RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Church



Message

lw9 -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 5:19:05 PM)

quote:

GroupW: I think this part is foreign to his actual intent.


How so, though? Eldredge has stated his intent loud and clear:

quote:

“Think of one of the most romantic scenes you can remember, scenes that made you sigh. Jack with Rose on the bow of the Titanic, his arms around her waist, THEIR FIRST KISS.Wallace speaking in French to Murron, then in Italian: “Not as beautiful as you.” Aragorn, standing with Arwen in the moonlight on the bridge in Rivendell, declaring his love for her. Edward returning for Elinor in Sense and Sensibility, and professor Behr returning for Jo at the end of Little Women. Now, put yourself in the scene as the Beauty, AND JESUS AS THE LOVER” (page 114).


God as a romantic and sensual lover is clearly part of his intent and his message. He includes their first romantic kiss, for heaven's sake. Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with Eldredge's statements, it cannot be denied that he is associating and presenting Christ as a sensual & sexual lover.



GroupW -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 5:21:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: doinkdom

This has gone beyond debate and into emotional defensiveness.

Forgive my participation in pointing out the error in JE's books.

And with that said, I'll leave y'all to it.[sm=icon_smile_super.gif]

What's to forgive?



GroupW -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 5:28:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lw9

quote:

GroupW: I think this part is foreign to his actual intent.


How so, though? Eldredge has stated his intent loud and clear:

quote:

“Think of one of the most romantic scenes you can remember, scenes that made you sigh. Jack with Rose on the bow of the Titanic, his arms around her waist, THEIR FIRST KISS.Wallace speaking in French to Murron, then in Italian: “Not as beautiful as you.” Aragorn, standing with Arwen in the moonlight on the bridge in Rivendell, declaring his love for her. Edward returning for Elinor in Sense and Sensibility, and professor Behr returning for Jo at the end of Little Women. Now, put yourself in the scene as the Beauty, AND JESUS AS THE LOVER” (page 114).


God as a romantic and sensual lover is clearly part of his intent and his message. He includes their first romantic kiss, for heaven's sake. Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with Eldredge's statements, it cannot be denied that he is associating and presenting Christ as a sensual & sexual lover.

There's what I perceive to be a fine line here. Again, using the metaphor of romance (which he clearly does) is different than the assertion of sexuality in our relationship with the divine, which is by all accounts absurd.



Kath -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 5:35:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AoibhinnGrainne

The word "worship" in the Greek, proskuneo means to lean forward, to kiss...

It also means to touch one's head to the ground, to be on one's knees, to kiss the hand toward...

Do you understand that in Middle East culture, men kiss each other on the cheek in greeting?

Aoi.


Jack did not kiss Rose in such a manner in the movie Titanic so I do not see how this explanation is relevant to the discussion. What difference does a kiss mean in Greek or Middle Eastern cultures? That is not how Eldredge used it in his example here.



GroupW -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 5:35:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AoibhinnGrainne

Again...I have failed to stay out of this.

I have learned never to tell people I'm staying out of a thread.



ta_mosquito -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 5:37:12 PM)

quote:

I have learned never to tell people I'm staying out of a thread.

Ain't that the truth. [;)]



GroupW -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 5:48:21 PM)

Wes-
I was corrected a bit ago. The story of the prodigal actually does get used in drawing the distinction between duty and desire. Maybe a bit more airtime could have been used, but at least it's there.



lw9 -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 6:06:54 PM)

quote:

AoibhinnGrainne: I never saw the movie Titanic. I only saw a clip...which did not include a kiss...at Captivating retreats. I included the Greek definition of "worship" to help explain the metaphorical idea that worshipping God is "leeaning forward to kiss Him" in reference to something in post #235.

It is not sexual. It is not sensual. It is not prurient.


We are not talking about what you did or did not see in Titanic. We are not talking about how you feel about the movie Titanic or what you personally came away with.

We are talking about what Eldredge has actually said and the actual examples he has used in regards to our relationship with Christ, and that includes sensual and sexual illustrations.

You either agree with Eldredge or you don't, and that's certainly your freedom, but there is no way to change the meaning of his words into something else. If you cannot accept Eldredge's actual words and messages as they stand without diverting the subject or changing the meaning of the words to make it sound better, that should tell you something.



SD456 -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 6:13:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doinkdom
Well, from what I can tell, this thread has established that Eldredge teaches that Jeremiah 17:9 doesn’t apply to a believer and he can therefore follow his heart.


I don't think anyone is saying that. I think christians understand that we are not allowed to follow the evil desires that spring up out of our sinful nature, those are to be put to death. But I do believe that God planted in all of us purposes in our heart that we are encouraged to fully pursue with joy - so in that, we are following our hearts and I would agree with Eldredge. If you're meant to be a rock climb instructor then please don't become an accountant because you'll be MISERABLE. Follow your heart!

quote:

Paul understood that the old nature and tendency to evil is still very much present in the Christian life (Rom. 7:18).


Yes, Paul did understand that. But he understood it more deeply than most christians. He understood that his identity was no longer that of 'sinner' but that of 'new creation' and 'saint'.

Rom 7:17,18 So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. Paul was very clear that the identity he now embraced as 'new creation' no longer was doing the sinning - but it was the sinful nature that resides in him that was doing the sinning.

I WAS a sinner. I am NOT a sinner any longer. I am a new creation, a saint, part of the royal priesthood, a holy one, who fights a battle with the old sinful nature that my heart got circumcised from but that still resides in me and tries to raise it's ugly head now and again. There is a subtle difference in this understanding of it and what some of the church believe, but a very profound difference. Eldredge tries to explain what that difference is between what Paul taught and what some of the church teaches.



GroupW -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 6:13:19 PM)

lw-
I do think it's fair to say that you're pushing the limits of a metaphor a bit further than the author himself would have pushed it (and he pushed it a bit further than he should have in my opinion.)

IMO the intended idea behind the imagery is the depth of the desire, the relentlessness of its pursuit of its object, and our response to it, not the sexual or asexual nature of it. At least, that's what I come away with.

BT



SD456 -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 6:15:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lw9


My take: The concepts he's working from are not Biblical in the first place, so to fit in with his ideas that the heart is good so follow heart and desire, and that God looks upon us as a literal romantic lover, he has to go beyond scripture and use worldly illustrations, even if it means associating Jesus as the sensual & sexual lover of an unmarried woman. He's created this fantasy world, and now he has to find whatever it takes to support and uphold it.


*LOL* That is definately your take, I agree. Not mine. But to each his own. You, lw, should get an award for Hyperbole. You are so excellent at it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aoi
In fact, the elevation of rational intellectual thought to the exclusion of all else, is an idol in our land. Church, rather. It's Christian Stoicism and it's non-Biblical and it's something we got from the pagans in the 4th/5th C.


Yes, that is correct.



GroupW -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 6:17:09 PM)

SD-Would it be more accurate to say instead of "I am a sinner no longer" that rather my sinful heart is no longer that which defines me in God's eyes?

LW- to be fair, Eldredge in other places says quite plainly that my human heart is also wicked. He just seems to believe that this is no longer that which defines me. I am able to aspire to and desire something better. He actually does not advocate that we can blindly trust our hearts after salvation, though I can see how this is not made very clear. In this I find him to be biblically consistent though not always very clear and quite subject to misunderstanding.



lw9 -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 6:26:17 PM)

quote:

GroupW: I do think it's fair to say that you're pushing the limits of a metaphor a bit further than the author himself would have pushed it (and he pushed it a bit further than he should have in my opinion.)


Again, how so?

- Eldredge uses romantic illustrations and asks the reader to conjure up romantic scenes. Yes, romantic. The word is right there in front of everyone.

- Eldredge picked out the scene where Jack put his arms around Rose and kisses her as an example of a romantic scene.

- Eldredge tops all of this off with "Now, put yourself in the scene as the Beauty, and Jesus as the lover."

This is what Eldredge CHOSE to write and present as the picture of love between God and man. How am I adding to that picture or pushing it's meaning? It's all plainly spelled out.



SD456 -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 6:26:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

lw-
I do think it's fair to say that you're pushing the limits of a metaphor a bit further than the author himself would have pushed it (and he pushed it a bit further than he should have in my opinion.)

IMO the intended idea behind the imagery is the depth of the desire, the relentlessness of its pursuit of its object, and our response to it, not the sexual or asexual nature of it. At least, that's what I come away with.

BT


Absolutely. ditto.

You put it exactly like I was thinking, but couldn't write well enough, thank you yet again GroupW.



SD456 -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 6:31:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lw9

quote:

GroupW: I do think it's fair to say that you're pushing the limits of a metaphor a bit further than the author himself would have pushed it (and he pushed it a bit further than he should have in my opinion.)


Again, how so?

- Eldredge uses romantic illustrations and asks the audience to conjure up romantic scenes. Yes, romantic. The word is right there.

- Eldredge picked out the scene where Jack put his arms around Rose and kisses her as an example of a romantic scene.

- Eldredge tops all of this off with "Now, put yourself in the scene as the Beauty, and Jesus as the lover."

This is what Eldredge CHOSE to write and present as the picture of love between God and man. How am I adding to that picture or pushing it's meaning? It's all plainly spelled out.


God romances us, lw. That's what you would call someone who woos you and pursues you. That's what the Holy Spirit does. The Holy Spirit woos us to Christ. There is an element of romance in that, but without sex. That is what Eldredge is getting at - that insistent wooing until the one being wooed draws close and believes and calls out.

That's the point of song of Solomon and the point of Eldredge in using the metaphors he uses.

It sounds like that idea is new to you. But it's not new to the church at large over the past 2000 years. Read things from the saints of old and fathers of the faith and you will find that some use language of love and romance when speaking about Christ.



GroupW -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 6:34:29 PM)

lw-
The question is what lessons do you choose to pull from that metaphor. Do you choose to see the sexual aspects of it or the intensity of the desire & pursuit? If you focus on the sexual aspects you're missing his point.

While it may not be the metaphor you or I would have chosen, there would seem to be clear limits on the lessons it was intended to draw.

The sexual aspects of that scene are irrelevant to the point he's trying to make. Probably one reason he should have considered using a different scene and why he should pay ME to edit his books. At worst, I think he's guilty of a bad metaphor.

BT

Edit: If memory serves, SD is correct in saying that this is not the first time that the language of romance has been used to describe Christ's pursuit of his church. I believe the more mystically oriented have occasionally used this imagery down through history.

That said, there has long been a certain degree of antipathy between the mystical side of the faith and the rationalistic. Those of us who tend toward the rationalistic have never quite been convinced by the mystics and have remained somewhat distrustful. Methinks that's somewhat evident in this thread.

This is actually the first time I've ever been in the position of defending one of the mystical persuasion. It's not entirely comfortable, but it is interesting.



lw9 -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 7:07:28 PM)

quote:

GroupW: The question is what lessons do you choose to pull from that metaphor. Do you choose to see the sexual aspects of it or the intensity of the desire & pursuit? If you focus on the sexual aspects you're missing his point.


No, that is not the question. Forget the alleged lesson. The question is whether it's right to describe God as our lover, our boyfriend, our sensual and sexual partner, our love sick lusty suitor just waiting for the perfect romantic opportunity to sensually kiss us on the lips. ELDREDGE PUT THE SEXUAL ASPECT IN THERE TO BEGIN WITH, but now you say we are only seeing what we choose to see? We should actually just ignore all of that and try to learn a lesson??? Dude... please.

There are loads of metaphors that can be used which don't pervert the relationship between man and God. There is no Christian lesson to be learned from lowering God and elevating man. The fact that anyone even has to explain why this is so wrong is absolutely unbelieveable.



GroupW -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 7:10:38 PM)

LOL-
I told you I thought he should pick a different metaphor.

BT

Edit: I'm not trying to say that you're seeing in that only what you want to see. I'm saying that the sexual aspects are irrelevant to the point he's making. Casting Christ as a lusty love sick suitor doesn't seem to be where his heart is at.

In other words, I'm agreeing with you, dude. It's not what I would have done. I see the point he's making, and I understand it. I would have chosen myself to make it differently.

In other words, I'm much more comfortable criticizing the man's writing, but much less comfortable criticizing the man.

The use of romantic imagery in general however isn't 100% inappropriate as SD and She-Of-Unpronouncable-Name have pointed out. (Sorry L. - couldn't remember how to spell your name.) It's been done before ;)



SD456 -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 7:21:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW
That said, there has long been a certain degree of antipathy between the mystical side of the faith and the rationalistic. Those of us who tend toward the rationalistic have never quite been convinced by the mystics and have remained somewhat distrustful. Methinks that's somewhat evident in this thread.


Excellent point and very true. There has always been antogonism in the church against those christians who lean toward relating to God in a more emotional, supernatural or mystical way. Sadly, it's the more 'mystical' christians that would end up on the chopping block because the more 'rational' or 'hellenistic' christians were fearful of them and their rapport with the Holy Spirit.

It's not just in this thread, but in many others.

I'm a creative writer myself and I probably would have used some of the same metaphors as Eldredge because I understand them. It doesn't freak me out at all.



lw9 -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 7:22:42 PM)

GroupW:

I understand you thought he should pick a different metaphor, but I think maybe you are missing part of my point. This isn't just a simple matter of he should have used better metaphors. Yes, of course he could have... but he didn't. Do you see? He chose those metaphors for a reason. They reflect his beliefs, and they reflect him. That is really the heart of this issue for me. It isn't just those particular illustrations. It's a conglomerate of issues that create the whole picture. That is what I'm looking at.



GroupW -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 7:26:08 PM)

The weird thing for me is to be in the position of defending the mystic. That's a new one for me. I'm pretty solidly rationalistic in my approach to about everything. I can't say I'm entirely comfortable in this role.

My coworkers used to call me "Data" - as in "Commander Data" of Star Trek fame. The robotic, non-emotional character a la "Spock".

Later guys, dinner beckons me home.

G'Night



GroupW -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 7:27:26 PM)

One last post.

So lw, do you really think he believes God's love for us is sexual? That we should relate to him in a human romantic sense?



Kat_D -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 7:29:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kath

quote:

ORIGINAL: AoibhinnGrainne

The word "worship" in the Greek, proskuneo means to lean forward, to kiss...

It also means to touch one's head to the ground, to be on one's knees, to kiss the hand toward...

Do you understand that in Middle East culture, men kiss each other on the cheek in greeting?

Aoi.


Jack did not kiss Rose in such a manner in the movie Titanic so I do not see how this explanation is relevant to the discussion. What difference does a kiss mean in Greek or Middle Eastern cultures? That is not how Eldredge used it in his example here.


Ain't that the truth! Huge difference there!! Jack and Rose's little "kiss" took place in the cargo hold in the back of a traveling car and you couldn't see inside the windows because of all the steam....
.
.
.
er, if I remember correctly![sm=blush.gif]



GroupW -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 7:30:49 PM)

Dude isn't pejorative. I took no offense with it - usually used in a friendly way in my experience.



earthless -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 7:39:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AoibhinnGrainne

Would you like to be judged by your writings?


I don't have a problem with that.



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI