Re: personal revelations

From: George Murphy (
Date: Fri Feb 21 2003 - 12:31:02 EST

  • Next message: "Re: prophets gave little support as a rule to the Levitical Law?"

    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
    > >digress).
    > >
    > >
    > 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