Monday, February 22, 2010 at 11:17 am

Views of Spiritual Formation: Becoming Healthy

Posted by Matthew R Green | Comments (0) |

If God created the universe in a particular fashion, and if sin has marred what He has created, then humanity is no longer in its proper form.  We're distorted, not what we're supposed to be.  Part of spiritual formation, then, is an attempt to return to that original state, to find our way back, or better, be led back, to what we were made to be.

With the rise of psychological thought, the language of psychological or emotional health has made its way into our conversations.  We occasionally talk about making healthy choices or being emotionally unhealthy.  There is an implied desire (and why shouldn't there be?) to move towards health.  I believe that this move towards health is a move towards our original design.  To be unhealthy is a way of not being what we're supposed to be, and what we are supposed to be is therefore healthy.

And I think this may transcend categorization.  There is psychological or emotional or mental health.  There is also physical health.  There is surely spiritual health as well.  If part of our being is psychological, another part physical, another part spiritual, etc., then the redemption of all of these parts is a movement towards positive spiritual formation.  To be spiritually formed is to be restored towards an ideal state in all its facets, to become healthier.  Conversely, if we are becoming healthier in any of these facets, then we are being spiritual formed; it is part of spiritual formation. 

Complete article

Monday, February 15, 2010 at 10:44 am

Two Categories of Sin?

Posted by Matthew R Green | Comments (1) |

In light of a conversation I had with a student recently, I began pondering two different major kinds of sin – ontological and functional.

Functional sin would be those infractions that we commit.  When we do something wrong, it is functional sin.  This is how the typical Christian thinks of sin, I imagine.

Ontological sin would be that sin which is carried within us in a way.  It has a sort of substance to it.  It includes original sin and the sin (problems) that we carry due to the functional sins of others.  If that which is not according to God’s design or will is sin, then we carry ontological sin in us insofar as we are not the way we are supposed to be (as opposed to doing what we are supposed to do?).

Is this a useful distinction?  (If these are useful, they do strike me as having different implications for the spiritual life.)
Are there different ways in which God deals with or treats each kind of sin?

Complete article

Last commented:

Monday, February 15, 2010 at 11:38 am

See comments

Sunday, January 24, 2010 at 6:09 pm

Views of Spiritual Formation: The Reality Principle

Posted by Matthew R Green | Comments (2) |

There are lots of ways to think about spiritual formation – metaphors to use, patterns to characterize it, etc.  Different ways of looking at growth can resonate with different people and provide different ways of looking at the same thing, potentially producing different insights and means of attaching to it.  So I figured it might be worthwhile to identify some of the perspectives on formation and invite my follow blogonians to do the same if they'd like.  So consider this an introduction to a series of posts on different views of spiritual formation.

One of the views that I’ve thought about now and then is something I just started calling The Reality Principle. As you grow more and more towards God and grow as a Christian, you will increasingly live in reality. Conversely, the more you enter into and live in reality, the more you grow spiritually. (… more or less, I suppose. There may be exceptions to the converse, particularly for the unbeliever.)  If this is the case, then the more you deny reality, distract yourself from it, attempt to escape from it, or push it away, the further you get from God, yourself, others (overall), and growth and formation.

Complete article

Last commented:

Monday, January 25, 2010 at 3:03 am

See comments

Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 3:02 pm

Do We Misunderstand Advent and the Gospel?

Posted by Matthew R Green | Comments (1) |

I was in an Evangelical worship service recently where a young woman sang a song that seemed rather disjointed to me.  The singing was fairly good, but the lyrics were odd, at least in my book.  She began singing about the Christ being born and that this was such a wonderful gift, that He would die on the cross for our sins.  Did she just jump 30 years? 

Now, certainly the death of Jesus for our redemption is crucial, but I don't think this is the crux of what Christmas and Advent are supposed to be about.  Still, I think the Evangelical church on the whole has failed to grasp this.  We are focused on the death and resurrection of Christ and salvation from sin (and specifically guilt), and that is absolutely a positive thing.  Yet I fear the church has become so focused that it has let slip other aspects of life with God and the work that Christ did. 

Advent is indeed waiting period of the birth of the one who would eventually die to be the propitiation for our sins, but it is also the waiting period of the birth of God Himself, proving that God had not abandoned His people despite 400 years of seeming silence.  It is the waiting that leads to the life and ministry of one who showed that God's love and work deals with the concrete problems of humanity - our inability to escape from sinful habits, our poverty, our disease, and so forth.  It is the highlight of the waiting period that we are still in, waiting for the culmination of this age when we will be with the Lord fully amidst a new and perfect Heaven and Earth. 

Complete article

Last commented:

Friday, December 18, 2009 at 4:45 am

See comments

Monday, November 9, 2009 at 8:57 am

Trinity, Tripartite Way, and The Historical Movement of God

Posted by Matthew R Green | Comments (1) |

This might be over some people's heads without some explanation, and I apologize for that if so, but as I was reading some exerpts on the Tripartite Way (purgation, illumination, union), it got me thinking a bit.  The Tripartite Way arose partially out of 1 John 2:12-14, but also out of the idea that because God is trinitarian, so should all theological truths.  Therefore, the Tripartite Way and the trinity are linked, though I haven't seen a spiritual writer connect them directly (but there is admittedly a vast amount of stuff I've never touched or even heard of).  But another thought that I've played with in another way suddenly came to mind - the idea that the narrative of history and scripture is reflective of the development of the spiritual life.  What happened to God's people is a macrocosm of what must continue to happen to God's people.  Therefore, could history be both trinitarian and match the Tripartite Way? 

Is the Old Testament based on the Father (though not exclusively) and focused on purgation?
As Jesus walked the Earth, we focus on the Son.  Is this illuminative?
After Jesus returned, we received the Spirit; is He then the basis for spiritual life, and do we only then have the opportunity for union?

I'm speculating.  But I thought I'd toss it out for discussion or head-scratching.

Complete article

Last commented:

Monday, November 9, 2009 at 2:16 pm

See comments

Thursday, October 22, 2009 at 7:05 pm

Spiritual Formation Lingo

Posted by Matthew R Green | Comments (2) |

As a few folks wrestled with Jamin's post on and Bruce Demerest's article on mysticism, it came up that Christianity may benefit from moving away from certain terms (here, mysticism) and focusing on other things.  In addition, instead of using terms like mysticism, perhaps, it was suggested, we should devise better grammar and nomenclature that is distinctly Christian and thus less likely to create confusion and fear.  I just had a few thoughts on that off the top of my head that I thought I'd throw out.

First, we already have one term that is well-known and distinctly Christian: spiritual formation.  I don't think any other faith uses this particular term, though I suppose I haven't looked that closely to tell for certain.  Supposing it is generally resticted to Christianity, it has unfortunately failed to accomplish what new verbiage was intended to do: reduce confusion and fear.  There are numerous people who have determined that anything associated with the term is heretical, dangerous, and bordering on if not fully entrenched in occult or other evil thought and activity.  Thus, spiritual formation has become linked, perhaps to a lesser extent, with the same non-Christian realities that mysticism and other terms have, just potentially to a lesser extent.  So is a new grammar actually helpful, and will it accomplish the goal of separating things from the theologically unsound?  That seems questionable.

Complete article

Last commented:

Saturday, October 24, 2009 at 6:08 pm

See comments

Friday, October 9, 2009 at 8:52 am

Can Spiritual Disciplines be Overemphasized?

Posted by Matthew R Green | Comments (10) |

I suppose the fact that I’m even asking that question gives a bit of a hint to what I think the answer might be.

I think spiritual disciplines can be overemphasized, and I think they often are.  The spiritual formation movement in some ways started with the publication of Foster’s book, Celebration of Discipline, and Foster continues to play a major role in the movement and formation community.  A good number of other books (some quite good) by folks such as Dallas Willard, Adhele Calhoun, Marjorie Thompson, and a host of others are written on the subject.  The Call to Spiritual Formation document speaks of it as a vital part of the growth process.  It’s woven through the formation mentality.

Now let me back way, way up before it starts looking too much like I’m speaking negatively of spiritual disciplines.  They are unquestionably helpful, meaningful, and likely beneficial tools in the process of growth and formation.  They help us to make room for God and the spiritual life, may open us up to the truth of ourselves and God, and can help train our bodies to engage with life in more positive manners and help to eliminate unhelpful habits.  These are all undeniable positives.  Thus, I heartily recommend spiritual disciplines of many sorts.

Complete article

Last commented:

Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 11:54 am

See comments

Friday, September 25, 2009 at 8:36 am

God, The Experience of God, & Faith in God

Posted by Matthew R Green | Comments (2) |

Earlier, I posted, talking about the problem of getting the experience of God and the reality of God confused.  As I said, this isn't an unusual or unreasonable thing.  We're born not knowing anything, and we make connections about what is real and meaningful based on our experience.  Therefore, at that age, what is real IS what is experienced.  We cannot distinguish between them so early in life.  But maturation includes a separation between the two.

But as I was meditating on Rom. 8:38-39, which is what put me thinking about this in the first place, I realized that there aren't just two different aspects that are crucial here, there are three.  There is the reality of God, the experience of Him, and one's faith or belief in Him.  That is, there is an objective reality (God), an immediate subjective perception of an objective reality (the experience of God), and a psychologically objective image an objective reality (belief in God).

Complete article

Last commented:

Friday, September 25, 2009 at 12:06 pm

See comments

Friday, September 18, 2009 at 8:30 am

The Experience of God vs. God

Posted by Matthew R Green | Comments (4) |

I was praying over Romans 8:39, “neither height nor depth nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate you from the love of God that is in Jesus Christ our Lord,” (NIV, if memory serves) not long ago, and I found myself spinning in circles a bit.  You see, I know this to be true.  There is no doubt in my mind that God loves me (and us all) regardless of circumstances, regardless of our failures, regardless of death itself (vs. 38).  But my mind isn’t all of me, and the rest of me weighs in with its own complaints.

I know that nothing can separate me from the love of God, but what about being separated from the experience of that love?  My own unwillingness to enter into that love, my capacity to distract myself or to be distracted, some deep-seated and unconscious expectation that God isn’t really there, all of these things and plenty more can get in the way of my experience of the love of God.  And that’s disheartening.  While I’m not diminishing God or His love, I am losing an experience of it, which means how it affects me.  That’s quite a loss.  I don’t intend to get in the way of experiencing God, but I do, despite my best efforts.

Complete article

Last commented:

Thursday, September 24, 2009 at 10:08 am

See comments

Saturday, September 5, 2009 at 4:33 pm

Living and Dying to Self

Posted by Matthew R Green | Comments (1) |

You'll occasionally hear me say that desire is a tricky thing. I often see Christians portray desire as if it were a bad thing, and they quote Matthew 16:24, “Then Jesus said to His disciples, ‘If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me,” (NASB) or Mark 8:35, “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it,” or a similar passage. “You must die to self,” insists a prevailing Christian mentality.

To that I say, “Yes!  … and dear heavens, no.”

There is a self to deny, and there is a self to enliven, but “death to self” in many circles eclipses the second.  Not only is this not what God intended, denying the self that is meant to be enlivened nearly always results in the self that must die struggling ever harder to live.  When we deny the wrong self, the self meant to be denied grows strangely stronger.

Complete article

Last commented:

Sunday, September 6, 2009 at 3:04 pm

See comments