Ai! Perry!
Hi Rick,
I hope your week is going better than at the beginning. I've been praying for you!
You said:
Leaving satire (and Christianese) behind; Christianity is a historical religion, "In the fullness of the times, God sent His Son." This being so, I don't see how anyone who seriously considers Christianity can avoid this historical aspect. This means anyone (all) who think about Jesus pretty well much have to also study the differences in language and culture between us and them, then and now. In short, there is an intellectual -- and historical -- content in the Gospel that is very much like if, say, someone wanted to know all about American history. They'd have to go back and study it....
Wanna know about Abe Lincoln? Go back to his historical context and culture and: Study
(How many days were "fourscore"?)
Wanna know about Jesus? Do the same stuff.
(What was a "Messiah"?)......etc., etc.
I think I understand what you mean when you say that "Christianity is a historical religion." I gather you are saying that Jesus came at a point in history and it is helpful and interesting to keep that historical perspective in mind as we study what Jesus taught us. At the same time, however, Jesus is
alive and works in the lives of believers, so your parallel with Abraham Lincoln doesn't exactly match up, in my opinion.
JC used this person as an example of what he was trying to say in his opening post:
A widowed mother with five children who works two jobs to support her family may not have time for deep lexical work. Yet it's our job, as the body of Christ, to communicate the gospel message properly to such a person - especially such a person!
I'm going to use it because, well, it was me a few years back, except I had only two children. However, one year I had 5 jobs(not all at once) plus I was taking university courses, so maybe it still works.
I was 30 years old when I became a widow; my children were 4 and 2 years old. The very night my husband died, I had a "God encounter." I couldn't really take the time to research the difference between
shekinah and
rhema because there was an investigation, with a lot of chaos, going on. Does that mean that I was less than "serious" when I considered His presence that night? Believe me, He was there!
In the months and years that followed there were many times that God miraculously provided for my children and me. Would I have been more "serious" if I had studied first century culture and social norms associated with the miracles of feeding the multitudes? I don't think so. I was filled with awe and gratitude toward my creator for taking care of me.
I
do find it interesting to study everything I can about Jesus, including the society into which he was born. I'm just a little bothered by statements such as:
"This being so, I don't see how anyone who seriously considers Christianity can avoid this historical aspect. This means anyone (all) who think about Jesus pretty well much have to also study the differences in language and culture between us and them, then and now." It seems to me that you are dismissing the personal relationship with God which is the basis for being a Christ-follower. I truly believe that someone who has little, or no, knowledge of first century Judaism, the Roman occupation, the relationship of servant to master, an honor/shame based society, or any of the myriad of other topics one could study, can still have a relationship, a
dynamic relationship with God. I did, and still do. Do you agree it's possible?
