Appropriation of broader culture seems to be the continued driving force for church programs. Perhaps the fragmentation of my Protestant tradition has led to the jettisoning of our own culture, distinct, full of grace and peace.
I still can't get past the "classroom" feel in my church where I "teach"; and we supposedly left Sunday school behind in favor of "Connect Groups". Still, the culture of the attendees is to expect a market-style exchange where their attendance (and giving) is cherished by the leaders, and they are bequeathed knowledge in return. C-P, indeed.
I love the metaphor of a campfire. I can sit and gaze into a fire for hours. God is the fire and God does what he does best… being the beautiful God who doesn’t want to be God without us.
I'm not sure I agree with the statement that "there was no spiritual formation in the time of Israel or Christ." Wasn't the sacrificial system an important kind of spiritual formation where the people would (ideally) be constantly reminded of the weight and consequences of the sin and the love and mercy of God in allowing the guilt of the individual to be transferred and subsumed? Isn't the concept of the Year of Jubilee a practice of spiritual formation?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your meaning in your statement, but my understanding was that a very important function of the Mosaic law was the formation of the hearts of the Israelites toward right relationship with God.
Yes, we should imitate what Jesus did. The personal time with His disciples was important. But remember, in Luke 24: 49 he told the believers to "wait for power from on high" before they attempted to start their ministry. So obviously it wasn't just information they needed, (Jesus had just spent three years giving them that) but power. The information the Holy Spirit offers is so perfect for the situation, so specialized, so impossible to glean from mere rules, that it almost qualifies as power. So, in a sense OT people had the "power" of the Holy Spirit, but not really. This is why we should see Christianity not just as a series of rules anyone can follow, but a relationship with God through Jesus that gives us access to the Holy Spirit's power.
Yeah, I questioned that as well. There may not have been Sunday school or “small groups” as we think of it in 21st c. America, but there was clearly a system of religious practice: the sacrifices, the liturgy in the temple and synagogues, the schedule of what we might now call “daily prayer offices,” memorization of the Torah, etc - all of which I feel like are, very “spiritually formative”.
I wonder if she’s saying that these things were not intended as a Program Of Spiritual Formation, but rather just “what the people of God do”?
"I wonder if she’s saying that these things were not intended as a Program Of Spiritual Formation, but rather just “what the people of God do”?" ---> Yes. I have been wondering about this, as well. What was once a given, a way of living, is often seen as pulling teeth or this huge uphill battle for people to pull off individually.
(Just finished going through a book on the Reformation and its aftermath, and while I'm certainly not advocating bringing back an oppressive Christendom, the parts about the shared, collective understanding of what the practice of Christianity meant had me thinking about why it is so hard for us to have that. The author would say the Reformation caused the continuing fractures of faith practice, but I'm not entirely sure that's a satisfying explanation. Just a connection I had.)
I acknowledge that such things as memorization and training and liturgy and so forth are spiritual, from a certain point of view. But I suggest that the new covenant was supposed to usher in an era where our relationship with God wasn't centered on the physical center of the OT kingdom, the temple and the land of Israel, (sacrifices and observances), but instead on God's new kingdom, the human heart.
Yes, the principles you could get from the Mosaic law were intended to lead to spiritual understanding. And looking back, it seems like it should have. Yes, the Holy Spirit was technically available in the OT, but in my understanding only to Kings, Priests, and Prophets. And the proof on the ground was that, when Jesus came, He pointed out the many ways the Jewish leaders had misinterpreted what God expected them to figure out from having the law. I acknowledge certain Israelites totally understood-certainly David, probably others. But most people didn't. In Joel 2: 28 it talks about God pouring out His spirit onto all people. And the fact that Jesus quoted it as if to explain "this is what's happening now" implies this was a new thing, it required explanation. His hearers definitely knew what He was talking about, but it was an uncommon enough occurrence to require explanation.
I believe the Mosaic Law WAS supposed to cause the spiritual formation you refer to, but my understanding is that it didn't work. Witness all the changes Jesus made when He came.
From that standpoint: “God’s personally designed and delivered program of spiritual formation was ineffective,” the whole concept of spiritual formation would appear to be futile.
This post reminds me of the functional atheism many people have when it comes to church. Sure, we believe God will show up and be present and transform us......but in just in case we need these programs for evidence that God is at work. It is common lament of some pastors that they only get the people for an hour, but fox news gets them 7 days a week, not believing that an hour with God could more formative than other sources.
To believe we are gathered around a holy and formative fire seems to be the first step in our recovery today. I often joke at our church here that our slogan is simple, 'church, we believe it works.'
I love this because it is an honest-to-God act of faith. I hate this because it takes an act of faith.
I live in a place where people don’t know God, and the weirdos here who do know him honestly seek to demonstrate the goodness of God to those who haven’t experienced him (in a time when the very idea of ‘goodness’ has radically shifted). So our goal is to try and introduce this good God to our neighbors, but they seem to have no need for him (or us for that matter). We’ve built a world in which we don’t need God, and so we continue gathering around this unneeded God, and we’re perfectly happy to do so. But I am concerned that our campfire is going to sputter out at some point.
Maybe an ignored, but important, fact of personal change is that it comes about through the Holy Spirit. Some may say it happens other ways too, but I can think of no instance when this sort of "correction" isn't accompanied by a disfunction (sometimes an invisible one) far worse than one's previous character.
I think the primary issue here is that Jesus did not commission his church simply to "light the candles and pray" but to "make disciples of all nations, teaching them to obey (and baptizing!)". I generally think less programtic approaches to local church ministry are helpful, because the people need to see themselves as a people gathered and scattered - they are the work of ministry! And when we gather it is not to fill our heads or our emotions, but to meet with the living God. But where is the role of catechisis? Where is the place "teaching to obey"? This right impulse shouldn't be abandoned just because many churches feel bloated and have lost their liturgical identity.
this is why the linguistic model is so helpful. people will need to learn the language once they are in; but there has to be something to invite them in to. Additionally, I think its interesting that you assume that "making disciples" and "gathering around" can't be the same thing.
They absolutely can be the same thing, no doubt. What better place for discipleship than with his people at his table! But there still is a "go" element here that we can't miss. I am 100% with you on inviting people to the place where we meet with God, not just "hear a talk" or "feel a feeling." Just thinking through the lens of discipleship... It's not less than gathering around. But could it be something more?
Appropriation of broader culture seems to be the continued driving force for church programs. Perhaps the fragmentation of my Protestant tradition has led to the jettisoning of our own culture, distinct, full of grace and peace.
I still can't get past the "classroom" feel in my church where I "teach"; and we supposedly left Sunday school behind in favor of "Connect Groups". Still, the culture of the attendees is to expect a market-style exchange where their attendance (and giving) is cherished by the leaders, and they are bequeathed knowledge in return. C-P, indeed.
I love the metaphor of a campfire. I can sit and gaze into a fire for hours. God is the fire and God does what he does best… being the beautiful God who doesn’t want to be God without us.
I'm not sure I agree with the statement that "there was no spiritual formation in the time of Israel or Christ." Wasn't the sacrificial system an important kind of spiritual formation where the people would (ideally) be constantly reminded of the weight and consequences of the sin and the love and mercy of God in allowing the guilt of the individual to be transferred and subsumed? Isn't the concept of the Year of Jubilee a practice of spiritual formation?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your meaning in your statement, but my understanding was that a very important function of the Mosaic law was the formation of the hearts of the Israelites toward right relationship with God.
This is important enough to address in a second post, I think!
Yes, we should imitate what Jesus did. The personal time with His disciples was important. But remember, in Luke 24: 49 he told the believers to "wait for power from on high" before they attempted to start their ministry. So obviously it wasn't just information they needed, (Jesus had just spent three years giving them that) but power. The information the Holy Spirit offers is so perfect for the situation, so specialized, so impossible to glean from mere rules, that it almost qualifies as power. So, in a sense OT people had the "power" of the Holy Spirit, but not really. This is why we should see Christianity not just as a series of rules anyone can follow, but a relationship with God through Jesus that gives us access to the Holy Spirit's power.
Yeah, I questioned that as well. There may not have been Sunday school or “small groups” as we think of it in 21st c. America, but there was clearly a system of religious practice: the sacrifices, the liturgy in the temple and synagogues, the schedule of what we might now call “daily prayer offices,” memorization of the Torah, etc - all of which I feel like are, very “spiritually formative”.
I wonder if she’s saying that these things were not intended as a Program Of Spiritual Formation, but rather just “what the people of God do”?
"I wonder if she’s saying that these things were not intended as a Program Of Spiritual Formation, but rather just “what the people of God do”?" ---> Yes. I have been wondering about this, as well. What was once a given, a way of living, is often seen as pulling teeth or this huge uphill battle for people to pull off individually.
(Just finished going through a book on the Reformation and its aftermath, and while I'm certainly not advocating bringing back an oppressive Christendom, the parts about the shared, collective understanding of what the practice of Christianity meant had me thinking about why it is so hard for us to have that. The author would say the Reformation caused the continuing fractures of faith practice, but I'm not entirely sure that's a satisfying explanation. Just a connection I had.)
if you are reading brad gregory he blames all social ills and some material ones on the Reformation ;-)
That seems to be his recurring thesis, I found haha
its propaganda.
I acknowledge that such things as memorization and training and liturgy and so forth are spiritual, from a certain point of view. But I suggest that the new covenant was supposed to usher in an era where our relationship with God wasn't centered on the physical center of the OT kingdom, the temple and the land of Israel, (sacrifices and observances), but instead on God's new kingdom, the human heart.
Yes, the principles you could get from the Mosaic law were intended to lead to spiritual understanding. And looking back, it seems like it should have. Yes, the Holy Spirit was technically available in the OT, but in my understanding only to Kings, Priests, and Prophets. And the proof on the ground was that, when Jesus came, He pointed out the many ways the Jewish leaders had misinterpreted what God expected them to figure out from having the law. I acknowledge certain Israelites totally understood-certainly David, probably others. But most people didn't. In Joel 2: 28 it talks about God pouring out His spirit onto all people. And the fact that Jesus quoted it as if to explain "this is what's happening now" implies this was a new thing, it required explanation. His hearers definitely knew what He was talking about, but it was an uncommon enough occurrence to require explanation.
I believe the Mosaic Law WAS supposed to cause the spiritual formation you refer to, but my understanding is that it didn't work. Witness all the changes Jesus made when He came.
From that standpoint: “God’s personally designed and delivered program of spiritual formation was ineffective,” the whole concept of spiritual formation would appear to be futile.
This post reminds me of the functional atheism many people have when it comes to church. Sure, we believe God will show up and be present and transform us......but in just in case we need these programs for evidence that God is at work. It is common lament of some pastors that they only get the people for an hour, but fox news gets them 7 days a week, not believing that an hour with God could more formative than other sources.
To believe we are gathered around a holy and formative fire seems to be the first step in our recovery today. I often joke at our church here that our slogan is simple, 'church, we believe it works.'
I love this because it is an honest-to-God act of faith. I hate this because it takes an act of faith.
I live in a place where people don’t know God, and the weirdos here who do know him honestly seek to demonstrate the goodness of God to those who haven’t experienced him (in a time when the very idea of ‘goodness’ has radically shifted). So our goal is to try and introduce this good God to our neighbors, but they seem to have no need for him (or us for that matter). We’ve built a world in which we don’t need God, and so we continue gathering around this unneeded God, and we’re perfectly happy to do so. But I am concerned that our campfire is going to sputter out at some point.
Maybe an ignored, but important, fact of personal change is that it comes about through the Holy Spirit. Some may say it happens other ways too, but I can think of no instance when this sort of "correction" isn't accompanied by a disfunction (sometimes an invisible one) far worse than one's previous character.
I think the primary issue here is that Jesus did not commission his church simply to "light the candles and pray" but to "make disciples of all nations, teaching them to obey (and baptizing!)". I generally think less programtic approaches to local church ministry are helpful, because the people need to see themselves as a people gathered and scattered - they are the work of ministry! And when we gather it is not to fill our heads or our emotions, but to meet with the living God. But where is the role of catechisis? Where is the place "teaching to obey"? This right impulse shouldn't be abandoned just because many churches feel bloated and have lost their liturgical identity.
this is why the linguistic model is so helpful. people will need to learn the language once they are in; but there has to be something to invite them in to. Additionally, I think its interesting that you assume that "making disciples" and "gathering around" can't be the same thing.
They absolutely can be the same thing, no doubt. What better place for discipleship than with his people at his table! But there still is a "go" element here that we can't miss. I am 100% with you on inviting people to the place where we meet with God, not just "hear a talk" or "feel a feeling." Just thinking through the lens of discipleship... It's not less than gathering around. But could it be something more?
And what is the New Covenant identity of the church, if not (in some way) militant?
So much to think about! In the evangelical church we attend it is all about the right or wrong Scripture interpretations. And politics. And politics.
My heart longs to be with God.