Everything is Spiritual

This is Part 1 in a multi-part blog series laying out a philosophy for spiritual formation.

____________________________________________________________________

The subject of discipleship, or “spiritual formation,” is once again a hot topic – and it is foundational to the vision of our new faith community – so this week I’ll embark on a new series outlining our philosophy for spiritual training.

One of the difficulties inherent in spiritual formation is that spirit is invisible. How do we know if we are becoming spiritually strong or good? How do we know who requires more or less spiritual training? In the church we often talk about “spirit,” but don’t typically talk about what exactly it is, much less how to reliably train it for ourselves or others.

When Christians do talk about “spirit,” it’s typically in dualistic terms that betray the Greek/Hellenist roots of Western culture. That’s why we sometimes hear descriptions of our “spirit man” or our “spiritual body” which depict the human spirit as an ethereal facsimile of our physical bodies – floating around somewhere inside of us, ready to be liberated at death.

This is entirely foreign to the ancient Jewish tradition, which was a highly concrete and embodied worldview. Moreover, locating our spirit in some ethereal plane conceptually places it entirely out of reach, like some invisible organ we have no ability to affect. Fortunately, the bible is full of insight into what spirit is exactly.

Both the Hebrew word for spirit (ruah) and the Greek word (pneuma) essentially mean the same thing: invisible power. Throughout the bible these terms are used to describe the vital essence of a person, the power which animates (Gen 6:3, Jb 27:3, Ps 104:29). Surprisingly, the biblical concept for the “heart” of man (Heb, leb or lebab, and Gk kardia) is used in essentially the same way – only with more descriptive specificity. Consider Psalm 16:7-9:

I will praise the LORD, who counsels me;
even at night my heart instructs me.

⁸ I keep my eyes always on the LORD.
With him at my right hand, I will not be shaken.

⁹ Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will rest secure,

Here – as with “spirit” – the “heart” of man is used to describe the vital power of a man, yet that power is now fleshed out in a variety of ways: namely, through the mind, the will, and the emotions of the psalmist (see bold). Sometimes we think of all these components as distinctive elements of the human soul, but this Psalm illustrates the holistic nature of mankind. Notice how the mind receives counsel from God (v7) and is depicted in parallel with the heart – indicating that the author is referring to one concept using two different terms. Notice too how the Psalmist’s act of will to “keep my eyes always on the Lord” has an emotional consequence, “I will not be shaken” (v8); these invisible dynamics also manifest physically, for the Psalmist sings, “my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure” (v9). This is just one scriptural example of how the invisible essence of a person has a powerfully affect on the physical existence of a person.

That invisible essence is what we call our “spirit” or our “heart” – they are essentially the same thing – and according to passages like Psalm 16 they refer to our mind, our will, and our emotions. In fact, this is exactly what the ancient Jews traditionally regarded as the “heart” of man.

Our own everyday use of these terms supports this. What do we mean when we say someone has “a strong spirit?” Usually that they are a highly determined person, able to persevere through conflict. This is a function of the will. What do we mean when we say someone has “a good heart?” Generally, that they have good intentions toward people, especially the less fortunate. This is a function of their core beliefs and values. When we say someone has a “broken spirit” or a “wounded heart” we usually mean that some emotional trauma has debilitated their will to act in certain situations.

All of these are functions of what today we call the mind, which is the power-center of the human being - that central place of personal control which is the starting point for all our dreams, desires, and decisions. Thus, Dallas Willard defines spirit as “unbodily, personal power” (Willard 2002:34), meaning that although our spirit cannot be directly observed (unbodily), it can cause tremendous change (power). In this way our spirits can be indirectly observed by the external affects of our choices, namely, the specific ways in which we act, influence, or cause change in and around us.

Therefore, everything we do is spiritual. There is absolutely nothing in human life that does not in some way originate with our mind, our will, or our emotions. Our relationships, our moral choices, our creative expressions…everything. Even psychological pathologies – like phobias and social fears – are rooted deeply in the emotional traumas of our past, which influence our beliefs about what is good and right and true, which in turn governs our behavior in ways that generally seem automatic or unconscious. These are all spiritual realities because because we are indivisibly spiritual beings.

This is a critical bit of understanding for the task of spiritual formation because it places real life as it is actually lived squarely back into the realm of spiritual training and devotion. If everything is spiritual then nothing is outside the realm of our religious devotion. There is no more false-dichotomy between the sacred and the secular; all of life becomes a potential point of contact with God. This helps us reintegrate human life, pulling the fragments of modern compartmentalized living back into a comprehensive, holistic existence.

Technorati Tags: Add new tag, character, discipleship, heart, spirit, spiritual, training

Marketing the Church

Marketing Magic Over Covenant Relationships

We’ve created a rather large marketing machinery and management bureaucracy in order to keep people interested in the goods and services of American consumer faith, and this machinery must be continually expanded in order to maintain momentum.

In the typical attractional church model, more and more resources are poured into facilities, programs, and products that will appeal to faith consumers – and more and more shallow consumers are attracted. At a certain point in this growth curve the deep discipleship of people in the church becomes a logistical impossibility since greater amounts of resources are required to maintain the marketing machinery necessary to continue attracting. Continue reading…

Technorati Tags: consumer church, discipleship, ecclesiology, George Barna, marketing, training, virtue

The Rhetoric of Discipleship

A High Rhetorical Value

Gibbs and Bolger clearly believe part of the problem is that we’ve failed to contextualize the gospel (applying it in an appropriate, understandable way) to post-modern, Western cultures. However, elsewhere Gibbs is careful to reminds us that in doing so we must remain true to our core mission, stating,

“The church must re-establish the priority of the Great Commission” (Gibbs: 2005:89).

In other words, to put it bluntly, we are in this condition not only because we’re irrelevant to our culture, but because we’ve failed at the one thing that would most ensure our relevance: teaching people to actually be like Jesus Christ. Furthermore, we have all failed; there is no current denomination or tradition that is exempt from the woeful statistics regarding lack of Godly character. Moreover, despite our doctrinal differences, all denominations have a strikingly similar church model:

• We work to attract people to large gatherings.
• We require very little for them to join us (often we expect nothing whatsoever).
• We ask them to sit passively while we provide information and entertainment.
• We do our best to cater to their needs.
• We attempt to motivate them to change their lives based on the information.

This is often called the “attractional” model of church. As leaders, we assess the effectiveness of this model according to how many people we attract, and how much money we collect. Our measures of success have nothing to do with character.

By contrast, character is a major measurement of success in Jesus’ gospel. Therefore, I want to assess our dominant model of church by asking three questions based on The Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20) and the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7):

• Is making disciples our first concern?
• Do we follow the inside-out, “Godward” praxis of spiritual formation as implied by the Great Commission and the Sermon on the Mount? And,
• Are we actually making disciples?

1. Is making disciples our first concern?

Honestly? No.

While we employ lots of rhetoric about disciple making, the truth is that our first concern is protecting the institutional viability of our churches. In other words, what matters most is protecting the money because it’s the money that pays the mortgage and the salaries. Having been in professional ministry for 15 years – in two different churches of very different size and style – I can personally attest to this. No honest pastor would disagree. None of us like it, and many try to change it, but the reality is that keeping the budget on track requires a minimum level of attendance and giving. Consequently, the tasks to which we give the majority of our time and money every week are directly related to attracting a crowd and keeping a crowd.

Attracting a crowd of people, and then making sure they remain happy, tithing constituents is not how you make disciples.

2. Do we follow the inside-out praxis of spiritual formation?

No…and it’s entirely because of the model.

Because our concern is attracting and keeping a crowd, we first bring people into a setting that is outward. From there we work hard to inspire them toward Godly personal devotion and engagement with the surrounding community.  However, so much energy and resources are spent crafting an attractive church experience that little is left for helping people cultivate a genuine Godly character. This is an outside-in approach to spiritual formation that is largely devoid of praxis precisely because most people never make it to the realm of acting on their faith in tangible ways, and then reflecting upon their actions.

The vast majority of church people spend the vast majority of their time sitting in church listening to stories being lived-out by the vast minority (usually, the pastor and other leaders). In such an environment, very little changes.

3. Are we actually making disciples?

Yes and No.

Many people’s lives are transformed in attractional churches. I’m one of them and maybe you are too. However, in any typical church the percentage of people that are demonstrating a progressively growing and tangibly deep commitment to God and the community of faith is strikingly low: roughly 15-20%. This is based on consistent volunteer service, small group attendance, and tithing in typical churches – which are generally the only significant discipleship-oriented metrics we have. This roughly corresponds with Pareto’s Law, also known as “The 80/20 principle.”

In other words, for every 100 people in church there are generally only 15-20 who are deeply engaged in their faith. In church leadership we often refer to this as the difference between “the crowd” and “the committed.”

Sadly, those who are being transformed into disciples (the committed) tend to plateau early in their growth because typical churches spend most of their time trying to keep “the crowd” happy. Unless, that is, they are identified for leadership development, in which case there are often more resources available to them for in-depth training.

Yet the problem of character development persists even for leaders. Christian leaders are notorious for leading lives that are long on charisma but short on character. In recent years numerous high profile Christian leaders have demonstrated that no amount of formal academic education or ministerial success ensures genuine spiritual formation into the likeness of Christ. Furthermore, studies on Christian leadership reveal that most leaders don’t “finish well” in their ministries, and most of those failures are due to moral failures or character deficiencies (Clinton:1994:9).

Therefore, the church faces a critical question. How can we effectively make disciples who become people of deeply pervasive Godly character, just like those described by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount? One thing is certain: What we’re currently doing does not work. Failure to successfully answer this question is leading us toward the practical irrelevance of the church in the Western world.

Technorati Tags: discipleship, Eddie Gibbs, Sermon on the Mount, training, virtue

A Crisis of Character

You can’t throw a rock in America without hitting a church. Sometimes there are two or three on every corner; Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Methodist…the list goes on.

So, why start another one? However we try to dress it up – by calling it a community, a group, or a network – the fact is, what we’re doing here at underground_vineyard is starting another church. So, why not just remain within one of the many existing congregations?

This week, I’ll address that question in a series of posts. As a Christian, and a one-time professional minister for 15 years, I am sensitive to criticizing the Church. I deeply love love the “bride” of Christ. However, it is precisely because I love her so much that I can’t ignore her very serious problems, and I’m convinced there are problems that can only be addressed by deconstructing much of what we call “church.”

A Crisis of Character

We are supposed to be God’s image, or eikon, resembling and representing Him by containing His spirit. That means we should be people of conspicuously good character.

Unfortunately, it seems there exists within the modern Western church very little Godly character. Indeed, lack of authentic resemblance to Jesus among western Christians has now become a cliche.

Ronald Sider summarizes much of the evidence on American Christian character in his book, The Scandal Of The Evangelical Conscience: Why Are Christians Living Just Like The Rest Of The World? According to the data, American, Evangelical, Born-Again Christians are essentially no different (and sometimes worse) than non-Christians morally. Sider says,

“Scandalous behavior is rapidly destroying American Christianity. By their daily activity, most “Christians” regularly commit treason. With their mouths they claim that Jesus is Lord, but with their actions they demonstrate allegiance to money, sex, and self-fulfillment” (Sider 2005: 8).

Not surprisingly, this has dramatically shaped the perception of Christianity among America’s emerging generations. George Barna’s book, UnChristian, reveals that most Americans from Gen X’ers on down hold a highly unfavorable view of Christianity. According to Barna:

• Only 16% of non-Christians aged 16 to 29 years possess a “good impression” of Christianity. And,
• 23% percent of younger non-Christians report that, “Christianity in today’s society no longer looks like Jesus” (Barna 2007: 52).

In other words, our lack of character has made us largely irrelevant in the eyes of non-Christians who are apparently evaluating us against the standard of Christ himself…which makes sense. We are, after all, called “Christians,” a name which literally means “little Christs.” Everybody, it seems, understands that we are supposed to look like the person we identify with…everyone, that is, but us.

The result has been the rapid decline of the Church in Western nations. By all accounts attendance at weekend church services is on a steady free fall, neither growing with emerging generations of young adults nor keeping pace with the rate of population growth. It has been projected that by 2050 the percentage of the U.S. population attending church will be almost half of what it was in 1990.

Fuller Theological Seminary professors Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger summarized this growing crisis in their 2005 book, Emerging Churches, saying,

“If the church does not embody its message and life within postmodern culture, it will become increasingly marginalized. Consequently, the church will continue to dwindle in numbers throughout the western world” (Gibbs & Bolger:2005:8).

We need to start new churches because frankly the outlook for existing churches is bleak – and since the fundamental problem is character, the solution cannot come from within existing structures.

Technorati Tags: character, Church, discipleship, goodness, Sermon on the Mount, training, virtue