From: Rich Blinne (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Feb 21 2003 - 12:13:49 EST
Graham E. Morbey wrote:
> 3. I am particularly pleased with George's grasp of what I meant
>regarding Christianity not having a sacred language. To me, it is a very
>beautiful evangelical thought and should be made more of in our
>interfaith discussions. No sacred language must come between the
>intimate relationship between God and humanity. (this also goes for
>sacred rules, laws or liturgical actions and therefore might plead for
>the Eucharist or communion as an evangelism tool, but forgive me, I
There is a reason why Muslims call us the "people of the Book". Your
idea here forbids all "God talk" by the way. In Ephesians 5, Paul
makes the analogy between the relationship between God and his people
and marriage. So, let's apply your thought to that.
No language must come between the intimate relationship between myself
and my wife.
Look's like I should go straight to my divorce lawyer! The mystical
union between my wife and myself includes our verbal communication. As
men this might not be a priority to us, but I am sure that the women on
the list would heartedly affirm the necessity of verbal communication
towards keeping the relationship alive.
As for your last thought, you are probably aware according to Terry's
and my tradition, the Lord's Supper is never to be divorced from the
Word. This is not to deny that nothing mystical happens. Rather, the
mystical relation is grounded in a rational appreciation of Christ's
work on our behalf. I could go into why the Lord's Supper is not a
converting ordinance, but that goes well past the bounds of this list.
Sorry, Terry. :-0
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Feb 21 2003 - 12:15:23 EST