Tag Archive for discipleship

| May 4, 2013
22 comments

Heresy: In the gno

gnosticismGnosticism was one of the earliest Christian heresies. And while this post is not about the specifics of gnostic belief, it is important to know this: Gnosticism created two classes of Christian–the mature enlightened Christians who had special knowledge of God and everyone else. Now I am no expert on history, but I do know that the seeds of such divisive theology are still in our hearts today. In my context, I see it working in two primary strains:

Charismatic Gnosticism

I was ambushed by a prayer group the other day in the library; they phalanxed me while I was working on a term paper. Confession: I was incredibly uncomfortable. And I would not call into question their motives, don’t hear me saying that, but this is how they approached me, they said,

God just really put it on our hearts that you have something you need prayed over. You can say whatever it is to us. We just really had this sense that you were weighed down.

Now, my day could literally not have been going better up to this point, but what do you say to that? “Maybe you’ve got the wrong guy…?” They already “know.” This isn’t the first time this has happened to me either. Nor is it the strangest. In another instance (and this actually happened to a friend) one of the girls was spasmodically twitching throughout the encounter and said not to worry, it was just the Holy Spirit.bennyhinninindia

Whether or not it was, in fact, here is the catch 22: to point out the degree to which my brothers and sisters are making me uncomfortable is immature, to try to undermine their theology in that moment is unforgivable; but to submit makes me afraid that I have affirmed what is, in my opinion, some bad discernment on their part. My intercessors are acting on intuitions that I don’t believe to be genuine, but there is little platform for conversation. Hyper-spiritualism pushes us to believe we are a higher tier of disciple. “Because anyone who denies that the spirit could be working that way is clearly out of the know, right? This special access and knowledge to what is really going on–our direct access to the mind of God–is bound to make those without it uncomfortable…”

Academic Gnosticism

French scholar works on a manuscript in a monastery, painting from about 1480“What the text actually means is…” This either ends as one of the most helpful or dismissive acts one Christian can take towards another, and either way it runs the risk of patronizing. Those with the training and knowledge of biblical scholarship, at least among my peers, are in the terrible danger of falsely establishing themselves as a higher tier of disciple. We create a class which values learning over obedience, one in which ignorance is a sign of immaturity. We are quick to dismiss those “simple people” whose insight is from ordinary life, as if they had little to offer compared to our studies. We get frustrated with people who read the bible or worship uncritically.

It is difficult not to, though. “So much time has been spent in cultivating knowledge, and so much of our church’s  thinking is just wrong, isn’t it? Wouldn’t it be better if we just let the one’s who “really know” what scripture means run the show? No one likes to have their errant thinking corrected so it would make sense that our intellectual instruction would make them uncomfortable right? We have special access and knowledge into what is really going on and they don’t…”

We have to do better about keeping our dialogue in the divine tension, because letting go of one side is where we lose the truth. Neither intellectualization nor the hyper-spiritualization will suffice. But we already know that, don’t we?

You can read a response by friend of the blog-Greg Jeffers, here: Responding to the Gnositc

Category: Reflections on the Church | Tags: , , , ,
| November 9, 2012
One comment

Directed yet Holistic pt. 2

This is the fourth post in the Philosophy of Formation series and the part two of the Directed/Holistic post.

The first directive concerned modern psychology and science. Our second and third directives (anti-paternalism and social responsibility) become more imperative as the world, and particularly the Majority-world church, becomes increasingly globalized. The traditional paradigm of formation in the west, especially as it applies to missions, often creates a paternalistic relationship between teacher and student: one has knowledge, spiritual maturity, and resources (be they monetary, managerial or regarding labor), and the other receives. If we are critical, we will see that Spiritual Paternalism, Knowledge Paternalism, and Resource Paternalism dominate the landscape of missional and cross-cultural formation. As disciples interested in formation, we must hold ourselves to this maxim: Do not do things for people that they can do for themselves. While such a standard may seem harsh, upon critical consideration, I think we will find it is necessary. In order to do so, however, we must ask some very basic questions about the purpose and nature of formation and some existential ones about what it is to be human. 

Paulo Freire contends that formation primarily concerns itself with the problem of humanization. He says, “within history, we see that both humanization and dehumanization are possibilities for a person as an uncompleted being conscious of their incompletion;” and we often see the social structures of a given culture become an extension of this struggle. Humanization requires a teleologically oriented aesthetic, ethical, and intellectual maturation; and, for the Christian, that telos is to be formed into the image of Christ. But to what end is traditional education or formation devoted? For much of history it has not been the telos of completed persons/societies.

Freire calls the traditional western system of education the banking system. As you read his description of the banking system, try replacing the word teacher with the word Church or Americans. I think we will see that his criticism is worthy of the church’s consideration:

(a) the teacher teaches and the students are taught;

(b) the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing;

(c) the teacher thinks and the students are thought about;

(d) the teacher talks and the students listen—meekly;

(e) the teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined…;

(h) the teacher chooses the program content, and the students (who are not consulted) adapt to it;

(i) the teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his or her own professional authority, which she and he sets in opposition to the freedom of the students;

(j) the teacher is the Subject of the learning process, while the pupils are mere objects.

Freire goes on to assert that in this banking system, “the more students work at storing the deposits entrusted to them, the less they develop the critical consciousness which would result from their intervention in the world as transformers of that world.” He concludes that “the more completely they accept the passive role imposed on them, the more they tend simply to adapt to the world as it is and to the fragmented view of reality deposited in them.”

Like the banking model, our models of education and formation “bring with them the marks of their origin: their prejudices and their deformations, which include a lack of confidence in the [learner’s] ability to think, to want, and to know.” Freire contends that the ones in authority in this model run the risk of falling into a type of “false generosity,” what we would call paternalism, as “they talk about the [learner], but they do not trust them; and trusting the [learner] is the indispensable precondition for revolutionary change.” 

As we consider a philosophy of formation in a world with a Southern global majority, and one that is industrializing and recovering from decades of oppression and violence, how will we employ the directive of anti-paternalism?  What do we risk helping to create (or reinstitute) if we do not? Does formation not have a responsibility to help create more humane societies as well as individuals? Can we really help initiate the Kingdom into the world if we don’t trust disciples and nationals to think critically and use resources for themselves?

Category: Philosophy Theology, Reflections on the Church | Tags: , , , , , ,
| November 4, 2012
No comments

Philosophy of Formation: Directed yet Holistic pt. I

This is the third post in the Philosophy of Formation Series

Directed and Holistic

To argue for direction may seem a bit moot. Isn’t all formation inherently directed towards something? What I would suggest are some specific directives for formation, and an awareness of operating directives in other types of education. The primary directives I would advocate for formation include the contemporary sciences (discussed here), anti-paternalism, and the social responsibility of formation (which will be featured in the next post).

Regarding the sciences, exhaustive data is available for the study of education and formation, with more being published all the time. Many of the principles of modern psychology and social science affect those in the classroom; and disciples, whether operating in an authoritative role or not, should certainly be aware of these. Such research includes but is not limited to: priming effects, biases and heuristics research, the effect of exercise and wellness on learning, and phenomena such as the 4th grade slump, cognitive ease, or anchoring. I would like to include here, however, a particular study published by Carol Dweck, a Stanford psychologist, in 2006.

Dweck’s study was conducted in twelve New York City schools and involved more than four hundred fifth-graders. One at a time, the students were removed from class and given a relatively easy test consisting of nonverbal puzzles. Upon receiving the results of the test, each child was given a single sentence of praise. Half of the students were told, “you must be very smart,” praising their intelligence. The other half were told, “you must have worked really hard,” praising their effort. The students, then, were given a choice between two subsequent tests, one of similar difficulty and one which was more difficult but from which they were assured that they would learn.

Of the group who had been praised for their efforts, 90% chose the harder set of puzzles. However, of the kids praised for their intelligence, a majority chose to take the easier test. Upon receiving the results of the second tests, the researchers found those who had been praised for their intelligence to be discouraged, as the students took their inevitable mistakes to be signs of failure. When their motivation came from having the right answers, mistakes seemed to reflect poorly on their intelligence.

When given a final test of the same difficulty as the initial test, the students who had been praised for their efforts raised their scores by an average of 30%. Those students who had been praised for their intelligence scored 20% lower on average than their initial scores. Their experience of “failure” had discouraged them to the degree that they actually regressed.

Those involved in formation should be asking themselves what application research such as Dweck’s has in the discipling relationship. What are we forming disciples to value? How are they being formed to measure progress and success?

Category: Philosophy Theology, Reflections on the Culture | Tags: , ,
| November 3, 2012
No comments

Philosophy of Formation: Grounded yet Progressive

This is the second post in the Philosophy of Formation series.

Progressive yet Grounded

In periods of transition there is a tendency, particularly for the church, to plant our hopes either fully in a remnant of past culture or in future progress and to then demonize the other. Such a dichotomized approach to formation will not suffice in the new philosophy. The doctrines and creeds of the past seek to answer questions that are no longer primary, based on authority which is no longer considered credible. We cannot deny that we owe our predecessors a great debt, but we do not honor them by seeking to live as if we were still in their world. Phyllis Tickle describes this experience well, saying

“The Reformation’s cry of sola scripture was accompanied and supported by the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. The computer, opening up as it does, the whole of humankind’s bank of collective information, enables the priesthood of all believers in ways the Reformation could never have imagined. It also, however, opens up all that information to anybody, but without the traditional restraints of vetting or jurying…It even opens up with equal élan the world’s bank of dis-information. To the extent that faith can be formed or dissuaded by the contents of the minds as well as those of the heart, then such license has huge implication for the Great Emergence and for what it will decide to do about factuality in the wiki world.”

The future of formation faces many similar issues and it will take serious discernment to determine the best means of adapting to this new world and new circumstances. However, I believe that disciples lack the innate maturity to operate in the center of culture on their own. “The next Christians must beware,” Gabe Lyons warns, “that operating in the center of the world requires a deeps anchoring in Christ, a grounding that’s achieved only through means unbecoming to most.” He prescribes the value of being “grounded, not distracted,” stating that “the next Christians know that if they aren’t disciplined, they risk sacrificing the greater work God may want to accomplish through them.”

In our haste to adapt to the emerging world we must not leave behind the disciplines and liturgies that are so formative to discipleship: fasting, lectio divina, contemplative prayer, radical simplicity, and the other spiritual practices of monasticism and the Christian life. In our haste to learn how we might teach the next generation we cannot risk losing the teachers of the generations who came before us. St. John of the Cross, Augustine, St. Teresa of Avila, Dietrich Bonheoffer, John Calvin, Thomas a Kempis, and the other great disciples in the church whose teachings are preserved must always be a model for those who seek to be formed into the way of Christ. The doctrines and creeds may require updating and contextualizing, or even doing away with; but it would be foolish to lose those most valuable teachings and practices that help to ground us in Christ.

Category: Philosophy Theology, Reflections on the Church | Tags: , , , ,
| November 2, 2012
No comments

A Philosophy of Formation: Introduction

In their research for the 2011 book You Lost Me, the BARNA group found that when asked to reflect upon their experience in church, 84% of young adults aged 18-29 (who grew up in the church) stated that they had not learned how the Bible applies to their field or area of interest. Of those surveyed, 72% stated that they did not learn how Christians could positively contribute to society; 23% stated that the church did not prepare them for real life; 24% stated that faith was not relevant to their career or interests; 22% said that the church ignores the problems of the real world; 35% agreed with the statement that “Christians are too confident that they know all the answers;” 25% identified Christianity as anti-science. In their national survey of mosaics (18-29 year olds) BARNA found that 36% of these young people agreed with the statement “I don’t feel that I can ask my most pressing life questions in church.”

The following is a direct quote from the 2012 Texas GOP Report of Platform Committee, approved by Governor Rick Perry (the bolded emphasis is added):

“Early Childhood Development – We believe that parents are best suited to train their children in their early development and oppose mandatory pre-school and Kindergarten.  We urge Congress to repeal government-sponsored programs that deal with early childhood development.

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”

The evidence from both church and state seems to suggest that our philosophy of both spiritual and intellectual formation over the last generation, in many respects, has failed; and the future of formation does not always look promising. We, the “Post-moderns,” “Generation Y,” “Millennials,” (call us what you will) have passed through almost our entire formal education and the indicators of its success are few and, as we will address later, often troubling. In formation, as in so many spheres, we find ourselves reexamining the questions once taken for granted: What is the purpose of education and formation? How do we form individuals and society for the future without losing the treasures of our past? How should we incorporate contemporary science and psychology in formation? What impact will formation have on the shape of our society, our government, and our economic systems? What influence should it have? How would we create a new pedagogy? How would we assess it? What is true? What is valuable?

I am convinced, though, that we (particularly we Christians) need a new philosophy of education and formation: one that is not married to outdated and paternalistic notions of reality, but one which is not divorced from the history and various cultures of the world—one that is no longer grounded in a Western-Anglo-Male centric conception of truth, beauty, or virtue, and which is not separated from the realities of poverty, post-Christendom, and the contemporary sciences. In the following posts, I would like to suggest a few of the principles which such a philosophy must consider.  Let us discuss, here, two areas of “generosity” which I believe that those involved in the formation of the future (be it evangelism, teaching, spiritual mentoring, or just Christians interacting with nonbelievers and one another), and particularly those who do so cross-culturally, must incarnate if we are to be successful in truly helping to form one another into the image of Christ.

Category: Philosophy Theology, Reflections on the Church, Reflections on the Culture | Tags: , , , , ,
| October 24, 2012
No comments

Look Both Ways

I have grown up in a tradition which seeks to restore the first-century church. As a naturally inquisitive child I had all sorts of issues with this endeavor: why do we have a building; why do we read the New Testament and not read the Old Testament Apocrapha; why are we so preoccupied with the state; etc. However, I cannot help but appreciate the value we placed in scripture over “church doctrine” (a sometimes futile but always commendable pursuit) and the sincerity with which we sought to be genuine disciples like those who first began this life “followship.” I believe it is important to find value in our origins of faith; but I do not think we should do so uncritically. So I would like to raise some questions for those of us from conservative traditions, particularly churches of Christ, to consider:First century Church

1. Let’s confess our heritage: our desire to “restore the first-century church” is noble; but we are not immune to our own origins. The conflicts and doctrines from which we emerged have formed us to such an extent that we cannot hope to shed their influence nor, do I think, should we deny their continuing effects. We are the children of the enlightenment, we are rooted in a view of the world which elevates the status of the West (especially the United States) and of Anglo-males. But our heritage does not pick up at the end of the first century. The church has grown and adapted in so many ways (both beautiful and disturbing at times); and as long as we deny where we’ve come from we can never confess where we’ve been or discern where we’re going.

2.Let’s remember our teachers: I have found that when my peers want to incorporate the wisdom of “ancient Christians” they first look to C.S. Lewis. I am not a hater of Lewis; I have found him to be insightful and appropriate to his own time. However, our students are increasingly divorced from the great teachers of the church: Augustine, St. John of the Cross, St. Benedict, St. Teresa, St. Catherine, the desert fathers and mothers, Martin Luther, John Calvin, William Carey, etc. We have pretended that the Enlightenment and the Bible are all we have; but, by separating ourselves from the history of the church, we have cut ourselves off from some of our most valuable teachers. Reflection on scripture and discipleship did not begin with us or in the modern age, nor did we perfect it. We need to acknowledge this and reestablish a seat at the table for our predecessors; our young people need their wisdom and guidance.

3. We need to learn where to look: In my experience, when we wanted to settle a matter of dispute we looked to the past: Appropriate gender roles? Look to creation and the society in which scripture was composed; Most effective evangelism? Look to our apologists from the 19th and 20th centuries; Correct manner of worship? do what they were doing in the first century; Best incarnation of leadership or Church? Let’s look like we did like at our most successful. If we will look critically, though, I think we will see why we are becoming increasingly irrelevant. God is not only restoring the world, yh is making something totally new.

I am absolutely convinced that when we want to discern what God is doing in the world, though it is crucial that we look backwards to our FULL heritage, ultimately we must look forward. We should always be asking, “What does God want the world to look like when yh is finished?” And I believe that, while we have much from our history we could stand to reclaim, in the end God is calling us to be a new creation.

Category: Reflections on the Church, Reflections on the Culture | Tags: , , , , , , ,
| August 31, 2010
7 comments

Conflicted Citizenship I

In keeping with what seems to be my general nature, I find myself at odds with my identity as a Christian and as an American. While not a new struggle, I find that the more I consider the issue and the more I study, the more difficult I find it to reconcile the two. I learned early on, as every American child does, that Jesus was a white, middle-class, republican; (if I may steal that phrase from Derek Webb) and that the best way to live out my discipleship was to live out these values to the best of my abilities. My identification with my American citizenship was such that I projected the values of the United States on to my faith, and for much of my life have remained blind to the revolutionary political and socio-economic themes in the gospel. As far as I was concerned capitalism and democracy were the only hope for the rest of the world, and the gospel could save men from both sin and lesser forms of government.

It was not until I first left the states that I realized how differently the rest of the world views our nation. We are Babylon. We are Rome. In a very real way, the political and economic systems that we propagate and fight for are nothing less than Anti-Christian. I realize that this must seem like another Anti-American rant, but I assure you that I do not hate my country. My citizenship is a blessing that I will never fully appreciate, and the opportunities that life in the United States grants are unparalleled in any country at any point in history. However, perhaps because of the Anabaptist origins of my faith, I have a fear and an aversion to the gospel of power and prosperity that are so often preached in our faith. The idea that God’s primary concern is in “blessing me” (or blessing America) strikes me as both indulgent and unbiblical. While I firmly believe Paul when he writes that “in all things, God works for the good of those who love him”, I recall no place in which scripture tells us that God always heals, always rewards, or always answers our every prayer. The idea that God wishes us to be rich and prosperous stands in direct opposition to everything I understand Christ to be teaching. In the words of Atheist philosopher Sam Harris, “Christian values [are] belied by other indices of social equality…many a camel, it would seem, expects to pass easily through the eye of a needle.”

Tolstoy would assert that, as Christians, it is against our faith to recognize ourselves as a part of the state. He advocates a complete separation of the Church from the State, in the sense that we would refuse to participate in the political, economic, and military institutions of the nation. We would only observe those laws which we must. While I feel that this goes too far, I do strongly identify with the notion of abstaining from our rights in the government and “duty” in the military. I cannot support the notion that the principalities and powers of the world can be made to serve Kingdom values.

I seek to live this belief out in two ways: First, to the greatest degree possible, I remove myself from the political system. I am not registered to vote nor will I register. In not taking my right to select those in office, I seek to demonstrate my belief that these men and women do not represent me or my interests. My interests are (hopefully) in Kingdom values, and as such are counter to the systems of government in their fallen state. However, in giving up my right to elect officials, I must also give up my right to lobby for or against any policy or legislation. I recognize the sovereignty of American laws in American states and any civil disobedience on my part must be in reaction to injustice only and I must be willing to pay full penalty.

Secondly, as a Christian, my conscience does not allow me to participate in the military. In professing that God is Lord and creator of the whole world, I find that I cannot and will not bear arms against any child of God. Love of enemies does not permit for the slaughter of another life, and this is a value that I am willing to die for. I must state however, that I have nothing but the highest respect for those individuals who are in the military. Service to one’s country is an act of bravery, and such men and women should be held in the highest esteem. It is not soldiers I am against, but the system which says that the State’s interests have precedence over human life. I am willing to give my life and my allegiance to only one Kingdom, it is not America.

Category: Philosophy Theology, Reflections on the Culture | Tags: , , , , , ,
 
Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: