Commonplace Holiness
There are times when God seems absent. It seems that direction and blessing are gone. We have no sense that our prayers are being heard. We may be in a time of stress and trial, where there seems to be no relief in sight. Service that formerly brought us joy becomes dry and unrewarding. And we ask: Why?
(more…)
Christian readers need to continually remind themselves: the Old Testament believers had no developed doctrine of the afterlife. In much of Christianity the idea of the afterlife — of rewards and punishments in the world to come — dominates the thinking of believers. In Christianity, this has become such a commonplace idea we must consciously remind ourselves that it is missing (for the most part) from the thinking of the Old Testament writers.
It’s not just Christians who may be surprised — or even shocked — by the absence of this theme. There are some observers who have theorized that religion exists as a way of addressing the fear of death. If that were the case, it would be impossible to account for the Jewish religion in Old Testament times (or: the religion of the ancient Greeks at the time of Homer, either. Just read The Iliad sometime.).
Because the believers of Old Testament times had no developed doctrine of the afterlife, they tended to see the issues of right & wrong / rewards & punishments as playing themselves out in this life. For example, you can see this clearly in the book of Proverbs: do right and things will go well for you, do wrong and you will suffer.
(more…)
Forgiveness — the pardon of sins — is a central issue in Christianity. Jesus has made it so — and has taught us to pray: “forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.”
Yet, it is also such a difficult issue. When there is a deep wound, the pain is still there, and the anger still arises. In times like this, we wonder: do the words mean anything? When time and time again, you have to pray “Lord, give me the grace to forgive my enemy” you have to wonder if there is ever hope for you. There have been many times, when I have wondered this about myself. And, I know I’m not alone in having this problem.
Those people who have done things that have caused wounds — especially those who have done it quite deliberately and knowingly — are hard to forgive. Many people have been treated unfairly and unjustly. People have been abused. And, the problem with forgiveness is that it seems to say that all that was okay. To let go of the anger and the outrage seems to give in to injustice — to give permission for the abusers to do it again.
(more…)
When I was just starting out in Christian pastoral ministry (long ago) I was drawn to the writings of Paul for preaching material. It read more like theology to me — it seemed more about ideas and morality — and seemed a better fit for the needs of a three-point sermon outline. I could simply draw from Paul’s writings my point #1, point #2 and so forth. All my points were Biblical (from my perspective at the time) since they each had a verse or a phrase from one of Paul’s letters attached to them.
What I was missing was that all these assertions Paul makes, all the apparently abstract theology and moralizing, was, in truth, reflection on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus — working out its implications for first century believers. The Epistles must take us back to the Gospels — or else, we are just not getting it. The Gospel message we need to communicate is the story of Jesus.
(more…)Some people think that if they can just find God’s perfect will then their life would be easier — problems, setbacks, and disappointments would be eliminated. Really? I don’t know where such ideas come from — but a moment of thought will dispel them.
The great Bible characters did not have lives that were devoid of difficulties or setbacks or griefs or disappointments. If this did not happen with them, how can we reasonably expect it for ourselves? Jesus grieved over Jerusalem. The apostle Paul knew setbacks and discouragements in his ministry. How can I suppose my life can be free from such things?
The path of the Lord is not easy, it is worthwhile. Those who choose to live as Christ has taught make a positive contribution to life — to their own life and to the lives of others. We move along a difficult path characterized by faith and love and hope. And, by doing so, we bring more faith and hope and love into the world.
(more…)
How would we want other people to think of you? Wouldn’t you want them to think the best? For some people it becomes an obsession: wondering what other people think of them. It is a source of anxiety and shame. Most of the time the truth of the matter is: they don’t spend much time thinking about us at all. And, how much does it matter anyway? Should it?
How do we want God to think of us? That can be a disturbing line of thought. Many people I know were raised in a hellfire and brimstone religion, where the angry judgement of God was a prominent theme. Human sinfulness & depravity was held up as the basic fact of human nature. We are sinners. And, God is holy. God is offended and angry over our sin. God must condemn us. It is only right.
This message, resonates with something deep inside us. We know we are not the people we should be. We are often ashamed of ourselves. And, we can’t help but reason: God must know of flaws and errors that we don’t. We are quick to condemn ourselves. Why wouldn’t God condemn us? In fact, it is hard for us to imagine that God would think more highly of us than we think of ourselves. Isn’t it?
That is why the message of God’s love is always so hard to believe. If we are sometimes tempted to worry about what other people think of us — how much more worrisome the thought of what God might think of us.
(more…)
This is one of several items I re-blog every once in a while. And, here’s why. It illustrates one of the huge gulfs between contemporary Methodism and the original Methodism that arose under the leadership of John Wesley. Methodism originally combined: serious Biblical study, impassioned preaching, a personal experience of faith, a serious discipline for spiritual formation and the service of God in the world.
This is from a letter by Adam Clarke to a young man contemplating the ministry. Readers will find this advice a bit (ehem!) challenging. Actually, I think it is good advice myself, though I’d (of course) update the reference works, and have to acknowledge I’m quite a bit more “rusty” on biblical languages (and thus much more reliant on secondary sources) than I wish I were.
First (after the divider rule) I quote Adam Clarke at length. Then (after the next divider) I give some reflection on why I think these remarks are important. (I’ve done some re-formatting. I found this letter in a brief biography of Adam Clarke’s life which had been written by his son-in-law, Samuel Dunn and included in a compendium of Clarke’s writings called Christian Theology.)
“I would lay down two maxims for your conduct:
“As to your making or composing sermons, I have no good opinion of it.
“Get a thorough knowledge of your subject: understand your text in all its connection and bearings, and then go into the pulpit depending on the Spirit of God to give you power to explain and illustrate to the people those general and particular views which you have already taken of your subject, and which you conscientiously believe to be correct and according to the word of God. But get nothing by heart to speak there, else even your memory will contribute to keep you in perpetual bondage. No man was ever a successful preacher who did not discuss his subject from his own judgment and experience. The reciters of sermons may be popular; but God scarcely ever employs them to convert sinners, or build up saints in their most holy faith. I do not recommend in this case a blind reliance upon God; taking a text which you do not know how to handle, and depending upon God to give you something to say. He will not be thus employed. Go into the pulpit with your understanding full of light, and your heart full of God; and his Spirit will help you, and then you will find a wonderful assemblage of ideas coming in to your assistance; and you will feel the benefit of the doctrine of association, of which the reciters and memory men can make no use. The finest, the best, and the most impressive thoughts are obtained in the pulpit when the preacher enters it with the preparation mentioned above.
“As to Hebrew, I advise you to learn it with the points. Dr. C. Bayley’s Hebrew Grammar is one of the best; as it has several analyzed portions of the Hebrew text in it, which are a great help to learners. And Parkhurst’s Hebrew Lexicon exceeds all that ever went before it. It gives the ideal meaning of the roots without which who can understand the Hebrew language? Get your verbs and nouns so well fixed in your memory that you shall be able to tell the conjugation, mood, tense, person, and number of every word; and thus you will feel that you tread on sure ground as you proceed. Genesis is the simplest book to begin with; and although the Psalms are highly poetic, and it is not well for a man to begin to acquire a knowledge of any language by beginning with the highest poetic production in it; yet the short hemstitch form of the verses, and the powerful experimental religion which the Psalms inculcate, render them comparatively easy to him who has the life of God in his soul. BYTHNER’S Lyra-Prophetica, in which all the Psalms are analyzed, is a great help; but the roots should be sought for in Parkhurst. Mr. Bell has published a good Greek grammar in English; so have several others. The Greek, like the Hebrew, depends so much on its verbs, their formation and power, that, to make any thing successfully out, you must thoroughly acquaint yourself with them in all their conjugations, &c. It is no mean labor to acquire these; for, in the above, even one regular verb will occur upward of eight hundred different times! Mr. Dawson has published a lexicon for the Greek Testament, in which you may find any word that occurs, with the mood, tense, &c. Any of the later editions of Schrevelius will answer your end. Read carefully Prideaux’ History. The editions prior to 1725 are good for little; none since that period has been much improved, if any thing. “Acquaint yourself with British history. Read few sermons, they will do you little good; those of Mr. Wesley excepted. The Lives of holy men will be profitable to you.
“Live in the divine life; walk in the divine life, Live for the salvation of men.”
— Adam Clarke, “Clarke in the Pulpit and in Prayer.”
Before I go any further, let me add one quick note: it seems likely to me that Clarke emphasizes studies in Hebrew in this passage because it could be assumed that this young man already knew Greek and Latin — education being a bit different in those days than it is now. Nowadays, no such assumption can be made, and the study of ancient Greek should be emphasized first.
But, here’s why I think this is good advice:
(1.) Content must take precedence over form. Preaching has become empty and boring for lack of fresh content, fresh insight arising from the preacher’s immersion in the Scriptures and the life of prayer. The absolute first rule of public speaking (to my mind) is: have something to say. No amount of borrowed illustrations or quickie sermon helps will make up for this deficiency. Training in Homiletics cannot help if there is no deep insight from Scripture and prayer and life.
I agree that not everyone will be an Adam Clarke. And, his advice is quite off-putting in that way. Not all of us (certainly including myself) will achieve the command of ancient languages that Clarke achieved. No, not everyone is going to develop the passion for ancient languages that he had. On the other hand, bear in mind, that this man was one of Wesley’s local preachers! He was not a scholar working in a secluded University. He was engaged in ministry and preaching. And, look what he produced! Reading should be wide. All knowledge — granted it is legitimate knowledge — is relevant to the preacher’s task.
(2.) The absolute second rule of public speaking (to my mind) is: speak with passion and enthusiasm. You have to care. You have to think that what you have to say is important. It needs to show that you do. Preachers can only become preachers through deep, sustained Bible Study and prayer. All other knowledge they can gain is bound to be of benefit.
(3.) My third rule would be this: Live the life of faith. Then, you can talk about it. As Clarke says: ““Live in the divine life; walk in the divine life, Live for the salvation of [others].” But, you can never be a preacher by studying preaching. The preacher must preach from the overflow.
Well, that’s my opinion, anyway.
There are times when we may feel we’ve lost our way. The future seems uncertain and the direction we need to take unclear.
But, there are also times when we feel confident that we know the way — that we know the will of God — at least reasonably well. Psalm 25:4,5 suggests that we really don’t know the way unless we seek to know it. It further suggests that the process of seeking God’s will may take me some time and effort.
I have been discussing this Psalm as a Psalm for the “Waiting Times” of our lives (here and here and here). Verses 4 and 5 show us the positive value of these times of waiting: it’s a time to seek God’s will and direction.
(more…)
Last week I posted on “What is Spirituality?”. This was my attempt to get a handle on what it might mean to call something “spiritual.” While spirituality is certainly a subjective phenomenon, I believe there is a way of talking about it and analyzing it, to some extent. I said:
Human spirituality is self-transcendence. A spiritual experience is something that lifts us beyond our selves. The true essence of spirituality is to love God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind; and our neighbor as much as we love our own self. (See Luke 10:27, etc.) There is both a vertical (God-ward) axis and a horizontal (other-ward) axis to this. But, spirituality is always being lifted out of ourselves. Spirituality connects us with God, with the community of faith and with the needs of other people outside the community of faith. These vertical and horizontal axes correspond roughly with the idea of God’s transcendence and God’s immanence. Traditionally, Christian theology has affirmed both God’s transcendence and God’s immanence.
Here is another way of saying it: there is an ecstatic structure to human spirituality. A spiritual experience is something that lifts us beyond ourselves. It may provide us a sense of connection to a higher reality or it may provide us with a sense of connection with other people. Or, it may do both. But, in any case, it lifts us beyond ourselves — outside ourselves.
I realize that this assertion (especially the language of “ecstasy”) is very much open to misinterpretation, so I feel the need to say more about it.
As with many things, it was Wolfhart Pannenberg that first drew my attention to this:
In all their forms of manifestation the works of God’s Spirit have an ecstatic character.
— Systematic Theology, Volume 3 page 135.
If this is so, then we would expect there to be a close connection between spiritual experiences and emotion. A spiritual experience is bound to be an emotional experience. It can hardly help but be!
People who come to a new-found realization about life — and make new commitments to God — are bound to feel emotional about it. People who feel a new or renewed bond with others are bound to experience this as an emotional experience. So, if we are going to renew the church spiritually it will (of necessity) be an emotional thing. People will be lifted out of themselves.
Personalities differ, so the nature of these emotional experiences — and the expression of these emotions will differ. Nonetheless, emotion can be expected.
But, while spiritual experiences are bound (in the nature of the case) to be emotional experiences, the inverse is not true. Emotion, per se, is not spiritual. Emotional experiences are not necessarily spiritual. So, while emotion should be expected, it is not demanded. If we focus our attention on the emotional component of spirituality, we, in fact, get off track.
Emotion is the side effect of spiritual connection. It is expected but not demanded — nor do we know the form such emotions might take. Individuals (as I said) will respond differently.
Part of the problem here is within the very word: “ecstatic.” This naturally makes us think of something irrational and out-of-control. But, this is not what is meant at all. In no way would should we set rationality and spirituality at odds with one another. They should, in fact, support one another. In explaining the statement above, Pannenberg goes on to say:
But we must rid this statement of any idea of irrational states of intoxication. Ecstasy can mean that creatures, while outside themselves, are supremely with themselves. The reason for they lies in the ecstatic structure of living phenomena. Every living thing lives its life by existing outside itself, namely, in and by the world around it. On the stage of human life, too, the Spirit gives life by lifting individuals above their particularity and finitude; their spontaneity of self-transcendence is only the reverse side of this. The forms of human conduct and experience we call ’spiritual’ in the narrower sense also have ecstatic features for those who experience them, most intensively perhaps in productive spiritual experiences of artistic inspiration, or in insights that come by sudden bursts of illumination, though also in the experience of inner freedom from the stifling bondage that was seemingly invincible. This applies already in a general way to the basic trust with which, in spite of all disillusionment, we constantly open ourselves to what is around us, to the world. And it applies especially again to trusting faith in the God who encounters us in Jesus Christ.
— Systematic Theology, Volume 3 page 135.
It is natural for human beings to look beyond themselves — in fact, really, we must. So, it is natural for human beings to try to place their own lives in a larger context of meaning. Thus, in this sense, people are naturally religious. Or, it might be better to say: naturally spiritual. We find ourselves asking what life is about, how we ought to act (not just what’s convenient or best for ourselves — but what is right), and where we fit into the scheme of things.
In this sense, we can see that the struggle is not: atheism vs. religion. Various religions address the questions of meaning and morality in different ways. Atheism is a denial: either: there is no meaning / morality; or: the theistic God (granting for the moment we could arrive at a common idea of God) is not the basis of meaning / morality. But, a denial does not end the question. It is just a subtle way of saying: “You can’t ask that question.” Pannenberg continues:
This faith [in Jesus Christ] lifts us above our particularity inasmuch as God is powerfully present to us as the light of our final future and assures us at the same time of our own eternal salvation. By the event of this elevation of our own particularity, we as individual believers are also linked with others in the fellowship of believers, a fellowship whose common setting is the extra nos* of faith in the one Lord. The ecstatic integration of this fellowship by the Spirit into the common praise of God can mediate the sense of initial removing of alienation between this and that individual and therefore also the antagonism between individual and society.
— Systematic Theology, Volume 3 pp. 135 & 136.
Legitimately spiritual experiences support the Christian Gospel’s call for us to love God with all out heart, mind, soul and strength; and our neighbor as ourselves. Spirituality turns us outward toward God and outward toward other people.
John Wesley says that the evidences of genuine Christian re-birth include “the love of God” and “a sincere, tender, disinterested love for all [human]kind.” Having such a love kindled in our hearts will, of necessity, be an emotional experience.
But, not all emotional experiences mean more love.
*The Latin term extra nos (in the last quote above) means “outside of us.” It is commonly used by Lutheran theologians — and others, of course — in discussing the Theology of the Cross. So, the grace and forgiveness and reconciliation and righteousness a believer receives by faith in Christ is extra nos — a gift received from outside the self.
Oddly enough, Christians often have a difficult time talking meaningfully about spirituality.
It is as if words fail us at this point. We are at the edge of a mystery. We are talking about the ways of God — and the ways in which humans find connection with God. We are not used to thinking of this as something which is open to analysis and investigation. After all: “The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8 NRSV).
(more…)