‘delusion brought on by evangelical indoctrination’. I’m sure there are very good reasons why evangelicalism has put a strong evangelistic and pastoral emphasis on the idea of a personal relationship with Jesus as part of a broad reaction against rationalism and as a means of preserving an authentic personal commitment. But I have a number of concerns that I will attempt to list briefly.
I don’t think it’s helpful for this sort of language to be regarded as normative or definitive for Christian faith. It is a contributory factor in the homogenization of modern evangelicalism.
It seems to me that the ‘personal relationship with Jesus’ doctrine owes rather too much to modern romanticism, sentimentalism, subjectivism, individualism, etc. That doesn’t in itself make it wrong, but I think it’s worth tipping the idea upside down and seeing what falls out. The impact of the doctrine on contemporary worship has been dreadful.
I suspect that the doctrine is partly responsible for modern evangelicalism’s failure to engage with larger social and political issues. It reinforces the inner-outer, private-public, spiritual-political dichotomy, and I find that we are continually have to resist this in the interests of a more comprehensive sense of vocation as the people of God.
It weakens the intellectual integrity of the Christian worldview; it tends to remove the incentive to engage in serious theological reflection.
I wonder, frankly, what the New Testament basis for the doctrine is. I see in Paul a very intense desire to know Christ in his sufferings, which makes a lot of sense given the eschatological context for that sort of commitment; but where do we get this general idea from that we should invite Jesus into our hearts, have a personal relationship with him, etc.?
Jesus talks a lot, especially in John’s Gospel, about a personal relationship with the Father and about being the means by which that relationship is achieved (‘no one comes to the Father except by me’). Paul picks up on this in Gal. 4:6, for example: as sons of God we share the same relationship with the Father as Jesus did. So why not talk about a personal relationship with the Father, with God - and then unpack everything that is wrapped up in this hugely significant (corporate and missional) idea of being a ‘son’?
Personal relationship with Jesus
Andrew,
I share your reservations and critique of the typically “evangelical” notion and use of the phrase “personal relationship with Jesus.” I wonder, though, if we cannot redeem such a notion through a more biblical (and in some ways, postmodern) understanding of the “personal” as a communal, intersubjective (hence, not private or “individual” in the modernist sense) relationship with Christ as the head of his corporate body? A redefintion of the “personal” is, in my judgment, high on the agenda of items an emerging/postmodern/biblical(!) theology needs to address and clarify in our context. It might be worth the effort to reclaim it.
Peace,
Lee Wyatt
New thread started
A new thread (‘A postmodern relationship with Jesus’) has been started here.
The calling of love
If your relationship with “modern evangelicalism as an intellectual […] movement has always been strained,” Andrew, it’s probably because it’s not much of a movement on the intellectual level (the scandal of the evangelical mind, as the saying goes, is that there is no mind). It is a cultural force to be reckoned with, to be sure, but the intellectuals have largely been missing in action.
As ‘post-evangelical’, the emerging church is recovering what it means to think about our faith. And I think you have given a good example of what that can look like, as applied to the question of personal salvation. However, while ‘personal salvation’ (of the variety apparently assumed by marhorse—I could be wrong) is arguably an extrabiblical idea, I’m not sure the same can be said of ‘personal relationship’. I will certainly concede that the language of intimacy in Scripture is frequently corporate (God’s love is for Israel or/and for God’s Bride), but to me, that is readily transfered into the personal. How can I, as a member of the body of Christ, the people of God, who are called to love our Messiah, not have this love on a personal level? And while I would readily argue that this personal love is a facet of the corporate love (contra the evangelical tendency to centralize and absolutize the personal—as you have rightly noted) between Bride and Groom, I cannot for that matter deny its existence.
Of course, you only said you were ‘hesitant’ to speak of a personal relationship with Christ… so perhaps I may assume you are not entirely opposed to such (duly qualified) language? Certainly on an experiential level, there seems to be a ‘relationship’ of some sort—though of course, it is not like any other relationship (since God is not ‘visible’ in the way we’d like God to be). McLaren (and others) have been rediscovering the practices of the mystics, and the value of meditation and other disciplines. Surely these have an undeniably personal element to them!
The emerging church then, may not want to entirely discard the language of personal intimacy. It will certainly, however, want to reframe it within the narrative framework in which it belongs.
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Pascal
Most of us would not hesitate to call ourselves Christians. Does the flavour of Christianity matter? Does it matter to God?
Jesus and the authors of the NT (including Paul) were concerned about obedience and discipleship.
I would personally like to be able to concentrate more on that. If my particular brand of theology makes me more interested in theory than practice then there’s something wrong with it…
Live to serve : Serve to live
What is 'modern
What is ‘modern evangelicalism’, exactly? I am tempted, in reading many critiques (especially from the pens of less careful ‘emergent’ authors) that it does not really exist - a red herring perhaps (to avoid more significant theological questions), or a strawman at best, in the shadow of which the ‘alternative’ shines all the brighter. It would seem that everything bad about modernity (and revealingly, the peculiar sins of postmodernism are immediately absolved, or apparently written off as mere ‘piccadillios’, if recognized at all) rolled up into a fundamentalist, literalistic whipping boy (the kind of provincial, backwoods Christianity we all love to hate - the last thing, btw, that fundamentalism could be accused of by their contemporary opponents was being ‘too modern’). But, who fits the bill of ‘modern evangelicalism’, perjoratively understood (besides the obvious targets no one takes seriously). Was Carl F.H. Henry a ‘modern evangelical’? F.F. Bruce? J.I. Packer? John Stott? D.A. Carson? I say this in part in response to Daniel’s less than generous comment: “If your relationship with “modern evangelicalism as an intellectual […] movement has always been strained,” Andrew, it’s probably because it’s not much of a movement on the intellectual level…” Though, having said that, there is some kernal of truth to it. Evangelicalism, as an Anglo-American, modern phenomenon, finds its roots in the piety of the holiness and puritanical traditions (which, btw, are not all that horrible, if you actually read them).
Secondly, so much of emergent writing (I’m thinking particularly of McLaren’s works) is predicated on false dichotomies. Amen to Paula’s comment: “…it doesn’t seem to me that being part of the community of believers and having a personal relationship with Christ are mutually exclusive.” Btw, individualism, i.e., egotism, is no less front and center in postmodernity (in this case, more accurately, hypermodernity), despite all the talk of ‘community’. Community becomes the community I choose, the social reality I construct or desire to be constructed (and self-constructed within); the community I desire to be part of, which is usually eclectic, and at points relative to my cultural location, exotic, rather than the community I’ve received through my own heritage and history (e.g., ‘modern evangelicalism’ for many of us). Another false dicohotomy: personal salvation categories versus redemptive-historical categories. So Andrew writes, “In other words, the question ‘Are you sure that you are saved?’ reflects the over-subjectivized, over individualized bias of modern evangelicalism.” Really? Why then were pre-Enlightenment theologians so occupied with the question? Here is where many so-called ‘postmodern Christians’ want to have their cake and eat it too. In defining themselves as postmodern (as though being postmodern is better than being modern), and that in contradistinction to modernism, philosophically and sociologically defined, they then move on to critique reformational understandings of Scripture, salvation, theology proper, etc., from this vantage point. The problem? Luther was not a modernist, nor was Calvin a student of the Enlightenment. ‘Individualism’ in soteriology, if that is even an accurate appellation here, goes back at least as far as Augustine’s famous autobiography, and, I would be prepared to argue, finds resonance in the epistles of Paul (e.g., “the Son of God who loved ME and gave himself up for ME…”). Rather than pinning the sins of hypocrisy, hyper-punctilious concern for orthodox formulations and other theological shibboleths while yet ignoring orthopraxis and love (which is the goal of all true orthodoxy, 1 Tim. 1:3-5), and naive realism, with its absurd expectations of scientific certanity, on ‘modern evangelicalism’ (whatever that is), we need to recognize the sins in ourselves, e.g., the emergent propensity for armchair philosophizing versus faithful action, the dangerous dismissal of historic orthodoxy in the name of ‘post-foundational’ epistemology, as in the naive embrace of the postmodern incredulity toward metanarrative and ‘true knowledge’ (which is certainly a biblical category), such that ambivalence is raised to the status of a virtue, and an endless indecision (in dialogue, of course) a sure sign of ‘authenticity’. One is reminded of a prophetic Chesterton quote: we are quickly entering a day and age when men will be too ‘humble’ to believe in the multiplication table. Anyway, let’s get real. Let’s actually be authentic - be honest with ourselves and Scripture, handling it with integrity. On that note, I say ‘amen’ to Andrew’s comments: “But that does not exempt us from the struggle to understand ourselves, our world, and the Word of God better.”
kingjames strikes again
kingjames1, I have to say, as much as we may differ on whatever views, I love your honesty, and beyond that, your determination to stick around and force us to be intellectually honest. You keep us (though I should really say ‘me’) in check.
When I talk about cultural evangelicalism, I am referring to a cultural worldview shared by a fair few of the churches I grew up in. However, the word conjures up the popular, or lay-level, working out of evangelical theology, rather than the more intellectual figures of John Stott or D.A. Carson. When I hear evangelical, I think blind support for constitutional marriage amendments, Harry Potter condemnation, Da Vinci Code boycotting, Left Behind mania, etc, etc. Scary pseudo-Christian groupthink. This is indeed a cultural force to be reckoned with—and I would insist, a somewhat intellectually-lacking cultural force. But it would probably be a fair criticism to say that this is very simplistic on my part, since I am filtering out the intellectuals by using the word ‘evangelicalism’ in this way. Perhaps when Chuck Colson refers to ‘postmoderns’, he thinks less of the Walter Brueggemanns and Derridas, and more of the confused and clueless youths who ramble on about choosing their own truths in life. In that sense we are making the same oversight. Which, of course, is no excuse. Forgive me then, for my facile caricaturization. I confess that I frequently do struggle with an “emergent propensity for armchair philosophizing versus faithful action.” I was a philosophy major in college—hence the philosophizing. Perhaps that’s my problem.
I stand with you in your emphasis on “orthopraxis and love.” Forgive me then, for my lack of the latter, wherever I have been ‘less than generous’.
All the best,
-Daniel-
Scary Pseudo-Christian Groupthink
I assure you that as soon as I figure out which direction most of the modern church is going, I will respond to your statement [note the sarcasm]
For me, the vast majority of “Christianity” misses the mark of true piety and holiness because they are beholden to popular teaching rather than Biblical truth. They are swayed by whoever has the biggest church or trendiest TV show. When these people say, “Da Vinci of Satan”, the Christian mob responds “Yea and Amen, let’s boycott them.”
Truthfully, this does not represent the truth of true evangelicalism (Did I just use three different forms of the same word in one sentence?). It is the mob-based, media-driven manipulation of the weak-minded for monetary or reputational gain, no less than the sale of indulgences in 15th and 16th century Europe was. It is a sad but true fact that the masses will do whatever they are told to do. I think Luther would have been horrified to see people flocking to TV preachers who lay out easy steps to faith and quick solutions to their problems, but there it is on cable TV for everyone to see. The vast majority of people who claim to worship Jesus are really worshipping a way of life, and they have no concern for what the Bible truly says. They want someone to tell them what it says - thereby absolving themselves of the responsibility they have to God and the Church.
What is Modern.....
Same comment as above , Daniel.
kingjames,
kingjames,
in your ‘Amen’ to Paula’s note you seem to defend the concept of ‘personal relationship with Jesus’. If you, as you prompt us, want us to be honest with Scripture then I would be interested in finding out where this idea of ‘relationship with Jesus’ is found there in such a central and crucial place as it is in evangelicalism if it is found at all. I agree with you that postmodernity is not better than modernity in itself. However this doesn’t make modernity better than postmodernity either. What I think is helpful, though, is to ask from the standpoint of postmodernity what we might have missed out in modernity - and from the standpoint of modernity we can ask what we might overdue in postmodernity. Therefore postmodernity is not better - but helpful. Only living in modernity would not give you this vintage point; as much as living in postmodernity neither - but that far we are not yet anyways in my opinion. Concerning what you say about Luther and Calvin - of course they were not modernists. As much as Jesus was not a christian. But Luther,Calvin, Melanchton and others were exactly the people that opened the way for enlightment and modernism, if you mean those with the ‘pre-Enlightenment theologians’. So yes; Calvin wasn’t a student of enlightment, but he might have well planted the seeds for it and therefore becoming one of its fathers.
Historically, in both
Historically, in both Jewish and Christian literature, the Song of Solomon has more commentaries written on it than any other book in the Bible. This may be surprising to some. And the interpretation most commonly accepted is that of an allegory of the personal intimate relationship between God and the individual believer - even among some rabbinic literature. The second most common interpretation is that it is an allegory between God and the corporate body of believers - either Jewish or Christian depending on the author of course. However when one understands it through the lens of the individual’s relationship with God, it actually makes far better sense than the other various approaches.
“My lover is mine and I am his” Song of Songs 2:16
“Heaven forbid that any man in Israel ever disputed that the Song of Songs is holy. For the whole world is not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel, for all the Writings are holy and the Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies. (Mishnah Yadayim 3:5).
What about the lens which
What about the lens which says that it is simply a love song, or a collection of love songs, written to celebrate a wedding? There is absolutely no literary or theological reason to allegorize it. Not all commentators have viewed it as allegorical - at least according to my limited knowledge. Origen was at least aware of the view that it was an epithalamium for Solomon and Pharaoh’s daughter. Theodore of Mopsuestia rejected the allegorical interpretation, arguing that it was simply an erotic song composed by Solomon. Luther was embarrassed by the sexuality but rejected Jewish and Christian allegorization. Calvin regarded it as an inspired song about human love. Personally, I am delighted that the Bible celebrates love and carnality in this way.
In any case, allegorical interpretation of the Song of Solomon was certainly not the basis for the evangelical doctrine of the personal relationship with Jesus. So what was?
Joel, even though there are
Joel,
even though there are more ways to read the Song of Salomon (some say the jews / christians couldn’t put up with the concept of erotical love which is described there and therefore ‘spiritualized’ it), I agree with you that the Bible contains many passages about God’s relationship to us. However, evangelicals shifted this to the personal relationship with ‘Jesus’. Jesus invited his desciples to pray: when you pray than say: ‘our father in heaven…’ Jesus had a very intimate relationship with God and invites his desciples to have the same. He calls God ‘Abba’ - an intimate expression of his (and his desciples) intimate relationship with God. However out of some reason evangelicals shifted this to Jesus with the result of praying to Jesus instead to God the father and come up with weird concepts like invite him into someone’s heart etc. There are only two or three examples in the Bible where people prayed to Jesus (Stephanus before he died; the last verse in relevation..), however most evangelicals pray to Jesus rather to the one that Jesus asked them to pray to.
Gotcha. Are you saying
Gotcha. Are you saying that it is actually wrong to pray to Jesus? Or just over-emphasized within evangelicalism?
Don’t forget John 14:14. The most literal translation would be:
“If you ask me anything in the name of me I will do it.” Jesus John 14:14
Or interestingly enough the NIV doesn’t miss the double Me that most translations leave out:
You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. NIV
I really appreciate Glenn Miller AKA J.P. Holding over at Tektonics or Christian Think-Tank He has a few relevant things to say.
Joel, your reading of John
Joel, your reading of John 14:14 is a little suspect on textual grounds. Some important MSS omit me; others omit v. 14 altogether. I would hesitate, therefore, to base a practice of praying to Jesus on this verse, especially when that reading appears to be contradicted by 16:23: ‘In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you.’
If the reading stands, however, I would be inclined to make sense of it within the eschatological setting that I have already mentioned. It presupposes Jesus’ expectation that the disciples would follow the same path of suffering and vindication. On that basis they have a relationship of intimacy and brotherhood with Jesus in which we, as the later, post-eschatological church do not necessarily share. This whole passage has to do with the fact that Jesus is about to leave them as a result of suffering and death, but that they will come after him (13:36-14:4; cf. 15:18-20). His concern for their needs is part of the relationship that arises from sharing the same experience of eschatological suffering. He will intercede on their behalf specifically so that they will be able to endure persecution and rejection (cf. 16:1-2).
For us I think the basic formula would still be that we approach God, trust God, pray to God on the basis of what Christ has done, in his name.
Glen Miller’s arguments are not exactly compelling. Stephen’s vision of the Son of man at the right hand of the Father fits perfectly the eschatolological martyrdom situation but cannot be taken as normative for the church: it reflects that fact that Stephen is suffering the hatred and aggression that Jesus suffered. This is no less true for the eschatological cry maranatha: it reflects the early church’s sense of closeness to and reliance upon the one who suffered first and will eventually deliver from their enemies and vindicate them. It can hardly be said that Ananias was praying to Jesus - any more than it can be said that John, say, was praying to the angel which explained to him the mystery of woman in Revelation 17.
Lehman Strauss’ argument, quoted on that web page, that there is nothing in the Bible to prohibit us praying to Jesus or the Holy Spirit is ridiculous surely. I can’t think of anything in the Bible that expressly prohibits people from having themselves non-fatally crucified at Easter as they do in the Philippines, but that hardly amounts to a biblical endorsement of the practice.
It seems to me that prayer to Jesus and the Spirit presupposes a more developed and rationalized understanding of the trinity than we actually find in the New Testament.
Well I never
Well I never! There was me praying to Jesus all these years, and thinking it was him answering my prayers. Must have been someone else. St Anthony, maybe?
Answered Prayers
Or that, simply put, God’s grace was and has always been bigger than our misdirections (for lack of a better word).
If I May
I think this whole discussion is veering weirdly. The “mystery of divinity” in 1 Tim 3:16 indicates that Paul, and by extension the early church, believed that Jesus was God himself and that one must believe on him in the world. Reading Paul, one comes away with the impression that he very literally viewed his relationship with Jesus as one with the “living Christ.” As such, to speak to and with him would have been a natural mark of the relationship.
To pray to Jesus is to speak to him. He is, after all, the focus of CHRISTianity and the reality of his literal resurrection is the primary emphasis of the Christian teaching (1 Corinthians 15:1-19). If he is literally raised and literally ascended, as Paul clearly taught, then he is literally declared to be the Son of God, also as Paul taught (Romans 1:1-5) and through him we receive grace. As such, why WOULDN’T we converse with him?
weirdly different
Pastorerik,
I am convinced if we were to converse with Paul, Peter, John and all the others from the 1st century we would actually think they are weird; but weird doesn’t necessarily mean unbiblical. I wouldn’t expect anyhing but difference in many areas of our christianity to those 2000 years ago. I am convinced that christians in the first two centuries hardly prayed to Jesus. The reason for this is that the very vast majority of prayers we received from them were prayed to God the Father. The fact that evangelicals today pray to Jesus doesn’t change that. I actually do not see any hint in the passages you quoted that people prayed to Christ. I also believe God resurrected Christ but why would that make me converse with him and not rather with the one that resurrected him from the dead, especially if Christ explicitely asked his desciples to do so?
So...
I did not use those passages as proof of prayer to Jesus but rather to demonstrate the tremendous focus Paul had on his relationship with the resurrected, ascended Jesus - the living Jesus. If he enjoyed this relationship, in which Jesus spoke rather directly to him (e.g. his conversion on the Damascus road) then it stands to reason that Paul also conversed with Jesus.
I think you and I are viewing prayer rather differently. To me, Biblical prayer is conversing with God - not always asking him to do stuff. Since Jesus shares in the nature of God (1 Tim 3:16) I do not see why we cannot converse with him. He is so central to my faith as a Christian that I cannot imagine NOT conversing with him. I would hardly call my marriage a happy or successful one if I did not converse with my wife, thus how can I call my Christianity happy or successful if I do not converse with the one in whom I have placed my entire hope?
When I am asking God to work, to direct, etc, I direct those requests to the Father, because Jesus taught us to do so. I do so in Jesus’ name because my salvation and justification before the Father is through Him. In a sense, such petitioning (distinctly different from the disciple to teacher conversations) are to the Father through the Son by the Spirit.
But hey, I’m not trying to convince you that the way I see the Word is the way you should.
Pastorerik, I think I know
Pastorerik, I think I know where you are coming from. You seem to be part of the same christian tradition that I am. Saying this I still do want to challenge your view a bit more, because I think there is still a few things to consider. You know this discussion reminds me of me holding a prayer meeting as a cancidate of a large german mission organization. As an introduction of where I was getting to (prayers for our christian brothers and sisters) I wanted to stress how important this was for Paul by saying there was no example of a prayer in the NT when someone actually prayed for the conversion of unbelievers. My sidenote saying that this didn’t mean we shouldn’t do it got lost in something that followed comparing more to an earthquake than a devotion time of this rather conservative mission organization. Even though there actually was not such an example I was told it is implied everywhere anyways. NOt hard to imagine that I left this organization shortly after with a mutual consensus. I was reading rather carefully the texts you referred to again and I couldn’t find the ‘tremendous focus Paul had on his relationship with the resurrected’. I actually red now all the beginnings of all the Epistles of Paul (or at least what is said to be from him) because I think those show quite intensely how Paul feels. They show, and here I agree with you, his deep apreciation for Christ in his salvation and resurrection. Unfortunately I do not have words to sum it up; but I just read the beginnings and doxologies of 13 epistles and tried to feel his prayers. And I invite you to do the same. He does show deep gratitude to Christ as the one that means everything to him. But in all of his prayers or his praises to God with actually no exception it is embedded in praying to God the Father, not to Christ, and giving him glory and thanksgiving for Christ. It doesn’t seem to contradict Paul’s gratitude to Christ not to give this praise and apreciation to him directly, nor does it feel like Paul’s christianity somehow feels not successfull or unhappy doing so. If it is important for your christianity to pray to Jesus directly, then I would not say it is wrong and I do believe God listens to your prayers. However, Christ has prayed to God the Father and not only we should imitate him as ‘chistians’ but also he taught us to do so. And Paul did it and the Apostles did it and I see no reason why we should teach people to do it any other way. But yes: God is good, gracious and more concerned with our honest stumblings rather correct addresses and any honest prayer to Jesus will be heard, I believe. I must admit I love celtic liturgy and I do pray to Jesus in it as well. it is so beautiful and I can’t resist. Chist as a light, illumine and guide me. Chist as a shield, overshadow me. Christ under me, Christ beside me. On my left and my right. This day be within and without me, lowly and meak, yet all powerful…
From the first page that
From the first page that popped up when I googled it:
(I think some valid points if you read the whole thing)
Some excerpts:
“And because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me – to keep me from exalting myself! 8 Concerning this I entreated the Lord three times that it might depart from me. 9 And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.” (2 Cor 12:7-9: 7)
Paul entreated the LORD 3x Although Lord could refer to the Father, we notice that God is the normal term to refer to the Father and Lord is the normal term that refers to Christ. (See Eph 4:4-6). This Lord whom Paul prayed to three times replied: “My (the Lord’s) power is perfected in weakness” (Lord is still either Father or son.) The irrefutable proof is the contrast of Paul’s weakness with the “Power of Christ” (which refers back to Lord, to whom Paul was praying.) Power of Christ is a direct reference back to the statement, “MY POWER is perfected in weakness. After Paul prayed to the LORD, this same LORD said, “MY POWER (Christ’s power) is perfected in your weakness.Joel, I agree with you that
Joel,
I agree with you that there are texts and examples of individuals directly talking to Christ. However I do think it is apropriate to say that this is not the normative experience. All references of direct prayer to Jesus are made within a very distinguished situation. This also applies for Paul in his direct meetings with Christ on the road to damascus and in the example mentioned. Paul’s special position that he mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15,8 should be taken into consideration here. To qualify as an apostle, he almost had to meet Christ in a personal manner. That within this meeting or meetings or visions a direct converstaion or interaction had to take place goes almost without saying. In my understanding to compare this special apostleship that required him interactiing with Christ in this direct way to present as a normative experience of any christian is in my opinion not bringing justice to the text.
Paul, Understood, although
Paul,
Understood, although the text that I mentioned where Paul appeals to Christ on three occasions is not the same event as the Damascus road experience. In my opinion, while this discussion may be relevant with reagrd to the overall emphasis of the NT (as the point is valid that the emphasis in the NT is toward the Father and not Jesus), ultimately its almost an irrelevant point. Beyond having various exceptions to the rule througout the NT, we also have the example of the Church universal from the very beginning who also prayed to Christ. To try to pigeon hole all of the NT examples as some extreme or unusal exceptions still does not mean that anyone who thus prays to Jesus is somehow praying improperly or in a way that is displeasing to God. As always, beyond the NT, we also need to examine this practice against the Vincentinian Rule. If we do so, I believe that we will see that pretty much all Christians everywhere (not just those pesky evangelicals) did indeed pray to Christ. IMO, whether one addresses their prayers to “God”, “Lord”, “Father”, “Abba”, “Jesus” etc., means very little to me. As the fellow said in the article, to pray is simply to talk to God. If we can sing to Christ, praise Christ, Worship Christ, we can also pray to him. If we cannot then I guess that Stephen, Paul, John (maybe) and pretty much the whole Christian Church through history is in trouble.
prayer to the Mother?
Joel, I’m fairly confident neither Paul nor Andrew are arguing that it is ‘wrong’ to pray to Jesus. Perhaps simply that the pattern in Scripture usually involves the Father more than the Son. And so here’s a separate, though related question: if God is not gendered because God is Spirit, then does it make sense to pray to God as Mother? I think I remember the question being raised elsewhere on the site, but I don’t remember where. Within NT Wright’s 5-act picture for Scriptural authority, is it a legitimate extension to pray to God as Mother? Or does this seem to violate the narrative flow in more than just a creative sense? If we recover prayer to the Father through the Son, how can we adapt our language to reflect both masculine and feminine attributes in the divine Agent who restores the world? And how do we do see without being silly?
Any thoughts (perhaps this should be a new thread…)?
-Daniel-
Joel, I might be wrong but
Joel,
I might be wrong but I guess our difference in this matter goes back to what we see as relevant or not. For you there seems to be hardly any difference between God and Jesus and those two are almost interchangeable. I think different about it and my point is that Jesus and the apostles also felt so. You actually seem to agree with this partly (not fully), however you feel there is support in the many christians over the centuries that have practised praying to Jesus. Besides I disagree with you that from the beginning in church history christians prayed to Jesus here is my question: how do you feel about praying to Mary, the ‘mother of God’? If she is the mother of God, which the church aproved, then why not pray to her? As you know this is not a theoretical question and from quite early centuries (not from the beginning, though) on until this day many christians pray to Mary. Does this make it right then? And to take Daniel’s comment into consideration; what if we started to pray to God as a Mother now? I mean the Bible says God is like a mother to us then why not address (HIm / Her) like that? there are actually quite a few christians around that have been practising this for probably almost half a century, hence it is right? In my understanding praying to Jesus became the more common the more the trinity developed and the less differences were perceived by the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Only later christians also prayed to the Holy Spirit, because if the Spriti is God, then why then not pray to him? right? Anyways. As for me I hold it with the Apostles and with Christ himself and pray to God. (except sometimes:)
sorry, Andrew
I apologize Andrew I realize I should have probably started a new thread since this discussion might not have much in common anymore with ‘Am I sure that I am saved?’ if it goes any further I promise I will do so.
Paul,Before I answer any
Paul,
Before I answer any of these questions, I first need to understand what do you mean by prayer? And again, before we move on: Is it Biblical to sing to Jesus? Worship Jesus? Talk to Jesus?
Also, do you agree or disagree that Paul’s experience of praying (or entreating) Christ on three separate occasions with reference to his “thorn in the flesh” was an entireley different experience than that which occured on the Damascus road? And if so, why was Paul entreating Jesus and not the Father here?
With regards to your mention that you disagree that the earliest Church did not pray to Jesus, what references or reasons do you use to support this? Just curious.
Joel, Please observe my
Joel, Please observe my ‘and’ in my comment: ‘This also applies for Paul in his direct meetings with Christ on the road to Damascus and in the example mentioned.’ I was never saying the Damascus experience and Paul entreating Christ was one and the same thing. What I meant with Paul seeing Christ as the ‘late’ Apostle I meant in regards to his life in general; not a specific event. I just started a new post ‘prayer to Jesus’. I invite you to continue over there. thanks.
What is Modern.....
Sorry, I can’t see Jesus understanding any of this…..or the ‘unsaved’ man in the street.
Ken, I'm not sure what
Ken, I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. The original post? The thread has got so long that it’s difficult to work out what the comment is attached to.
In any case, what’s the point of your complaint? Why would you expect Jesus to understand it? Jesus was a first century Palestinian Jew who lacked the dubious benefits of a modern western education and the particular perspective that that affords on the world. On the other hand, if you’re saying that God couldn’t understand it….
And presumably no one is writing here with the ‘unsaved’ man in the street in mind, though it’s worth thinking about. The gap between our internal discourse and our external discourse is probably too large. But it’s not unusual for people to speak in different ways, with varying degrees of technicality, according to their audience.
So why not simply ask whether the average reader of this website understands it?
I'm not sure that I am...
Yes, Sorry Andrew,
I put the Comment after [KingJames1 Tue. 06.06.2006], but it came out misplaced, and I realised this was going to cause a problem… but I couldn’t undo it. Apologies!
Reading the highly sophisticated, abstract wording of KJ1’s posting, I put myself in the position of hearing Jesus saying those words, and I couldn’t make head nor tail of what Jesus would be saying .. in relation to Jesus’ original Message.
Well, maybe that’s my problem. If so, I’m in good company. A certain German theologian, Grimm, I believe in the early 1900s, said that Jesus would not have understood Paul’s Theology… that Paul had invented new concepts, the pre-incarnate Christ, etc.,so we ended up with the original Nazorean Church in Jerusalem under James, Nazoreans at Rome and Pauline Jewish converts at Rome.
What’s my point? KJ1’s discourse, then Daniel Farmer’s reply, (that’s where my second comment went astray !) are riddled with technical theological words which would need separate postings to explain. (to most lay Church Christians, I assume).
Maybe I’ve missed the plot, and I should realise that a lot of you guys want to set up a new understanding of the Christian Faith…that somehow by thinking it all through with brand new labels… [like… living in a quasi-socio-cultural milieu under pre-millenial dispensational Preterism, and addressing the man-God interface functionality?] …is the kind of language we should now use.
We’ll end up only talking to the highly-educated converted…and is that what God would want us to do ?…. ” except you enter in as a little child ” ??
Maybe O.S.T. allows for this …. so I’ll just shut up and come on the Site simply as a reader.
The Myth of Individualism
I think that one of the great negligences we have ever performed to this “great salvation” offered through Jesus Christ has been our over-emphasis on the individual’s role in salvation. The revivalists of the 19th and 20th century drove evangelicalism to believe that salvation is entirely a personal experience - you and God - without any real consideration of the relational roles fulfilled by the individuals around the person as well as the church body in a communal sense.
On the other extreme and more or less in the same way, I think the emergent church is sacrificing some of the interactive relationship with Jesus through His Word for the sake of deconstructing everything. The emergents, from what I have seen on this site and in some other literature, view salvation in a light that makes it something less than divine redemption of the whole being of the human being. I do not mean to offend, but it seems to me that more of the posts on this site are about the intent of the texts of Scripture rather than interacting with the God of the Scriptures.
Consider the words of the writer of Hebrews: Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will? (Hebrews 2:1-4, NKJV)
Forgive a little Greek If the word is proven steadfast [bebaios a solid place to put your feet]; if every transgression [parabasis to fall off the solid place] and disobedience [parakoA to go aside from what you’ve heard] receives a just reward [misthapodosia, pay due for labor done], then we cannot afford to neglect [ameleO, not care] the great salvation [tAlikootAs sOtAria, salvation that is established, great by nature of influence or age].
Salvation, which I don’t believe can be taken in this context as simply freedom from the woes of a coming calamity or a cleansing by the destruction of the temple, is something that we must consider closely. It must be considered in all its subjective, irrational glory. I know that the concept that something about the Christian faith is irrational might bother some readers, but that cannot be helped.
The Archetype or the Salvation Motif It would be a mistake to view salvation as an entirely personal matter since the Hebrew Scriptures are brimming with examples of communal, relational salvation (e.g. the Exodus, the return from Exile). Even individuals who were saved, were saved in relational situations.
Salvation for Noah was not personal, but rather intimate. (an important distinction) He was saved from destruction, but so also were his wife, his sons and their wives - as well as a managerie of animals. In addition, 2 Peter points out that Noah became a “preacher of righteousness” [2 Peter 2:5] in which the word preachers [kAruks] implies a focus of conveying a definite message to a broad audience.
Likewise, Abram was called out of his father’s house, but with him came others. Again, not personal but intimate. (Genesis 12:1-5)
The Christian Application In Christ then is the salvation of the world (John 3:16 is pretty clear on that), which implies individuals are indeed saved but in the network of community and relationship. Christ’s church, the body of believers fit together as one (Romans 12), is saved as one AND as individuals.
I think the problem comes into play when we try to divorce our individual roles from the body of Christ. We enforce an individual spirituality (which in itself is not bad) to the point that we sacrifice a corporate, relational spirituality (which involves contributions of the individual to the larger unit - the church).
So salvation is both individual and corporate. It is both large and small. There is not a dichotomy of individual determination and corporate operation, but rather they were to exist in harmonic unison. The problem is not that the Bible does not teach salvation of the individual, but rather that we have lost the ecclesiological, relational context of it
Not sure that made a whole lot of sense outside of my head. But there it is.
communal path
Luke Johnson (prof. emory univ.) speaks a lot about the church as a whole body approaching everything from the way it studies the bible to salvation. once, in class, and i believe it is mentioned in his book about the creed, he spoke about this american appraoch to individualistic salvation; i.e. ‘are you saved?’ mentality. he said he usually responds with “no he is not saved, but he is a part of the body of believers who are —- (memory is loose here but it ends with either) being saved or called into salvation.” i’ll try to look it up later.
peace,
rev slick
LTJ
I have no problem with that statement. LTJ is a quiet, spiritual voice in a world filled with theologians stumping their wares with boisterous voices and controversial claims.
How can I be sure that I'm sure?
Is there a tendency in this kind of conversation to get into a pendulum swing of ‘reaction/counter-reaction’?
We sometimes identify ourselves by hostile differentiation, eg emerging church/postmodernism stresses community = good; evangelicalism/modernism stresses individualism = bad. In fact good and bad can be applied to individual experience as to community.
The reality is that neither the evangelical modern nor the emergent postmodern would want to decry the importance of individual or corporate experience - especially in the realm of what it means to be a person/the people of God, and generalisations can be mendacious.
I’m sure when Andrew says: “Am I sure? Why shouldn’t I be sure? I have been baptized into a worshipping community. I am part of that community. What’s not to be sure about?” He doesn’t mean there is no such thing as “the inner witness, the true test of Christianity” (as the dying Wesley said to his son John).
I’m sure that when this “inner witness” is described in corporate terms in Romans 8:16 and Galatians 4:6 that does not mean it ceases to be when we are on our own, but it was always intended to be fleshed out as a corporate experience.
I’m also sure that while Paul speaks in Philippians 3:10 of ‘knowing Christ’ in the context of immediate sufferings, and maybe imminent crisis, this is not the only way in which we can ‘know’ Christ. John speaks of the intimate knowledge of Jesus and the Father which comes through the inner residence of the Spirit - John 14:17. “Another counsellor” = like Jesus, not of a different kind - allos not heteros; the connection with Romans and Galatians is that the disciples (plural) will in this way not be left as orphans, and will know God intimately - John 14:18-20.
That ‘knowledge’ was realised on the day of Pentecost and has become normative for all who believe in Jesus as Lord, who are inducted by the Spirit into the people of God - 1 Corinthians 12:13. Corporate experience is not set against individual experience; communitarianism is just as big an aberration as individualism.
” ‘Evangelical’ has a number of meanings, including tight and rather non-biblical schemes of salvation,” but at its heart the word means ‘good news’ - something to be proclaimed as the ‘evangelion’. I’m fairly sure that we still have something to be proclaimed - not a million miles away from a relationship with God which has a personal and corporate dimension - and around the reception of this proclamation, Jesus builds something called his church.
Am I saved? sacramental..
This was a great thread… and important. I’ll repeat a comment someone made by way of a question, this from Richard Rohr.. “Jesus never commands us to worship Him.. but He calls us to follow Him.” This is maybe all the more striking given His identity as the divine Son?
Secondly, I don’t think anyone has used the word here, but wondering about the root distinction shaping the discussion.. I suspect that those operating within a sacramental tradition, even if not entirely articulated or intentional, come out on one side of this debate, and apart from it, come out on the other. For support I’ll point to Robert Bellah’s article, “Religion and the Shape of National Culture,” available online (search GOOGLE). There is a strong connection between a lens shaped by individualism and the lack of a sacramental understanding.
discipleship
If I may I would like to pick up on something mentioned but not really explored in this discussion and that is that we are disciples of Jesus.
As disciples we have to be in conversation with our Lord - Jesus. We are sons of the Father in Jesus. Here then, a ‘distinction’ in prayer would be both real and appropriate for with and through Jesus we pray to the Father, yet as disciples we would converse with Jesus.
I am not sure if such ‘distinguishing’ can stand up to biblical scrutiny but it’s the rather naive way in which I have been practising prayer.
Live to serve : Serve to live
Personal Salvation
Perhaps the question of “am I saved?” is better phrased as “do I love?” - changing our perspective from inward to outward, from self to other. Maybe it’s in giving less thought about our “personal salvation” and in giving more of ourselves to others that we move closer to Christ?
This thread reminds me of an essay I read recently on a home-church-oriented blog. The writer (whom I’m not familiar with) offered a laundry list on the ways in which the western church is (in his words) “deceiving itself in crucial areas,” including the practices of “asking Jesus into one’s heart” / “saying a sinners prayer” / “giving one’s heart to the Lord” – none of which are specifically mentioned in the NT.
Some of his premises are questionable, but certainly we are living in a Xn era that has created a mechanistic form of salvation which relies on quick, convenient, patternistic formulae, rather than organic, abiding trust in the Spirit to work its own “divine heuristic” into a pre-Xn life.
Perhaps the question of
I think your question is quite valid. Paul is quite explicit that the test of salvation is not whether one prayed a prayer or not but rather the presence of the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23)
αγαπΕ - unconditional love
χαÏά - a state (not feeling) of joy (from the word for grace)
ειÏΕνΕ - peace, the absence of unresolvable internal conflict
μακÏοθυμια - patience (not endurance but resolution)
χÏΕστότΕς - kindness to others
αγαθωσÏνΕ - generosity
πιστις - faith, or rather faithfulness
Ï€ÏαυτΕς - gentleness, control
εγκÏάτεια - self-control
against such, no law can exist!
God serves His purposes, not ours.
I find the obsession with personal salvation and personal relationship to be utterly profane, since it makes ME to be G-d’s purpose, rather than HE to be mine.
I’ve not fared well in internal debates that check the state of my affections or sensitivities as evidence that I’ve been spared G-d’s wrath, or whatever else might define atonement among the profane purveyors of the soteriology of ME. I find comfort looking outwardly, to concrete and tangible evidence that says
Theology and apologetics follow those premises, and the means to be confident in the broad validity of each. The last, in view of I Tim 4:10, especially, but most other Biblical references to an *elect*, shows that the setting apart of a peculiar people is done as much (or more) for the benefit of the whole of creation, as for the elect among creatures. ‘For G-d so loved the world……’
___
A puff away from 3 packs a day