Questions on Patron/Client relationships

[Teluog]

I'm not. And ironically, just today I got an email that shows this, from someone who has lived in the same kind of culture. I will reprint it here slightly edited for privacy.

[box]
Westerners place great value on being "in love" in marriage and quickly seek divorce if they feel that they've fallen out of love. [People in the culture I am from] would rather marry for the traditional reasons: money, procreation, and reputation; "love" is nothing and lack of "love" is definitely no excuse for a divorce. "I love you" are words that you will never hear spoken from [this culture's] spouses to each other, nor even to their children! [They] will gladly stay in toxic, abusive, unfaithful, and painful relationships rather than seek divorce for reasons of security and public image.

Out of curiosity, what country or general area of the world is this coming from (if that doesn't violate privacy)?

[jpholding]

Out of curiosity, what country or general area of the world is this coming from (if that doesn't violate privacy)?

It might. I'll just say the Eastern half of the globe.

[fiddlin-john]

It serves well as a figure of speech for the whole range of expressions associated with it in modern times.

I do see your point. Taken as a whole, the strength of God's relationship with us cannot be narrowed down to strictly a client-patron relationship. I trust the Spirit was not hindered by societal norms.

I don't think a whole lot of MacArthur on a number of fronts. He can't even do a decent critique of preterism, for pity's sake. It wouldn't surprise me that he can't see the inconsistency in what h'e's teaching.

Here's where your argument is weak. The idea of a client-patron relationship, as long as its not uber-exclusive, seems perfectly compatible with affection and intimacy. The primary problem with your argument is that it completely hinges on a singular cultures societal makeup to determine how the omnipotent interacts with his creation.

Andy on McArthur, I agree he doesn't do a very good critique of preterism. Then again, I have yet to find a single worthwhile argument in support of preterists anyway. Funny eschatology devotees... but it is fun to watch them roll around and try to be convincing.

[jpholding]

I do see your point. Taken as a whole, the strength of God's relationship with us cannot be narrowed down to strictly a client-patron relationship. I trust the Spirit was not hindered by societal norms.

Nor expanded by ours.

Here's where your argument is weak. The idea of a client-patron relationship, as long as its not uber-exclusive, seems perfectly compatible with affection and intimacy.

You misunderstand. It is not merely client-patron at work here but the nature of personality in collectivist societies.

The primary problem with your argument is that it completely hinges on a singular cultures societal makeup to determine how the omnipotent interacts with his creation.

Hardly singular -- since it represents over 99.99999% of people who have ever lived. Indeed, if anyone is hinging anything on a "singular" culture, it is the modern "Jesus my personal friend" crowd which imperialistically imposes models of personal friendship onto the text and demands that God must "interact with his creation" on their own terms. No such revelation has been given in Scripture and I know of no modern prophet who has offered an update and passed the Deuteronomy test.

Andy on McArthur, I agree he doesn't do a very good critique of preterism. Then again, I have yet to find a single worthwhile argument in support of preterists anyway. Funny eschatology devotees... but it is fun to watch them roll around and try to be convincing.

Care to put your money where your mouth is there?

[fiddlin-john]

Nor expanded by ours.

True, true.

You misunderstand. It is not merely client-patron at work here but the nature of personality in collectivist societies.

I see where you are going with this. I agree with you for the most part.

Hardly singular -- since it represents over 99.99999% of people who have ever lived. Indeed, if anyone is hinging anything on a "singular" culture, it is the modern "Jesus my personal friend" crowd which imperialistically imposes models of personal friendship onto the text and demands that God must "interact with his creation" on their own terms. No such revelation has been given in Scripture and I know of no modern prophet who has offered an update and passed the Deuteronomy test.

Yeah, the Jesus is my best friend fad is kind of lame. However, He initiates all contact, not vice-versa. I'm blessed that God reckons me at all, unworthy as I am. So if He is want to call me to Him, may I have the grace to go.

Care to put your money where your mouth is there?

In this economy?

[Virgil]

Ok I'll bite.
In the Blackwell Companion to Natural theology (section on religious experience) , Chinese philosopher Kai Man- Quan lists many cases of religious experience. He here is describing the experience of Chinese Christians who were persecuted

"Although my hands are handcuffed, and my body feels indescribable
pain, my heart is still filled with peace and joy” (Xi 1990, p. 4). He was only released after
20 years in the labor camp, but he continued to experience the presence of God and His
abundant grace (Xi 1990, p. 8). Another believer was arrested and brought before the crowd
to receive criticisms. He felt like he was near the end of his life but suddenly he had a vision
of Jesus bearing the cross and walking on the road to Calvary. Immediately, he felt a kind
of relief all over his body, and all fear was driven out of his heart. He was then able to face
the fierce crowd calmly (Xi 1990, p. 54).

Is it legit to ask your patron for comfort and joy in times of sorrow? It seems a bit personal.

[Manwë Súlimo]

Ok I'll bite.
In the Blackwell Companion to Natural theology (section on religious experience) , Chinese philosopher Kai Man- Quan lists many cases of religious experience. He here is describing the experience of Chinese Christians who were persecuted


Is it legit to ask your patron for comfort and joy in times of sorrow? It seems a bit personal.

You can ask and receive comfort and joy, but it's a huge leap to assume that means God is your buddy. God is still your benefactor but don't assume that means something more than it does.

[Virgil]

You can ask and receive comfort and joy, but it's a huge leap to assume that means God is your buddy. God is still your benefactor but don't assume that means something more than it does.

usually when i hear people talk about a "personal experience" with God they are talking about something like I just quoted

[Manwë Súlimo]

usually when i hear people talk about a "personal experience" with God they are talking about something like I just quoted

I would say that they honestly confused being blessed by God with having a personal friendship relationship.

[fiddlin-john]

what's all this talk about buddys? we are far more than that, we are sons! nothing about being a buddy seems good when compared to being God's child.

[jpholding]

what's all this talk about buddys? we are far more than that, we are sons! nothing about being a buddy seems good when compared to being God's child.

You're neglecting the interpersonal dimension of the collectivist personality again. Not even family members were frequently close in relational terms.

[Virgil]

You're neglecting the interpersonal dimension of the collectivist personality again. Not even family members were frequently close in relational terms.

Jp, Did you miss my question?

[jpholding]

Jp, Did you miss my question?

I approve of the answer given by Eru.

[Virgil]

I'm a bit confused now. When I first heard of the client/patron model I thought the gist of it was that I should view God as distant and I shouldn't expect him to do anything for me that a monarch wouldn't do and I should expect God to be all sentimental.


But this stuff about feeling God's presence and him filling you with hope and joy seems Ok to you?

Could someone please delineate what the main difference between the patronage model and the model of God's relationship in Contemporary evangelical theology is?

From what I see in this thread it seems that the main point is.

1) we should not expect to know god or expect him to know us at "personal" psychological level

[jpholding]

I'm a bit confused now. When I first heard of the client/patron model I thought the gist of it was that I should view God as distant and I shouldn't expect him to do anything for me that a monarch wouldn't do and I should expect God to be all sentimental.

It is, as I say above, tied in with the collectivist personality as well.

But this stuff about feeling God's presence and him filling you with hope and joy seems Ok to you?

It is much too vague to really say much about. Also, since it is in English, I am highly suspicious of linguistic and ideological cross-contamination by Western translators.

Could someone please delineate what the main difference between the patronage model and the model of God's relationship in Contemporary evangelical theology is?

From what I see in this thread it seems that the main point is.

1) we should not expect to know god or expect him to know us at "personal" psychological level

Essentially correct.