What you describe is somewhat similar to the tradition of contemplative prayer in monasteries and convents. The Carmelites especially focused on this sort of experience of the presence of God-- you might try looking up John of the Cross or Teresa of Avila.

And then there's also the Song of Songs/ Song of Solomon. Trying to experience intimacy with God is not a new idea.

That having been said, this sort of intimacy is usually regarded as a gift from God: we can open ourselves to receive it, and certain kinds of prayer/music can facilitate it, but it's not something we achieve by effort.

I understand that it is the dominant reading of the book through the majority of church history, but I think that trying to make Song of Songs a metaphor about man's relationship with God badly misinterprets the book.

I just did. That's interesting. I guess there are some themes they share with the bros/sis's I know who are more emphatic on this.

So I've seen. I guess I have to agree with KG here to some extent: strictly speaking, as far as Bible study goes, relating the Song of Songs to this doesn't seem very valid to me. Nonetheless, they describe it thus... I guess before the Lord, there is value in such a reading inasmuch as those who read it that way are led to actual 'fruit' that is pleasing in His sight, in practical terms. Perhaps...

Yup, AFAIR they agree with this; it's an experience God can give. They do place a lot of value and commendation on it, though, as if it were "the" way to go. Like I said before, I agree with the general sentiment of it (communion with God), but I'm not sure to what extent this is intended for all.

Strictly speaking, I feel the same. The main reason I have for being open to such a reading is how it relates to such brethren's actual relationship with the Lord (empirical value, so to speak?).

You know, it's weird to me seeing a backlash to the idea of intimacy or personal relationship with God. It's a view that's been growing recently, and it seems in direct contrast to previous generations who were drawn to Christ specifically through this intimate relationship. For so many years there used to be this idea that God was distant. That we were so unholy, so awashed in sin, that nothing could bring us close to God. God was this cold, hard, presense that we begged to be in his presence of. It turned a lot of people off from the church. I know that in my parent's generation, many people moved towards Eastern religion because of this. There was a movement, though, in the late 60s and 70s that realized that God wasn't this cold, distant thing that we could never know. That we could never move into personal relationship with. To the contrary, Jesus referred to God as papa. And the New Testament tells us that we are siblings, and joint heirs with Jesus. This realization got many people to reevaluate who they were in Christ. That they were created in the IMAGE of God, and that God wants us to develop a real relationship with him. A deeply personal, and real, and loving relationship. I think thinking of God in these terms is amazingly wonderful. God became flesh so that we could know him in a way that he was never imagined before the incarnation. God desires an intimate relationship with us, and that's proved not only through his incarnation, but through his self-sacrifice for us. I think that's wonderful!

My understanding is that this general line of interpretation goes back at least as far as Origen, who himself pointed back toward sources within the Jewish tradition for this interpretation.

Could you explain in detail what you think the proper interpretation of the book is? I very vaguely remember some stuff from a course I took once about it being a piece of wisdom literature on human romantic love, but I can't recall the full context or finer details of the explanation.

I get you. It felt weird even as I wrote the OP. Personally, I don't consider my own opinion of their devotion a "backlash" to it, though I do know some brethren who do dislike this kind of teaching or practice, or even reject it as 'too extreme'. I think that's folly.

In my case, maybe it's just that the emphasis I see in them had so far been unfamiliar to me, and I just gotta get used to it -- after all, fellowship with God is what we all long for, inasmuch as we received reconciliation to Him in Christ. Related to this, my understanding of Heaven and Hell so far is clearly that it works like magnets -- those who want God (in Christ) the most will "get" Him the most, those who reject Him (in Christ) the most will depart from Him the most. And I'm clear my own love and devotion towards Him are to grow, perhaps as inspired by these brethren themselves.

I am reminded of a book called 'In the Search for God' (though I think the English name was 'The God Chasers' or similar) that two such sisters recommended to me. Looking back, I don't think it left a big mark on me, but perhaps in the future it will.

My issue with "intimacy theology" is that it can be used as a substitute for sound theological exposition of the scriptures. I think unlearned ministers can overemphasize intimacy with God because they are unable to offer "solid food" derived from the scriptures. They therefore generally offer a very superficial reading of the scriptures and then quickly return to "...and it's all about intimacy with God". These are usually the same people that demonize doctrine. I guess they must. It's a shame because both intimacy with God and doctrine go hand-in-hand.

The problem with this kind of calling(preaching), as well as many others, fall into the same category: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matt 7:21)

Paul also said, "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Rom 2:13)

The problem with looking at mere intimacy is that all Christian sect have members who are intimate with God, but it does not mean that they are doing the will of God. One needs must understand the will of God and so, thus way, he can do the will of God. And so Christ said thus,

19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. 20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; 21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. (Matt 13:19-21)

The simple message is that we should not receive God and his words with mere confidence and trust.

Many do things thinking it is for God (just like those mentioned in Matt 7:21-23), and they even did wonderful works. But it does not mean that they are doing things according to the will of God.

Agreed, cases like that (ministers who look down on doctrine in favor of intimacy) are incomplete, so to say, and I think it ultimately goes both ways. I guess the daily combination of both is the healthiest way to go.

Welcome to Tweb!

I guess in some cases, like sects, your point is true. I'm pretty sure it doesn't hold for all who emphasize intimacy with the Lord in their preaching though, since some (perhaps many?) of them do live out God's will scripturally.

When it comes to sects and their leaders I agree, and what they call their "intimacy with God" would not mean real obedience before Him.

This doesn't rule out actual faithful and obedient children of God receiving real 'intimate' experiences of Him if He wills thus, wouldn't you agree? In this respect, Adrift's earlier point stands. And while I think it's epistemologically problematic to try to "classify" both people (the cultist and the Christian)'s experiences from an external observer position like mine, I see no problem in believing God gives this to some of His children.

I am not sure I get your point here, in relation to the rest of your post and the passage you just cited. Could you elaborate? :)

True. Hence we don't use such 'wonderful works' to identify whether people are Christians or not, right?

Thanks.

First thing in the issue is what is the will of God? People are quick to judge, most of the time, from personal perspective of what the will of God is. When they do not see anything wrong, like our subject of "intimacy", they easily assume it is the will of God. That is not how we judge of what the will of God is. During the past God even commanded to kill women and children, he commanded it, it is therefore his will. But such command would be easily judged as evil nowadays. Secondly, and yet this is linked to the first, what a person consider scriptural is not scriptural to others. Now, the word "intimacy" is just a word/label to refer of different things, and yet we usually apply to such words unto something desirable. But as we move deeply of the concept being pushed through, it may end up evil. We usually see how business marketing use deceptive words to market products. The same is true with those who claim/preach "intimacy, whatever it is that they deceptively try to catch a believers attention.

Intimacy, like love, is indeed necessary ingredient in the lives of the religious person. But saying the word does not mean having the real meaning of love, or intimacy, that is required of God for us according to his will.


You see, your words above is an example of what I was raising as an issue.

What you refer as "intimacy with God" of the sects' leader, is factually different from the intimacy your refer of the actual obedient children receiving intimate experiences.

Try to distinguish the difference/s and the I will know if should, or should not agree with you/them.

In case you would remain to refer of intimacy as about our feelings/emotions, then it would led to much confusion.



The problem with Adrift's position is simply establishing his truth from personal experience. If you would allow such practice of determining truth, christianity will end in anarchy. Looking at Adrifts' you would not see anything bad in it, but ultimate consequence of his persuasion is fatal to faith. The same consequence when we seem try to agree of intimacy, or anything, that is actually vague in meaning of use.

I guess, by now, you would know the point I am getting at: that is, that we cannot separate our feelings from knowledge. A thing having the essence of "desirability" does not necessarily mean it is good. In the matter of course in our lives, we run in conflict with others just merely of having different desires that are good. We need the knowledge to approach and resolve such thing.

Right. And so is "being intimate," true?

So my conclusion is that using the word "intimacy" to promote themselves is simply a form of DECEPTION.

I guess you are ultimately pointing to the fact that what the expressions "doing the will of God", "living it out scripturally", "obedience before Him", "intimacy with God", etc. really ought to mean in Christian life is not necessarily what someone believes they mean (e.g. subjective impressions), and that the meanings thereof ought to be informed and established as objectively as possible (e.g. thorough scriptural study, biblical scholarship, etc.). Is that correct? Did I miss (or add) something?

I agree some people and leaders surely are deceivers (as in the cultists' case). I believe it would be obvious that if their practice looks heretical or something like that, then one is right to doubt the legitimacy of their claim of fellowship with the Lord. Like I said before, "intimacy" experiences, or claims thereof, would be a bad measure of orthodoxy by themselves anyway. And yet, take two people with anecdotal experiences of "intimacy with God", where one really is from God and the other isn't; if both people and their practices 'look' orthodox, then I as an external observer wouldn't be able to tell which of the two is from God, if any, and which isn't. Hence neither they, nor miraculous works, could serve as Christian ID.

In the OP I described a little of what some Christians I know understand by the word "intimacy", and I wanted to know what others understood by the term, and/or what others thought about what I described. In part this is motivated by the fact that I haven't studied this topic in depth, hence the thread.

I took Adrift's point to be larger than just "from personal experience". In my opinion, you could remove that from his post and he would still have a point, something really simple and straightfoward: that God came in the flesh to re-establish man's relationship with Him, which is, to quote, "wonderful". I take it you agree with that :-)

I take it you are trying to pin down the fact that any charlatan can claim they have the same as some child of God they saw in this area. Got it. Agreed. Same thing happens when it comes to faith, salvation, miracle claims, visions, etc. Some things we can fact-check, even as thoroughly as is humanly possible, the rest is for God to judge

Sure. When compared to some of them, I'd be the first to say I am much less "intimate" with our Lord than they are. Doesn't make me proud (hence I know I need to grow in this area), but I know I am not less Christian for it.

If somebody uses it to promote themselves, sure. I know such people are out there, but I haven't met any. If instead someone encourages people to pursue intimacy with God, then I'd say it depends on what they mean by the word, as you say, but it can be very spot-on.

???

This seems like two contradictory posts to me. What do you mean?