A Small Faith

I’m playing connect the dots with a recent post by Travis and a Spurgeon quote by Tulipgirl. Please don’t hold them responsible…

Isn’t it interesting that the modernist mindset so invades our view of spiritual maturation that we view it almost exclusively as a linear progression? We’ll allow for a few dips here and there but we want to see that trend towards perfection(which is what? good behavior?).

And isn’t it interesting that the man praised for being a “man after God’s own heart” was David – arguably one of the most “spirtual” men that you’ll find in the scriptures?

And so, isn’t it interesting that David’s entire life is characterized by trust and doubt, torment and glory, praise and self-centeredness?

David’s progress wasn’t quite linear, was it? Sometimes you might even wonder if he was a follower of God at all. Is it that we have the wrong picture of what spiritual maturity looks like? Do we hide those “un-Christian” feelings and thoughts from our fellow Christians because, well, we should have grown out of them by now?

Not quite sure where the answer is in all this but I’m pretty sure that we in the church need to take a good, honest look at ourselves and find ways of dealing with all this hidden stuff out in the open, in community.

Travis takes a look at how the modernist mindset influences our idea of what spiritual growth looks like :

When sanctification begins to look like your datebooks, instruction manuals, or diet plans, you’ve got a problem. When you tack on some vague notion about accomplishing your Spiritual Growth Plan through “the power of the Holy Spirit,” you’ve only complicated the problem. How does one tap into this “power,” anyway?

Notice the earmarks of modernity: progress; linear movement; calculation; goal-setting; measurement. It’s almost scientific; it’s almost economical. And most certainly, it’s cause-and-effect. Really, when it comes right down to it, it’s change management. Instead of applying the principles to your business, you just apply them to yourself.

We’re driving ourselves crazy trying to do this, because the Christian life doesn’t fit nicely into a self-help program. (read more)

Keith goes from Christian merchandising to thinking about how we fail to live the doctrine of creation :

I think there’s another reason behind the impulse to stamp a Scripture verse on every imaginable object. In large part we have an anemic doctrine of creation. Our conviction that God is the maker of heaven and earth should be evidenced in more ways than ongoing debates with evolutionists. Certainly, there’s a need for such apologetic activity but the doctrine of creation, like all biblical doctrines, is not given primarily for the purpose of our defending it but for our living it.

How do we live the doctrine of creation? By affirming along with God that his creation, though cursed on account of humanity’s rebellion, is still good and is given to us to richly enjoy with thanksgiving… (read more)

And finally, Annie provides some backup that coffee is actually an essential part of any spiritual discipline… Ok, not really, but she does quote from an article that shows there are health benefits to coffee. As if we needed that excuse…

Yet, analyzing data of 126,000 people over 18 years has led to an almost astonishing number of likely health benefits, including lowering your risk of diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, colon cancer, and improving mood, headaches, and even lessening the risk of cavities.

In some cases, even the “all things in moderation” cliché was put to the test. For example, drinking one to three cups a day reduced type 2 diabetes risk by single digits, whereas drinking six or more cups per day slashed men’s risk by 54 percent and women’s by 30 percent. (read more)

So, you think my health insurance will cover trips to Starbucks?

I have about 3 or 4 posts sitting around as drafts just waiting to see the light of day. Poor little posts, started and now neglected. There should be an orphanage of sorts for them. Fortunately for this little fella, I found a few spare minutes to finish it up and set it free into the world…

Sorry, I’m feeling a little punchy tonight. Just ignore me and see what you think of the rest of the post which was inspired by Jlove’s post of a few weeks back.

The missus and I were driving along with the kiddos in tow(no, not really in tow – that would be illegal – although much quieter) talking about stuff like inerrancy, literalness, applicability…. you know, typical marriage seminar kind of stuff. What we came up with is three categories of when to not take the scriptures literally. And by “literally” I mean trying to read them in a wooden, millimeter deep kind of way.

Figures of speech – This is the most obvious and easily recognized by everyone. Jesus is not really a “door” nor does He have literal sheep that He wants Peter to feed. Paul uses sarcasm, hyperbole, and irony liberally throughout his letters(see 1 Cor 4:10). And the apocalyptic books cannot be read at face value.

Cultural references – This one is a bit tougher. Most everyone agrees that the New Testament especially contains some culturally specific applications of broader principles that we are not bound to today. But we differ on what exactly those are. Think of the holy kiss that Paul talks about. Anyone practice that? What about no gold or braids for women? And should women cover their heads or not? Some groups think so, others do not. And all this without even getting into how relevant culture is to the whole “women’s roles” issue.

Factual errors – This one may get me in a little trouble but I think that scripture can have some factual errors which simply represent a lack of understanding or knowledge that the writer had at the time. The example that comes to mind is the use of Sheol – which is thought to be the place that all the dead descend. By further revelation in the New Testament, we understand that there is no such temporary place that we are assigned to when we die.

Comments welcome! Especially on the question of factual errors. I’m still working through that one so I would appreciate any insight anyone might have.

Something must be in the air…. After the illustrious Jlove penned his post on tithing I notice that Doug is getting into the act as well. He spends some time talking about Melchizedek and the purpose of the Levitical priesthood – all good things to keep in mind when looking at this subject. Doug concludes that :

So since Jesus is a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, we are beneficiaries of a better covenant of promise. This promise does not make us benefactors to the church through a rigid 10% tithe. We do have a responsibility to give back a portion to God from what He has given us, but that portion is not shown to be the same amount that I grew up believing. At least not from this text.

Now, go read the entire thing.