For Justgin: Postmodernism in the Church

[ApologiaPhoenix]

JustGin posed a question in the SB recently on a Bible study discussion asking if we can know the truth about God since our hearts are depraved. Now my reply is we can know truth about God because Romans says we can. I have no doubt our reason is fallen because of our sinful wills. We seek that which we ought not and use our reasoning to reach that goal often. Romans 1 tells us however that the problem is not a lack of evidence but a suppression of evidence.

My concern also was to be careful in the question of truth. We can know the truth, but it can take time to know that truth. However, in our world today, there is more and more a postmodern trend coming saying that there is no objective truth out there. This is so especially in the area of God, the greatest truth of all. I would like to point out some ways I think this is being a problem for the church.

Anti-intellectualism:

This is a major one. It is seen as no virtue to think about God. God must be experienced instead of thought about. My reply to this is to point to the marriage covenant idea in Scripture. You need to know who that person is you're getting in bed with. Just ask Jacob. If you say you are loving God, you need to know some things about this God you are loving and that is with your mind. If you have a spouse, do you consider it dishonoring to your spouse to learn about them so that you can better love them?

Now at the same time, I am not saying every Christian should major in the intellectual arena. We're not all wired like that. However, all Christians I think should have a basic understanding of God and why it is that they believe and if they do not know the ins and outs of the apologetics, they should be able to point to someone who is.

Music:

Christian music is becoming more and more vapid and centered on one's emotions and how we want God to meet our needs rather than approaching Him as holy and righteous. The great hymns of the past taught great theology as well as being good musically. I am always impressed when I hear "Holy, Holy, Holy" for instance. Today, worship services tend to be about getting an emotional response out of the audience and if that happens, then it is a good worship service. Worship is more about a performance to impress the people in the audience rather than to get people to a knowledge of the holy.

Now I will grant I have a tin ear and I don't understand music as well as several others do. I am not a music critic that can speak with authority. My wife certainly has a greater love for music than I do as an artist. (Not a musical artist, but an artist) She also knows the great love I have of the hymns and why. We need to return to music that teaches us theology and there's no reason such songs can't be written today. We need to be driven to worship by music.

Churches

In Religulous, Bill Maher asks a priest outside the Vatican why the elaborate buildings. Couldn't this money better be used to give to the poor and such? Now I'm not against giving to the poor, but there was a reason the buildings were made that way. The grandeur of the buildings was to remind people of the grandeur of God. We've lost that concept. Now I'll grant there are times where we can't worship in a building designed for that purpose. My own church is a small church that has to meet in an old bank building. The problem is buildings designed to be churches are designed not to prepare us to enter the presence of the holy, but to make us feel comfortable. Now there's nothing wrong with comfort to an extent of course, but church is not about us but about God.

Bible Study

Our Bible study is no longer built on exegesis but what the Holy Spirit supposedly tells us, which I plan to comment more on later. We are taking our experiences more often and using that to interpret Scripture and think an interpretation has to be false if we do not like it. There is also the argument often of "That's just your interpretation." Well yes. It's my interpretation. Interpretations are subjective in the sense that one person makes them, but they are either true or false. You can say my understanding of the text is my interpretation, but that does not show that my interpretation is false. We don't really look at the Greek or Hebrew any more or seek to understand the context of Scripture. We don't bother to understand other cultures. Now granted, not everyone can be a scholar in Greek and Hebrew and other areas, but there can be a basic knowledge still.

Emphasis on Feelings

Feelings are used to justify everything that is done. Consider the preacher who tells the parishioners to give if you feel led, which is something that is never described. Gone is any mention of giving a sermon based on 2 Cor. 8 and 9 on the nature of giving. Instead, base it on your feelings to see how much you should give or even if you should. Teach a Sunday school class if you feel led. Don't ask if you have ability or if you know the subject. The only question is how you feel.

Isn't it interesting that the Mormons point to the same belief? (One pastor in Utah told me Mormons were postmodern before postmodernism was around) All of our decisions are based on how we feel. Emotions are not bad things. They are just to have their place. They tell us more about ourselves than about reality. The problem is using emotions to do what they were never meant to do.

Spirituality

The Holy Spirit has been used way too often to justify anything. How many church votes are made and then "Well this is what the Holy Spirit was saying." All the while, the church had different people saying different things each saying the Holy Spirit was giving them that. Francis Beckwith has a statement that if a Christian opponent can't win with logic, they'll trump with spirituality. When you start giving a logical argument, you will hear pious talk about holiness and trusting the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is definitely active in the body of Christ today, but the Holy Spirit should not be used to justify something there is no other reason for. Too often, we say something and try to sound as spiritual as possible. We have platitudes instead of real understanding.

Each of these could be subdivided into other areas, but I'd like to leave this open as a start and maybe we could get some other comments on how this is happening and what can be done about it.

[justgin]

Thanks for this post, Nick. Where were you in 1980 when i really needed to hear this? Anyway, better late than never!


Gin

[Stevo]

I'd also add the tired mantra of well meaning Christians who say: Christianity is a "Relationship NOT a Religion" or more commonly "you need to have a personal relationship with Jesus". This kind of language is not found in the Bible but yet finds currency with many Christians. Even WLC and NT Wright(limited use, so i've heard) use this language. I am actually in discussion with a friend about this wide spread understanding of how we interact with God.

Another theme I hear again and again is "God has a special, unique purpose for you" and "you must listen to God to find out"( :brood:). I agree with the first statement because we all have a place in the body of Christ, which exhibits diversity. However, I think that finding our purpose is, for the most part, about understanding how our skills and passions best serve God, his people, and the world. We are individually part of this, but not the centre.

Finally, the psychological health gospel is another common distortion I hear often. According to this, God wants to improve our self-esteem, and meet our emotional and mental needs. While this seems positive in theory, when we read the NT it seems clear that this is not God's primary goal. Making people feel good about themselves isn't really a priority.

These are just the expectations of Christians who have lost touch with the Biblical witness of who God is and how he relates to us.

[jpholding]

Thanks for this post, Nick. Where were you in 1980 when i really needed to hear this?

He was having his diaper changed. :hehe: At least after September.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

He was having his diaper changed. :hehe: At least after September.

Yeah. I spent a lot of that year preparing to be born.

[justgin]

Yeah. I spent a lot of that year preparing to be born.




:baby:



j/k :hehe:

[justgin]

[QUOTE=Stevo;3066451]I'd also add the tired mantra of well meaning Christians who say: Christianity is a "Relationship NOT a Religion" or more commonly "you need to have a personal relationship with Jesus". This kind of language is not found in the Bible but yet finds currency with many Christians. Even WLC and NT Wright(limited use, so i've heard) use this language. I am actually in discussion with a friend about this wide spread understanding of how we interact with God.



Okay. So then how would you refer to our "interaction" with Jesus when He gives the example of a branch abiding in the vine? If i want to call that a relationship, why, in your opinion, would i be incorrect?

Gin

[Stevo]

Okay. So then how would you refer to our "interaction" with Jesus when He gives the example of a branch abiding in the vine? If i want to call that a relationship, why, in your opinion, would i be incorrect?

Gin

Hi Gin,

That really depends on how you define "relationship". If you define it in a intimate "getting to know Jesus" sense then i'd say that was wrong. However if "relationship" is defined as a personal commitment then of course i'd agree.

John 15:1-8 doesn't really define how we interact with Jesus. It is talking about doing things in accordance with Jesus' example and will. The vine is a symbol of fruitfulness which results from "remaining in him" or in other words, "doing what Jesus has taught".

Does that make sense?

[Teluog]

Anti-intellectualism:

This is a major one. It is seen as no virtue to think about God. God must be experienced instead of thought about. My reply to this is to point to the marriage covenant idea in Scripture. You need to know who that person is you're getting in bed with. Just ask Jacob. If you say you are loving God, you need to know some things about this God you are loving and that is with your mind. If you have a spouse, do you consider it dishonoring to your spouse to learn about them so that you can better love them?

Now at the same time, I am not saying every Christian should major in the intellectual arena. We're not all wired like that. However, all Christians I think should have a basic understanding of God and why it is that they believe and if they do not know the ins and outs of the apologetics, they should be able to point to someone who is.
the thing is that most Christians don't even try that much. Before I was a Christian I was kind of a moron--usually the last to understand a joke, got made fun of in high schol because I was a few years behind in social skills, barely knew what was on a McDonald's menu or what a good bargain at a department store was, etc. Then I began to think hard about the meaning of life, God, good/evil, etc., and out of a desperate desire to figure those things out and understand for the sake of my survival (physically--I was just beginning to climb out of a VERY dark depression) and shame (psychologically--yes, I realized that I was my own problem, in spite of being dealt a crappy hand) which my effort was based on, so I was willing to put the require effort in.

The problem with the church is that many don't seem to understand that the gospel and our redemption back to the Image Dei is a life-death, honour-shame matter. Salvation is basically taught as a means to have a better life here and now, and just to have some sense of meaning (which other religions also provide), and God is seen as a mushy "papa," not a righteous, holy sovereign king, ruler, LORD, so it's hard for many Christians to understand the need to think more clearly and with effort about the things of God (which is, in fact, everything since everything relates to him in some way).

So it wasn't until this time when I began to get into basic philosophy that my critical thinking and decision making skills began to flourish, it took a lot of effort and PRACTICE. If I can do it, just about everyone can do it...if only they would just TRY harder. Of course, even if we all tried our hardest some people would still turn out smarter than others, but if people actually tried they would certainly reap a lot of improvements.


The great hymns of the past taught great theology as well as being good musically. I am always impressed when I hear "Holy, Holy, Holy" for instance.
For the past week and a half I been using this little old hymnal from like the early 1900s or something, still using the archaic "Thee" and "Thou," and I love it. I do one hymn each morning when I wake up and each evening when I go to bed, and it has been great, it really helps keep my focus on God and my mind in touch with reality because the theology is much better. I recommend Christians try out something like this.


Churches

In Religulous, Bill Maher asks a priest outside the Vatican why the elaborate buildings. Couldn't this money better be used to give to the poor and such? Now I'm not against giving to the poor, but there was a reason the buildings were made that way. The grandeur of the buildings was to remind people of the grandeur of God. We've lost that concept. Now I'll grant there are times where we can't worship in a building designed for that purpose. My own church is a small church that has to meet in an old bank building. The problem is buildings designed to be churches are designed not to prepare us to enter the presence of the holy, but to make us feel comfortable. Now there's nothing wrong with comfort to an extent of course, but church is not about us but about God.
It doesn't help that churches are set up like a stage too, which tends to give more of a performance vibe where you just show up and sit and passively watch without getting involved much. But that doesn't matter too much to me. What matters to me is the way church is done--why the sermon always has to fit in the alloted time slot I don't know, more sophisticated Bible passages should be given the extra 15 minutes needed to explain it properly to the congregation....and negative 15 minutes if the passage is easier. The quality of a sermon is more important than its length.

It'd also be nicer if the pastor's explained their rational for picking the (same 5 or 6) books of the Bible to preach from, and preached from the WHOLE Bible, including the difficult passages, and preached with greater depth instead of making the sermon a self-help, or a stand up routine.

Then there are issues like church functions during the week, such as incompetent people leading Bible study, or using Beth Moore's small group stuff instead of deep exegetical study or small groups that teach hermeneutics or explain textual criticism.

And youth groups functioning like glorified daycares, with few or no mature adults involved, as if teens need more time away from mature adults.

And sunday schools being mostly about memorizing Bible verses that the children don't really understand, and Bible stories being taught like cartoon stories instead of being taught what those stories REALLY mean (like how I was taught that Noah's flood was about God making rainbows in the sky, not about the state of humanity at the time).

And pretty much all of these issues are rooted in postmodern things like making Bible study easy for everyone, making youth spirituality about fun n games, etc.


Now granted, not everyone can be a scholar in Greek and Hebrew and other areas, but there can be a basic knowledge still.
At least! It's bad enough that Christians hardly read their Bibles these days; it's even worse when they DO read it and botch it. I wish Christians would treat Scripture like a vehicle on the road--if they use it right they will arrive at their destination safe and sound; if they use it wrong you'll make a mess


Emphasis on Feelings

Feelings are used to justify everything that is done. Consider the preacher who tells the parishioners to give if you feel led, which is something that is never described. Gone is any mention of giving a sermon based on 2 Cor. 8 and 9 on the nature of giving. Instead, base it on your feelings to see how much you should give or even if you should. Teach a Sunday school class if you feel led. Don't ask if you have ability or if you know the subject. The only question is how you feel. Yes, not only is it about what makes you feel emotionally comfortable, or what gives you instant pleasure, it is also about "feelings" of God speaking or something. I already told some of you guys about leaving my church here in town because we had a leaders meeting for Sunday School, and we couldn't agree how to organize our leadership teams and schedules, until the director said we should pray and ask God. Why? Because we were running out of time and had to get to the next topic! This was, apparently, more important than making careful decisions and patiently working things out as a team.

And of course the director said that he felt God telling him that we should all be on the same team, every Sunday for the next couple months, after we all at least agreed that doing team rotations of 4 weeks was too much for us. Thus:

The Holy Spirit has been used way too often to justify anything. How many church votes are made and then "Well this is what the Holy Spirit was saying."

Hence, the Postmodern Mess, where me and my feelings are what determines my faith in God and walk with Him. It really isn't that much different than the rest of society outside the church. Originally, the church was a threat to society because of her message and lifestyle, but now we are a threat to ourselves because we want the narcissistic, comfortable, easy life that the outside culture also wants.

[justgin]

Hi Gin,

That really depends on how you define "relationship". If you define it in a intimate "getting to know Jesus" sense then i'd say that was wrong. However if "relationship" is defined as a personal commitment then of course i'd agree.

John 15:1-8 doesn't really define how we interact with Jesus. It is talking about doing things in accordance with Jesus' example and will. The vine is a symbol of fruitfulness which results from "remaining in him" or in other words, "doing what Jesus has taught".

Does that make sense?



Uhm, not really. Maybe John 15 doesn't describe how we interact with Jesus, but Psalm 23 does. We are His sheep; He is our Shepherd. I really don't understand how this can not be considered a personal relationship, given the images in that psalm. Plus, how do you commit to someone you don't know? When i first came to God through Christ, i was had just turned 20 yrs old. I had been in church all my life before that. I began reading the bible for the first time, and God revealed Himself to me through His word. So, i whole-heartedly committed my life to Him as i got to know Him through His word. I became convinced through reading this Word that Jesus is Who He says He is and convicted that i was on the broad road that leads to destruction, and that He alone could save me.

Gin

[jpholding]

Uhm, not really. Maybe John 15 doesn't describe how we interact with Jesus, but Psalm 23 does. We are His sheep; He is our Shepherd. I really don't understand how this can not be considered a personal relationship, given the images in that psalm.

Because shepherds don't have intimate personal relationships with their sheep.

[justgin]

Because shepherds don't have intimate personal relationships with their sheep.



I don't think the Shepherd/sheep example was meant to be taken hyper-literally. There is an intimacy implied throughout the bible though, such as Christ referring to His church as His bride, and in teaching us to pray to God calling Him "our Father". But i really don't think that more discussion on this will change anyone's mind. So maybe we should just agree to disagree?

Gin

[Zweihander]

To justgin,

I don't believe that you are actually in as much of a disagreement with the others in this thread as you might envision. Hear me out.

No one is discounting the fact that we do in fact have a true, real relationship with the Second Person of the Godhead, Jesus Christ. It is only that this word "relationship" has become overused and recited as a mantra that is meant to encapsulate all that orthodox Christian doctrine entails.

There are at least two false mindsets that have taken root because of this:

The personal relationship. The overemphasize of the word personal has played quite well into the hyper-individualism of our culture. Those in the church who take this too far tend to adopt a "Me and Jesus and no one else" outlook on life. I've noticed people who follow this mindset tend to treat relationships with others as though they were competitive to a relationship with Jesus. In other words, as though they were mutually exclusive. One girl in my church just recently posted a comment in a forum which went essentially "Why do we spend so much time and effort in our fallible relationships when there is a relationship with the Infallible One just waiting for us?" I couldn't resist replying and expounding on why she was setting up a false dilemma. Either that, or they treat Jesus as a sort of "possession" in a way. If you've ever heard people ask, "Do you have Jesus?" it makes it sound like Jesus is the latest consumer fad. I haven't yet been asked this question but if I did my answer would be, "No, but He's got me."

That brings me to my second point. The danger of "egalitarianizing" Jesus down to our level to where He becomes something like a drinking buddy to the guys or a romantic, yet platonic boyfriend to the ladies. I'm not kidding on the last one, there are young ladies in my church who posts messages on Facebook like "I so enjoyed my date with God today" and other silliness. I was tempted to reply, "That's nice. Was God a gentleman? Did He pick up the check?" But self-control got the better of me.

In all seriousness though, Scripture is clear on the superiority of God, and of course by extension, Christ. It seems we love to emphasize His "Savior" aspect, but conveniently downplay His "Lord" attribute in the Church today. It's pretty obvious why this is the case. Not wanting to be accountable to anyone in authority nowadays, simply not respecting authority, lack of understanding of sin, lack of acknowledgement of the supernatural essence and power of the Sovereign Almighty God, ours being a culture that freely worships at the idols of ease, comfort, and complacency, and others. But His being Lord is unmistakable. The Latin for Lord is "domini" whence we derive our word "dominion." We are symbolized as his "bondservants" with Him as our Master. The subordinate/superior relationship is sacrosanct.

[Stevo]

Uhm, not really. Maybe John 15 doesn't describe how we interact with Jesus, but Psalm 23 does. We are His sheep; He is our Shepherd. I really don't understand how this can not be considered a personal relationship, given the images in that psalm. Plus, how do you commit to someone you don't know? When i first came to God through Christ, i was had just turned 20 yrs old. I had been in church all my life before that. I began reading the bible for the first time, and God revealed Himself to me through His word. So, i whole-heartedly committed my life to Him as i got to know Him through His word. I became convinced through reading this Word that Jesus is Who He says He is and convicted that i was on the broad road that leads to destruction, and that He alone could save me.

Gin

Hi Gin,

None of what we are saying would nullify your convictions. I have very personal and deep convictions too. However, i try to interact with God as he has revealed himself in his Word, which is clarified by understanding the social historical context it was written in. In that culture, being sons of God certainly didn't mean intimacy, it ment replicating God's example(through Jesus' example) or being heirs to his wealth, ie the new creation/new heaven. Being the bride of Christ is a description of a corporate relationship, as far as I know, so thats not intimate anyway. (it also pays to understand ancient marriages, because they paint a different, rather less intimate picture too)

The best way to think about God is probably the perfect King or Prime minister. He is a King that will always listen to your requests and cares deeply about you, but don't expect him to tell you his plans or place you above his Kingdom. (I'm not saying you expect this, but this is a common attitude among believers) For the Christians i've spoken to, its very difficult to envisage a loving, but more remote God. But I think it makes much more sense, and ultimately gives Christians a greater sense of responsibility and an attitude of self-sacrifice, because at the end of the day whats really important is God, his Kingdom and his Church, not my individual wants and needs. (again I reiterate: God still cares deeply about individuals)

[jpholding]

I don't think the Shepherd/sheep example was meant to be taken hyper-literally. There is an intimacy implied throughout the bible though, such as Christ referring to His church as His bride,

In the ancient world, marriages were arranged and the bride and groom frequently didn't even know each other before they were married.

Once married, the ideal marriage was one in which the husband and wife simply got along and worked well together. "Intimacy" as we know it was rare and was only coincidental -- not a fundamental component of marriage.


and in teaching us to pray to God calling Him "our Father".

Roman citizens called Caesar "Father". Students called their rabbis "Father". Once again, there is no intimacy implicit in these references.

These are simply two more cases of anachronistically importing modern meaning into the text.


But i really don't think that more discussion on this will change anyone's mind. So maybe we should just agree to disagree?

If you wish. However, the price for far too many for ignoring this sort of information has been some form of cognitive dissonance.

[Teluog]

"Intimacy" as we know it was rare and was only coincidental -- not a fundamental component of marriage.
But is this the way it is supposed to be?


These are simply two more cases of anachronistically importing modern meaning into the text.
JP, what did it mean back then for someone to lean against someone's chest, as in John 21:20? This verse could very easily be interpreted as Jesus being intimate with his disciples.

[Stevo]

Which translation of John 21:20 is that? Some just say "lean close" or "near" others like the KJV say "leaned on his breast".

[Teluog]

Which translation of John 21:20 is that? Some just say "lean close" or "near" others like the KJV say "leaned on his breast".

well whatever the Greek says then I guess. I was using the NETBible translation. Most versions say he was leaning against Jesus in someway.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

JG. I urge you to take seriously what JPH and others here are saying.

No one is trying to take away comfort from you, but because a belief is comforting it does not mean it is true. We are to be people of truth and should seek to understand God as he has revealed Himself and read the Word as it is. Now it could be we're wrong, but it can't be the case that if we have contradictory ideas both are right.

What do you have to lose? He is described as the God of all comfort any way and he is still love anyway. Maybe you'll get a richer concept of it than modern Americanized ones.

(And as a newlywed, I will say I don't care much for the Americanized ideas we have of marriage. I think what I have is more and more removed from that and makes it better and better)

[jpholding]

But is this the way it is supposed to be?

For some at least, perhaps. For all? If so, then it seems odd that more was not revealed about this, which would have been a fundamental reworking of all that was understood about relationships.



JP, what did it mean back then for someone to lean against someone's chest, as in John 21:20? This verse could very easily be interpreted as Jesus being intimate with his disciples.

Such actions were performed even among "friends" at the time -- Rihbany (Syrian Christ) speaks of such actions as typical between men, though it does not amount to what we would call intimacy -- it's more like a public demonstration. Here it would signify John's position in Jesus' inner circle.

[Teluog]

For some at least, perhaps. For all? If so, then it seems odd that more was not revealed about this, which would have been a fundamental reworking of all that was understood about relationships..and what about Song of Songs? there seems to be some intimacy in there....though not to the extreme that the Western world today has



Such actions were performed even among "friends" at the time -- Rihbany (Syrian Christ) speaks of such actions as typical between men, though it does not amount to what we would call intimacy -- it's more like a public demonstration. Here it would signify John's position in Jesus' inner circle
So really this is just as intimate as a handshake or high five, or the brotherly kiss of their time?

[jpholding]

and what about Song of Songs? there seems to be some intimacy in there....though not to the extreme that the Western world today has

That might indeed be the case. But considering the implied sexuality involved, we certainly can't do as some say and claim it is an analogy for Christ and the church.

Well, some cults might say that.... :hehe:

At best SoS might be an expression of the highest ideal for a man and a woman to strive for -- though obviously more as a goal than a universal prescription.


So really this is just as intimate as a handshake or high five, or the brotherly kiss of their time?

I like the analogy. :hehe:

[Teluog]

That might indeed be the case. But considering the implied sexuality involved, we certainly can't do as some say and claim it is an analogy for Christ and the church.

Well, some cults might say that.... :hehe:

At best SoS might be an expression of the highest ideal for a man and a woman to strive for -- though obviously more as a goal than a universal prescription.
I was thinking this as well, after all the love in SoS is the erotic type of love, while the rest of Scripture says that the love between God and us is the agape type? I do wonder though if God's love has a more brotherly aspect to it, being more intimate than agape but less than eros


I like the analogy. :hehe:

:thumb:

[Zweihander]

From JPHolding,


That might indeed be the case. But considering the implied sexuality involved, we certainly can't do as some say and claim it is an analogy for Christ and the church.

Indeed, I can tell if someone has a prudish and legalistic mindset about the sexual love between man and woman if when the Song of Solomon is brought up they immediately jump to claiming that analogy without realizing that SoS and the Ephesians passage are framed in entirely different contexts.

On a side note, without being overly sentimental, I have to say it is an honor to converse with you on here. Back about the mid-2000's I had some "cognitive dissonance" with regard to reconciling competing and contradictory views on orthodox Christian doctrine, and Tektonics helped me find the "forest through the trees" so to speak. The notable concerns and questions included eschatology (my family is hard-core dispensational futurist), touchy-feeling sentimentalism in the church including over-emphasis on emotion and experience, compatibility of faith and reason, and more.

I joined TWeb way back in 2007 but then Grad School happened. I just graduated in August so, lo and behold, I now have more free time. Anyway, just wanted to say, it's an honor.


From Teluog,


I was thinking this as well, after all the love in SoS is the erotic type of love, while the rest of Scripture says that the love between God and us is the agape type? I do wonder though if God's love has a more brotherly aspect to it, being more intimate than agape but less than eros

I went through a Greek Interlinear Bible online, almost invariably the word used for how we are to love God is "Agape." A couple instances have the brotherly "phileo" like I Cor. 16:22 "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." The Greek here is literally "not fond of" or "does not call a friend." Of course, we're all aware that in the socio-historical context of that time a "friend" was more of a trusted associate or a confidant than a drinking buddy.

In fact, it almost seems that even being just a friend was not enough to Jesus. After His Resurrection, when He asked Peter if he loved Him, Jesus used "agape" the first two times and Peter responded with "phileo." The third time Jesus then asked the question using "phileo" as well. That makes it more obvious why Peter was so grieved because Jesus was in effect implying that Peter was dishonest and uncommitted. Of course, the fact that Peter denied Him three times I'm sure had something to do with it as well.

[jpholding]

I was thinking this as well, after all the love in SoS is the erotic type of love, while the rest of Scripture says that the love between God and us is the agape type? I do wonder though if God's love has a more brotherly aspect to it, being more intimate than agape but less than eros

The natural suggestion would be phileo, as Z said. That would be more intimate and closer to modern relationships. But I can think of nothing to suggest that it is a norm, and in itself it doesn't seem to require such closeness as an intrinsic part of the definition; it is used of how the Pharisees "love" to pray in the marketplace. Closeness may be one possible result of phileo -- but not an intrinsic part of it.

[jpholding]

Indeed, I can tell if someone has a prudish and legalistic mindset about the sexual love between man and woman if when the Song of Solomon is brought up they immediately jump to claiming that analogy without realizing that SoS and the Ephesians passage are framed in entirely different contexts.

:lol: You want to talk about prudes? I had a pastor who preached on 1 Samuel 18, and he bent over backwards to avoid using the word "foreskins". (My current pastor, preaching on the same passage, had no such hesitation.) The first guy didn't seem to grasp the contradiction in his behavior.


On a side note, without being overly sentimental, I have to say it is an honor to converse with you on here.

I'm pleased to engage and to have been of assistance. :smile: Welcome to the rows here (after Grad school). Did you ever write me any emails?

[Teluog]

The natural suggestion would be phileo, as Z said. That would be more intimate and closer to modern relationships. But I can think of nothing to suggest that it is a norm, and in itself it doesn't seem to require such closeness as an intrinsic part of the definition; it is used of how the Pharisees "love" to pray in the marketplace. Closeness may be one possible result of phileo -- but not an intrinsic part of it.

Right. Now this might be more a question for Nick, but isn't God intimate with each person in his trinity? And if so, then is any human intimacy supposed to be between other humans, as opposed to between human and God, as a way of analogizing the image of God on earth?

(Does that make sense?)

[jpholding]

Right. Now this might be more a question for Nick, but isn't God intimate with each person in his trinity?

How would you define that out in this case? Obviously not having sex...fishing buddies? No. Where's the line on this one?

[Teluog]

How would you define that out in this case? Obviously not having sex...fishing buddies? No. Where's the line on this one?

well i dunno, which is why i am asking you, or Nick, or someone else who knows trinitarian theology well

[jpholding]

well i dunno, which is why i am asking you, or Nick, or someone else who knows trinitarian theology well

Scripturally we don't have a lot of data on that. John 5:20 is the clearest bit, it says the Father loves (phileo) the Son, but it goes on to define that out as expressed in the sharing of plans -- which is more like the "friend of the king" type deal.

[Teluog]

Scripturally we don't have a lot of data on that. John 5:20 is the clearest bit, it says the Father loves (phileo) the Son, but it goes on to define that out as expressed in the sharing of plans -- which is more like the "friend of the king" type deal.

i was thinking too about what C.S Lewis pointed. If God is love, then who was he/they loving before he created anything? It's the TYPE of love between the godhead members that we'd need to figure out....and if humanity is made in God's image then shouldn't our type of lvoe resemble the type amongst the godhead?

phileo might be enough to go on.....but what exactly was phileo in the 1st century?

[Zweihander]

:lol: You want to talk about prudes? I had a pastor who preached on 1 Samuel 18, and he bent over backwards to avoid using the word "foreskins". (My current pastor, preaching on the same passage, had no such hesitation.) The first guy didn't seem to grasp the contradiction in his behavior.

I just reread the passage. It does give new meaning to the phrase "off with their heads!" :lol:

But I can see how that would work in a "shame the enemy" dynamic. The whole uncircumcised/uncircumcised riff was what clearly separated the Israelites from the Philistines. The forced circumcision on the Philistine dead after a victory was meant to publicly shame Philistine culture and by extension their gods. It was in effect saying, "Our culture and customs are better than yours."

But anyway, it's good to know your current Pastor has progressed to solid food and is not still stuck on milk.



I'm pleased to engage and to have been of assistance. :smile: Welcome to the rows here (after Grad school). Did you ever write me any emails?


Most assuredly the assistance was quite valuable and necessary. And it's good to be here. :teeth:

Regarding e-mails, I had a couple questions that I considered sending in but procrastination got the better of me. Most them were answered quite well by Tektonics. But with regard to eschatology I still have an unresolved inquiry regarding the presence of Satan. I understand that according to orthodox preterism we are now in the "millennial" kingdom in which case Satan should be bound and not oppressing anyone. But there still has been so much evil and bloodshed from the beginning of the church age to the present day--especially in the 20th century--which was the bloodiest century ever. Now I realize one can argue that the death toll was so extravagant at least in part because never at any time before had there been billions of people on the planet. Still, despite the depravity of mankind it still seems unlikely things could still be so barbaric without some "demonic encouragement." The only thing was Tektonics didn't appear to elaborate on this and that's in effect my question. Could you elaborate?

[Zweihander]

i was thinking too about what C.S Lewis pointed. If God is love, then who was he/they loving before he created anything? It's the TYPE of love between the godhead members that we'd need to figure out....and if humanity is made in God's image then shouldn't our type of lvoe resemble the type amongst the godhead?

phileo might be enough to go on.....but what exactly was phileo in the 1st century?

If I may deign to complicate things further. Since ya brought up CS Lewis, in The Four Loves he mentions another type of love called storge or "familial affection." There may be some allusion to this in that we have the "Father and Son" relationship between Jehovah and Christ. However, I'm not sure if storge is ever mentioned in Scripture to describe relationships with God or between the Trinity. I'll look when I have the chance.

[jpholding]

i was thinking too about what C.S Lewis pointed. If God is love, then who was he/they loving before he created anything? It's the TYPE of love between the godhead members that we'd need to figure out....and if humanity is made in God's image then shouldn't our type of lvoe resemble the type amongst the godhead?

I think AP would say that this did occur among the Trinity is pre-existence, yes.

I would not connect image-language to this, but I would allow for God's expressions to possibly set us an ideal.


phileo might be enough to go on.....but what exactly was phileo in the 1st century?

One of the things I need to look into of course. :hehe: But just offhand, the lower intimacy in that social world initially suggests that phileo as close as we may suppose.

[jpholding]

. But with regard to eschatology I still have an unresolved inquiry regarding the presence of Satan. I understand that according to orthodox preterism we are now in the "millennial" kingdom in which case Satan should be bound and not oppressing anyone. But there still has been so much evil and bloodshed from the beginning of the church age to the present day--especially in the 20th century--which was the bloodiest century ever. ..The only thing was Tektonics didn't appear to elaborate on this and that's in effect my question. Could you elaborate?

Eh...not much to say, except I think it is unsafe to assume that humans need demons to help them reach such levels of depravity. How would we know this is true? Do we need to have 2 worlds, one with demons and one without, and see how evil people get in each?

I just can't buy the premise that humans are not capable of all that evil on their own.

[Stevo]

I've got a question that has been bugging me for a while and after hearing what some Christians in my Church believe I've really got to develop a clear understanding of this.

How do the Biblical writers use the terms mind and heart? How do they relate to intellect, emotion, conscience and will? I ask this, because some Christians, that i've come across, define mind=intellect and heart=emotion and this allows them to claim Spiritual superiority by not using their minds.

Any good books which discuss how the Bible describes Human beings?

[Teluog]

...by not using their minds.

Which is exactly how "stupid" is defined.

Jesus says that out of the heart come evil thoughts....and obviously good thoughts as well, so there isn't much of a distinction between the mind and heart, or they are very closely related to each other.

[Stevo]

Which is exactly how "stupid" is defined.

Jesus says that out of the heart come evil thoughts....and obviously good thoughts as well, so there isn't much of a distinction between the mind and heart, or they are very closely related to each other.

Haha. Yes.

Do you think Matthew 22:37 makes a distinction?

[Teluog]

Haha. Yes.

Do you think Matthew 22:37 makes a distinction?

It seems like it, but barely a disctinction. Hebrews 10:16 doesn't seem to make much of a distinction either.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Right. Now this might be more a question for Nick, but isn't God intimate with each person in his trinity? And if so, then is any human intimacy supposed to be between other humans, as opposed to between human and God, as a way of analogizing the image of God on earth?

(Does that make sense?)

I would answer that we are told that God is the Father from whom all fatherhood comes. If anyone is a father, they are a reflection of what God is like as the Father. God is not a reflection of them. We are made in his image. He is not made in ours.

Thus, I would say that all true love we have here is in some way a reflection of what is going on in the Trinity. Of course, this isn't an exact parallel. There isn't physical sexual love going on in the Trinity, but there is sexuality there. It's just not expressed physically. For us, this is the greatest expression of love we can have for another human being and that human being is the other. They are one different from us, which gets us out of self-love as we truly learn to love that other person and seek their good.

I hope this helps some.

[Teluog]

Thus, I would say that all true love we have here is in some way a reflection of what is going on in the Trinity. Of course, this isn't an exact parallel. There isn't physical sexual love going on in the Trinity, but there is sexuality there. It's just not expressed physically. For us, this is the greatest expression of love we can have for another human being and that human being is the other. They are one different from us, which gets us out of self-love as we truly learn to love that other person and seek their good.

I hope this helps some.
I think so. Are you saying that the way humanity reflects the love amongst the Trinity is ultimately found in human marriage--i.e. the eros kind of love? But the love between humanity and God is more phileo and/or agape? I'm trying to dinstiguish between the types of love here that are between God-God, Human-human (whether husband-wife or friend-friend or family members), and God-human. Because it seems that postmodern sentimentality wants everyone to be intimate with everyone, or at least doesn't have clear definitions of how are relationships are supposed to function.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I think so. Are you saying that the way humanity reflects the love amongst the Trinity is ultimately found in human marriage--i.e. the eros kind of love?

I think a certain aspect of it is. Why? I'd want to think on it more, but the act of total trust and openness with one other person in an exclusive relationship is something mind-blowing. The joy of the act is to reflect the joy of the Trinity.


But the love between humanity and God is more phileo and/or agape? I'm trying to dinstiguish between the types of love here that are between God-God, Human-human (whether husband-wife or friend-friend or family members), and God-human. Because it seems that postmodern sentimentality wants everyone to be intimate with everyone, or at least doesn't have clear definitions of how are relationships are supposed to function.

You can't be intimate with everyone. Some people don't deserve it for one thing. Also, if intimacy is for everyone, then intimacy is nothing special really any more.

I would recommend reading C.S. Lewis's "The Four Loves."

Marriage is unique in its exclusivity.

Friendship is unique in its not being needed. (It is the virtue Aristotle wrote on the most.)

Storge is unique in its being for everyone.

Agape is unique in its intensity. (You can also have agape for the wrong thing. It's not necessarily God-love)

[Teluog]

I think a certain aspect of it is. Why? I'd want to think on it more, but the act of total trust and openness with one other person in an exclusive relationship is something mind-blowing.
Right, but this is where it gets confusing because we are supposed to be able to fully disclose ourselves to God, hence the intimate relationship with God? I guess postmodernism in the church takes this too far....I'm not really sure how because no one has ever defined the term "intimate relationship with God" or what it means when they saw we should "draw closer to Jesus."


I would recommend reading C.S. Lewis's "The Four Loves.":thumb: on my reading list!


Marriage is unique in its exclusivity.Perhaps this is where the intimacy with God goes too far, because many Christians seem to think of their relationship with God as hyper-personal, an exclusive relationship with Christ where we spend all this "quiet time with God," when the Bible states the marriage analogy as between Christ and the church collectively.


Friendship is unique in its not being needed.What do you mean not needed?
(It is the virtue Aristotle wrote on the most.)Also on my reading list :thumb:


Storge is unique in its being for everyone.never heard of storge


Agape is unique in its intensity. (You can also have agape for the wrong thing. It's not necessarily God-love)
I guess that's why the object of our love is supposed to be God himself and the well-being of our neighbours!

But what do you mean unique in its intensity? (if Lewis' book describes all this than you don't have to answer since I will definitely read it some day, unless you want to answer for other readers on t-web).

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Right, but this is where it gets confusing because we are supposed to be able to fully disclose ourselves to God, hence the intimate relationship with God? I guess postmodernism in the church takes this too far....I'm not really sure how because no one has ever defined the term "intimate relationship with God" or what it means when they saw we should "draw closer to Jesus."

What happens in the marriage relationship in the bodies happens in the souls with God. We all should bare our souls to God. Our relationship to Him is also exclusive. I can only have a relationship for myself with God. We do not share in the relationship. God is not one of many in the relationship. He is the only one.


:thumb: on my reading list!

Excellent.


Perhaps this is where the intimacy with God goes too far, because many Christians seem to think of their relationship with God as hyper-personal, an exclusive relationship with Christ where we spend all this "quiet time with God," when the Bible states the marriage analogy as between Christ and the church collectively.

And there are some things you can't do with God. You're not meant to have a two-way conversation with God despite what we are told today. For the marriage analogy, someone, to be blunt, can't have sex with God. You don't date God. You don't marry God. You do bind yourself to Him in covenant however.


What do you mean not needed? Also on my reading list :thumb:

We wouldn't want to, but it is possible to make it through life without friends.


never heard of storge

Familiar love. It's the love you give to someone just because they're another human being. Consider it the respect you're to show to other people you meet in public.



I guess that's why the object of our love is supposed to be God himself and the well-being of our neighbours!

If you love God, you WILL love your neighbor.


But what do you mean unique in its intensity? (if Lewis' book describes all this than you don't have to answer since I will definitely read it some day, unless you want to answer for other readers on t-web).

I think it's that this is love of intense devotion. I think you could have this in married love, but for the day, eros simply meant sexual love and did not necessarily mean you were devoted to the one you were sexually involved with. An interesting look at love from the ancients would be the Symposium of Plato. You could also read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.

[Teluog]

Symposium of Plato. You could also read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.

I plan on reading as much primary classical (and ANE and other ancient history )texts as possible.....ergo, also on my reading list :thumb:

In response ot everything, what would you say is the correct amount or type of intimacy that we should have with God?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I plan on reading as much primary classical (and ANE and other ancient history )texts as possible.....ergo, also on my reading list :thumb:

In response ot everything, what would you say is the correct amount or type of intimacy that we should have with God?

Love Him as He is and as He has prescribed.

Once you're married you'll learn the best way to love your spouse is not the way you want.

The best way to love them is the way they want to be loved.