Alice Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 I was thinking about some long since studied church history and recalling the controversies that before the Reformation apparently surrounded any teaching about having any sort of 'personal' relationship with Jesus. My understanding is that for this largest part of church history a 'personal' relationship was frowned upon and seen as a bit wacky and left to women like Teresa of Avila, whose writings by and large 'embarrassed' the church establishment. I'm guessing that the christian view is that the 'wicked' church hijacked the 'real' religion and it took the Reformation redicovery of the Bible to uncover the truth of the need for the 'personal relationship with Jesus' bit. but I was just wondering - what of all those faithful church attenders over the centuries who believed any suggestion of a 'personal' relationship to be horribly presumptuous and who never prayed the 'sinner's prayer' or responded to an altar call because no one was suggesting such a thing was necessary - this is only a version of 'what about the people who have never heard about Jesus' - but slightly different I guess. I guess these thoughts are related to my growing feeling that what is called 'christian' today is a reflection of the age we live in. Not that I'm suggesting - as some do - that there was once a 'golden age' of christianity that christians should get back to, but rather that religions are ALWAYS a reflection of the age in which they exist (just as other 'ologies' and bodies of learning are as well I guess) The 'personal' relationship with Jesus concept is one that would never have made sense to anyone - even the most dedicated church attender - in a era without life insurance and counsellors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Good post, Hesitant. One wonders if a hundred years from now the "formula" for pleasing God will be completely different than what is expounded today.. The "personal relationship" plays right into the hand of todays "me-ism". After all, if God thinks that I am tremendously important, then, who am I to argue? As I see Christianity, it has been in a constant state of flux since it's inception. Each direction that it heads is a counter-response to some other stance. The current fundamentalism is a response to prior liberalism, which began to question things such as the virgin birth. My guess is that people will begin to see the falacies of fundamentalism and it will go off in a different direction. Much like the Hellenists vs. Judaizers as the new testament was being written. Everything is a counter-move. (with everyone trying to protect God's interests) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted June 11, 2005 Author Share Posted June 11, 2005 Good post, Hesitant. One wonders if a hundred years from now the "formula" for pleasing God will be completely different than what is expounded today.. The "personal relationship" plays right into the hand of todays "me-ism". After all, if God thinks that I am tremendously important, then, who am I to argue? As I see Christianity, it has been in a constant state of flux since it's inception. Each direction that it heads is a counter-response to some other stance. The current fundamentalism is a response to prior liberalism, which began to question things such as the virgin birth. My guess is that people will begin to see the falacies of fundamentalism and it will go off in a different direction. Much like the Hellenists vs. Judaizers as the new testament was being written. Everything is a counter-move. (with everyone trying to protect God's interests) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think the realisation of how I can only ever 'view' the world from my vantage point contributed to my leaving the church. (even when I now try to see the world through other people's eyes as well - its still my take on what I think they see!) I used to attend a church that had the verse 'Jesus Christ - the same yesterday, today and forever' emblazoned above the pulpit. Whilst this may be true - the way his story is portrayed, recieved and understood varies endlessly. I think maybe a lot of people are trying more to protect their own interests than God's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 That was extremely well said. I agree that Christianity reflects the time and culture, but I don’t agree that all religions do this. It’s very likely that reason to this is that the Bible is such a mesh of ideas and conflicting messages, that you can easily modify the interpretation with salad-bar methodology. If in one generation you need a religion that fits war, pick the war like stories and instructions, and make excuses for the peaceful messages. But if your time has slavery, pick the text that supports it, and forget the ones the rebuke it. When the time comes for compassion and understanding, pick the love teaching passages, but skip over the harsh and demanding. I maintain the belief that the Bible is a book of mixed messages, and mixed religions and philosophies, and that it was done intentionally, first by the Jews for OT to unite the Jews, then by the first Christians for the first books and letters to even further unite Jews and gentiles, then by the Catholic Church to make it powerful enough to be a political tool and unite a country. The only thing that irritates me about this is that one generation forgets the earlier ones and the previous teachings. Our current generation is becoming more and more blood thirsty, they accept war as a mean to an ends, while when I grew up, Christianity back in Sweden was very peaceful, and even was teaching love and respect, even towards your enemies. Now, it seems that it’s ok to kill other people, if they have another religion or are just bad people. I’m refereeing to Ann Coulters statements. Is this the new Christianity, the religion of war and blood shed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted June 11, 2005 Author Share Posted June 11, 2005 That was extremely well said. I agree that Christianity reflects the time and culture, but I don’t agree that all religions do this. It’s very likely that reason to this is that the Bible is such a mesh of ideas and conflicting messages, that you can easily modify the interpretation with salad-bar methodology. If in one generation you need a religion that fits war, pick the war like stories and instructions, and make excuses for the peaceful messages. But if your time has slavery, pick the text that supports it, and forget the ones the rebuke it. When the time comes for compassion and understanding, pick the love teaching passages, but skip over the harsh and demanding. I maintain the belief that the Bible is a book of mixed messages, and mixed religions and philosophies, and that it was done intentionally, first by the Jews for OT to unite the Jews, then by the first Christians for the first books and letters to even further unite Jews and gentiles, then by the Catholic Church to make it powerful enough to be a political tool and unite a country. The only thing that irritates me about this is that one generation forgets the earlier ones and the previous teachings. Our current generation is becoming more and more blood thirsty, they accept war as a mean to an ends, while when I grew up, Christianity back in Sweden was very peaceful, and even was teaching love and respect, even towards your enemies. Now, it seems that it’s ok to kill other people, if they have another religion or are just bad people. I’m refereeing to Ann Coulters statements. Is this the new Christianity, the religion of war and blood shed? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Two things ... (1) When you say 'intentionally' ... I can see the Jews including the different stands of their oral traditions altogether into one set of 'scriptures' as a way of saying to all the tribes or to the halves of Israel and Judea - look we are all united in this, all your holy writing are going to valued together. But I still struggle with the idea of the whole Bible being put together to become a 'tool' - it sounds a bit 'conspiracy' theory. (I don't have a problem with the fact it has been 'used' in this way ... it's just the 'intentionally' put together bit) I think it sounds like the other end of the line where 'God wrote it' it one side, and 'Criminal mastermind bent on producing a powerful political tool that could be used to send country to war if we need to wrote it' on the other. I think what I'm trying to say is sometimes I think non believers ascribe as much power to the book as believers do. (and maybe that - does it just look like a conspiracy becasue we live in an age of conspiracy theories!) and (2) which religions do you think do not reflect the age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts