A video on deconstruction

[A.Joseph]

So, I watched this video and I don’t know how I feel about it. I don’t know anything about the evangelical scene except for a fleeting interest in some of the music. The individuals involved in the discussion seem to make some good, faithful points that many of us could probably say Amen to.

I know John Cooper has been discipled by James White recently. I’m not familiar with the host. …

Any thoughts on this video?

 

[Taylor]

I’ll let you know when I have two hours to kill.

 

[A.Joseph]

P.S. It’s a long video…. I don’t except any immediate responses. I didn’t watch the whole thing in one sitting.

 

[A.Joseph]

So, I guess the part of the video that intrigued me is the emphasis on having a relationship with Jesus. I don’t know if there’s as much an emphasis on that relationship being formed directly via scripture but the participants appear to know their scriptures pretty well, and seem to express a desire for having Jesus be present in every aspect of their lives (which I admire, at least their expression of such a desire).

I think that’s an emphasis for us Reformed (a personal relationship). However, I don’t think we always speak so freely about it. Or at least the same way. We use theological terms like justification, sanctification, mortification, etc…

I do believe my pastor makes that a point of emphasis in his sermons (Union with Christ, communion with Christ, etc.) and ties it to a proper systematic view of the Bible and God’s covenant with His people…. from the very beginning.

I guess the main difference between the evangelical church and the reformed church is between a more me centered gospel and a more God centered one. We both preach Christ but ultimately I feel like we are more focused on the Glory of God rather than the work of the believer.

 

[ZackF]

So, I watched this video and I don’t know how I feel about it. I don’t know anything about the evangelical scene except for a fleeting interest in some of the music. The individuals involved in the discussion seem to make some good, faithful points that many of us could probably say Amen to.

I know John Cooper has been discipled by James White recently. I’m not familiar with the host. …

Any thoughts on this video?

I listened to this with my wife last summer as she's a big fan of CCM including these artists. I just don't remember the specifics other than I nodded a lot in agreement.

 

[Ben Zartman]

When I hear the term "personal relationship with Christ," it usually means "I'm inventing my own way of living and who are you to judge me."
Of course we have a personal relationship with Christ--we're indissolubly joined to Him by faith--but that carries huge moral obligations and responsibilities that the "personal relationship" crowd seems to try and shove into a corner.
Maybe I'm stereotyping, but that phrase in my experience always raises a red flag.

 

[beloved7]

When I hear the term "personal relationship with Christ," it usually means "I'm inventing my own way of living and who are you to judge me."
Of course we have a personal relationship with Christ--we're indissolubly joined to Him by faith--but that carries huge moral obligations and responsibilities that the "personal relationship" crowd seems to try and shove into a corner.
Maybe I'm stereotyping, but that phrase in my experience always raises a red flag.

This has been my experience as well, in that it seems to be an excuse for antinomianism and such types view sanctified pursuit of holiness as legalism. That’s not to say anything about the particular video (I haven’t watched it), but the phrase.

 

[iainduguid]

This has been my experience as well, in that it seems to be an excuse for antinomianism and such types view sanctified pursuit of holiness as legalism. That’s not to say anything about the particular video (I haven’t watched it), but the phrase.

It's interesting that that has been your experience. From my perspective, I don't see that at all, though I may simply travel in different circles. The phrase is used often by Lloyd-Jones and John Macarthur, just to give two at random examples of people not normally thought of as antinomian. Indeed, Lloyd Jones uses it in a sermon on Romans designed to show that atonement for sin is absolutely necessary for sinful man to be in a personal relationship with a holy God. In their cases (and in my experience) the phrase is generally an attempt to distinguish between a real and living encounter with God as his child and a moralistic form of religion based on church attendance and "being good", of the sort that used to fill liberal churches throughout the country. It's not a phrase without its drawbacks, as it tends to be very individualistic, and can sometimes become a sort of "me and Jesus" thing, with a very low view of the church (common in broader evangelicalism). And it can put a lot of emphasis on how you feel about God rather than on the objective truth about who you are in relationship with God through Christ (as in much broad evangelicalism and Second Great Awakening influenced thought). But the phrase itself isn't necessarily bad by any means - unless you think that the Puritans were entirely wrong with their emphasis on experiential Christianity.

 

[Ben Zartman]

It's interesting that that has been your experience. From my perspective, I don't see that at all, though I may simply travel in different circles. The phrase is used often by Lloyd-Jones and John Macarthur, just to give two at random examples of people not normally thought of as antinomian. Indeed, Lloyd Jones uses it in a sermon on Romans designed to show that atonement for sin is absolutely necessary for sinful man to be in a personal relationship with a holy God. In their cases (and in my experience) the phrase is generally an attempt to distinguish between a real and living encounter with God as his child and a moralistic form of religion based on church attendance and "being good", of the sort that used to fill liberal churches throughout the country. It's not a phrase without its drawbacks, as it tends to be very individualistic, and can sometimes become a sort of "me and Jesus" thing, with a very low view of the church (common in broader evangelicalism). And it can put a lot of emphasis on how you feel about God rather than on the objective truth about who you are in relationship with God through Christ (as in much broad evangelicalism and Second Great Awakening influenced thought). But the phrase itself isn't necessarily bad by any means - unless you think that the Puritans were entirely wrong with their emphasis on experiential Christianity.

The phrase in itself is fine--but it's used more often in my experience by people who as you noted have a low view of church and a high view of feelings.

 

[Jack K]

When I hear the term "personal relationship with Christ," it usually means "I'm inventing my own way of living and who are you to judge me."

That's an interesting and valuable observation.

Certainly, not so long ago (to those of us old enough to remember) the phrase "personal relationship with Christ" signaled an interest in true faith that was alive in the heart, as opposed to either dead orthodoxy or Christless liberalism. What happened to that meaning?

It seems to have been such a good phrase that it was co-oped to serve several bad ideas: ask-Jesus-into-your-heart decisionism, just-me-and-Jesus isolationism, create-you-own-religion experimentation. Sadly, it means that these days we probably need to briefly explain what we mean (or maybe what we don't mean) when we use that phrase.