"Spirituality for All the Wrong Reasons"

Today I re-read a Christianity Today interview of Eugene Peterson that was recommended to me a few years ago. I must confess that I am not a huge fan of Peterson's writing style - but he has some marvelous things to say. I hate to admit it - I started reading "Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places: A Conversation in Spiritual Theology" about a year and 1/2 ago - but just couldn't finish. Humbling I guess. I like him though cause he's got a beard. I love beards. Except when they are only comprised of neck hair. That's gross. Anyways, here are a few highlights from the interview.

--> What is the most misunderstood aspect of spirituality? "That it's a kind of specialized form of being a Christian, that you have to have some kind of in. It's elitist. Many people are attracted to it for the wrong reasons. Others are put off by it: I'm not spiritual. I like to go to football games or parties or pursue my career."

--> Many people assume that spirituality is about becoming emotionally intimate with God. "...This promise of intimacy is both right and wrong. There is an intimacy with God, but it's like any other intimacy; its part of the fabric of your life. In marriage you don't feel intimate most of the time. Nor with a friend. Intimacy isn't primarily a mystical emotion. It's a way of life, a life of openness, honesty, a certain transparency."

"...I've been a pastor most of my life, for some 45 years. I love doing this. But to tell you the truth, the people who give me the most distress are those who come asking, "Pastor, how can I be spiritual?" Forget about being spiritual. How about loving your husband? Now that's a good place to start. But that's not what they're interested in. How about learning to love your kids, accept them the way they are?"

--> You make spirituality sound so mundane. "I don't want to suggest that those of us who are following Jesus don't have any fun, that there's no joy, no exuberance, no ecstasy. They're just not what the consumer thinks they are. When we advertise the gospel in terms of the world's values, we lie to people. We lie to them, because this is a new life. It involves following Jesus. It involves the Cross. It involves death, an acceptable sacrifice. We give up our lives."

"I think the besetting sin of pastors, maybe especially evangelical pastors, is impatience. We have a goal. We have a mission. We're going to save the world. We're going to evangelize everybody, and we're going to do all this good stuff and fill our churches. This is wonderful. But this is slow, slow work, this soul work, this bringing people into a life of obedience and love and joy before God. And we get impatient and start taking shortcuts and use any means available. We talk about benefits. We manipulate people..."

"Spirituality is not about ends or benefits or things; it's about means. it's about how you do this. How do you live in reality?"

"I think relevance is a crock. I don't think people care a whole lot about what kind of music you have or how you shape the service. They want a place where God is taken seriously, where they're taken seriously, where there is no manipulation of their emotions or their consumer needs. Why did we get captured by this advertising, publicity mindset? I think it's destroying our church."

If you'd like to read the whole interview, you can find it here.

Church...

I read a post on another blog this morning that was encouraging to read. You can find it here.

Mae Ellevene Jones

Our daughter was born last Friday at 3:41 pm! Abigail has a friend who's baby was born at the exact same time. Crazy! We left for the hospital around midnight after a couple hours of sleep. Abigail's water broke - so the doctor told us to come in right away. Abigail had been telling me that "water breaking" usually only happens in the movies (like in "We were Soldiers"). I guess she was part of the 10 percent to whom that happens. Anyways, we went to the hospital and the contractions got worse and worse... She got an epidural around 7:45 am and was ready to go about 9:30 am. For some reason the doctor decided to keep working at his office until his hours were through - so he didn't actually make it until around 3pm. We waited like six hours for him to get there. But, we like him a lot, so we weren't too upset. ah well. My poor parents, brother & soon sister waited at the hospital from like 2am to 6pm on Saturday. Well, the delivery went pretty smoothly. The baby had quite a bit of gunk in her after being born - so they kept wacking her with this soft paddle stick thingy - and then sucked out all the gunk. Pretty gross and cool at the same time. I guess all of the gunk was preventing her from getting a good percentage of oxygen. After a few minutes she was well. We are thankful to God for a healthy new baby. That is my mom holding Mae at the top left. Now, to figure out how to get some sleep at night...

"Better a live heresy than a dead orthodoxy"

What is the correct measure for authentic Christianity from a human perspective? Right believing (orthodoxy)? Right Feelings (orthopathy)? Right living (orthopraxy)? I mentioned a few posts back that I was rereading "The Story of Christian Theology" by Roger Olson as preparation for a Sunday school class I may teach in the future on Church history. Yesterday I was reading about the rise of pietism (17th & 18th centuries). Pietism rose out of the Lutheran heritage - as a movement that sought to complete the renewal movement of the protestant reformation. It was a reaction to "dead orthodoxy," seen as shallow and superficial. After the reformation, Lutheran Christianity in Germany "fell into a state of spiritual, moral and theological lethargy." Olson writes, "Overall, however, authentic Christianity was identified with doctrinal and sacramental correctness..." The phrase, "Better a live heresy than a dead orthodoxy," summarizes the views of some pietists of that time.

It is clear that right living, right feeling, and right believing are all very important. But, is one more important than the others? Or does one lead to the others. I've heard people say right belief leads to right practice - and that - if one's practice is wrong - than his/her belief is wrong or not true belief. I agree with that - but thats not necessarily what I'm asking. I mean - from a human perspective/pastoral perspectve - which one do you value more in the context of the church? Just curious.

For my wife...

I'm sure I'll get this look pretty quick here...

crazy...

How would you react?

Wheaton to Rome Pt. 3, History

A second possible reason an evangelical may journey to Rome is that he/she has a growing desire to "transcend the human limits of temporality to find connection to the entire history of the church." McKnight writes, "Many feel they are isolated in the faith, in a modern evangelical movement that has cut itself off from the history of the church."

I think this is probably true for many more than we realize...at least in the tradition in which I was brought up. We looked back to the reformation a bit - but that was about as far back as we could go. The stuff before that was off-limits. Where did the church go from the time of the apostles to the time of Luther's ninety-five theses. This "historical disenfranchisement," as McKnight calls it, leads not only to curiosity, but also to a need to discover how the church developed. I think the simple solution to this dilemma - would be for evangelical churches to take firm steps toward educating their members as to how and why their churches have come to their present state (emphasizing the importance of knowing the whole history). I really appreciate the fact that my professors at Moody did a pretty great job of this.

I was going to write a bit more on this, but my brain is starting to get foggy (almost time for bed). Anyways - I may have the opportunity to teach a church history sunday school class in the near future - and I think it will be a great opportunity for me to expand my horizons and an excellent way for our church to understand "why we are the way we are." I have been rereading Olson's "The Story of Christian Theology" as preparation. It is a very readable introduction - though way too large for use in a sunday school class. I just picked up Litfin's "Getting to Know the Church Fathers" to see how it would fare as a nice introduction to church history.

Wheaton to Rome Pt. 2, Certainty

As mentioned in the last post, the evangelical on the road to Rome, according to McKnight, possesses a desire for transcendence. The first manifestation of this is found in the evangelical's desire to transcend the human limits of knowledge to find certainty. At some point, the evangelical begins to ask such questions as, "How do I know what truth is...is my interpretation of Scripture the right one or not...how do I know what God's will is for my life or for the people in my church." McKnight cites Marcus Grodi, a former pastor of a Presbyterian congregation. Of Grodi he writes, “He came to the conclusion, after a series of encounters with the Catholic faith, especially with the writings of Clement of Rome (Ep. Cor. 42:1-5) and Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.4.1), that ‘it is the mission of the Church to teach with infallible certitude.” Grodi came to conclude that Protestants have no way of knowing with any certitude if his or her interpretations are correct. The problem is solved for Catholics in that the magisterium decides such matters of interpretation.

I think I can relate to this thought process to an extent. It is easy to say that the bible alone is our authority in all things. But, in most protestant churches, interpretation usually lies with the individual. We “do” bible studies in which “I” decide what the text means (or if not “I” than someone else in my church tradition). When someone from my church disagrees withy my interpretation – they go elsewhere to a church with which they agree. At the church in which the Lord has graciously allowed me to serve, we often say that we don’t care about man’s opinions – but rather we care about what God says in His word. This is all well and good. But, we are kind of naïve in saying this. I think we do really want scripture to speak for itself. But often times – our understandings are just that – man’s opinions found using a commentary by an author we respect. We do not have as much certainty as we think we do.

All that being said, I’m not convinced that a person can really find the certainty he/she desires just by converting to Catholicism. Interpretation, just because it is decided with finality by a group of church leaders, still doesn’t make it the absolute correct interpretation. It would seem that the search for certainty could not stop there.

Wheaton to Rome, Pt 1

A few years ago I was recommended a few books for reading from a mentor of mine ("Ask Me Anything," and "How to Stay Christian in College"). These books by J. Budziszewski are geared towards young Christian college students facing the various myths and worldviews they may find at a university. Recently, I had also been reading some of the author's conversations he had with his students on the boundless.org webzine.

I was surprised when I later learned that in 2004 he was received into the Catholic church. Over the last few years I have seen a few acquaintances follow the same path in "converting" (is that the right word?) to Catholicism. Anyways, I was searching around the net and found an interesting article by Scot McKnight (a NT scholar) on "why evangelicals have made the trip to Rome." McKnight cites a number of reasons why this may occur - and I'd like to comment on just a few over the next few days. The main characteristic of the evangelical on his way to catholicism is his/her desire for transcendence. McKnight explains, "A desire for transcendence is a crisis about the limitations of the human condition and a desire to go beyond the human experience." There are four manifestations of this. One: the evangelical wants to transcend the human limits of knowledge to find certainty. Two: the evangelical wants to transcend the human limits of temporality to find connection to the entire history of the Church. Three: the evangelical wants to transcend the human limits of division among churches to find unity and universality in the faith and Church. Four: the evangelical wants to transcend the human limits of interpretive diversity to find an interpretive authority.

Tomorrow, I will comment a bit on the first of the "manifestations." I'd love to hear your thoughts. You can find the article here.

something new...

Sometimes its good to get thoughts out onto paper (or some other medium). I try to do quite a bit of reading throughout the week - but I don't do much writing. So, I figured this might be a good way to process through thoughts on what I'm currently reading, studying, or just going through in life. Feel free to read through my posts, comment, or tell me what I've written is ridiculous. Learning is a life-long process - so I am humbly ready to be corrected/instructed. Hope to hear from you.