Need help on the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus."

I've written a couple of posts in the past on the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus," where I have suggested it's not the most helpful phrase - here and here. 

I got an e-mail today from a reader asking where this phrase came from - did the Southern Baptists invent it or did it arise out of revivalism?  Frankly I don't know - my guess would be that some of both were involved - i.e. it would seem to fit with revivalism, but then receive it's popularity through the SBC.

Does anyone out there have any idea where the phrase came from?  I am also wondering if it has roots in romanticism and found it's way into the church that way.

Thanks for the help!

Comments

[Will]

So I did some quick digging and came up with...well, not much. There are a lot of people who speculate about the origin of the phrase, but no one with any real historical data. There are plenty of people who defend the phrase as a legitimate one, primarily from their own "personal relationship" experience. And there are plenty more who lament its use and suggest, as you do, a more biblical vocabulary. If I come across anything substantial, I'll be sure to let you know.

[David C]

Are you telling me that it is not from the Bible???????????????

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

God helps those who help themselves.

Have you received Jesus as your Personal Lord and Savior?

[garver]

I have no idea where the phrase ultimately came from, but I did do a search of published materials once and couldn't find an instance of it from earlier than the mid-19th century.

[Wayne]

I always like to remind people that Judas had a personal relationship with Jesus.

[Heidi]

I've always hated this expression, and explaining why has always been a problem. Thank you Wayne!

[Scott Moonen]

Mark Horne pointed to (perhaps invented?) the phrase "public relationship with Jesus Christ". I think that's a wonderful way of putting it, especially in contrast to the "personal relationship" language and the general tendency to compartmentalize Christ's lordship.

See http://www.hornes.org/mark/2006/03/31/personal-relationship-with-jesus/

[David]

Hmm,

What about the scriptures that talk about 'knowing ' Christ...in His sufferings,power of His resurrection etc.
I was always taught that the word 'know' there is the same word that a married man has/learns in 'knowing' his wife in intimacy. It is experiential not just head knowledge.

That sounds pretty personal to me. I meet MANY 'christians' who I suspect don't know Him personally and they are in church every week.

[Camille]

Dwight L. Moody is the person we have to thank for bringing the idea into American Evangelical consciousness:

We learn to know Christ as our Savior, to meet Him on Mount Calvary, to look on Him as the bleeding Lamb of God, before we know Him as our Redeemer, Deliverer, and Shepherd. Now, looking round upon this vast assembly, I, who do not know the hearts of the people, cannot know whether you can say that Christ is your Savior. There are many, I trust, who can say this, and who rejoice in His salvation; while, without being uncharitable, I am afraid there are many who know nothing personally of Jesus as their Savior.

Billy Graham, however, popularized the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" most recently.

[Joshua]

The earliest instance of "personal relationship" I could find is "there must be a personal relationship both of man and of God to the man Christ Jesus" from an 1861 edition of -The British and Foreign Evangelical Review-. Personally I'm not a fan of the phrase, but even worse is "intimate relationship".

[Jim Vellenga]

I have less issue with "personal relationship with Jesus" than I have with the ubiquitous "let Jesus into your heart." Having said I don't have as much of an issue, does not mean I don't have any issue. Where it comes from, I have no idea.

Joshua, what is wrong with "intimate relationship?" Just curious.

[Camille]

That British source (location/date) would fit with Moody's British revivals, his admiration of Keswick "theology", and his transporting the whole kit-n-kaboodle to the US.

Yup, the whole thing fits with the 19th-century feminization of the Faith, the love themes in Moody, and the industrialized iteration of decision theology. I could go on, but I don't know if anyone wants me to. ;)

[Victoria Lynch]

I must say it sure sounds thoroughly Postmodern to me!

[Brian]

David,

In Spanish translations of the Bible, the word that is used in that passage for "know" is conocer, as opposed to saber. For those who don't speak Spanish, there are two verbs for knowing.

Saber refers to knowing facts, or knowing how to do something. Like, "¿Sabes manejar un carro?" -- Do you know how to drive a car?

Conocer is used in two ways. One is for meeting a person or being introduced to a city ("Conocí a muchos lugares en mi viaje." -- I discovered/knew many places on my trip. Or "Gusto en conocerte" -- Pleased to meet you.)

The other is knowing in the sense of being familiar with a person or place, having had contact with him or it. "Conozco bien la ciudad" -- I know the city well. "Ella conoce al pastor desde hace 10 años" -- She has known the pastor for 10 years.

"Conocer" is the verb used in this passage. It implies a relational knowing, not just knowing about someone or who that person is. But actaully having had contact with him.

It's also the verb used in "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." So truth here isn't just a bunch of facts -- truth is talked about as a person would be. The Way, the Truth, and the Life.

[David Wayne]

Many thanks for the help everyone! Sorry I didn't respond earlier.

Looks like most everyone is with me on the idea that the phrase is not the most helpful, eh?

I'm going to do one more post on this so stay tuned.

[Camille]

I'm the nerd that is researching other things but keeps butting up against this one.

Joel Carpenter in Revive Us Again (235) asserts that it's older: "The Puritan and Pietist awakenings of the seventeenth century emphasized a personal experience of God's grace at a time when new understandings of the self and experimental norms for science were growing."

I think this is what my Lutheran friends have been needling me about lately -- that the Puritans made the proof of conversion inward and subjective. So while they didn't use the phrase "personal relationship" per se, they started the ball rolling with "personal."

[David Wayne]

Camille - thanks for all the work you are doing on this. That will be surprising to some of my readers to see the Puritans noted in this. I am not that up on the Puritans, but I have heard that there is a split among them - some were more subjective/pietistic in thought and some were more objective. Maybe what you are speaking of comes from the more subjective/pietistic strain.