By: John Schroeder - Blogotional

There is quite a bit of stuff floating around the Godblogoshpere right now about the concept of a "personal relationship with Jesus." The best, if very heady, post I have seen so far is Jollyblogger's. David points out how very close the concept, as it is generally understood today is to gnosticism. I pretty much agree with what David has to say, but want to hit some highlights here and comment.

My objection here is that Mullins, and modern evangelicals have taken one part of the Christian life and made it the whole of the Christian life. I would not for a minute deny the fact that we have a personal relationship with Jesus, but the personal relationship is only one of many metaphors the Bible uses to describe the Christian life. But, in our individualistic culture, we re-define Christianity in individualistic terms. That which is an important part, becomes the totality, the whole.

I agree with this completely, but am concerned that in a effort to correct the misapplication of the idea that is so prevalent now, we will do away with an idea that has been extraordinarily vital and important. To my way of thinking we need to be very careful in our discussions of this issue becasue we do not want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Again, there is much truth here. Doctrine and theology are to "warm the heart" and not merely "inflate the head." Yet to oppose the two creates a false dichotomy. Where doctrine and theology are accompanied by "dead orthodoxy" it is not the fault of the doctrine itself, it is the fault of the one holding to it. But what Mullins has done (and again, so has modern evangelicalism) is to make experience the arbiter of doctrine rather than letting doctrine be the arbiter of experience.

I understand and agree with David's point here for the most part, but I think he is creating a bit of a false dichotomy too. In general, doctrine is the arbiter of experience, but that does not mean that in some circumstances the opposite is not valid. For example, my experience of the church today is part of what informs me that it has a problem with how it uses doctrine. After all, we are to know them by their fruits, and are not fruits something experienced. If some doctrine bears poor fruit, cannot that experience be said to be the arbiter of that doctrine? We cannot let experience suppress, neutralize, or trivialize doctrine, but sometimes, I think it is a valid arbiter of a particular doctrine's validity.

It misses the fact that God's plan is much bigger than me. Yes, God loves the Christian with a love that is greater than anything we can imagine, but His vision is so much bigger than my personal spiritual development. Without denigrating the honor of being made in the image of God, I sometimes think that there is a real sense in which I am a spoke in the wheel, not the rim. I am a tool for God to use for His glory and the maturation of the church. My personal relationship with Christ is vital in my life, but even that is a means to a greater end - the glory of God and the maturation of the church.

That may be the single most important, but never acknowledged issue in Christian life today. But David then goes on

I have always found it interesting that the Bible nowhere measures spiritual maturity the way we tend to measure it. We tend to measure personal spiritual growth in terms of our performance of the spiritual disciplines, or in terms of our sense of closeness to God, or (for the more activistic types) in terms of great feats of spiritual derring do. Biblically, our maturity in Christ seems to be measured more by our interaction in community than our individual devotional practices. Again, individual devotional practices are vital, but only as a means to enable us to interact in community.

I understand David's point here, but disagree with his formulation of it. It is only in interaction with the faithful that spiritual maturity can even be measured; one cannot measure oneself. Communinity is an essential and vital part of any Christians life, but I have a different view of it. Much as my spiritual maturity is a means to a greater end, so is the community of faith -- that community is not an end either. Most of the great corruptions of the church have been rooted in the idea that the church was God's end -- I don't think it is. God's only and sole end is Himself. The church is but another means to that end -- viewing the church as an end is as dangerous and frought with misguidedness as the currently faddish undertsanding of personal spiritual maturity.

I think it important that the idea of a personal relationship with Jesus be re-examined and reshaped to be something more in line with how scruipture presents it. However, in our rush to correct the current misunderstandings, we need to be careful not to step into new traps, nor to kill and idea that has brought much blessing to the people and to God.

Crossed posted on Blogotional.