Tuesday, March 9, 2010 at 6:10 am

Spirituality of Glory or a Spirituality of the Cross

Posted by Kyle Strobel | Comments (0) |

In the words of Jean Vanier, "Grace should always perfect our nature...it should make us more human, not take away our humanity." In claiming this, I suggest, what Vanier does is to help establish a Spirituality of the cross. I am taking this distinction from Luther who worried about a theology of glory, and suggested, in contrast, a theology of the cross. I think the same can apply to Spirituality. Grace, therefore, does not simply orient us to heaven, where we now turn our attention away from the world and on to glory - far from it - grace, and through it, true humanity, is tied to Jesus' life. Jesus is the true vision of humanity - humanity at its highest perfection. It is true that one day we will know of another kind of perfection, but that is not available to us this side of glory. We are pilgrims, albeit justified and sanctified pilgrims, we are pilgrims nonetheless.

Spiritual formation therefore, if it is to be truly Christ-oriented, must understanding grace as perfecting us in such a way that we become like Christ. We do not become like Christ in his glorified body, not yet. In this side of glory, we become like Christ as he proclaimed the kingdom of God, as he ministered to the broken, needy and hungry, and as he understood his specific calling and oriented his life around that. A Spirituality of the cross necessitates seeing the cross as the ultimate shape of life. Our leadership plans, church services and formation theology should be conformed to Jesus and the organic message of true Spiritual, and therefore cruciform, growth, rather than the wordly counterpart of success, winning and vision.

Complete article

Tuesday, March 2, 2010 at 4:47 am

Knowing God for Us

Posted by Kyle Strobel | Comments (0) |

One of the aspects of a truly spiritual theology is to highlight the reality that our knowledge of God must correspond to who God is and what God is willing. In other words, knowing God as an object, albeit a mighty, transcendent and eternal object, is still not knowing God. Furthermore, in knowing God in Christ, our knowledge must be truly spiritual - which means, I suggest, that we know God as beautiful - or, as I put it here, that we know God for us.

Knowing God in Christ means that we not only know him as true. It is necessary that we come to know that God is true, that God assumed flesh and dwelt among us, that he atoned for the sins of the world, that he died on the cross and was raised by the Father to glory. But that knowledge can very well exist external to ourselves - what might be called "academic" knowledge. Likewise, we may come to the realization that not only is it true that God did these things in Christ, but that it is good that he did so. We might come to know God as a good God - that his plan for the redemption of mankind is not only true, but truly good. But again, that is not what it means to know God in Christ. This knowledge is necessary, but not enough.

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

Monday, February 8, 2010 at 6:22 am

Evangelicalism and Spiritual Formation

Posted by Kyle Strobel | Comments (3) |

I have become convinced (and you can push me on this) that inherent to what we now consider "evangelicalism" in America today has either genetic or ideological links with the revivals arising from the first and second great awakenings in early America/New England. "Religion" took a decisive shift in this era, and, in many ways, the American identity itself was forged in the revivals - where "we the people" became the battle cry over "they the clergy." It is also out of the revivals that evangelicalism developed "sure fire methods" for conversion, which paved the way for the modern seeker movement and the megachurches which institutionalized revivals.

It is interesting therefore that this group has grown interested in spiritual formation. As an evangelical myself, I realize that there are some immediate dangers here. First, just as the revivals under Edwards started as an organic and relational movement of the Spirit within the body of Christ, but quickly moved to more para-church (and even anti-clergy) movements that sought to develop clear cut steps and means for conversion, so the various groups speaking of spiritual formation has been tempted (with some succumbing to the temptation) to develop sure fire tactics for growth. The church, all too often in my opinion, has be willing to hand out programs, methods and promises, but has been much less willing to wrestle with the messiness of spirituality with its people.

Complete article

Last commented:

Saturday, February 13, 2010 at 8:30 pm

See comments

Monday, February 1, 2010 at 2:26 am

Augustine on the Frenetic

Posted by Kyle Strobel | Comments (0) |

"Accordingly, dearest friends, it falls to us in our neediness and poverty to grieve over those who think they are prosperous. Their delight, you see, is like that of people who are frenetic. Well, just as a mad person frequently gives vent to joy in his frenzy, while the same person cries for him, so we too, dearest friends, if we have received the remedy that comes from heaven (for we too used to be delirious), as those who have been saved because we no longer love the things we used to love, so we too groan to God for those who are still frentic. He is powerful enough, after all, to save them as well. And what they need is to take a good look at themselves and to dislike what they see. What they want, though, is to be seen, and they do not know how to see what is going on in themselves. For if they were to turn their eyes on themselves - just a little bit - they would see how mixed up they are. Until that happens may our interests be different from theirs, may that which holds the attention of our souls be different. Our sorrow is more worthwhile than their delight."

- Augustine, Homily on John 1:34-51

Complete article

Saturday, January 23, 2010 at 9:50 am

Holy Flesh

Posted by Abbie Smith | Comments (0) |

Sometimes lines of the Bible will strike me as odd, or flat-out antithetical to what I imagine God was trying to say. Psalm 145:22 (NAS) recently realized itself as one these: My mouth will speak the praise of the LORD, and all the flesh will bless his holy Name for ever and ever (various other translations say “my flesh”).

I’m okay with the first part, but the second part jolts me to question the Psalmist’s theology, and sobriety. “David, I think you mixed-up your thoughts here, bud. You’re right-on with “speaking God’s praises and blessing His holy Name for ever and ever,” but then you throw-in this flesh part. Flesh can’t bless anything but itself. It defines the “bad, ugly, fallen, sinful, wretched man am I” category. And it hates God and is rightfully opposed to blessing.

Right?”

Yes, according to most pulpits and popular thought, but no, according to the whole of God’s word.

Most of my days begin with The Divine Hours, joining myself to fixed prayers practiced throughout the ages.* And about the time I started wrestling with David’s seeming inebriations, the Hours had me repeating this appointed prayer for the week: O God, who wonderfully created, and yet more wonderfully restored, the dignity of human nature: Grant that we may share the divine life of him who humbled himself to share our humanity, your Son Jesus Christ; who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Complete article

Monday, January 18, 2010 at 5:28 am

Election and the Dark Night

Posted by Kyle Strobel | Comments (6) |

I was recently listening to theologian Stephen Holmes on itunes university talk about spirituality and Calvinism (talk given in Covenant College Chapel). He admits the reality that these two do not, in our day, often go hand in hand, and does a wonderful job explaining the reality of a Reformed understanding of spirituality, which made me think a bit about election and the dark night of the soul (generally speaking). In seeking to talk about the reality of a Reformed understanding of the world, Holmes notes that doctrines like election and grace turn our attention away from ourselves onto God, in Christ, and the work of the cross. The difference, he argues, between Peter and Judas, is not that Peter was so much better and well informed, in fact, they are more similar than not. Judas denied the Lord by selling him out, and Peter denied him by, well, denying him. The key difference is seen in their subsequent action. Judas takes his own life, allowing despair to reign, while Peter runs to the tomb when he hears of Jesus' disappearance and when he sees Jesus at the end of the Gospel of John, we are told that he dives into the water to swim to him.

For the Reformed, the doctrine of election isn't a way to figure out who is in and who is out - it is a way to highlight the sovereignty of God in all things - to focus on the reality that God is the alpha and omega. So what does this have to do with the dark night? 

Complete article

Last commented:

Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 4:00 pm

See comments

Monday, January 11, 2010 at 3:48 am

Human Beings as Lovers

Posted by Kyle Strobel | Comments (2) |

I've been reading a fascinating book lately by philosopher James K. A. Smith called Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview and Cultural Formation. In it, Smith argues that in the modern era we have adopted a misunderstanding of human persons. In his mind, and I think he is right, we have come to believe that persons are primarily thinking or believing things rather than, with Augustine and the ancient church, lovers. As primarily lovers or desiring beings, we need to educate, form and train accordingly. But do we do so? I would suggest, with Smith, that the primary church model we've adopted assumes that humans are thinking and believing things rather that lovers, and that churches tend to try and change people's loves through their brains. If Smith is right, it is no wonder that our model has tended to fail miserably at helping to form people into the image of Christ - the true lover of God.

Any thoughts about this? 

Complete article

Last commented:

Friday, January 15, 2010 at 2:59 pm

See comments

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 11:50 am

Spiritual Formation and the Triune God of Grace

Posted by Kyle Strobel | Comments (5) |

I have noticed a disconcerting trend in spiritual formation circles not to address God as Trinity. Spiritual formation tends to localize its energy on the Spirit, as if the Spirit could be somehow extracted apart from the other two members of God. One of the reasons for this, I believe, is that people think the Spirit has been under-emphasized in the tradition, which I'm open to talking more about but don't think is all that accurate. What often happens is that our emphasis becomes so focused on a singular person of the Trinity that we become practical unitarians.

Christian belief emphasizes that God reveals himself to us in Christ, his Word and image, and that he illumines and unites us to Christ through his Spirit. Grace, if we can so define now, is God's movement towards us to redeem us in Christ and by his Spirit. Therefore, if this is truly the case, I would argue that the method, goals and orientation of spiritual formation should takes its cues from the doctrine of the Trinity. Even, minimally, the definition of spiritual formation should be trinitarian. For instance: Spiritual formation is the work of the Father to sanctify and redeem those in Christ by his Spirit implanted in our hearts and transforming us into the image of his Son.

Complete article

Last commented:

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 8:36 am

See comments

Saturday, November 21, 2009 at 11:43 pm

Sanctification

Posted by Jamin Goggin | Comments (3) |

I simply thought I would share a quote for us all to ponder.  This short excerpt from Webster provides much fodder for thought and dialogue.

"Sanctification does not signal the birth of self-sufficiency, rather it indicates a 'perpetual     and inherent lack of self-sufficiency'.  Sanctification 'in' the Spirit is not the Spirit's immanence in the saint.  Quite the opposite: it is a matter of the externality of sanctitas christiana, the saint being and acting in another.  'Sanctification in the Spirit' means: it is not I who live, but Christ who lives in me.   And 'Christ lives in me' means: by the Spirit's power I am separated from self-caused self-destruction, and given a new holy self, enclosed by, and wholly referred to, the new Adam in whom I am and in whom I act."(Webster, Holiness 83-84)

 

What strikes you all?

Complete article

Last commented:

Monday, November 23, 2009 at 5:43 pm

See comments