« Trimming the Christmas Cactus | Main | Book Review: "The Gift" »

A Personal Relationship with Jesus: Goals for Women's Ministry Leaders

Has the call to have "a personal relationship with Jesus" become more of a cliche that feeds into our individualistic ideals, or does is point clearly to the need to know Jesus as both human and divine and his redemptive work on the cross? Does "a personal relationship with Jesus" bring to mind the core doctrines of the Christian faith, or does it propose a feminized Christianity that appeals to our therapeutic needs as something separate from our intellectual life.

As I have been thinking about the work of women's ministries in the local church in the upcoming year, I hope that this is the year that our womens ministry leaders will not only move away from the cliches and stereotypes, but actually refute them. And so I challenge each of you to consider this, "a personal relationship with God," and be prepared to talk to the women in your ministries about what this really means.

My friend, Keith Plummer, addressed this issue in a blogpost in 2005. I'm thankful for the archiving of blogs as this is one you should take a look at. In it, Keith reflects:

Talk of having a personal relationship with Jesus is so deeply entrenched in evangelical discourse that calling it into question may strike us as sacrosanct. But hopefully we're willing to ask, along with Noll, whether this emphasis is due more to an attempt to be biblically faithful or to the imbibing of American cultural values (e.g., individualism).

In one sense, the idea of needing to come to Christ in order to have a personal relationship with God is misleading. Every person stands in a relationship with God. Coming to Christ changes the nature of that relationship from one of condemned criminals before a just judge to that of pardoned and accepted sinners graciously adopted into a nurturing family. So, the critical question as far as the gospel is concerned, is not so much whether one has a personal relationship with God but rather what kind of relationship one has.

What is the nature of your relationship with Jesus? Is it grounded in an understanding of the Scriptures? Is it purely existential in that it that the relationship is reduced to merely the individual experience? Is the relationship measured qualitatively according to how you feel on a given day? Does your understand ing of who God is include a biblical anthropology?

It's not about whether or not you have a relationship with Jesus, it's about what that relationship looks like. We have the Scriptures to teach us about who God is and how he has acted in history. Because the testimony of Scripture points to a sovereign Lord who cares about even the smallest details of our lives, we can call him our personal savior. He works within human history, having his hand on the course of events without limitation. This is the God who can be trusted and depended upon. Does your relationship with Jesus acknowledge this truth?

Women's ministry leaders: make 2008 the year for reflecting on the sovereignty of God.

Comments

Sarah, hate to start out this way, but I could not disagree more strongly with the cited blogpost or your point here. I think I see the point you are making, but in making it, I think it is moving far off the mark. It does smack well of Reformed thinking, but my biggest contention with my own Presbyterian training is that the personal ended up being successfully edited out to the point that religion became pointless for me and God a far off unknowable being. Although my longing to know kept me open.

Let's rethink some of this, because I feel you have a point in here that is probably worth making- the fickleness of our "feelings". I would divide this from the idea of a personal relationship, though. Can one experience salvation without a personal relationship? This would be a question I would ask. Can we be children without knowing God as Father, and Christ as Savior, Lord, Brother? Hmmm. There is where my theology wants to take me. Is it an intellectual exercise we are talking about? See, I don't think so.

For me, you would have to delve a little further into the explanation, because that is what I see in the point made here. I appreciate your thinking on this topic, though- we do need to get beyond the meaningless buzz wording we get used to.... and I think you are doing some of that.

Posted by: ilona at December 26, 2007 1:04 PM

See, the thing is, our faith in Jesus Christ and our relationship with is cannot be experienced in a vacuum, independent of some degree of intellectual work. And I know I've done well to broaden our understanding of "intellectual" in a previous post, so I'm not speaking necessarily of an ivory tower pursuit of God.

Posted by: Sarah at December 26, 2007 4:44 PM

I think that the "personal relationship" language originated with a desire to reach "cultural" Christians, or mere church-going people who did it for social reasons and not as an expression of their faith or heartfelt desire to worship. This being because they had not cultivated a relationship with God through Jesus themselves, so that they could come to really know Him. The question, "Do you know Jesus?" goes along with this.

Unfortunately, the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus" has come to be associated with a subjective, overly-individualistic, pharmaceutical view of Christ, with "love" for Him being more of a human love, or worldly love, than one of devotion, awe, and respect for Him as part of the Godhead.

Posted by: Bonnie at December 27, 2007 12:09 AM

I don't have any problems with the phrasing of "personal relationship", which I think depicts quite well the main stress of the gospel. When Philip said to Nathanael, "Come and see", that was a personal relationship invitation.

Maybe it is a backlash, but I think we over "theologize" and over intellectualize the gospel. There are deep truths to be explored, but the initial invitation is not deeply intellectual in format. Embracing the whole of man means embracing a gospel that has all the parts of us engaged: emotional, intellectual, and physical in a spiritual context and pursuit.

That is how I would make my case, anyway. It isn't a matter of ivory tower-ism, which is used as a short hand dismissal of the intellectual (which we are probably all familiar with!)... but saying that we can support the personal relationship message within a theological format.

I agree that we ought to think things out and be able to reason our faith, but too often we are "either/or" in approach.

The message of the gospel is going to be fundamentally intact, but the manner of delivery changes to meet the hearer. This is the point widely taught concerning the need for the different gospel accounts: they delivered truth, the same truth, to different sorts of hearers, Gentile, Jewish, etc.

This is where the cultural distinctions come into play I think.

Posted by: ilona at December 27, 2007 10:49 AM
""love" for Him being more of a human love, or worldly love, than one of devotion, awe, and respect for Him as part of the Godhead"

My idea on this is that God being God, to meet with Him is to have the correction take place. IOW, anyone who meets with God personally is going to have all earlier presumptions and attitudes transformed into the awe and respect. Sort of like the OT prophets who fell down, "undone". The need here is the actual sincere personal meetup with God. Unfortunately, nothing more obscures a true spiritual relationship with God than a mere intellectual one. Theologians can become more enamored of their theology than either the person of God or His truth, -thus my demurring on the emphasis.

Posted by: ilona at December 27, 2007 10:58 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.

About

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.