Reflections on Ignatian Spirituality and The Spiritual Exercises – June 2017
Ignatius of Loyola (b. 1491 – d.1556) wrote The Spiritual Exercises which were very popular as a method of spiritual growth in the 16th century with the Jesuits (the order that Ignatius founded) and seems to be enjoying a widespread revival today.
The Exercises are mostly a series of meditations on scriptural topics and on the life of Christ. The purpose is to bring one to full surrender to God in Christ and to receive guidance from God for direction in one’s life. The Exercises also discuss the issues of consolation, desolation, and discernment of God’s movement in one’s life. The Exercises are a great way to ground oneself in the life of Christ and to begin to learn about spiritual growth. They are also a great help in detaching one’s heart from anything other than God.
However, the Exercises have some weaknesses:
1. They do not contain a coherent spiritual theology (theology of spiritual growth). Rather, the book is short and doesn’t discuss the foundational biblical principles of spiritual growth, the stages of growth and what a mature Christian should look like, the complete biblical conception of the means and causes of growth, a discussion of the various scriptural directives for growth, and a unifying conception of our biblical telos.
2. More specifically, the Exercises do not exhort one to become absorbed in scripture and remain there for one’s life so that the word can transform them from their deepest center. There are many meditations on episodes from Jesus’ life but almost nothing from all the New Testament epistles. Ignatius was a committed Catholic and self-discovery of truth through scripture was often considered a threat to the Catholic church, especially in Ignatius’ home which was 16th century Spain.
3. Ignatius did not incorporate much wisdom from other great spiritual teachers of the church. He had some knowledge and appreciation for them but they don’t play a big part in the Exercises.
4. Ignatius’ explanation of consolation and desolation lend themselves to thinking that one should expect to have consolation (spiritual sweetness) most of the time.
Prophecy And Politics – December 21, 2016
The gift of prophecy is one of the gifts God gave to the church. I Corinthians 14 makes it clear that prophecy should be part of Christian fellowship. Verse 39 plainly states: “earnestly desire to prophesy.” Verse 29 also says “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.” (ESV) The Greek word for “weigh” also means “judge” or “discern”. This post looks at some issues related to public prophecy.
This election season some prophetic voices made prophecies concerning Donald Trump. In one story, Christian figure Frank Amedia says that God told him Trump would win (he published this before the election and so was proven correct) and that the church should pray for Trump because he is God’s tool to bring down the powers opposed to Christ. The church is like Esther and the powers are like Haman. http://www.charismanews.com/politics/elections/60961-this-pastor-s-prophetic-word-about-the-elections-is-already-coming-true.
In another article (http://www.charismanews.com/us/60145-faith-leaders-call-for-urgent-prayer-covering-over-trump-for-debate) Charisma News reported: “After receiving a revelation from the Lord, Amedia says he began making phone calls on Thursday to drum up support for the Kingdom Wide Prayer Watch. Generals International’s Cindy Jacobs, MorningStar Ministries’ Rick Joyner, It’s Supernatural television host Sid Roth, New Wine Ministries senior pastor Mario Bramnick (who is also the president of the Hispanic Israel Leadership Coalition), international speaker and business consultant Lance Wallnau, and Paula White, senior pastor of New Destiny Christian Center in Apopka, Florida, are among many kingdom leaders spreading the word and getting behind the movement. Other worldwide ministries have joined in, including ones in Pakistan, Africa, Israel and Mexico.” It should be noted that Rick Joyner and Cindy Jacobs are two of the most influential figures in the prophetic movement. Jim Baker and Jerry Falwell, Jr. are other well-known Christian leaders who supported Trump, though the latter is not part of the prophetic community.
Another popular source of prophetic words is the Elijah List website, which states it has over 240,000 subscribers. The Elijah List recently published a story about prophecy from Johhny Enlow (http://www.elijahlist.com/words/display_word.html?ID=17084) who says that God “placed Trump into power, He also released unprecedented wave after wave of the hosts of Heaven. These heavenly hosts have heavily damaged three major principalities over government, media, and the economy – and will continue to do so.” Enlow adds: “He did not put Trump in because he has the best character and pro-life stance. There were perhaps 15 Presidential candidates who looked better than him in both of those matters. God was not asking us our opinion.” Also, “He will come in barely knowing God, yet friendly towards Him, and before he leaves he’ll be branded by the fire of God’s presence. I believe he’ll be filled with the Holy Spirit in progressive measures as his terms continue.” Also, “A protracted Era of Renaissance in the knowledge of God and His Kingdom, is upon us, and if you keep that uppermost in your own narrative you will find your personal destiny accelerated.”
So what should Christians do according to Mr. Enlow? “The Church’s role stated simply is to discover what God’s love looks like in every area of society and then to display that.”
Thus, Mr. Enlow is prophesying that Trump is God’s tool, even though he lacks character now, and that before he leaves office he will be branded with God’s presence. The Church’s role is to learn to love better.
But a Christian must ask if that is a sufficient description of the church’s role. Are we just to learn to love better and not comment on the character of politicians? Do we just keep quiet about a candidate’s vices because we believe God has chosen them? Also, it seems that Mr. Enlow is not following his own advice to focus on displaying God’s love in society, for he is strongly endorsing Mr. Trump because he believes that Trump will reform politics, the economy, and the media. (How Trump could reform the media is hard to fathom; reforming the economy and politics also seem nearly impossible. The economy is mostly managed by professional economists, and politics have been gridlocked for so many years that it appears the core structure would have to be rebuilt.)
If he, and others are supporting Trump in this way, why wasn’t there an outcry about his character? Even Enlow states that there were probably 15 candidates with better character and pro-life stance.
In case you wonder if Trump’s character is unchristian or not, is helpful to remember that he owned three casinos, and in one of them started the first strip club inside a casino in America. He has also been married three times and appears to find a new wife when he tires of the old one. His current wife has posed in the nude.
Trump is known for his coarse, harsh comments about people. Regarding Republican candidate Senator Lindsey Graham he tweeted: “I ran him out of the race like a little boy” “ALL TALK AND NO ACTION!” “should respect me” “Failed presidential candidate” “nasty!” “dumb mouthpiece” “got zero against me – no cred!” “had zero in his presidential run before dropping out in disgrace” “embarrassed himself with his failed run for President” “embarrasses himself with endorsement of Bush” “so easy to beat!” (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html?_r=0).
Antiabortionists have highlighted his mistreatment of women. Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List, Beverly LaHaye and Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America, and Jenifer Bowen and Kendra Burger of Iowa Right to Life and seven other antiabortion activists signed an open letter stating “He has impugned the dignity of women, most notably Megyn Kelly, he mocked and bullied Carly Fiorina, and has through the years made disparaging public comments to and about many women…Further, Mr. Trump has profited from the exploitation of women in his Atlantic City casino hotel which boasted of the first strip club casino in the country.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/26/antiabortion-activists-to-iowa-voters-support-anyone-but-donald-trump/?utm_term=.84935e0cb347.)
Trump said about Megyn Kelly: “I refuse to call Megyn Kelly a bimbo, because that would not be politically correct,” he wrote on Twitter. “Instead I will only call her a lightweight reporter!”
Howard Stern asked Trump about his role as owner of the Miss Universe pageant: “So when you’re single, one of the contestants comes up to you and says ‘Mr. Trump, I think you’re a very sexy man. You’re a powerful man, and I want to sleep with you.’ You’re not the type to say no.” “I don’t want to hurt their feelings,” Trump responds, laughing. “[Sleeping with a contestant] could be construed as a conflict of interest, but that’s something to worry about later. You could also say as the owner of the organization, it’s your obligation to do that.” He made lewd comments about the contestants’ beauty, and how he wielded his power as the owner of the pageant to get access to the backstage area of the show. That way, he could see the ladies getting dressed before going on stage. “If you like them a little bit dark, a little bit light. Tall, short…the most beautiful women in the world. And the women are beautiful. That’s one of the great assets I have,” Trump told Howard. (http://hollywoodlife.com/2016/10/08/donald-trump-sex-miss-universe-contestants-obligation-sexist-listen/)
Trump also said in 2008 “ “Oftentimes when I was sleeping with one of the top women in the world I would say to myself, thinking about me as a boy from Queens, ‘Can you believe what I am getting?'” which is a quote from his book Think Big: Make it Happen in Business and Life, http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a24057/donald-trump-presidential-run-2016-072913/. You can read more of his comments about women at http://theweek.com/articles/655770/51-things-donald-trump-said-about-women.
Hopefully, this all leaves no doubt about Trump’s philosophy of life. This brings us back to the question of what role should Christians play in this situation?
It seems to me that Christians must comment on the public behavior of politicians, especially politicians that they support. If some are going to praise him for what he might do for politics, economics, and public morality are we not also responsible to point out significant shortcomings in a leader’s actions?
Mr. Enlow says that the church’s role is to love. But should we just look the other way when a leader has consistently shown the opposite of love? Do we ignore the objectification and sexualization of women? Isn’t the respectful treatment of women in society one of our goals as a church? Are we not in the middle of a tidal wave of pornography that is training men to view women sexually? Why would we support someone who dishonors women to run our country when one of the church’s goals for public life is for women to be seen less as sexual objects and more as valuable souls who Jesus died for?
These same questions apply to his business dealings, to honesty, and to his softness on racism. (For an article on his business failures see http://www.newsweek.com/2016/08/12/donald-trumps-business-failures-election-2016-486091.html.)
So the questions is why doesn’t the community of prophets speaking out on Donald Trump mention these issues? Where is the classic biblical prophetic voice against ungodly public behavior? Why are we only hearing words of affirmation about Trump and language about “God’s choice”? Why is there near silence on other matters? Of course they mention his failings in passing but they move on to welcoming words of support.
This makes one wonder if there are some self-serving motives at work. The prophets’ pattern of ministry will give them favor with Trump and therefore political influence. Isn’t it true that if they spoke out against his transgressions they would probably lose that influence?
This is one of the great dangers of Christian leaders building relationships with non-Christian politicians. Often in history the church has developed relationships with government leaders only to find themselves compromising their standards and finding their churches declining in godliness. If prophets are to be accountable to the church then they need to held accountable in this area. Consistently ignoring obvious destructive behavior should be a red flag to those who oversee them (if there are any such people).
Another issue is the problem of accuracy. Before the 1992 presidential election Rick Joyner prophesied that Bill Clinton would become a follower of Jesus during his term. This never happened. Afterwards Joyner said that people had not prayed enough and that was why it did not happen. Unless he mentioned in his prophecy that prayer was a requirement for fulfillment (which I don’t believe he did), then this is not acceptable behavior for a prophet. One should just admit they were wrong and reexamine their discernment skills. Everyone is on a learning curve; it’s okay to be wrong and learn from one’s mistakes. It is not okay to avoid honest admission of errors like this.
Likewise, those who made the prophecies mentioned at the beginning of this article need to be held accountable for their words about Trump. If they do not come to pass they should be properly apologetic and receive some instruction. This is their responsibility because they are making their prophecies public and influencing many other Christians. If their prophecies are mistaken then they need to cease their influence until they have acknowledged their mistake and need for improvement.
I am not saying that it was wrong to vote for Trump. I understand that the choice was between Trump and someone who is friendly with those who are hostile to the free exercise of Christianity. Voting for Trump also may lead to Supreme Court justices who will support freedom of religion. And some people have thoughtful reasons why they would prefer a Republican.
But when it comes to primaries those points do not apply. Why vote for Trump in the primaries when there are other Republicans who would also support freedom of religion and are better examples of public morality?
Another important point is the question of psychological wisdom. Christians need to be a little wiser about politics and personalities. We should all know that people will try to change their personalities in order to get elected. Trump and every other candidate should be judged on their behavior prior to their entry into the race. It would not be wise to think that Trump has any virtues now that he did not have before running for President.
Which leads to another issue specific to Trump which is the question of narcissistic personality disorder. He appears to have the traits of someone with this disorder. Psychology Today listed the nine traits of narcissistic personality disorder:
- Has a grandiose sense of self-importance.
- Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
- Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).
- Requires excessive admiration [regularly fishes for compliments, and is highly susceptible to flattery].
- Has a sense of entitlement.
- Is interpersonally exploitative. They believe others exist
- Lacks empathy: is unwilling [or, I would add, unable] to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.
- Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
- Shows arrogant, haughty [rude and abusive] behaviors or attitudes.
Narcissists are also highly reactive to criticism and often very charming. Overall, their supreme motive is self-benefit.
Trump appears to have most if not all of these traits, which would mean that we should expect him to act accordingly. This is a very serious issue that Christians in the political arena should reflect in their statements about Trump. Unbelievers are aware of the traits of narcissistic personality disorder and have rightly pointed them out. How can Christians do less if we are truly concerned about the well-being of our society?
This leads back to the issue of responsibility for those who venture to make prophetic statements about political matters. It seems very unbiblical for prophets (or any Christians) to to downplay ungodliness while proclaiming that someone is God’s choice. It also tells unbelievers that such Christians are more interested in their political agenda than virtue and godliness. Won’t this lead people away from Christ?
If Trump does not become God’s tool to bring down powers opposed to Christ or become branded by the fire of God how will Mr. Amedia and Mr. Enlow handle it? Making public prophetic statements which influence hundreds of thousands of Christians is a serious matter. If they do not come true will the prophets acknowledge their fault and apologize? Will they remove themselves from the public eye for a time and reexamine their gift of prophecy? How will they make up for the damage they have done? Who will hold them accountable?
Finally, it is important to keep in mind the church’s goal for politics. Our goal is that politics would serve to make a country more Christlike, more virtuous. We want people to be treated the way Christ taught us to treat people. So does it make sense to support someone with low virtue and hope he will bring more virtue to our nation? Is someone with Trump’s character is going to bring character that is the opposite of Trump’s character?
Why Was Martin Luther So Upset? – December 7, 2016
This discussion is based on material in Roland Bainton’s classic work on Luther and the Reformation: Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. The material can be found in other works as well.
Martin Luther (b. 1483 – d. 1546) was an Augustinian monk in Germany who wanted to find peace and assurance with God. He wanted to make sure that his sins were forgiven so he could go to heaven, as well as minimize his time in purgatory. According to Roman Catholic doctrine of the time, sins committed after baptism had to be forgiven through the process (sacrament) of penance. The process of penance required someone to confess all their sins and do acts of penance so they could be absolved of their sins by the priest. Penance was a way to keep people from sinning after they were baptized instead of just thinking that they were saved by baptism or just by faith and believing could sin after baptism and still go to heaven without any consequences.
Any sins that were not forgiven through penance (apparently many people couldn’t do all the penance needed) had to be purified through years in purgatory after they died. The average Christian was led to believe they could end up spending 20,000 years or more in purgatory. Naturally people looked for ways to have their time in purgatory reduced. Fortunately, according the church doctrine one could get their time reduced by visiting approved sacred sites or visiting relics of saints. This type of forgiveness was known as an indulgence. For example, if a particular church had a good collection of relics from saints (bones, etc) they might be able to eliminate 1,000 years of purgatory for visiting the relics.
The reason the pope had the power to grant forgiveness of sins through indulgences was because Jesus and the saints had done more good deeds than needed for their own salvation (or for the salvation of others in the case of Jesus.) This created a treasury of merit that the pope could access to apply to the forgiveness of people’s sins.
But in time the church (i.e. the pope) began to grant forgiveness of sins through selling indulgences. People would give money to a Roman Catholic church official for the purpose of building a new cathedral (such as St. Peter’s in Rome) or some other church project. In return they were granted forgiveness of a certain amount of sins.
In 1516 the Pope gave a special indulgence from the Church’s treasury of merit to the Castle Church in Wittenberg, which was the city in which Luther lived and taught and preached. If a believer went to the Castle Church on All Saints Day (November 1st) and visited the relics of the saints (i.e., items from the lives or bodies of Jesus, the Apostles, or great Christians of history) they could receive forgiveness of all their sins – provided they also made the required monetary contribution. (Here I Stand, p. 53) But Luther gave a sermon the night before the designated day teaching that indulgences were not effective for the forgiveness of sins because according to church doctrine one also had to make complete confession and perfect contrition, and these two things were impossible.
Luther’s teaching disturbed church leaders for several reasons, one of which was that it would reduce the church’s income. Relics and indulgences were big business for the Roman church and its leaders. Frederick the Wise of Saxony had been buying relics for years and by 1520 his Castle Church at Wittenberg had 19,013 holy bones, (Here I Stand, p. 53). Thus, by 1520 indulgences from the pope would allow one to knock 1,902,202 years off purgatory for themselves or others for viewing the relics at Wittenberg and making the required contributions.
But Luther rejected indulgences and he constantly confessed every sin he could recall. Luther sometimes spent six hours confessing his sins. But he would still remember a forgotten sin afterwards. (Here I Stand, p. 41) Luther knew his soul could hide sins from his awareness. So how could he know if he had confessed all his sins? He couldn’t, and that was one of the key failings of the penitential system. It was based on forgiveness of specific sins that one could remember; there was no general forgiveness for all other sins and basic human corruption.
Finally, through his study of scripture, he understood that salvation, forgiveness and cleansing comes by faith alone in Christ, without penance or other works. He forgives even forgotten sins and basic human corruption. When someone has faith in Christ post-baptismal sins are forgiven too, though one could fall away from faith. But the Catholic church rejected forgiveness and salvation by faith alone. Works of penance were required. Otherwise, people will just sin after they are baptized because they know they are forgiven.
When the Apostle Paul addressed this issue in Romans 8 he said that it didn’t make sense for Christians to sin because they had died to sin when they first believed. Thus, scripture taught that post-baptismal sins don’t fit with our new nature, but it did not teach that we had to do penance to cleanse ourselves of sins. I John 1:9 states that if a believer confesses their sins then God is faithful and just to forgive those sins.
There was no way Luther and the Roman church could be reconciled. Luther would only accept judgment (of his writings) based on scripture. The church insisted on judging him based on the church’s historical teachings and their interpretations of scripture. The chief political leader of Luther’s region, Frederick the Wise of Saxony (who was one of the electors of the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire) also defended Luther’s right to be tried by scripture. He kept the church and the Emperor from taking Luther out of Saxony.
The end result was that the Roman Catholic Church excommunicated Luther. He did not leave of his own accord. The people who followed Luther and other reformers such as Zwingli were referred to as Protestants which comes from the word protesters. By kicking Luther out of the Roman church he and others were set free to make scripture supreme for believers, even above official church teachings. This also allowed them to follow the Biblical idea that humans are saved by faith in Christ alone, not by faith plus works. Moreover, the Protestants taught from scripture that all believers were “priests” and they rejected the Roman Catholic idea that priests are necessary mediators between humans and God. They referred to this as the “priesthood of all believers” and it was incredibly empowering to all lay believers.
The 2016 U.S. Presidential Election – The day after the election, November, 2016
How can I feel anything but depression? After this whole election process I feel like I’ve been hit with a sledgehammer. Neither party could nominate a candidate with character and integrity. Few proclaimed the personal character of either one. We never heard a chorus of “this candidate is a paragon of virtue” or “they are a model of integrity.” Then Americans chose the candidate with the reputation for verbally mistreating people and who started a strip club in one of his casinos. Even if your candidate was elected how can you rejoice? The thing that pleases you now will hurt us all in the long run. One might be relieved that the candidate who is less hostile to Christianity was elected, but how can a Christian actually rejoice, in view of that candidate’s history?
It seems like people care more about their pocketbooks and complete safety than nominating or electing someone who demonstrates the virtues that our founders fought for. Or they are willing to silence their voices of integrity in order to elect a candidate who will protect religious freedom. And it seems more certain that Americans don’t prioritize Christian virtues. Shouldn’t one’s treatment of others be a critical factor? Can we nominate or elect people who lack virtue and expect them to lead America to a healthy society? Should we ignore virtue just because the candidate is less hostile to Christianity? Doesn’t that seem like we are selling our soul just so we get treated better? If we care about virtue shouldn’t we be voicing that as a group and letting candidates know what we value?
So I wonder if our country has been judged. With so many turning away from godliness now we are left with a President who himself has led a clearly ungodly life. Now we will live with the consequences of his actions.
It just seems like the whole country is becoming more and more Machiavellian and less generous. The great majority choose their ideals based on self interest and then agree to whatever it takes to accomplish their goals. It is every tribe for themselves. The idea that there are ideals that transcend us to which we should submit is fading from our society. Maybe forever.
But no matter what happens God will fulfill His promises to his children for the New Creation.
Continuity and Discontinuity Between Nature and God – Fall 2016
Or between reason and revelation; or between the fallen image of God and the original image of God.
Historically, there has been an ongoing debate among theologians about how much of God can be seen and understood in the natural world and how much can not. For example, how much continuity is there between the beauty and wisdom we see in plants and animals and what they tell us about God.
Or how much continuity is there between the broken image of God we see in humans now and the original image of God in Adam and Eve. If there is a lot of continuity in the image of God we see in people then we can expect all people to recognize the good God has given to humans, as well as the truth that we fall short of living according to the good we see.
Also, if there is a lot of continuity between nature and God’s goodness, i.e. grace, then we can expect reason to be of much help when learning about God. This is because humans can use the natural reason God has given us to see the continuity of God’s fingerprints in nature. Thus, we can use reason to gain a deeper understanding of God from the created world. This view is supported by Romans 1:20-21: “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” (ESV)
The classic formulation of this high view of continuity is the theology of Thomas Aquinas of the 13th century. He relied heavily on reason to develop his theological system and it is the system still used by the Roman Catholic church today. In Aquinas’ day there were many challenges to the theology of the Roman church, including many heretical ones, and Aquinas’ theology helped to restore theological order to Europe. (Though much chaos returned soon after Aquinas, his theology still became the anchor for Roman Catholics.)
On the other hand if there is not a lot of continuity between nature and God’s intervening grace then reason does not have much value, there is much less order to the universe than we think, and we can’t learn much about God from nature. Taken to the extreme one might even say that we can’t even count on God to be consistent to a particular divine nature – since He may decide to do whatever He wants; this was the view of the Occamist theologians who became influential soon after Aquinas’ time.
Examples of discontinuity between nature and God’s work are found in the various “rebirthing” activities of God in the bible. The first advent of Jesus who brought the Kingdom of God was a radical discontinuity, even though the prophets had foretold him. When scripture speaks of the need to be born again we see another example of radical discontinuity: God must actually create a new person inside us. This new person is not someone who continuously developed over the years then finally sprang into action. Rather, God rebirths someone at a particular time (though it may not be instantaneously experienced) by a radical act of grace. Another example of radical discontinuity is the truth that God will one day destroy the old heaven and old earth and create a new heaven and new earth. These are all examples of truths that can not really be seen or predicted from some natural reality.
Martin Luther adopted a lower view of continuity than was popular in the Roman church in his time. He believed that almost every good movement that a human can do must be moved by God’s grace. Everything good must be preceded by God’s grace because there is too much corruption in humans and in the world to gain much understanding about God and His ways.
Obviously there are positive things to say about both sides of the debate. It might be best to frame this debate in terms of a spectrum. There is a healthy center of the continuity/discontinuity spectrum where one does not reject the value of God’s revelation in nature. Nor does one go to the other extreme and forget that God has and will radically intervene in human affairs and such interventions must be understood as super-natural and transrational.
Hence, if we see too much continuity then in our quest to find God we can become self reliant and independent of God’s revelation in Jesus and scripture. But if we see too little continuity we can forget that nature helps us to see God’s good attributes for ourselves as well as show them to those who seek him. Too much continuity in the image of God in humans can lead us to think humans can be good enough for God on their own. Too little continuity can lead us to think that humans can’t do anything good without God’s regeneration, such as produce beautiful music or art; but this disconnects humanity from the good he has given all (what theologians refer to as “common grace”.)
Stages of Growth vs. Patterns of Growth – Fall, 2016
The fathers often used the categories of beginner, proficient, and perfect to describe the intended progression of the Christian life.
Later in history the “threefold way” became a common way of describing Christian growth. The three are purgation, illumination and union.
Some try to pair up these two sets of threes by teaching that the beginner is focused on purgation, the proficient is focused on illumination, and the perfect is focused on union. But it seems more biblical to say that the “threefold way” applies to the beginner, the proficient, and the perfect. The threefold way is an explanation of repeating patterns of growth, while “beginner, proficient, and perfect” refer to non-repeating stages of growth.
You may believe in different models for the stages of growth and the patterns of growth, but whatever your models are it is important to distinguish between patterns and stages. If you don’t make this distinction you will mislead yourself and others when discerning where someone is in walk with God and where they might be heading.
This should teach us to be very careful about what we teach, especially about neat categories and comparisons. When we teach about spiritual growth we teach for the purpose of helping creatures made in the image of God to become more godly. Hopefully, humility and love will move us to be extra careful.
The Temptation to Force Social Justice – Fall, 2016
It is important that Christians stay engaged with society and politics if we are able. But they are some who think that scripture teaches that Christians should take up arms and use force to produce social change. This type of theology is sometimes referred to as liberation theology. But the reality is that Jesus was unusually uninterested in using force to produce social justice. The Roman Empire had occupied Israel for decades and they often disrespected the Jewish faith. Most of the Jews yearned for expelling the Romans and establishing the visible kingdom of God with a new King David on the throne. But Jesus did not campaign for such a thing. In fact, he spent a lot of time trying to explain how the kingdom of God that Jesus brought was much different from what the Jews thought it was. It turns out the kingdom of God starts from within someone, it requires a new heart. More shocking, living in the kingdom would probably mean persecution and suffering – not political power.
Thus liberation theology and any theology that tries to justify the use of force, or political power to establish some form of the kingdom of God is in error. The Roman Catholic church of the Middle Ages tried to do this and it failed miserably. Some Christians today favor a kind of socialism that would require a kind of “goodness” while taking away freedoms; but this too fails in developed countries unless they are smaller and have a very homogeneous culture (e.g., Scandinavian nations). Recent events in Europe make this clear.
Christians still need to push for laws that produce a healthy society while at the same time allowing for freedom of belief and freedom to choose one’s path in life. And certainly there is no threat of Christianity becoming an enforced way of life anywhere in the Western world. But we still need to remember that real change in any society begins with the heart and that is our first priority when it comes to social justice.
Postmodernism & the Supernatural – Fall, 2016
Postmodernism definitely moved society away from using reason to solve all our problems. Yet it is interesting that there is still so much fear of, and resistance to, the operating in the supernatural. When many Christians see supernatural evidences of God at work in someone they become afraid and turn away. For example, if they should see someone being delivered from demonic oppression or get weak and slump to the floor because of the move of the Spirit they wonder if this can even be from God. Even many younger Christians, who would presumably be the most postmodern, think this way.
In the early 19th century during the 2nd Great Awakening the Holy Spirit moved powerfully in nearly every denomination. One could visit a camp meeting attended by thousands and see the Holy Spirit coming on people, filling them up, and making them physically weak. This affected Baptists as well as Presbyterians and Methodists. But today those denominations, including young leaders, largely shy away from manifestations of the supernatural. It has been this way for decades and may be due to reactions to the Pentecostal movement. Some even went as far as to teach that the gift of tongues is from Satan.
But what is puzzling is how little postmodernism has changed these attitudes. If postmodernism truly opens people up to the trans-rational then why hasn’t the full power of the Spirit been more welcome? Where are all the healings and miracles and fillings of the Spirit?
Thus, it seems that rationalism still has a huge grip on society. Most people are still “in their heads”, trying to figure everything out rationally and not learning to walk in the Spirit and accept the supernatural. Postmodernism has made some difference but not enough to actually make most Christians embrace the manifest power of the Spirit.