From: George Murphy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Feb 21 2003 - 12:31:02 EST
Rich Blinne wrote:
> 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.
If again I may interject, Graham didn't say "no language" but "no sacred
language." The same gospel can be proclaimed in Hebrew, Greek, Old Church Slavonic &c.
& its "covariance" is even wider than the possibility of linguistic translation. There
are different theological ways to express the gospel, different "theories of the
atonement" &c. This is not to say that anything goes, but we simply aren't tied to one
way of communicating the gospel.
The Word is, fundamentally, Jesus Christ, & the gospel is, in Luther's phrase,
_was Christum treibt_, what "pushes" or "promotes" Christ. That may almost always have
a linguistic component, but such a component isn't always the most important feature.
George L. Murphy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Feb 21 2003 - 12:33:38 EST