your own personal Jesus
Your Own Personal Jesus by John Suk a professor in Manila argues powerfully against the way we tend to talk of having a "personal relationship with Jesus".
A year ago, on my own blog, I argued that 'its not just a personal relationship with Jesus, its a religion'.
I actually reckon Suk goes too far (I know better of course!). He emphasises the absence of Jesus, but ignores the presence of the Holy Spirit.
Its still a hugely helpful and challenging corrective to our tendancy to create a me-centred faith where Jesus is reduced to my mate or my therapist.
7 Comments:
Richard
thanks for this and for the link to the article. I find myself split on this, because on the one hand I do worry that the emphasis on personal relationship reduces (and I use that word puposely) the mission and ministry of Jesus to nothing more than pampering to a consumerist individualism (not what Jesus was about and certainly not the cultural milleau in which he lived!) Jesus' constant reference to the 'Kingdom of God' would have carried clear societal meaning to his hearers - the society of God. In other words, the mission and ministry of Christ is nothing less than a transformation of the world - the building of a new order where God's values are the rule of the day. Salvation is not just about what we're saved from but what we're saved to - participation in this new society.
However, my fundamental belief in the missio dei keeps me anchored in the 'earthed' gospel (REAL good news) of God's intimate involvement in this world. The ascension of Christ does not indicate an absence of God as Jon Suk seems to suggest. It was followed bu Pentecost which signified the exact opposite - a fuller and more intimate engagement of God in the world. For that reason, I am comfortable to speak of a real and dynamic relationship with God, through Jesus, by the powerful presence of his Spirit. BUT, and it's a big but, this 'relationship' does not end with me - it's not about a fluffy feel-good factor! This relationship compels me to be engaged with God's world too - to be in relationship with those around me living out the society of God.
Incarnation was not only a one-off event (God becoming flesh for 33 years) but is a timeless truth - God is engaged and calls his Church to be the same.
just a few random thoughts to join the discussion!!!
10:03 AM
I absolutely agree Macolm. Suk overlooks the presence and work of the Spirit - although a one page excerpt on a blog may not do him justice!
Still , I think he needs to be heard as a prophet. Prophets aren't usually 'balanced' - Their message tends to overwhelmingly stress the point of view that has been ignored.
Western evangelical charismatics have become so used to talking about Christianity as a 'relationship not a religion' that our language and unstanding has moved a million miles away from a New Testament view of what it means to be 'in Christ'. Bring on the prophets...
10:46 AM
Dr Suk's post is interesting, but I think he is reacting to a certain caricature of "personal relationship" that comes across from the church sometimes, the way we react to "born again" as a term that has been hijacked and culturally overlaid, but "born again" began as a fundamentally bibical concept.
So is the notion of personal relationship with God. To state that the phrase "a personal relationship with Jesus" is not found in the Bible is a poor reason to reject the whole idea. The Bible talks about knowing and being known a great deal (1 Cor 13:12; Psalm 139; much of John's Gospel etc) and if knowing and being known is the heart of intimacy, and if intimacy implies a relationship of a most personal kind, then we can quite legitimately talk about having a personal relationship with God.
Where I do agree with Dr Suk is twofold:
(1) To be aware that our images of God in that relationship may well be projections of ourselves to some degree. As Blaise Pascal once said "God made man in his own image, and man returned the compliment".
(2) It is right to reject the image of a personal relationship that acts as a comfort blanket, if that means blotting out the cries of the poor and ignoring the challenges and sacrifices of true discipleship.
Richard
5:56 PM
Richard (L), I fully agree, but some more thoughts...
"born again" began as a rich and powerful metaphor filled with spiritual truth rather than the overarching explanation/expression that sums up our faith. Once it was taken up as the adjective that decided whether you were a born again Christian (as opposed to just a religious person on their way to hell) it lost most of the power and truth it had carried in scripture.
Perhaps there are parrallels with the notion of personal relationship?
Re-reading Suk, maybe he isn't actually leaving out the Spirit's presence. His point is Jesus' "physical" absence. So he clearly acknowledges that people experience God's personal presence in diverse ways and very personal ways. The problem is that the language we use to talk about our faith (as well as to sing, pray, etc) often seems reduced to a sloppy use of the sort of terms much more useful in physical face-to-face relationship. This both excludes those who aren't experiencing the kind of moment by moment emotional intimacy with God they assume to be the norm because of that language, and also leaves the door wide open for Christians to "have a personal relationship not so much with Jesus, but with something in their heads, with something that they’re comfortable with, a social construction driven by their need to go easy on themselves"
Maybe in Suk's context I would react to the caricature of "personal relationship" in the same way that I react to the misuse I see in some circles of biblical teaching that God wants to "prosper" you?
Richard W
3:37 PM
He does have a valid point about the lack of physical presence (except perhaps to those of certain theological positions regarding Holy Communion) making it a unique kind of relationship.
But we could say the same about many human relationships including "distance" relationships, which have to be maintained in other ways. Most of my family live at a distance, meaning that being around each other happens a couple of times a year at most, but there is a strong relationship there. But then there has been "face time" in the past, and I've never had this with Jesus.
One further reflection ... in my "personal relationship" with Jesus, I've found myself affected physically on occasion, and on other occasions it's as if the best way to describe the way God met with me was by using the analogy of physical presence and contact e.g. feeling such a strong presence in the car on the way to a funeral once that I turned round to see if there was anyone there, or on another occasion suddenly being aware of the atmosphere in the room changing - suddenly feeling a friendly presence standing behind me watching over me as I sat at the computer, the way you feel if someone really is standing there.
So perhaps God has ways of recompensing us for the lack of his physical presence, since it is so important to us as human beings.
9:09 PM
Marilyn Manson And The cULT oF hERo wOrShIp
http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/
2:23 PM
Yes- A very interesting article. I would not go as far as the proffessor but it does provide a corrective to some self-centred approaches to Christian faith.
However, I wonder if the thing which upsets you most is not that someone might have 'a personal relationship' but rather that 'a personal relationship' can to easily becomes 'a personal Jesus' i.e. a Jesus like me. If that is true then we need not to oppose the view that Jesus might be either personal or communal (although he is both to some extent) but rather we should oppose the view that Jesus is anyone other than the person revealed to us by scripture, present with us in the breaking of bread, and made known in the power of the Holy Spirit which he pours out upon us, His Church, to lead us into all Truth.
1:20 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home