Enthusiasm and the Spirit? (via The Immanent Frame)

A blog that I stumbled upon a few months ago, called The Immanent Frame, recently posed a question; What comes to mind when you think of spirituality? Attached to the very brief article is a description of a project the blog is hosting with another blog where it asks artists, writers and scholars what they think of when it comes to spirituality. The first post on that website is titled "Enthusiasm" and I think it's a great look at the way in which the idea of "letting oneself go" to a non rational agent of some form has been discursively suppressed. What strikes me about this is that, while highly academic and not explicitly Christian, I think it is something to keep in the back of your mind with the recent influx of "Spirit led" Christianity in the world sphere. The money passage for me, in this regard, comes from a quotation of John Wesley;

Hume’s contemporary, John Wesley, argued that if enthusiasm was taken to mean “a divine impulse or impression, superior to all the natural faculties,” which for a brief time suspends reason and the other senses, then:

"both the Prophets of old, and the Apostles, were proper enthusiasts; being, at diverse times, so filled with the Spirit, and so influenced by Him who dwelt in their hearts, that the exercise of their own reason, their senses, and all their natural faculties, being suspended, they were wholly actuated by the power of God, and “spake” only “as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

But this, Wesley notes, is not what most of his contemporaries meant by enthusiasm. Instead, they meant by it a kind of madness, a specifically religious madness, in which the sound mind preserved by true religion was destroyed. The enthusiast, for Wesley, is the person who believes he has grace when he does not, or who understands herself to be a Christian when she is not. Enthusiasm is a kind of self-deception against which Wesley must warn those to whom he preaches. For Wesley the criteria for distinguishing between what we might call true and false enthusiasm, or between true religion and enthusiasm, are themselves spiritual.

It's an incredibly complex quote and I think, in one sense, it rings very true with what the Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians (roughly chapters 12-14) regarding the gifts of the Spirit; that there are many different aspects of the Spirit, but that there are litmus tests and that a Christian must be willing to discern between them. While Amy Hollywood is interested in charting the course of the limiting and evolving ideas of enthusiasm, with a religious background, I think in some sense her words can give us a unique insight into why perhaps there has been a "quieting of the Spirit," in Christian history. This in turn can potentially help us to see why there has been a hesitancy in Western Christianity to engage fully with a Pentecostal and Charismatic notion of faith. I will contend though that I am taking Hollywood's argument a tad further, but I think it is warranted.

I write this blog post largely because, as a non-Pentecostal/Charismatic Christian*, I have had that branch of Christianity come into my view in many ways recently. This is my attempt to deal with the issues in some sense, but also to hopefully start some dialogue on the nature of what is means to be a "Spirit led Christian."


 *I do realize there is an issue with using Pentecostal/Charismatic interchangeably; however, for the sake of space and meandering blog posts, I don't want to get into it here.

Rob Bell; Love Wins and some find that offensive.

-This is a post that I was hoping to put up shortly after finishing the book. Unfortunately, graduate school got to me and I am now finally getting to my old, completed but unpublished posts (6/09/11)-*

Over my spring break, I picked up a copy of Rob Bell's new book, Love Wins and read through it in a few days. I have decided to weigh in on this topic and give my own reflections on the book. Let's being with the topic everyone originally got all up in arms over. Is Rob Bell a universalist? Well, I guess you'll have to read on and see.

While many defenders of Bell will contend that he isn't a universalist by what is talked about in the book, and I would agree, this depends on what is meant by universalism. If we are talking about believing that all paths to God are equally as good, then no. Bell makes it fairly clear that he is in agreement with traditional Christian doctrine that states Jesus is the only way to God. What Bell does do is to suggest that God can use "other means" to let people know of him. He uses examples of missionaries preaching to people groups that have little contact with the Western world, responding to the Gospel message with "we've been talking about that all along, we just never knew the name." On this statement, I will agree with Bell that God can (and does) use whatever means God deems appropriate to bring people to God. However, Bell does leave the door open so that people can still hear the Gospel message without ever hearing about Jesus and on this, I'm not sure if I agree. Granted, I am not God, but it seems to me that if you are going to claim Christ, you really do need Christ.

Going off this point, Bell also contends that it is entirely possible that God can still save people after death. On this point, I am less than sure, but what I do love about Bell's argument is that the door is open for God to do whatever God wants and that if God wants to save people after earthly death, God will. However, Bell never offers a definite yes or no as to if this is the case, he simply posits that it's possible and places himself in favor of this view. Bell also acknowledges that there are some people who simply will never, ever choose to be apart of God's kingdom and thus will be told, "You made your choice, you have no part in this." Libertarian free will at its finest.

I hope it's clear that Bell, while trying to remain close to Christian doctrines, is seriously bringing many of them into question. This is Bell's typical oeuvre, to ask questions. It is here that I think most of the controversy erupts, especially now. If you ask enough questions, would you still be able to contend anything as true? Is the act of questioning meant to lead to a new answer, the same one, or no answer at all? Bell is, for all intents and purposes, a mainline Evangelical who asks questions. The harm in this book is that if you already have an answer and have pinned your life on it, probing questions will lead you to see the cracks in your thinking and that, ultimately could lead to a paradigm shift. However, Bell's prose isn't quite up to the questions he's asking and most frustratingly, he provides not annotations and citations for his information. On this, I am almost willing to not endorse the book at all.

However, I will. I will endorse it for a very simple reason; it needs to be heard. Love Wins brings serious questions to the forefront and due to the record number of sales it had, people do still care about this topic. As a starting point for discussing heaven, hell, and the fate of every single person who ever lived it is excellent. However, do more thinking, reading and discussing. His argument is not flawless, his prose frustrating (sometimes), and his lack of citation is confusing. His heart, one of a pastor who deeply cares for his congregation, which includes anyone who reads this book, shines through towards the end. In the retelling of personal stories, Bell casts himself as wanting to give hope to many who have none and to those who have been wounded by the church in the past. Read it for yourself, read it openly and discerningly, and read it with someone. It's a book that requires dialogue which is a rare commodity these days.

-Dan

*In posting this so long after the fact, I realize that several books are coming out in direct, or indirect, opposition to Bell's book. Considering this, I hope this review is still relevant.

The spirit of the Law?

I'd like to postulate something; could it be that the heart and "spirit" of the Judaic-Christian Bible has always been found in the this verse from Matthew 22;36-40: "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And He said to him, " 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, and with all your mind.' "This is the great and foremost commandment "The second is like it, 'You shall love neighbor as yourself.' "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

I say this because of a news story I stumbled upon. The story, reported in January of this year, stated that a pottery shard, discovered 18 miles from Jerusalem and dated to around the tenth century BCE, contained this Hebrew inscription (the text below is the English translation);

1' you shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord].
2' Judge
the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an]
3' [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and]
4' the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king.
5' Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger.

You can read the rest of the story here. It contains some other insights to how old the written Hebrew language actually is, but to me this is a revelation. Or at least, the beginning of one. We, as Christians, often tend to ignore Jesus as a Jewish individual, someone who studied the Torah and grew up in that tradition. There's a lot of talk among historians about the hospitality of the ancient peoples of the middle east, particularly the Hebrews, and this, along with Jesus' statement about the greatest commandment, seems to affirm all that "hippie, love everyone" ideology that has become popular among Emergent and liberal Christian thinking. I'm not making any grand statements here, because I feel like I'm only scratching the surface but I think my view on things just got a whole new spin and serious shot in the arm.

-Dan

Truth.

I've been thinking a lot lately about the concept of truth. From a post-modern perspective truth is an elusive concept. It is something that has no "foundation" for lack of a better word; a completely malleable idea that is dependent on the individuals' life, experiences and education. I can imagine there are some things that are not subject to this, such as water always being 2 hydrogens, one oxygen. While we as humans have deemed those elements those things and given them that arbitrary numerical value, the fact is still that those elements when combined in that way produce water. However, this is more a "truth" than "the truth." In short, what post-modernism seeks to do is lay question to "Truth." "Truth," with a capital t takes on a new realm. It is something that is seen as factual, never changing and solid. That there are no "grand narratives" implies that any sort of text, ideology, or belief system is no "Truth" and thus can be "right for the individual" but not for the collective. This is where I saw myself falling, in terms of my views on the world.

When it comes to Jesus Christ however, this doesn't quite hold. Here's what I've come to believe, or in actuality, rediscover. Whatever my thoughts on "truth" or the world may be, however much they may be contingent to my leaning towards post-modernism, I can't do that with Jesus Christ. When I am faced with the reality that is Jesus's death and resurrection, there needs to be a decision made. It is either true, or it isn't. If true, it should radically change our frame of mind, our life, our values. It should alter us in a way that makes us free. Free from the influences of darkness and sin, free to be people how are actively engaged in this thing called life. Free to be "servants to all." Free to love God without abandon.

A couple of months ago, the pastor of the church I was attending gave a sermon on foundations. He said that the foundation of our lives should be the death and resurrection of Jesus. He emphasized the resurrection aspect because, without it, Christianity is without any value. If all we have is a man dead, or at best a God dead, then our faith is literally dead. Not metaphorically, but literally. But, with the resurrection, Jesus conquered death and gave us life. Spiritual life and earthly life to the fullest. We can take part in this, if we only believe.

I've gone back and forth for the past few years about what I believe. I have come to realize that I didn't want to believe, not because I knew it wasn't true. It was just more convenient for me to not believe. The Truth is that Jesus died for our sins, to restore us to relationship with God, and through His resurrection all this was put into motion. Death, not the physical kind, but the spiritual kind, is conquered. We need not fear about what happens when we die. Our souls can now live in full communion with God, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. When it comes down to it, my life is fuller, richer, and much more satisfying when I don't deny the Truth, but when I embrace it.

Where do I go from here? I honestly have no clue. I know that I have the foundation, the starting point, but that's just it. It's my starting point! I would like to invite anyone who reads this blog to comment and give me your insight. I would like this to be a place of discussion, a place where we can "work out our faith" together. Peace be with you all.