There clearly was a continuing discussion that is rumbling the Church instances concerning the phrase ‘personal relationship with Jesus’ since Angela Tilby’s diatribe against ‘evo-speak’ in February, to that we reacted having a letter the next week, and also to which there were further responses. Before examining the problems, it really is well worth reflecting from the various grounds for response to this phrase—and on representation i realize that it is really not a expression that I use myself, and I also confess to experiencing uncomfortable with a few ways that this language of ‘relationship’ is implemented.
One feasible objection is the fact that ‘relationship with Jesus’ centers on the 2nd individual associated with the Trinity in place of being completely Trinitarian, though in present discussion that theological concern does not be seemingly obvious. Another objection might just be everything we might phone ‘ecclesiology-cultural’: it does not fit extremely easily having a church ethos that is certain. In the end, there clearly wasn’t anything really ‘chummy’ concerning the language associated with Book of popular Prayer, along with its ‘manifold sins and wickedness’ which do ‘most justly provoke thy wrath and indignation against us’. Associated with that, and linking theology with all the tradition of y our language, from the having a debate with a pal at a summer New Wine meeting a couple of years ago, where my friend argued that God is one thing comparable to a celestial chum, and therefore when we discovered Jesus mystical or tough to comprehend then we had been passing up on God’s friendship. Continue reading “Is Christian faith about ‘personal relationship with Jesus’?”