Empowered Humility

My understanding of humility growing up was probably similar to yours. It involved shunning accolades, making sure I gave honor to God, declaring my unworthiness for salvation, and the like. I felt as though the compliments of others were poison darts filled with pride that would pierce my spiritual armor. The only way to defeat it? Deflect them with a good case of the “awww…shucks” and a hearty soli Deo gloria.

Now, I understand that perspective as a form of false humility – attempting to create within myself a facade of good-natured humility when really I craved the approval of others. I was not authentic. I said the correct things but relished in the attention/compliments of others. I now understand humility as something drastically different. Most people’s view of humility involves a resignation to some form of inactivity/timidity for the sake of “preferring others better than oneself.” And though that has a place in the Christian walk, it’s not the whole story. Empowered humility is really the defining mark of a Christian. In Romans 12, we find a recipe for Christian behavior. From the outset, Paul spends his time using action verbs – examples of behavior that are anything but idle. Even the verbs describing the willingness to put others’ interests in front of our own are intense, purposeful, and focused. It reminds me of the time-honored industrious phrase, “If you’re waiting on me, you’re backing up…” Verse 21 describes it best: “overcome evil by doing good.”  

You know, God is good, too. Tucked within the definition of “good” in any solid Greek lexicon is the idea of being productive. God’s actions are what ultimately declare his goodness. God looked at all he created and said it was good – it was active, dynamic, and teeming with life…just like him. We are made in his divine image – in Christ, we possess that same ability to be “good”: productive, active, constructive, energetic, and vigorous. But our common understanding of humility seems to state the opposite as if humility or meekness involves inactivity. To me, empowered humility involves taking the initiative under the direction of  God. Humble people see the desires and wishes of their Maker and move to make them a reality. Humility is not standing in a corner. It’s submitting ourselves to God and following him into active battle. It’s placing your life in the hands of another to fight for their cause with your life.

Empowered humility also involves attentiveness to the Holy Spirit and a willingness to put aside our own agendas and live an active life under guidance of the Spirit. There are countless examples of this in the Bible – active heroes and heroines who caught the vision of their Maker and moved forward to advance God’s vision: Noah, Abraham, Deborah, David, Nathan, Daniel, Hosea, the Apostles, Priscilla and Aquilla, Phoebe…the list goes on and on. And don’t forget the certainty and strength of Jesus – humble resolve in the face of persecution, need, and death. We know these names because they acted with the certainty of God, not because they were “shrinking violets” and emotional “doormats.” They were not weak. They were strong. But they weren’t strong for their own purposes. They were strong for God.  Forward-motion humility, empowered by the Holy Spirit. If you’ve been waiting for God to move, you’re backing up…

Trinitarian Evangelism

Similar to my obsession with divine sovereignty (an upcoming post), I have also been entertaining the idea of Trinitarian evangelism for about a year. I’m sure there are countless specialty books that delve into this topic specifically, but I haven’t read many of them. So, if I’m repeating something some world famous theologian has said, rest assured it was my idea first… 

Theology has shifted its focus to the Trinity in the last few decades. Part of this is to reformulate some Christian understanding of community. We are to imitate the relational aspect of God. Also, the charismatic movement has placed the “step child of the Trinity”(Van Dusen) on center stage. Uh oh. What do we do with the Holy Spirit?! So, Trinitarian models of theology began to show up (Rahner, Pannenberg, Jenson, Gunton, Moltmann, LaCugna, etc. No, I left Barth out on purpose. He wouldn’t like what I’m saying.). God began to be described as a “society of persons,” rather than some monolithic deity either with Christ or the Father at the center and the Holy Spirit as an ancillary member. This idea ran up hard against the hidden subordinationism evangelical theology implicitly subscribed to. But God can still remain one and be complex at the same time. The atom is a single entity, yet has several parts. If anything, the difficulty in describing God’s nature speaks to his greatness and complexity – something worthy of worship. So this “society of persons” relates, gives, supports, and involves all of its parts – defining love and community in the process. Weird, huh? Yeah, but fascinating, too. But there’s a problem.

 A lot of Trinitarian models continue to treat the Holy Spirit as the “social” or “immanent” Trinity (acting within itself and for itself – basically a conceptual model) when really from a practical standpoint what actually matters is the “economic” Trinity. An economic understanding of the Trinity describes how this society of persons relates to the created order. For the majority of everyday Christians living normal lives, that’s the important part. In other words, how does each “part” of God affect us? Hmmm…good question. That’s where my issues with Trinitarian evangelism come in.

Most evangelical models I know approach evangelism in the following way. After a person is brought to a place of conviction, someone leads a sinner to “accept Christ” or ask “Jesus to forgive their sins.” All that is fine, but where are the other two members of the Trinity? The focus is strictly on Jesus with the fringe benefit of getting the wrathful Father off your case. From what I can gather, we have a very linear way of expressing evangelism that most often includes an irregular form of subordinationism. Only, in evangelism, God the Father is not the top dog – Jesus is. That’s not to diminish the role of God the Son at all. However, if we take the Trinity seriously, we must find a place in evangelism on a practical level for God and for the Holy Spirit as well. I think the problem lies in the fact that we relegate all significance of the cross to ontological premise. But the cross has to be functional as well. In other words, the cross has to supply the bridge that not only allows us to pursue God but also for God to pursue us without inhibition. That includes the other two persons within the Trinity. So, rather than a single moment of evangelism that occurs looking back to the cross, the cross created a functional way for all three persons of the Trinity to simultaneously evangelize creation beyond the cross - even in the present moment, all three are engaged in evangelization of the world.

Rather than see Jesus, Father, and Spirit as a rank and file line for salvation (Jesus appeases the Father who, if you’re lucky, sends the Spirit.), maybe God is better explained as spokes in a wheel. That means that at any point all three persons within God’s “society” are free to pursue and attract any sinner based on which aspect of God he/she connects with the most. And I’m not talking about conceptual ideas of prevenient grace here – all of this falls into that category. What I am attempting to describe is how it looks to us as humans seeking God from the other side. For some, the loving Father is the attraction. For others, the Son holds particular significance. For others, the Spirit and the possibility of “feeling” God is attractive. Each person is different and God draws them by what attracts them to him the most – since he knows our hearts.

So, if God is a interweaving circle, a sinner can traverse along any “spoke” within the Trinity until he/she has reached the center. And there, he/she understands the role of all three persons and their joint, cooperative purpose of reaching him. That’s when salvation occurs. But in this model the Father and the Spirit hold the same level of attraction as Jesus does. Otherwise, only one aspect of the Trinity (Jesus) holds evangelical significance – the others are just for show. This doesn’t minimize the sacrifice of Jesus, his death and resurrection make all the “spokes” on the wheel of evangelism a functional reality.

Learning to “Feel” God

I promised you in the post about Maxie Dunnam that I would follow up by exploring the idea of “feeling” God. Here you go…

Pastoring is a tricky business. Taking concepts developed in an innocuous vacuum of journal articles, magazine op-eds, and…well…blogs and translating them into real life is difficult. Rarely is the transition a smooth one. That’s because pastoring involves people. Theology involves concepts. Though everyone lives from a place of personal theology, the outworking of that personal theology is often drastically different from one person to the next. Nurturing the growth of such a diverse group of folks can be the undoing of any industrious minister. But I’ve noticed something that helps direct my personal ministry. One of the things I feel most “called” to in the ministry is the help people understand and facilitate their ability to “feel” God.

Shane Raynor (the author of Wesley Report- a cyber-hub of all things Methodist) posted his thoughts on the idea of “Actualizing the Holy Spirit.”  Great article. Actualization can describe the integration of an idea of concept on a cognitive or emotional level – a hangover from the concepts of Maslow’s self-actualization and his writings on peak experiences. But personally, I take the idea even farther towards the concept of somatization: the conversion of cognitive, emotional, or spiritual aspects to physical or tangible expressions. For spiritual purposes, it’s the work of  the Holy Spirit in bodily manifestation. Normally in the psychiatric/medical community, that term has negative connotations. But honestly, anything - good or bad, happy or sad – affects us physically. It’s the same idea found in the ridiculously overused term “psychosomatic.” Internal issues result in physical expression. Good dissertation topic: explore the connotations of positive forms of somatization in humans and its theological similarities to the Incarnation as an example of the economy of salvation (oikonomia). Tell me when you’re done and I’ll read it with great interest…

Over the years, I’ve watched many individuals have a spiritual encounter that completely shifted their personal paradigm of God’s nature and immanence. In each of those scenarios, experience (of some sort) confirmed the power of God available to them on a personal level. Personally, it struck me as odd that God would initiate a strong spiritual encounter when I knew that many of those who received it had little to no doctrinal knowledge. I believed God was doing things backwards; after all doctrine comes first, right? But it occurred to me that throughout the history of the church, many people openly rejected any attempt of indoctrination without a prior or accompanying spiritual experience to validate that doctrine’s truth. Once someone has an encounter where they “feel” God, they will desire to know more about the God who provided that experience. God anchors faith in experience until one becomes grounded in proper belief. I began to understand my pastoral role was to disciple a healthy and balanced Christian upon the foundation of those spiritual encounters – not denying their legitimacy or downplaying their appropriateness.

How Christianity translates the supernatural into daily life is the most important aspect of personal spirituality today. Many pastors and theologians are struggling with this. Contemporary Christians are eager to cast off strict, doctrinally-oriented approaches to Christianity without accompanying experience. We ask Christians all the time  to follow their beliefs with actions – that our love relationship with God requires corresponding expression in a personal way. But today’s Christians have turned the tables: they actually expect to understand God’s love through the experiences he provides. 

Christianity has always been a two-pronged religion. One side involves doctrinal ascent to a set of beliefs centering on the finality of Jesus Christ. The other side is more “subjective” – it involves the prospect of “feeling” God through experience. That experience becomes an anchor for faith that can be leaned upon as doctrinal maturity develops. Of course, ministers and theologians get this backwards all the time - we teach doctrine in hopes that it will lead to experience for our congregations. But people’s actions tell us differently. When they are forced to choose between experiencing something on a spiritual level or adopting a particular set of dogma, they most often choose experience, since they ultimately believe that experience will correctly inform their doctrine, not the other way around. In other words we’ve been doing theology backwards. Postmodern Christians don’t say “I believe because I know;” they say “I believe because I feel.” It doesn’t have to be crazy charismatic stuff…but it’s gotta be something.

There are thousands of examples of this throughout church history. But how about a modern example. This video of Brian Head Welch, the former guitarist of Korn, discusses the role of “feeling” God in coming to Christ. Check out his comments about experience starting around 5:20.

In an Unprecedented Business Move, GPS Makers Copy the Holy Spirit…

When we go on trips, we often take Beth’s TomTom along with us to help navigate the way. This is a good thing: I have the worst sense of direction on the planet. I forget where I’m going mid-route at least once a week. I know…you’re thinking, “Sam, they have medication for that.”

Beth has her GPS set to this female British voice named “Jane.” I have to admit that I find it kinda sexy. “Just tell me where to go Jane. I’ll do anything you say…” Luckily, Beth is not threatened by my romance with Jane. But when Jane talks, I listen. There are often times when I can see a route change up ahead, but she doesn’t tell me where to go until I am a little closer. It makes me rather nervous and sometimes I talk back to her: “Come on, Jane! Tell me where to go!” Other than the fact that you now think I need counselling for my Jane “problem,” I started thinking about how this was similar to the Christian walk. I’m sure other people have made the same deductions as well.

“Jane” is a lot like the Holy Spirit to me. Some of the reasons are obvious. I make the choice to listen to Jane. She doesn’t force me to follow her and I have to listen closely to hear her. And she usually gives me several chances to follow her instructions (”at 800 yards, turn left…at 400 yards, turn left…”). But there is one similarity that interests me more than the others. When I veer from her predetermined path, Jane adjusts her route to incorporate the decision I had just made. She can do this because she is programmed to assume that there are hundreds, maybe thousands of alternate routes arriving at my specific destination. Of course, she tells me I just missed my turn – she even tells me to turn around a couple of times. But then she picks up a new route to complement my change of plans. Though she has a preferred route, my personal decision to go straight instead of turning right doesn’t affect her overall goals and objectives for the trip. This happens several times each trip – at a closed intersection, a construction area, and sometimes I simply can’t get over in the right lane fast enough. The trip may be longer or more costly (either through traffic or toll roads) but Jane always gets me there either way.

I think the Holy Spirit deals with us in the same way. For the sake of analogy, if God desires your arrival in Los Angeles, you can get there through Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, or Houston – it doesn’t matter. Heck, if you want to be a real model of inefficiency, you can fly to Tokyo and then Los Angeles. The key is that you make it to Los Angeles. Our lives are full of decisions that affect us in small ways. Generally, the Bible is concerned about how we respond in those insignificant situations, not really the decisions themselves. How you behave once you arrive in Los Angeles is more important than the route you took to get there. Or, as another example, it’s not as important where you work as it is not to steal office supplies once you’re there. But even in the big decisions of life, there are many “routes” that eventually lead us to our destination.

I can only speak for myself, but I obsess over life’s decisions as if they will make or break my relationship with God. We act as if missing one of life’s turns will cause “Jane” to yell at us for not obeying, turn her power off, and never speak to us again. Or better yet, she’ll deliver us into the “hands of Satan” so that we may learn not to blaspheme. Such obsessing keeps us from doing the basics of the Christian walk, as if we’ll be moved from “sheep” to “goat” status with little notice.

But by approaching the Holy Spirit this way, it teaches us to relax a little. And it’s at our most relaxed that we do our best listening. In the end, we have to trust that God’s ego is not bruised by a foolish blunder, a missed opportunity, or a weak moment of temptation. The key is simply to get up, dust yourself off, and get back on the road. Okay…so you missed Jane’s voice at that last turn. The question then becomes: will you be listening when she calls again?

Spiritual Gifts and Reformed Theology: Can They Co-exist?, Part 2

3) Confining spiritual gifts to conversion: By the time of the Reformation, Christian mysticism had developed into several different strands. The mystical treatises previous to Luther’s time always emphasized the availability of God’s presence in a post-conversion state, similar to the doctrines of sanctification and the baptism in the Holy Spirit of the Holiness and Pentecostal traditions. But Luther consciously rejected these mystics and chose to draw from the work of John Tauler and the anonymous Theologia Germanica instead. Both of these works (and subsequently Luther) taught that all the gifts you need you receive at conversion alone. There is no post-conversion experience and the gifts these works cite are the Isaiah list passed down through Scholasticism. This is really the first place that the idea of “one baptism, many fillings” shows up in Christian history. Any experience a believer can have originates strictly at the salvation moment. There is no baptism in the Holy Spirit other than what the Holy Spirit does to enforce the saving work of Christ.

Because of all of this, Luther’s commentaries pass over most passages that describe Jesus’ healings in the gospels. Miracles have passed away and “no new and special revelation or miracle is necessary” since an “immeasurably greater and more glorious work and miracle” is found in salvation. Tongues is no longer given since the church speaks all languages and only “fanatical spirits and sectarians” would seek such a gift. Luther, like Gregory before him,  attaches merit to not seeking spiritual gifts since “nobody should presume to exercise it if it is not necessary or required.” The inference here is that since God determines all detailed events in life by his sovereignty, the need for signs and wonders should never arise. A miracle would contradict the natural order and ultimately contradict God’s predetermined will.

Calvin towed the line, stating that healing “had its beginning from the Apostles, which afterwards, however, was turned into superstition, as the world almost always degenerates into corruptions.” His cessation sentiments are similar to those before him: “[The possibility of spiritual gifts] either does not exist today or is less commonly seen.” Counterfeit miracles are determined by their association with wrong doctrine rather than their supernatural nature. For Calvin, the more charismatic gifts of 1 Corinthians have mutated into more permanent gifts of the intellect – tongues is seen as the ability to preach in a foreign language and the gift of discernment is the ability to rationally determine false doctrine. That sounds alot like the Reformed tendencies of today to me.

4) Modern expressions of these issues: Charismatics maintained a distinct post-conversion experience until the rise of the the Third Wave movement in Pentecostalism. Beginning in the 1980s with its influence continuing well into the 1990s, the basic premise of Third Wave groups is to embrace the move of the Holy Spirit, particularly the aspects of healing, deliverance, intimacy of worship, and spiritual warfare without disrupting the general church structures or denominations of which they are apart. The phrase was coined by C. Peter Wagner, who spearheaded the doctrinal emphasis of the movement. On a practical level, however, John Wimber and the Vineyard Movement were the driving force behind the Third Wave phenomenon. Wimber, once an associate of Chuck Smith, would eventually separate from Calvary Chapel due to his emphasis on spiritual gifts while choosing to retain a Reformed approach to doctrinal issues. Similarly, Wagner cites a Reformed-based approach to spiritual gifts in describing Third Wave doctrine. This is particularly evident in the Third Wave belief that the baptism in the Holy Spirit only occurs at conversion with multiple fillings that may resemble what Pentecostals would normally consider a second experience. Once again, “one baptism, many fillings” is directly imported from the Reformed tradition. Also, common the Third Wavers is the absence of the gift of tongues. Though the Third Wave movement made some charismatic manifestations acceptable in mainline denominations, it aggressively minimized the distinctive phenomena that had characterized the Pentecostal movement since its inception. Following its Reformed roots, the Third Wave essentially made Pentecostalism non-Pentecostal.

Many theologians, although accepting limited roles of experience, reject a secondary post conversion event. James Dunn, Max Turner, and Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen restrict forms of Spirit baptism to the conversion experience. Unfortunately, even some Pentecostal theologians have gone along with the crowd. Assemblies of God theologian Gordon Fee followed the Reformed tendency to see sanctification as merely a “metaphor for conversion.” So even though charismatic manifestations are now acceptable, all historical attempts to integrate spiritual gifts into Reformed theology have consistently resulted in the diluting of spiritual gifts. Reformed attempts to integrate spiritual gifts have generally left charismatic Christianity a mile wide and an inch deep. History proves this to be true. And though it’s not the popular opinion, I just can’t accept that. I can’t help but feel that Christian spirituality is meant to be deep and event-laden. To minimize the charismata is remove one of the main points of intimacy between us and God. Though others see the gifts as expendable, I’ll take them every time. Can spiritual gifts and Reformed theology co-exist? If historical precedent is any indication, the answer is no.

Spiritual Gifts and Reformed Theology: Can They Co-exist?, Part 1

A little while back, I told some fellow bloggers here that I didn’ t think charismatic gifts (the traditional 1 Corinthians list) and traditional Reformed theology were compatible. Though you could write a book on this topic, I do want to address some the issues I believe make them difficult to reconcile. As always, you’re free to disagree and comment. Please know that I am writing this assuming a basic understanding of both topics at hand. I won’t be stopping for definitions and the like. I’ll handle the issues in this order: 1) allegorization of miracles, 2) the Isaiah gift list, 3) confining spiritual gifts to conversion, and 4) modern expressions of these issues.

1) Allegorization of miracles: Even though the gifts of the Spirit were still common during the postbiblical period (even by “scaffolding model” timelines), clergy began to substitute allegorical interpretations for actual miraculous events and charismata. The need for miracles and spiritual gifts began to be seen as an elementary approach to Christianity, similar to the way the Alexandrian school taught that literal interpretation of scripture was beneath a mature believer. Rather, God’s acts of creation and the ”healing” of the soul (conversion) became the true miracles of the church. Augustine, in his Homilies on the Gospel of John, stated, “The Samaritans had waited for no sign, they believed simply His word.” Emphasizing faith that does not require miracles, he stated that mature Christians have “believed on Christ through the gospel; we have seen no signs, none do we demand.” Earlier, disgusted with commoners’ use of amulets to cure disease, Augustine stated that we should “rejoice” when someone is sick “tossed about with fever and pains” in hopes that the gospel “placed at the heart” will “heal it from sin.” Sin was the most urgent “disease” facing humanity. The Reformers picked this line of reasoning up.

2) Substitution of the Christological gifts of Isaiah 11 for the 1 Corinthians 12 list: Around the same time, clergy began to teach regularly on the gifts in Isaiah 11:2-3. The Isaiah list (wisdom, understanding, counsel, might, knowledge, piety, and the fear of the Lord) became the standard gift “list” associated with the Christian walk. Though it is difficult to speculate exactly why these gifts were chosen over the 1 Corinthians list, some reasons do come to mind. For one, the Isaiah list prophetically describes the giftings of Christ. The church at this time was highly involved in defining Christology against heretical movements and the Isaiah gifts reflected that concern. Secondly, the gifts in Isaiah had less of a supernatural element to them. Wisdom, for example, has a more natural element to it than say, tongues. Counsel could be gained through interaction with creation – the Augustinian vehicle for God’s self-revelation – as opposed to prophecy which required direct revelation and inner experience. Third, the 1 Corinthians gifts appealed to the direct experience of the individual believer – something most ecclesiastical authorities believed was dangerous, particularly after the Montanism “scare.”

The Isaiah list didn’t replace the 1 Corinthians list overnight. Beginning with the Alexandrian school, spiritual gifts were adapted to accommodate theological beliefs. Origen cited language, wisdom, and knowledge as gifts only available to “worthy receivers.” Ambrose, describing the sacrament of confirmation, emphasized the reception of the “sevenfold gift” – listing the traits of Christ in Isaiah 11. Augustine followed suit. Gregory the Great made this substitution permanent. In his famous Pastoral Rule, Gregory wrote a tremendous amount about love and self-control but steered away from any recognition of the power gifts listed in 1 Corinthians. In his commentary on Job, Gregory explained that the seven gifts act as armor against spiritual attack and other evils. In a homily on Pentecost, Gregory specifically addressed the gifts in 1 Corinthians, but in the postbiblical age, he stated they are considered the gift of the clergy alone. Parishioners would do better to focus on the seven gifts that promote fruitful Christian living rather than power gifts that could possibly lead to pride.

We find the consummation of the allegorical and sevenfold gift traditions in the Reformed tradition. Luther’s German translation of the hymn, Veni Creator Spiritus, while referencing the seven gifts, allegorically interprets the gift of tongues as preaching: “You are with sevenfold gifts/The finger of God’s right hand/You deliver the Father’s Word speedily/With tongues into all the lands.”  These ideas are still reflected in Reformed theology today.

I’ll discuss issues 3 and 4 tomorrow…

Making “Spirit-led” Decisions, Part 2

Beth and I make decisions in a very particular way. We follow biblical precepts where we can – don’t murder, cheat, steal, etc. – all those obvious ones. And if we feel God “impressing” upon us individually to do something, we wait for the feeling to linger beyond that of a normal, everyday “hunch.” But what if we don’t have a clear biblical mandate or a strong impression? Well, we follow four guideposts that, when aligned, usually place us comfortably within the parameters of what we feel God would do if he were in our situation. Here they are in no particular order:

1. Love God with your whole heart, mind, soul and strength (Mark 12:30). When we make the choice to love God completely, it always manifests in a way that dovetails with his character and loving nature. That means we always opt for grace since grace is the ultimate expression of God’s love for us in Jesus. What about judgment? If you feel that acting out the judgment of God is in your best interest, that’s between you and God. However, for us, the risk of misrepresenting God and possibly damaging the spiritual walk of others is serious business. Knowing our limitations, we don’t trust ourselves to properly act out God’s judgment on his behalf. That’s his role. But we can always be ambassadors of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:18).

2. Love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:31). Beth and I often try to think, “If someone else was making this decision and it would impact us, how would we like for them to handle it?” The least we can do is consider the fact that others are often impacted by the decisions that we make. Does that means you should relegate all decisions to popular vote? No. But we can live our lives with an understanding of community and responsibility.

3. Prefer others above yourself/look out for the interest of others (Phil. 2:3-4).This guideline takes us even further than number 2 in the direction of serving others. There have been times in our life when we have made a difficult decision based on our ability to better absorb the hardship of life while shielding others. Obviously, parents do that for children at a young age, but what about Christian brothers and sisters in Christ? Sacrificing for others (even when they are not fully aware of those sacrifices) imitates the heart of God. Beth and I can’t do this every time. But when we feel God asking us to do so, we volunteer to take the “hit” of finances, reputation, etc. so that someone else doesn’t have to. That requires us to let go of our need for self-preservation and recognition. Preferring others better than ourselves means we must see the beneficiaries of our decision in the light of God’s unconditional love. That’s hard to do…but God can give grace when those situations arise.

4. Always lean towards the answer that has “eternal significance” (Galatians 6:8-10). People ask me all the time about whether they should go on mission trips or join in on some local mission project. My response is: does that event have eternal significance? In other words, does it reflect the heart of God and his desire to bring people into his kingdom? If so, then why not? I can’t think of a better use of time than to play a part in realizing the Great Commission. On a different level, if there is a decision at our house that promotes the values and character traits we see in God and desire for ourselves and our children, we will always opt for that choice. It has eternal significance and therefore is worthy of our involvement.

That’s how Beth and I make decisions. Pretty complex, huh? Actually, it’s not that difficult. It has to do with a mindset more than going down a checklist of criteria. “Spirit led” decisions are the ones where the Holy Spirit informs our thoughts and directs our steps. It’s the promise of God for those who trust him. He longs for the chance to walk us through the decisions of life. In those moments of reflection with him, we learn what it means to have the mind of Christ.

Making “Spirit-led” Decisions, Part 1

I thought I’d post some practical stuff Beth and I have learned about making “Spirit-led” decisions. I have to be honest and say that the majority of decisions in life fall outside of a particular biblical mandate or verse. That includes some of the biggest ones – marriage, occupation, etc. I’ve talked about the difficulty of discerning the “will” of God from a theological standpoint here and here. So, I thought I’d give some practical guidelines for making decisions in the “real” world.  Let me cover some basic aspects of decision making in this post before giving you our specific guidelines in part 2.

1. Work towards God’s decision, not your own. The “team concept” of decision making always works best in marriage (Eph. 5:21). In that model, two devoted spouses refuse to square off against each other with their own opinions. Once a spouse has taken ownership of a particular viewpoint, it’s hard to divest oneself of it without feeling that they have “lost.” Rather, they actively seek God’s answer together. Seeking God’s answer to a decision takes the personal element out of decision-making. Both spouses agree that choosing God’s answer is more important than being “right.” Once that decision is reached each spouse must choose to completely “buy in” to the answer and abandon any lingering doubts.

2. Spiritual impressions. Another issue in making “Spirit-led” decisions is the idea of needing a “spiritual impression” to confirm your decision. What’s a spiritual impression? You may have heard similar phrases like: the voice of God, an inner witness, a “check” in the spirit, having “peace” about a situation, etc. All of those phrases merely describe the belief that God can convey his intentions for our lives through prayer and discernment. What does that practically “feel” like? Well, everyone is different, but I think most people would describe it as a strong feeling that does not wane as time passes. How do you know it’s God? Well, you don’t…but it’s recurrence usually indicates that there’s something to it. In fact, the first thing I counsel people to do when they feel God is “leading” them to do something is to dismiss it. If it’s God, the impression will come back even stronger.

3. The myth of circumstances. Another common issue with making “Spirit led” decisions has to do with circumstances. Most people believe that life’s circumstances will ultimately steer you towards God’s will. That’s when they quote things about God “closing doors” and “opening windows.” But that really isn’t biblically accurate. There are plenty of times in the Bible where God asked people to do things that put them in direct opposition to others and sometimes even danger. For many people in other nations today, Christianity has been the sole cause of their social marginalization, economic hardship, ridicule, and even death. Life is often difficult simply because…well…it is. Difficulty in life and “closed doors” don’t always mean God is saying “no.” In fact, we would be worse off today if Christians throughout history had taken the path of least resistance, wouldn’t we? So, circumstances don’t always point us in the right direction – in fact, I would say they very rarely do. Circumstances in decision-making aren’t near as important as we are often led to believe.

I’ll tell you our personal guidelines for making “Spirit-led” decisions in part 2…

Exactly How Does God Discipline?

I initially posted this over a year ago.  It continues to be one of the most popular posts I’ve ever done:

I read a book a while back where the author was attempting to illustrate godly correction. He quoted Hebrews 12:6-10 (”he whom the Lord loves He chastens/disciplines”) and then made the following statement: “God does not hesitate to hurt us if this is necessary to help us become mature sons and daughters of His.” He then told a personal story of when his two year old son had foot surgery. Each night, the father had to stretch the foot as a type of physical therapy. Of course, it was tremendously painful for the son, but in the end the father said it was “worth it” – an illustration of how our heavenly Father disciplines us. The surgery was a success. At that point, I stopped reading and thought to myself, “hurt us to help us?” I just can’t agree with that. But I wasn’t sure why. So, after some serious thinking, this is my answer.

Most people assume that God’s correction is painful. And sometimes that may be the case…but I’m not really buying it. Here’s why. Godly discipline and punishment are not synonymous. And God never said that they had to be in order for his will to be done or for discipline to be effective. After all discipline means “to disciple” not “to punish.” Disciplining brings about transformation. Punishment only brings outward conformity. Hebrews 12 talks of love correcting or disciplining us, but that verse also should be taken within the entire context of the New Testament. For example, 1 Corinthians 2:9-14 (NLT) gives us another clue to the “discipline” puzzle. “That is what the Scriptures mean when they say, ’No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love him.’ But it was to us that God revealed these things by his Spirit. For his Spirit searches out everything and shows us God’s deep secrets…And we have received God’s Spirit (not the world’s spirit), so we can know the wonderful things God has freely given us…we speak words given to us by the Spirit, using the Spirit’s words to explain spiritual truths. But people who aren’t spiritual can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means.”

Paul is making a unique point often lost when answering this question. The question is not does God discipline, but how. To me, God’s discipline is radically different than the father/son illustration above. And 1 Corinthians backs me up here. First, no plan is ever more important than people – “hurt” for the sake of correction is not okay with God. Secondly, if God does use natural circumstances to correct us, they are at best a second option. God’s first and foremost choice to adjust any Christian’s perspective is the Spirit of God speaking to our spirit. That’s “how we can know the wonderful things God has freely given us.” That’s always God’s first choice and he doesn’t need to create painful circumstances to get our attention.

The problem with our understanding of God’s discipline is that we pass it through the grid of our own parenting – just like the author I quoted did. Plus, we often derive a spiritual lessons from our personal circumstances. And some of those circumstances are so painful that if we don’t create a “greater good” scenario from them, we can’t handle the pain. But when we teach others that God “uses” circumstances to get our attention, we are also saying that he can’t get “close” enough to tell us otherwise. To relegate contact with believers to natural circumstances assumes that God is incapable of direct contact. Or worse yet, God doesn’t want direct contact or happily uses pain for our advancement even though another, more personal route of communication exists.

Old Testament scholars sometimes talk about “controlling metaphors” in the Bible. These are ways or concepts of describing God that disclose his nature or personality that run through all of scripture. And Jesus picks these up as well. He’s not just any father, he’s the good Father. He’s not just any old shepherd, he’s the good shepherd. That’s the problem – when we hear that God is Father, we assume he is just like any other father. But he’s the good Father…and that means he does things in a way that the rest of us dad’s cannot even grasp. That’s what the verses in Hebrews 12:7-10 are attempting to show. The good Father is not doing the “best he knows how” – he’s doing way more than that, bringing correction and discipline exclusive from harm. Jesus says the same thing: “If you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more…”

Let me use another less-sanitized father/child illustration in contrast to the first one. My oldest daughter just turned 5. She’s conscientious and really tries to do what  her parents ask of her. What would you think of me as a father if I had the distinct option either to “hurt her in order to make her mature” or teach her personally how to be mature…but I still chose to hurt her? What if rather than conversationally teaching her about meekness, I back-handed her hoping to achieve the same affect. Make your stomach turn, huh? Mine too. The issue is in the choice. Many people who assume God uses circumstances, do so thinking that the Spirit speaking to our spirit is really not a viable option. But if it is, then direct communication is God’s desired method of disciplining you. 1 Corinthians says it is. And that doesn’t have to involve punishment…it never should.

Sam’s Devotional Life

I don’t blog much on what God is “teaching” or “dealing” with me about on a personal level too much – though I hope my posts here convey a solid level of personal reflection. What I focus upon personally often has more to do with me as a dad and husband. But sometimes I just spend my time at random intervals telling God I think he’s really, really, really great.  Rather than talk about my personal devotion to God, I just try to let the grace, love, and power of the Holy Spirit inform my actions and my words.

I thought I’d make an exception this time and tell you what I plan to do for the next year (if not longer) for devotional purposes. I plan on reading all four volumes of the Philokalia (meaning “love of the beautiful”) as my devotional material.  Though I’m part of the Western Christian tradition, I must confess I really am not a fan of it. But I love the approach to God in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Sometimes my posts sound like they are outside the Western construct of, for example, sanctification or prayer. That’s because I often opt for the Orthodox view instead. I find it to be fuller and deeper than it’s Western counterpart. And for personal devotions, I hang out in that theological “neck of the woods.” That doesn’t mean I’m gonna go climb Mount Athos or anything (though Wesleyan theology is its closest Western counterpart). Neither do I really like the Chrysostom liturgy or the whole “smells and bells” service. But I sure love how the Orthodox view God, humanity, and creation, as well as their unwillingness to separate justification and sanctification. I am inspired by their ultimate quest to become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).

So, that’s what I’ll be doing for a while personally. I hope to discover a thousand spiritual gems like this one from Evagrios: “If you are a theologian, you will pray truly. And if you pray truly, you are a theologian.”

If you are interested in the Orthodox Church, a good place to begin is Daniel Clendenin’s Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective. If you want to read some of the Philokalia, you may want to start with the SkyLight Illuminations Annotated Selections as an introduction.