Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Morality & Ethics



Message

THEREDCAPE -> Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/25/2008 11:23:11 PM)

This popped up in another thread, and it seems to be growing as a movement of some sort:
Seeing or portraying Jesus in a romantic or erotic way.

I am highly uncomfortable with this, and am surprised "Jesus the lover" type teachings are taking hold. The scripture pointed out is Song of Songs.

Has anyone else dealt with this either in a church, on television teachings, or online?

How do people slide down the slope to begin to percieve Christ in this manner?



1love1God1way -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/25/2008 11:29:55 PM)

I find that modern day worship music could often be as easily sung to one's girlfriend as to one's Savior.



bluestone -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/26/2008 12:42:19 AM)

I am no t aware of it as a teaching or movement, although these days it would not surprise me.
However, I know of individuals who do this. They are women who can’t tolerate a real live breathing human male, so they have a fantasy romance with Jesus. It is called “divine-human” transference in psychiatric terms.

It normally involves a woman who sees Jesus as her “boyfriend” or even “lover” due to negative events in her life with real men…or absence of men in her life altogether. It could be a young woman who grew up with the absence a nurturing father figure in her life, or her present father figure is abusive, or the woman experienced some other sort of abusive trauma involving men to a point that any thought of closeness with anything masculine is detestable. They turn to Jesus. Then the spiritual gets mixed up with physical and emotional longings…..and down the sad path they go. Pitiful, really.



Annie64 -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/26/2008 7:03:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1love1God1way

I find that modern day worship music could often be as easily sung to one's girlfriend as to one's Savior.


It's not just modern day worship. I remember when I was a kid hearing somebody say that you can always tell by the look on her face whether or not a girl was thinking about her boyfriend when she sang "In the Garden."



CoeurdeLeon_ -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/26/2008 8:57:08 AM)

I had never seen or heard of this until recently. It's one of those things I'd never have thought of existing if I hadn't seen some art and commentary depicting this very thing. On one hand I think it's bizarre, on the other it saddens me terribly.[:o]



THEREDCAPE -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/26/2008 10:29:46 AM)

I also saw some "artwork" with Jesus involved is a sexual scene with a woman, his crown of thorns tossed to the side. Vile, and blasphemous!

Now there seems to be some sort of movement regarding "the romantic Jesus". How did this come about?



bluestone -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/26/2008 10:56:12 AM)

Here is a link to an article that says it all started in Kansas City[8D] LIN HERE I can't vouch for the validity of the author, but there seems to be a lot of concern about MEN getting into viewing Jesus this way to. But then again, the author thinks churches should not have pink carpet.

Toto, I am GLAD we're not in Kansas anymore!



humbleinspirit -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/26/2008 11:12:28 AM)

I remember on a Vineyard Tape there being a song simply titled "Love Song" I think. There was things in recent years about "breathy" singers as well. I can understand approaching Jesus with passion, but romantically though? Sounds like some people are getting delusional.



AoibhinnGrainne -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/26/2008 12:29:04 PM)

Interesting...

I know that what you are referring to was often a metaphor used in medieval Christianity.

So what was the source of this "artwork", REDCAPE? A blog? A web-site? Another forum, perhaps?

Before I discuss something, I should like to educate myself about it from the original documents...

Aoi.



phosadaud -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/26/2008 2:52:18 PM)

I think most of the world, and Christians as well, really have lost all sense to what love is. As a result, we confuse types of love.

We are to be passionate about God - "As the deer panteth for the water, so my soul longeth after Thee" is a beautiful image of desiring God. But that desire is not romantic or sexual. It is truly sad to me that so many can only think of desire in terms of a sexual/romantic desire. It also makes me sad that in response to that, others take the other extreme of rejecting all desire and closeness out of fear or misunderstanding what love is all about.

I think the devil wins in both ways. He twists what love means to those who can only think sexually about our Lord. He also drives a wall of distance between us and God when we are afraid of a deep relationship with God because some have perverted ideas of what that means.



Kath -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/26/2008 4:09:59 PM)

Here is an article from ChristianityToday from 2006 that also discusses this concept.

From the article:
But I have little patience for taking biblical metaphors too far and giving one's relationship with God an air of irreverent chumminess. Somehow, the scenario in which "his princess" shaves her legs for a date with Jesus seems to leave little room for fear of God.

I totally agree.


quote:

ORIGINAL: AoibhinnGrainne
So what was the source of this "artwork", REDCAPE? A blog? A web-site? Another forum, perhaps?


The OP is asking what people think of this concept, not a critique of any one piece. A discussion of any artwork would take the thread off topic of the general concept.



Kath -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/26/2008 4:21:12 PM)

As I was running a websearch on the phrase Jesus as a lover I discovered a review of a book. I was surprised to see the book was by John and Stasi Eldredge. Apparently they believe in this concept too? (I don't mean to turn this thread into another Eldredge thread, I just found it interesting)

I personally find the concept appalling.



AoibhinnGrainne -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/26/2008 5:02:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kath

As I was running a websearch on the phrase Jesus as a lover I discovered a review of a book. I was surprised to see the book was by John and Stasi Eldredge. Apparently they believe in this concept too? (I don't mean to turn this thread into another Eldredge thread, I just found it interesting)

I personally find the concept appalling.


No, the Eldredge's don't teach that idea as it is being presented here. But I am not an Eldredge apologetist and I agree...this is neither the time nor the place for that.

I think "Jesus as Lover", in a literal sense, is a heretical concept and I said so, as such, in another venue, about three years ago in a discussion that was far more serious in it's ramifications than this one.

But I also understand the ancient, mystical metaphorical literature that utilises the idea of Jesus as Lover of my soul which has been a part of personal worship for the last, oh, millenia or so.

I, too, have seen some "art" that speaks to this new-ish ideaology and, apart from the fact that most of it is bad art, it takes away from the divinity of Christ. It demeans Him as Victor over sin and death and implies He needs us...which He most certainly doesn't. It takes Him away from the right of the Father, implying that He has somehow stepped away from His role as eternal High Priest (see Hebrews) Who's work is completed (indicated by the fact that He sat down).

To speculate a Christ that is at rest, laying aside the marks of His sacrifice (crown of thorns, for example) awaiting us to comfort Him is absolutely against Scripture and heresy at that.

I cannot state this strongly enough.

Aoi.



THEREDCAPE -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/26/2008 5:47:13 PM)

It seems we have three different categories here:

1. the traditional medieval view that saw Jesus as a love of our souls.

2. a mental disturbance that sees Jesus as the lover of our bodies.

3. A modern movement in the church that comes close to number two.

Is it perhaps out of a longing for relationships that are permanent in a time when they tend to fall apart?



THEREDCAPE -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/26/2008 5:53:12 PM)

Here is an example of someone thinking it is okay to see Jesus as a lover. She bases part of her idea on the Catholic Nun who is symbolically married to Christ. This is an exerpt from a blog.

what I see wrong with it is the idea that sexual lust for a diety is perfectly okay. It makes me think of the groups that believe we are ourselves gods, through our relationship With God.

Link Here



bride48 -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/26/2008 6:07:36 PM)

When I was single, leaders in my church's womens ministry encouraged me to think of Jesus as my Husband, using Song of Solomon as their Scriptural basis. My desire for an earthly husband was considered idolatry. I felt very condemned for wanting a husband other than Jesus.

Not only is this teaching a grave distortion of Scripture, it also leads to terrible self-condemnation and frustration. I suffered greatly under it!



CoeurdeLeon_ -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/26/2008 6:11:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AoibhinnGrainne

I, too, have seen some "art" that speaks to this new-ish ideaology and, apart from the fact that most of it is bad art, it takes away from the divinity of Christ. It demeans Him as Victor over sin and death and implies He needs us...which He most certainly doesn't. It takes Him away from the right of the Father, implying that He has somehow stepped away from His role as eternal High Priest (see Hebrews) Who's work is completed (indicated by the fact that He sat down).

To speculate a Christ that is at rest, laying aside the marks of His sacrifice (crown of thorns, for example) awaiting us to comfort Him is absolutely against Scripture and heresy at that.

I quite agree.



AoibhinnGrainne -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/26/2008 6:29:13 PM)

I think there may be something to be said for a very old and seldom used definition for the word husband:

Webster's Dictionary said...
HUS'BAND, v.t. To direct and manage with frugality in expending any thing; to use or employ in the manner best suited to produce the greatest effect; to use with economy. We say, a man husbands his estate,his means or his time.

He is conscious how ill he has husbanded the great deposit of his Creator.
1. To till; to cultivate with good management.
2. To supply with a husband. [Little used.]

This idea is still found in animal husbandry. I doubt those studying this at, oh, Texas A&M are studying animal marriage!

My point is that, at one time, the ideas of one being "husbanded", was one being nurtured, cared for, "cultivated with good management".

Not made love to. That is our modern definition of the word.

The idea of "husband" used to be defined by Ephesians 5:25-33 ~ 25 As for husbands, love your wives, just as the Messiah loved the Messianic Community, indeed, gave himself up on its behalf, 26 in order to set it apart for God, making it clean through immersion in the mikveh, so to speak, 27 in order to present the Messianic Community to himself as a bride to be proud of, without a spot, wrinkle or any such thing, but holy and without defect. 28 This is how husbands ought to love their wives - like their own bodies; for the man who loves his wife is loving himself. 29 Why, no one ever hated his own flesh! On the contrary, he feeds it well and takes care of it, just as the Messiah does the Messianic Community, 30 because we are parts of his Body. 31 "Therefore a man will leave his father and mother and remain with his wife, and the two will become one." 32 There is profound truth hidden here, which I say concerns the Messiah and the Messianic Community. 33 However, the text also applies to each of you individually: let each man love his wife as he does himself, and see that the wife respects her husband.

Scripture is remarably silent on the union of Husband and Wife...something that Modern Man fills volumes and volumes about. It would seem we get our definitions, our practice of "husbanding" from very nefarious sources indeed!

Perhaps this is where the disconnect lies; a misunderstanding of our own language and how a single word becomes redefined over the years...

Too bad. We've lost so much through nuance...

Aoi.



Kath -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/26/2008 6:43:51 PM)

quote:

Perhaps this is where the disconnect lies; a misunderstanding of our own language and how a single word becomes redefined over the years...

Too bad. We've lost so much through nuance...


I agree.



Annie64 -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/26/2008 10:24:55 PM)

Great post, Aoi! Very instructive. Thank you.



bride48 -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/27/2008 5:31:08 PM)

I agree about the disconnect from the original meaning of the word "husband." But the people perpetuating this "Jesus as Husband" generally aren't aware of that original meaning. A wasn't. I wanted Him to fill the emotional void that I had.

Well, He did fill that void...by bringing a magnificent Christian man into my life![:D]



FurGodWurLivin -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/27/2008 8:27:35 PM)

Okay, I want to clarify things a touch. There is a massive difference between what is known as the "Bridal Paradigm" and romanticising Jesus. The first is very Biblical (lets face it, Jesus referred to Himself as the bridegroom), and the other is just...... odd.

God does love us passionately. God does not have a sensual, borderline erotic relationship with humankind.
Jesus IS the Bridegroom. The bride is the corporate church and not the individual Christian.
Jesus is the Bridegroom just as much as He is King and Judge of all the earth.
Song of Solomon is most directly applicable to the relationship of God and the Church, even though it can be used on the level of God and the Individual.
Because God is love (1john 4), and thus, God's love is as infinite as He is, God feels an infinite amount of love towards the individual person.
God's love is actually love (agape) and not "love" (eros)... pardon my Greek.

Adam



Ps103 -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/27/2008 10:31:44 PM)

I definitely agree that it is wrong to romanticize or sexualize Jesus, but I think it is just a part of what the "modern" version of Christianity does.

There are also detached, intellectuals who perceive Jesus to be more of a PhD than God.

There are extraverted "everyone's best friend" that perceive Jesus as their best buddy rather than God.

There are those who are passionate about social justice who perceive Jesus to be The Great Liberator.

And so on.

It is all a part of creating God in our image rather than trying, in our feeble human minds, to understand Him as He truly is.

We want a Comfortable Jesus we can relate to, who is a lot like us.



phosadaud -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/27/2008 10:32:56 PM)

Yep.



Kath -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (4/27/2008 10:44:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bride48

I agree about the disconnect from the original meaning of the word "husband." But the people perpetuating this "Jesus as Husband" generally aren't aware of that original meaning. A wasn't. I wanted Him to fill the emotional void that I had.



Exactly. I don't think many people that believe in this Jesus as a Husband thing relate to the 1828 definition of husband.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI