Questions on Patron/Client relationships

[Trusty]

Well, I'd just like to add that while I am in favor of using those works to stamp out the flower-power Christianity and restore proper relationship dynamics between Christians and God the Father, as well as out relationship standing with our Savior Jesus Christ, but lets not go overboard and end up misrepresenting that standing as well.

So no, the authors don't say,"but married folks still french kissed after the kids fell asleep on their mats, and guy buddies talked about their spouses at the barbershop", but not because it those dynamics didn't exist, but because it wasn't relevant to authors' writing intentions to help build a larger contextual framework for understanding the NT. Like I said, from my readings, it was mostly describing mechanics of those broad social dynamics.

And finally, I am all for using it to stamp out the sensationalism and the gush, but again, lets not go beyond what is called for.

That's all I'm saying. Let's not be like the more misguided complamentarians who take it too far and insist the Bible says a woman's place is in the home, as if women sat around 400 square foot, dirt-floored boxes all day rather than the reality that they too, as well as the kids, worked their butts off all day hauling water, working the land or whatever else. (I'm egalitarian, for the record though...neither here nor there)

Anyway, mainly though, what happened to the book reviews? Do I need to subscribe to get access or what?

[jpholding]

And finally, I am all for using it to stamp out the sensationalism and the gush, but again, lets not go beyond what is called for.

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.

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.

[They] are less concerned about morality than they are about how that morality will benefit them. For example, if you kill a man's son, he will not likely be kind enough to spare your own son's life. (The Babylonians understood this concept well, with their law that decreed that a carpenter whose house collapsed and killed his client's son was to lose his own son in the same manner. The Hebrews also understood this concept, with their taunts to their enemies about killing their children after losing their own children.)

I in turn reply: Do not let the seeming foreignness of these ideas make you think it goes too far. The power of a native witness speaks for itself.

Anyway, mainly though, what happened to the book reviews? Do I need to subscribe to get access or what?

The negative book reviews are now articles; those you can look up by author name. The positive book reviews have been collected into bibliographies for study, and can be found listed under Resources on each of the new subject hub pages.

[NeilUnreal]

It’s an interesting exercise to invert the boxed quotation:

Non-Westerners place great value on money, procreation, and reputation in marriage and quickly seek divorce if they feel that their spouse has not increased their wealth, given them children, or has damaged their reputation.

[People in the culture I am from] would rather marry for the traditional reasons: love and companionship; “wealth, fecundity, and reputation" are nothing and lack of "wealth, fecundity, and reputation" are definitely no excuse for a divorce. "I only married you for your money" 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 impoverished, barren, and socially discouraged relationships rather than seek divorce for reasons of personal happiness.

[They] are less concerned about how morality will benefit them than they are about private virtue. For example, if you kill a man's son, it is seen as a supreme virtue if that man can forgive you. (The Europeans understood this concept well, with their law that decreed that a carpenter whose house collapsed and killed his client's son was liable if negligent, but that his own son was not a party to the incident. The American also understood this concept, often adopting as full family members orphans from other countries with which they had been forced to make war.)

-Neil

[jpholding]

It’s an interesting exercise to invert the boxed quotation:

In what sense? Jumping to conclusions?

Was your point to express your personal bigotry against other cultures' values and practices, or just to make a fool of yourself as you generally do when you try to speak to this subject?

The hilarity of it all is that this reads just as well and as accurately:

Westerners place great value on money, procreation, and reputation in marriage [and quickly seek divorce if they feel that their spouse has not increased their wealth, given them children, or has damaged their reputation.

And so on. Except, well -- you can include ever MORE trivial reasons at the end, like:

* "if they feel their spouse is not handsome/pretty enough" (pass the trophy wife!)
* "if they feel their spouse has not helped their self-fulfillment"

etc.

Or have you forgotten?

You might want to think twice before posting any more guff.

[Teluog]

And to add on to that, I recall reading somewhere that it was in the 1800's that the idea started to develop that when having personal prayer times, one should listen for God's voice. Has anyone read about when the idea of two-way conversation prayer appeared? I wish I had a source for that.

The 2-way prayer thing might have begun with the Quakers. Apparently they used to shut themselves in a room and pray, and have long moments of silence so each could could "listen to His voice," whether audibly or in their heads or whatever.

And this probably arose out of the inner-life mentality that sprung up I think in the Middle Ages.

[NeilUnreal]

In passing, I would like to note that Trusty makes some very good points.

-Neil

[fiddlin-john]

John 15:14-16 (New International Version)

14You are my friends if you do what I command. 15I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.

John 21:4-6 (New International Version)

4Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.

5He called out to them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?"
"No," they answered.

6He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some." When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish.

[jpholding]

John 15:14-16 (New International Version)

14You are my friends if you do what I command. 15I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.

John 21:4-6 (New International Version)

4Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.

5He called out to them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?"
"No," they answered.

6He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some." When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish.

Your point being -- ?

The word "friend" did not connote what we call an intimate relationship, but rather, one in whom one had placed one's confidence as an agent. Eg, "friend of Caesar" did not mean Pilate went to Tiberius' beer busts, but that he acted as his agent in his interests.

[fiddlin-john]

Yes, but Christ differentiates between servants and friends by saying that the relationship is deeper and more intimate because he has told His master's business to them, bringing them into the intimate knowledge of the Father than only Christ knew.

That's not buddy-buddy, but how can we say that it is not intimate?

[jpholding]

Yes, but Christ differentiates between servants and friends by saying that the relationship is deeper and more intimate because he has told His master's business to them, bringing them into the intimate knowledge of the Father than only Christ knew.

He says nothing about "deeper" or "intimate". It is a step up on the honor scale. Pilate got to know more about what Tiberius was up to politically and got to confab with him in person but they still did not have homeboy beer busts together.

Anachronism ahoy!

[fiddlin-john]

how does the implication that we can experience a personal relationship with God through Christ convey the idea that we have a homeboy beer bust? Isn't that jumping to an extreme?

BTW: Since MacArthur was used at the beginning of this post, might be worthwhile to point out that MacArthur does believe in an intimate, personal relationship with God.
Read his sermon here on the very subject.

[jpholding]

how does the implication that we can experience a personal relationship with God through Christ convey the idea that we have a homeboy beer bust? Isn't that jumping to an extreme?

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

BTW: Since MacArthur was used at the beginning of this post, might be worthwhile to point out that MacArthur does believe in an intimate, personal relationship with God.
Read his sermon here on the very subject.

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.

[Trusty]

how does the implication that we can experience a personal relationship with God through Christ convey the idea that we have a homeboy beer bust? Isn't that jumping to an extreme?

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

Hate to jump back in here, but for both you, how does the implication that we can have a patron/client relationship with God through Christ convey the idea that we can't have a homeboy beer bust?

I'm thinking the wedding at Cana.



Oh, and, what exactly is a beer bust? Sounds like a drink spilling party foul.

[Raphael]

John 15:14-16 (New International Version)

14You are my friends if you do what I command. 15I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.

John 21:4-6 (New International Version)

4Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.

5He called out to them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?"
"No," they answered.

6He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some." When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish.

I don't think you're correct in your linking of those two verses. In John 21, as far as the disciples are concerned it's a complete stranger addressing them. It's only in verse 7 that John recognises that it's Jesus and points this fact out to Peter. Also most English bibles translate the word as "Children", and not as Friend.

[jpholding]

Hate to jump back in here, but for both you, how does the implication that we can have a patron/client relationship with God through Christ convey the idea that we can't have a homeboy beer bust?

I'm thinking the wedding at Cana.

You can have the beer, sure, but not the homeboy part. No place for that in the paradigm of ancient personal relationships, save rarely as noted.

Oh, and, what exactly is a beer bust? Sounds like a drink spilling party foul.

Used to be a term for a wanton beer drinking party back when I used to watch televised sports...