Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Spiritual formatilities
Well, since no one wants to talk about unity :), let's try something else. I read this earlier in the week about personal spiritual formation. People have been seeking more historical and "outside the box" ways to connect with God. (Nothing off-base or "goofy." Just things that were common, but are not anymore.) A couple of examples are burning candles and incense; celebrating weekly communion; doing lectio divina (divine reading--reading the Bible and meditating on a short passage to see what God speaks to you). What do we think about this? Any practices that anyonre here uses?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Hey friends. I read something this morning that made me think of this blog-space we have, and the topic I posted last night.
Lots of times we read the Bible for fresh insight, a little word from God, or new understanding. The challenge this blogger was making was that reading the Bible will and must become less about freshness, newness, insight, etc., and more about stability, ancient words (!), old stories that stay the same.
I believe that God created the Bible in order for his followers to be able to live in a fallen world.
I find the comment that "reading the Bible will and must become less about freshness, newness, insight, etc.." very troublesome because this is, I believe, exactly one of the reasons we have scripture.
Furthermore, in my opinion such liberal and bad theology waters down the gospel and the words of God until the words of God are no more than "ancient words".
When Michael Jordan got ready for NBA games he would practice one of the most fundamental things in basketball, a layup. Here was the worlds greatest basketball player, who was in his prime, doing something very fundamental. Bible reading and personal prayer are the Christians layup. Lets stay in shape.
2Tim.3.16-17 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, thoroughtly equipped for every good work.
Hey daw,
Could you please flesh out a little more for me your second and third paragraphs?
In what way is this opinion "liberal"? How does it "water down" the gospel?
Hello ap,
I believe that a fresh spiritual renewing or insight is necessary. While the Bible does contain ancient words and old stories (academic, history) my objection was that the blogger quoted seemed a need to make the Bible an academic endeavor.
I believe that if the Bible becomes just about stories and ancient words (academic endeavor)then the power contained within scripture will be lost(liberalism). To say agian, the Bible is about stories etc. but it is also so much more. The Bible can and does change us in ways that bring newness and spiritual insight (progressive sanctification) into our lives. Nothing should be more important than sanctification.
In conclusion, I believe that it is wrong that an academic endeavor should supersede the freshenss from God. And often this theology is found within liberal circles.
hmm... I would have to say that on one hand I think you misread the blogger. It was not academic endeavour at all--if by that you mean pure study or something of the sort. Nor would the blogger I quoted disagree that freshness and vigour are bad things. The problem is that many times freshness and vigour does not depend on the Bible itself, but on the mood of the reader, what the reader ate for lunch, whether they are tired, etc. The more familiar I become with a text, the less freshness it ought to have--if by freshness you mean something I hadn't seen before. That likely means I haven't been reading carefully in the past! :)
On the other hand, it seems to me that liberal theology developed precisely for newness and vigour--to make the orthodoxy which seemed out of date come up with the times...
It seems that this may not be disagreement as much as the weaknesses of internet communication.
It's difficult to draw too many conclusions from the short quote - or paraphrase - provided by ap. I do find it interesting to ponder. I recently heard a "revolutionary" Christian (for those of you familiar with Barna's latest) describe healthy "bodylife" - or a growing life of and within the body of Christ - as having more to do with listening to understand and accepting correction from others who have gone further along in the journey. The line of thought from this quoted blogger makes me wonder: Does this believer have some further insight that might be helpful to me in my journey? As much as I understand what he's (or she's) saying, I would agree it's not to denegrate "freshness" - he's saying that it should be less about fresh and more about stability. There is something that rings true to me in that statement and I would want to understand this line of reasoning more fully.
I think liberal theology is that which actually does change the old stories (i.e. variations on creation to the "swoon" theory of the crucifixion).
But I also think that our God is far beyond all earthly dimensions in his complexity and his word certainly can contain enough "mystery" to allow for freshness and additional insights. For me it's been those times when passages I've read many times before suddenly jump off the page and touch God's spirit inside of me :)
Hey Beth,
I think you've drawn together some important points. I think the next post may point in some directions that may be of interest.
Well here is my last try. The blogger said "reading the Bible will and must become less about freshness, newness, insight, etc.,". As I see it these are the building blocks that maintain Christians in their walk with God and make Christians stronger and healthier. To say that these things are good and must be maintained and other good things added to these is one thing. But to say that "freshness, newness, and insight" should be replaced by something else is a bad thing. Perhaps the blogger made a mistake in the way it was worded? And yes, without more insight it is difficult to draw to many conclusions. And as theologians, as we all are, our words must be carefully thought out to avoid this kind of ambiguity.
Can you please pass along the site where this much talked about blogger can be found?
Thanks
But "daw", where did the blogger say that freshness, newness, and insight "must be REPLACED by something else" (your words)? Those aren't the words I see used in this context.
What if, from the blogger's perspective, he/she is not seeing enough use of the Bible as foundational, unshakeable, faith-building, kingdom reality but insteasd used only to bring "fresh" or "new" insights to a self centered religiousity? Then it would be appropriate for this blogger to say reading the Bible must become more about the preserved ancient word of God as written and less about a fresh or new insight based on an individual's emotion of the moment. That would then mean the blogger thinks the Bible should be about BOTH IN BALANCE, not one over the other. Perhaps he/she sees them as being out of balance in the life of many believers. Reading and re-reading...and even re-re-reading the blogger's statement putting emphasis on different words lends to the possibility that the blogger is not saying the single interpretation you've put forward. It could be that's what he's saying - but, again it's hard to tell without a fuller explanation.
However, if he is saying more stability, less newness, then this very blog discussion supports the need for words, thoughts, statements, etc., whether written in the Bible or in our own communication, to have a certain stability in meaning for message sending and correct message interpretation in order to convey the basic "truth" we could all agree on (i.e. the words mean what the words mean).
Otherwise we're left vulnerable to the schemes of the "ministers of spin" (like a spin doctor:) such as the academic elitist in the "Jesus Seminar".
I'm quite certain you would agree there are some indisputable foundational truths held in the Bible. Those of the Jesus Seminar ilk, however, take what you and I would agree is basic truth and apply their "new insights" to dispute these foundational beliefs. Would we then have to accept what they say because freshness in their interpretation is healthier than the ancient words and ancient interpretations? I think not!
I think what you are trying to say is accurate - but there's a limit to how much freshness can be extracted from some of the ancient stories. Example: There is perhaps additional insight (freshness or newness) an individual believer might have into the story of the crucifixion while reading and meditating upon the scriptural record. But that "insight" wouldn't change the basic creed of ancient words - Jesus lived, he died, and he rose again. Some of the insights others have actually put forward include Jesus lived, he didn't really die - he just fainted and therefor he didn't rise from the dead.
There is a place and purpose for fresh, new insights for the believer but equally important is the stability of ancient words.
This blogging stuff is kind challenging, but fun! Thanks ap for putting this out there for us. I've given some deeper thought to your questions than I would have over chicken wings at Delgado's :)
here is a link to the original blog. My second paragraph on the first comment of this post is a paraphrase of his work.
http://www.jesuscreed.org/?cat=16
Look for "Reading the Bible with our Ears" on Dec. 15. I think daw will be appeased a bit! :)
Another comment before I make another post: Daw, you wrote: "As I see it [freshness, newness, insight] are the building blocks that maintain Christians in their walk with God and make Christians stronger and healthier."
On one hand, I have no problem with this. On the other, I have a problem with its potential implications. Freshness, newness, and insight are serendipities. They don't always happen. Growth may be happening without them--and may not be happening with them! (Be doers of the word and not mere hearers.)
I am struggling to see whether we have genuine disagreements here (which is OK and to be affirmed), or whether we are emphasizing two sides of one coin. Perhaps my next post will confirm/deny disagreements.
Post a Comment