RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (Full Version)

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



Message

GroupW -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/1/2008 1:10:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bluestone

The more people are tolerated who think this type of stuff, the more invasive in the church it becomes. Coddling them is not the answer.

Firmly saying "NO" has to be the response of those in churches who do not want this idea beccoming invasive.

We can't not teach the truth because it hurts feelings.[&:]

I don't think discipleship equates to coddling. Quite the opposite, in fact. I don't see coddling when I look at Christ and his disciples or in many of Paul's letters. Personally, I've had reasonably good success teaching truth through relationships. A fairly wise writer once said "Significant change comes through significant relationships."

One can give a firm "no" outside of a relationship or within it. Hurt feelings in response to truth are best handled within the bounds of community.

It strains relationships, sure. But with persistence, they recover.



bluestone -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/1/2008 1:39:16 PM)

Paul certainly did not coddle. "Expel the sinful brother" was one statement he made.
He has some choice words for others who were spreading false teachings.

The point I am trying to make is that when false doctrine enters churches , it tends to spread unless corrected quickly. Nip it in the bud.

If we wait, it grows and by the time someone decided to handle it, the church has blown apart, split wide open.



GroupW -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/1/2008 1:47:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bluestone

Paul certainly did not coddle. "Expel the sinful brother" was one statement he made.
He has some choice words for others who were spreading false teachings.

The point I am trying to make is that when false doctrine enters churches , it tends to spread unless corrected quickly. Nip it in the bud.

If we wait, it grows and by the time someone decided to handle it, the church has blown apart, split wide open.

I agree we should handle it quickly. In my experience, handling it within the community first is best. Stronger methods are best reserved until it's certain that a community response has failed. I think this is why we are admonished to go approach our brother, and if that fails seek the help of wise brothers and sisters to approach someone jointly, saving the most strong responses for a last resort.

I agree. A little small arms fire quickly between friends is to be preferred over a nuclear response between foes somewhere down the road.



Quipper -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/1/2008 1:48:48 PM)

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.


Yes. Here's an interesting essay by John Stackhouse on the same theme:

"One of the blights upon the hymnological landscape today is the continued presence of what we can fairly call the “love song to Jesus” genre. It’s been around as long as there has been Christian pop music–and even earlier, depending on what you make of sentimental gospel songs in the nineteenth century, eighteenth-century revivalist hymns, and especially a lot of the mystical poetry-cum-lyrics of certain medieval saints.

Today our congregation was asked to sing, “Jesus, I’m in love with you”–a line that shows up, in one permutation or another, in several songs that occur frequently in our worship leaders’ rotation.

Well, I didn’t sing it. It’s wrong, and I try not to sing wrong lyrics.

First, I’m not in love with Jesus. The locution “in love with” is one I reserve for one person only: my wife. I love my sons, I love my siblings and parents, I love my friends, I love my country, I love my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I love God. But I’m not “in love” with any of them. And I daresay most of the rest of us use this phrase in exactly the same, highly-restrictive way."

Click here to read the rest of this article.



SD456 -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/1/2008 4:13:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellaluna

quote:

ORIGINAL: SD456
quote:

ORIGINAL: stellaluna
Of course, there are two women in another thread saying Jesus is the love of their lives and that kind of creeps me out, too.

The whole idea just creeps me out, is all.

That's funny that that would creep you out. Jesus is the love of my life also. I've not ever known anyone to love me so unconditionally as Him and since He IS love than I think it's ok for people to feel that He is THE love of their life. There is nothing sexual in that statement.

I still think to use a phrase that vernacularly describes a romantic relationship is creepy when Jesus is a part of it. It's not the idea that Jesus loves you the most and you love Jesus the most...it's how it's described that is creepy.


I think you can't get around it when all we have is our human language to describe a profound love that fills you up, pursues you, and sometimes overwhelms you with it's patience and tenderness. We are limited by our language.

God's love is passionate in it's degree and some grasp at words to try and explain the love they have experienced. For me, the words that best describe God's love that I've experienced often happen to be the same words that a man and woman would use about their love.

What's creepy for one is not creepy for another.

I would say, "God wooed me and pursued me with this astounding love that overwhelmed my heart. He is more beautiful to me than ten thousand men and I have fallen in love with this God." You might say, "God opened up my spiritual understanding and showed me how much He loves me."

To you, my statement might be speaking too strong for your comfortability, while to me your statement might be too 'nice' and not fit what I'm trying to express at all. Yet we are both expressing what we feel toward God restricted by the same language. And we must remember that those of a more rationalistic personality will be drawn to different descriptives than those of a more emotional/creative personality.



SD456 -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/1/2008 4:16:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1love1God1way

Although it is less "romantic", I have troubles with The More I Seek You, if you guys know that song. The chorus is:

"I want to sit at your feet
drink from the cup in your hand
lay back against you and breath
feel your heartbeat
This love is so deep
It's more than I can stand
I melt in your peace,
It's overwhelming"

I'm not saying this is wrong or anything, but as a male raised in a small country town who worked in a paper mill. . . this just is too. . . mushy for me. Girly, I guess.

To each their own I guess.


I agree with GroupW, those words don't bother me. I too picture John resting on Jesus heart and realizing that He loves the Son of God very profoundly.



GroupW -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/1/2008 4:17:44 PM)

SD - not that you'll see me singing that one as I'm walking down the street ;)

Pretty much a "How Great Thou Art" kind of person.



SD456 -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/1/2008 4:22:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bluestone

I think Stellaluna hit it headon....the descriptions are what does it.
If your description of your relationship with Jesus is full of sexual inuendo, your use language that is normally used to describe erotic relationships, or you produce artwork depicting Jesus in a sexually descriptive relationship with His "bride", then the line has been crossed into creepy grosshood, and it has been crossed (IMO) INTENTIONALLY.

Some may claim innocence, but I think YOU KNOW YOU ARE MAKING A HOLY, SPIRITUAL RELATIONSHIP EROTIC.

To me, that spells a mind that needs some help.


I believe those are very extreme cases. I've never personally known anyone who thinks in erotic terms with Jesus through my 33 years of following Christ. There will always be extreme cases of everything out there. That shouldn't be what governs our decisions on how we interact or communicate with God nor more than hearing how some home-schooling mother went beserk and harmed her children should make us stop home-schooling our children.



SD456 -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/1/2008 4:29:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

SD - not that you'll see me singing that one as I'm walking down the street ;)

Pretty much a "How Great Thou Art" kind of person.


[:D] Yes, you are definately more of a rationalist than I. Should I call you "Data?"



GroupW -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/1/2008 5:23:37 PM)

You know, I knew I should never have posted that....



bride48 -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/1/2008 5:44:02 PM)

I think Christianity is a rational faith, and that our emotional responses must always be evaluated in light of Scripture. God's love for us, as portrayed in Scripture, is more practical than romantic, seems to me. He's the Bridegroom of the Church, not individual Chrristians.



1love1God1way -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/1/2008 5:50:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SD456

I agree with GroupW, those words don't bother me. I too picture John resting on Jesus heart and realizing that He loves the Son of God very profoundly.


They don't "bother" me, I just find it too. . . sappy, for my likings.

I view the Father's love like my own father's love, as many do (obviously it is quit greater, but that is besides the point), and I simply was not raised in that sentimental kind of way. My father's love for me looked different, and I guess I tend to see my Father's love a little differently as well.

But, as I said, as long as those lines aren't crossed into eroticism. . .To each his own.



GroupW -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/1/2008 5:55:30 PM)

We have the same point of view on that one. And apparently the same type of father.



SD456 -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/1/2008 6:09:26 PM)

The problem with saying that we are not allowed to use any language which is also used in romance makes expressing to God our love, impossible. The language of love is just that - it's the language of descriptives of love.

Below are just a few of the lines from Psalms and the books of the Prophets where either the Psalmist is speaking to God or God is speaking to His people. (I purposefully stayed away from SOS as some have a problem with the thought of it being an allegory). Even they use the same words that are also used by us for romantic reasons. Anyone of these lines could be spoken in movies, literature or real life by two people in love. And anyone of these lines can seem to allude to erotic love if the person reading takes the words farther than the writer intended.

You are fairer than the sons of men. (Ps 45:2)
I love you. (Ps 18:1)
Let your love be upon me. (Ps 33:22)
How precious is your love. (Ps 36:7)
At night your song is with me. (Ps 42:8)
Your love is better than life. (Ps 63:3)
Satisfy me in the morning with your love. (Ps 90:14)
I cling to you in love. (Ps 91:14)
You drew me with gentle cords and bands of love. (Hos 11:4)
Let me sing for my beloved a love song. (Isa 5:1)
Because you are precious in my eyes I love you. (Isa 43:4)
I will allure her and speak tenderly to her. (Hos 2:14)
I remember your love as a bride, how you followed me in the wilderness. (Jer 2:2)
I will betroth you to me in love. (Hos 2:19)
You were at the age for love; I plotted my troth to you and you became mine. (Eze 16:8)

I agree that we do not have an eros love with God, but I do not agree that we are not allowed to use only but the nicest, weakest, most rational and unromantic sounding words to describe our love for God. God didn't. I see no reason why we should have to.



bride48 -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/1/2008 6:28:16 PM)

What are the contexts of each of these lines? I tell my husband I love him, but it's much different from telling my mom I love her. And do any verses with Bride/Groom imagry apply to individuals, or are they about Jehovah and Israe/Christ and the Church. Context is absolutely essential in interpreting and applying Scripture!



SD456 -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/1/2008 6:38:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bride48

What are the contexts of each of these lines? I tell my husband I love him, but it's much different from telling my mom I love her. And do any verses with Bride/Groom imagry apply to individuals, or are they about Jehovah and Israe/Christ and the Church. Context is absolutely essential in interpreting and applying Scripture!


That is exactly what I mean. You say "I love you" to both your husband and mother and have a different intent in each. Would someone be wrong if they accused you of eros love for your mother because you use the same wording that you use for your husband? Of course they would be wrong.

Intent of what the person means is of the utmost importance.

And whether God is speaking to a group of people or an individual is beside the point. God uses strong language of love to speak to and about His people and that's what I was getting at. The language of love is used by all at all levels of love and so lies the problem that some have.

So what language do you prefer we use? What is acceptable? Only words that are NEVER EVER used by two people in love? Is there such a thing?



SD456 -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/1/2008 6:57:58 PM)

why don't we see. anyone have any alternative language?

I love you, Lord (nope, people involved in a romance say that)
Hold me in your arms, Lord, I'm afraid. (nope, definately a physical thing is being suggested)
Hold me close and don't let me go (Definately no. That's even more suggestive)
I long to see your face (That's borderline. "Desiring" could mean lusting after)

Thank you for your love (very nice. acceptable)

Fill me with more of you (Ahhh! That one can definately be construed wrong. Not allowed)
Your love is so sweet (borderline. A bit too romantic)
I love the way you love me (Sappy and too self-centered. We aren't to love being loved [;)])
Your love is more precious than gold (nope. people in love say that kind of thing)

So far I just can't think of anything. Can anyone else?



bride48 -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/1/2008 7:00:40 PM)

Please stop twisting my words.



SD456 -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/1/2008 7:05:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bride48

Please stop twisting my words.


I'm sorry bride, I don't intend to offend you. I wasn't speaking to you in that entire post, I was speaking to everyone. sorry for the confusion. My bad [&o]



1love1God1way -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/1/2008 7:22:02 PM)

SD,

I don't find any of those lines that you posted to cross over. They may not personally appeal to me as much, but it aint quite sloppy wet kisses and crawling into bed with Jesus. . .



SD456 -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/1/2008 8:10:13 PM)

I didn't either.

I loved that song we use to sing at church that has the lines "let me feel the kisses of your mouth, let me know your embrace."

I guess I'm naive, but I never saw it as eros because I know that it comes from the Song of Solomon and is simply a metaphor. I guess I don't get upset by the same things that others do. I always thought of it as a spiritual kiss or like , 'greet each other with a holy kiss' that is in scripture when I ever sang it.

Intent in one's heart is what God looks at.



LaurainAL -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/2/2008 4:42:53 PM)

quote:

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


It creeps me out.



bride48 -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/2/2008 5:00:47 PM)

In my case, it was more romantic than sexual, but it was still off. I had been told that my desire to be married was idolatrous, and that I needed to let Jesus fill all those longings. So I tried to see him as my Husband. But when my attraction to men didn't leave, I assumed something was terribly wrong with me! Then I felt condemned. Looking back, it was a horrible way to live.



SD456 -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/2/2008 5:46:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bride48

In my case, it was more romantic than sexual, but it was still off. I had been told that my desire to be married was idolatrous, and that I needed to let Jesus fill all those longings. So I tried to see him as my Husband. But when my attraction to men didn't leave, I assumed something was terribly wrong with me! Then I felt condemned. Looking back, it was a horrible way to live.


You could have misunderstood what they said. I've heard people teach in church, and agree with them, that when a desire, even a good desire like wanting a husband, grows inordinately large in our hearts so that it is a constant source of pain and grief and there is little peace, then that desire has grown to be an idol in our lives.

I tend to agree with that (though I'm not saying that's where you were).

An idol is anything that we place in our lives that we believe we just can't live without and if we have to live without it we are forever hurting, anxious and focusing on that which isn't there.

I have seen some women, myself included in times past, who without realizing it have made the desire for a husband an idol. Jesus truly can and will help us in those lonely times. He obviously can't fulfill ALL the longings that a husband could fulfill, but I have a difficult time believing that's what they meant when they said that to you. Jesus CAN fill some of the longing but not ALL of it.



bride48 -> RE: Portraying Our Lord in a romantic manner (5/2/2008 6:19:33 PM)

While at times I certainly did make marriage an idol, I can assure you I didn't misunderstand the teaching. Oh, I wish I could type faster, so I could explain it all, but please trust me. It was one woman in partcular...who happened to be the head of the women's ministry. She is divorced, and claims Jesus is her Husband. A wonderful Christian man proposed to her once (the marriage would have allowed her to be a missionary in India, where she had always dreamed of ministering), but she refused him because Jesus was her Husband.

Throughout my engagement, she always admonished me that my true Bridegroom was Jesus. Only once did she offer valuable marriage advice. The rest of the time she talked about the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Those who knew me better knew that, at that point in my life, I no longer idolized marriage. I think, subconsciously, she despised earthly marriage, and wanted me to remain single. She's hyper-spiritual, and wants to impose her hyper-spirituality on other women.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI