Socialism Vs. Capitalism

[HondurasKeiser]

I do not think I am. I am talking conceptual.

I realize that and I think you are conflating the concepts. I recognize there is some overlap but the two - individual, political autonomy to live as thou wilt and the call to follow Jesus are not the same.

I do not have a personal relationship with Jesus because I hang with the cool kids. I must make a personal choice to accept and follow.

I do not make it to heaven because I am in the right tribe. I make it because I, individually, have accepted the gift of Grace through Jesus.

I do not know exactly what 'making it to Heaven' looks like. I do know that my decision to follow Jesus means that I am joined to him AND to the Body of Believers. My identity henceforth is consonant with both of those realities.
I want to be very careful in how I write this: I do not think that Christianity, at its core, is about "having a personal relationship with Jesus". Though my faith is indeed personal and a decision that I, an individual make, that's not the essence of Christianity. What's more, the notion of 'having a personal relationship with Jesus' is the biggest reason evangelicalism specifically and American Christianity more broadly is in such trouble at present.
When you write:

Corporate faith can bolster and strengthen my individual choice, but it does not replace it.

I think you make one half of the 'faith equation' incidental or accidental to the other. An add-on if you will. There is within American evangelicalism the tendency to downplay the corporate aspect of the faith, to make it a helper to individual faith. The temptation then is to read the NT verses about chosen-ness, election, and 'The Bride of Christ' individual-centric when they ought to be read as corporate-centric. What's more, as Depeche Mode taught us in the 1980's, when we see the core of our faith as a 'Personal Relationship with Jesus' we often end up fashioning our "own, Personal Jesus".

Individual autonomy is required in Christianity. It is also a by product for a culture that is governed by a Judeo-Christian foundation. One must have freedom to make a personal choice.

I do not know what you mean by the bolded part. I'm guessing you mean that an individual decision is required to become a follower of Jesus. That though is not autonomy and autonomy is antithetical to the Gospel. Lucifer at his Fall valued individual autonomy. Believers value and practice submission, both to God and each other.

[HondurasKeiser]

For a balanced and pastoral take on the "Personal Relationship" language see this post: A Personal Relationship with Jesus?

Robert I am not saying you fall victim to the temptation to 'personalize Jesus' - I simply want to point out the potential pitfalls of an individualized faith and the attendant language that we use.

So where does this fascination with the language of personal relationship come from? Robert Bellah dates it to the nineteenth century, when “science seemed to have dominated the explanatory schemas of the external world, [so that] morality and religion took refuge in human subjectivity, in feeling and sentiment” (Habits of the Heart, University of California, 1985, 46). By this account, the triumph of science meant that faith had to make a strategic retreat to private experience or morality.

More recently, the language of personal relationship with God has become popular due to the pervasive influence of the language of secularity. So Marsha Witten cogently argues in her book, All is Forgiven: The Secular Message in American Protestantism (Princeton, 1993), a close textual analysis of fifty-eight sermons on the parable of the prodigal son as found in Luke 15:11-32. Twenty-seven of the sermons were preached in mainline Presbyterian churches, and the rest to conservative Southern Baptists.

In both traditions, Witten discovers, preachers respond to secularity in part by accommodating their language to it. Biblical language that emphasizes God’s transcendence is replaced by language that emphasizes God’s immanence. Jesus is not in heaven, at the right hand of God; he lives in our hearts. God is primarily seen as a “daddy,” as sufferer on our behalf, and as extravagant lover. In these sermons the traditional language for God is accommodated to the human desire for connection and intimacy.

Likewise the stress on practical rationality. Witten’s preachers are mostly concerned with giving the audience some everyday cash value for their religion. “Spirituality may take a back seat to pragmatism” in these churches, and “the language of technical proceduralism replaces that of poetic evocation” (134). In this connection Witten points not only to the raft of self-help titles available at religious bookstores but to the way sermons are structured “in a series of steps, or items on a list” (24). Thus is “modern culture…elbowing religious tenets and pronouncements into increasing conformity with the norms of the secular world” (6).

Furthermore, these sermons lack much sense that Christianity has anything to say beyond one’s personal relationship to God. “Only in a tiny minority of sermons is the world a place of social concerns and interactions, in which choices made about behavior have to do with social issues such as justice or equality” (57). Ultimately, Witten argues, the language of religious conversion, the language of sin, repentance, of principalities and powers has been traded in for something else. Now in both conservative and liberal denominations, the language of conversion has been replaced by the language of personal relationship. The language of personal relationship fits with secularity; the traditional language of conversion, of trading faiths through a dying to self, does not.

One cannot fail but recall David Wells’ warning:

There is an irony in all of this that appears to be entirely lost on those at the heart of it. They labor under the illusion that the God they make in the image of the self becomes more real as he more nearly comes to resemble the self, to accommodate its needs and desires. The truth is quite the opposite. It is ridiculous to assert that God could become more real by abandoning his own character in an effort to identify more completely with ours. And yet the illusion has proved compelling to a whole generation. (God in the Wasteland, Eerdmans, 1994, 100-101)
Is this possible? Do many Christians have a personal relationship not so much with Jesus, or God, but with something in their heads, with something that they’re comfortable with, a social construction driven by their need to go easy on themselves? I’m sure this is not the intention. I’m sure that the presence of the Spirit that testifies to the truth prevents many Christians who use the language of personal relationship from falling prey to its worst temptations. Still, given the repeated and serious warnings against idolatry all through the Bible, we ought to be very, very careful when it comes to imagining the God we say we’re in a personal relationship with.

[Robert]

Believers value and practice submission, both to God and each other.

Absolutely. This has to be a choice or we are just biological robots.

Just because someone has autonomy, does not mean they can not choose to submit, but submission has to be voluntary or we are just slaves and machines.

God gives us free will to choose. Any submission is our choice.

I am not conflating personal choice with and limiting it to not allowing one to choose submission or obedience. Choosing to follow Jesus is not a one time thing, but a daily choice and work.

God gives me the ability to choose Him, my community, my ability to speak, and many other things. Other humans will work to take them away. When they do, it is they, not me, that is working contrary to God's gifts.

Voluntary submission requires trust in the ones you submit to. It is a way to hold them accountable as well as yourself being held accountable to them.

If I am forced to submit, then I am a slave and have no choice.

If I think I can become a follower of Jesus and enter paradise(is that a better word for you than heaven) with him by just hanging with the right people, I feel I will be quite disappointed come time to enter.

[Robert]

For a balanced and pastoral take on the "Personal Relationship" language see this post: A Personal Relationship with Jesus?

Robert I am not saying you fall victim to the temptation to 'personalize Jesus' - I simply want to point out the potential pitfalls of an individualized faith and the attendant language that we use.

So where does this fascination with the language of personal relationship come from? Robert Bellah dates it to the nineteenth century, when “science seemed to have dominated the explanatory schemas of the external world, [so that] morality and religion took refuge in human subjectivity, in feeling and sentiment” (Habits of the Heart, University of California, 1985, 46). By this account, the triumph of science meant that faith had to make a strategic retreat to private experience or morality.

More recently, the language of personal relationship with God has become popular due to the pervasive influence of the language of secularity. So Marsha Witten cogently argues in her book, All is Forgiven: The Secular Message in American Protestantism (Princeton, 1993), a close textual analysis of fifty-eight sermons on the parable of the prodigal son as found in Luke 15:11-32. Twenty-seven of the sermons were preached in mainline Presbyterian churches, and the rest to conservative Southern Baptists.

In both traditions, Witten discovers, preachers respond to secularity in part by accommodating their language to it. Biblical language that emphasizes God’s transcendence is replaced by language that emphasizes God’s immanence. Jesus is not in heaven, at the right hand of God; he lives in our hearts. God is primarily seen as a “daddy,” as sufferer on our behalf, and as extravagant lover. In these sermons the traditional language for God is accommodated to the human desire for connection and intimacy.

Likewise the stress on practical rationality. Witten’s preachers are mostly concerned with giving the audience some everyday cash value for their religion. “Spirituality may take a back seat to pragmatism” in these churches, and “the language of technical proceduralism replaces that of poetic evocation” (134). In this connection Witten points not only to the raft of self-help titles available at religious bookstores but to the way sermons are structured “in a series of steps, or items on a list” (24). Thus is “modern culture…elbowing religious tenets and pronouncements into increasing conformity with the norms of the secular world” (6).

Furthermore, these sermons lack much sense that Christianity has anything to say beyond one’s personal relationship to God. “Only in a tiny minority of sermons is the world a place of social concerns and interactions, in which choices made about behavior have to do with social issues such as justice or equality” (57). Ultimately, Witten argues, the language of religious conversion, the language of sin, repentance, of principalities and powers has been traded in for something else. Now in both conservative and liberal denominations, the language of conversion has been replaced by the language of personal relationship. The language of personal relationship fits with secularity; the traditional language of conversion, of trading faiths through a dying to self, does not.

One cannot fail but recall David Wells’ warning:

There is an irony in all of this that appears to be entirely lost on those at the heart of it. They labor under the illusion that the God they make in the image of the self becomes more real as he more nearly comes to resemble the self, to accommodate its needs and desires. The truth is quite the opposite. It is ridiculous to assert that God could become more real by abandoning his own character in an effort to identify more completely with ours. And yet the illusion has proved compelling to a whole generation. (God in the Wasteland, Eerdmans, 1994, 100-101)
Is this possible? Do many Christians have a personal relationship not so much with Jesus, or God, but with something in their heads, with something that they’re comfortable with, a social construction driven by their need to go easy on themselves? I’m sure this is not the intention. I’m sure that the presence of the Spirit that testifies to the truth prevents many Christians who use the language of personal relationship from falling prey to its worst temptations. Still, given the repeated and serious warnings against idolatry all through the Bible, we ought to be very, very careful when it comes to imagining the God we say we’re in a personal relationship with.

Maybe I am misreading this, but i do not see how it connects to what I am sharing.

[Robert]

As Maslow's hierarchy of needs builds on layers, so does our walk with God.

The foundation has to be a personal choice and personal relationship or we should have just stayed with the Catholic Church in the 1500's.

Once we are "re" baptized individually, we join with a community to grow and deepen our faith.

Once we have a solid foundation in these two, we reach out to draw others to God.

[Robert]

viewtopic.php?p=173185#p173185

Article XI

WE AFFIRM that individuals are created and important, and that individuals play an essential role in God’s world and in God’s economy. There is a proper “biblical individualism” which values the importance of the individual. Each person lives his or her life coram Deo (“before God”).

WE DENY that any individual’s ostensible “lived experience” must by definition be granted complete legitimacy or inviolability. We further deny that one’s ostensible “lived experience” must be seen as trumping true and real authority—especially the authority of God’s Word.

[HondurasKeiser]

Believers value and practice submission, both to God and each other.

Absolutely. This has to be a choice or we are just biological robots.

Just because someone has autonomy, does not mean they can not choose to submit, but submission has to be voluntary or we are just slaves and machines.

God gives us free will to choose. Any submission is our choice.

I am not conflating personal choice with and limiting it to not allowing one to choose submission or obedience. Choosing to follow Jesus is not a one time thing, but a daily choice and work.

God gives me the ability to choose Him, my community, my ability to speak, and many other things. Other humans will work to take them away. When they do, it is they, not me, that is working contrary to God's gifts.

Voluntary submission requires trust in the ones you submit to. It is a way to hold them accountable as well as yourself being held accountable to them.

If I am forced to submit, then I am a slave and have no choice.

If I think I can become a follower of Jesus and enter paradise(is that a better word for you than heaven) with him by just hanging with the right people, I feel I will be quite disappointed come time to enter.

I agree that an individual can and must make a decision; I think I wrote that explicitly. It's curious though that in all of the scenarios you offered: " to choose Him, your community, trusting who you submit to, to be held accountable" i.e. 'to submit or not submit' they are not equally valuable options. One path, submission is good and leads to life the other, "autonomy", is evil and leads to death. Yes, one has the ability to freely choose those paths but the choices are not neutral. Choosing individual autonomy, to not submit, leads to death. Individual autonomy is not the essence of following Jesus it is the essence of Satanism.

"a true Satanic society [consists of] free-spirited, well-armed, fully-conscious, self-disciplined individuals, who will neither need nor tolerate any external entity 'protecting' them or telling them what they can and cannot do."

[HondurasKeiser]

For a balanced and pastoral take on the "Personal Relationship" language see this post: A Personal Relationship with Jesus?

Robert I am not saying you fall victim to the temptation to 'personalize Jesus' - I simply want to point out the potential pitfalls of an individualized faith and the attendant language that we use.

So where does this fascination with the language of personal relationship come from? Robert Bellah dates it to the nineteenth century, when “science seemed to have dominated the explanatory schemas of the external world, [so that] morality and religion took refuge in human subjectivity, in feeling and sentiment” (Habits of the Heart, University of California, 1985, 46). By this account, the triumph of science meant that faith had to make a strategic retreat to private experience or morality.

More recently, the language of personal relationship with God has become popular due to the pervasive influence of the language of secularity. So Marsha Witten cogently argues in her book, All is Forgiven: The Secular Message in American Protestantism (Princeton, 1993), a close textual analysis of fifty-eight sermons on the parable of the prodigal son as found in Luke 15:11-32. Twenty-seven of the sermons were preached in mainline Presbyterian churches, and the rest to conservative Southern Baptists.

In both traditions, Witten discovers, preachers respond to secularity in part by accommodating their language to it. Biblical language that emphasizes God’s transcendence is replaced by language that emphasizes God’s immanence. Jesus is not in heaven, at the right hand of God; he lives in our hearts. God is primarily seen as a “daddy,” as sufferer on our behalf, and as extravagant lover. In these sermons the traditional language for God is accommodated to the human desire for connection and intimacy.

Likewise the stress on practical rationality. Witten’s preachers are mostly concerned with giving the audience some everyday cash value for their religion. “Spirituality may take a back seat to pragmatism” in these churches, and “the language of technical proceduralism replaces that of poetic evocation” (134). In this connection Witten points not only to the raft of self-help titles available at religious bookstores but to the way sermons are structured “in a series of steps, or items on a list” (24). Thus is “modern culture…elbowing religious tenets and pronouncements into increasing conformity with the norms of the secular world” (6).

Furthermore, these sermons lack much sense that Christianity has anything to say beyond one’s personal relationship to God. “Only in a tiny minority of sermons is the world a place of social concerns and interactions, in which choices made about behavior have to do with social issues such as justice or equality” (57). Ultimately, Witten argues, the language of religious conversion, the language of sin, repentance, of principalities and powers has been traded in for something else. Now in both conservative and liberal denominations, the language of conversion has been replaced by the language of personal relationship. The language of personal relationship fits with secularity; the traditional language of conversion, of trading faiths through a dying to self, does not.

One cannot fail but recall David Wells’ warning:

There is an irony in all of this that appears to be entirely lost on those at the heart of it. They labor under the illusion that the God they make in the image of the self becomes more real as he more nearly comes to resemble the self, to accommodate its needs and desires. The truth is quite the opposite. It is ridiculous to assert that God could become more real by abandoning his own character in an effort to identify more completely with ours. And yet the illusion has proved compelling to a whole generation. (God in the Wasteland, Eerdmans, 1994, 100-101)
Is this possible? Do many Christians have a personal relationship not so much with Jesus, or God, but with something in their heads, with something that they’re comfortable with, a social construction driven by their need to go easy on themselves? I’m sure this is not the intention. I’m sure that the presence of the Spirit that testifies to the truth prevents many Christians who use the language of personal relationship from falling prey to its worst temptations. Still, given the repeated and serious warnings against idolatry all through the Bible, we ought to be very, very careful when it comes to imagining the God we say we’re in a personal relationship with.

Maybe I am misreading this, but i do not see how it connects to what I am sharing.

It's a side-bar about the language of "Personal Relationship" as flowing out of the secularization of society and the inward, psychological, individualized turn that Christianity took a century ago.

[Robert]

It's a side-bar about the language of "Personal Relationship" as flowing out of the secularization of society and the inward, psychological, individualized turn that Christianity took a century ago.

I think it is an accurate connection.

[Robert]

Yes, one has the ability to freely choose those paths but the choices are not neutral. Choosing individual autonomy, to not submit, leads to death.

Yes. I agree, but we still have to make that choice. This is why it is the narrow way.

We have the right or freedom to choose. Our choices have consequences. That is what makes them matter. Taking the choice away from someone else is not honoring the gift of choice that God gives us. Thus forced socialism is counter to God's plan. Voluntary socialism to a God honoring structure honors God.