Blog Respite

As 2007 winds to an end--and another semester, I sense the need for some mental rest. So, if you find this post dormant for an extended period of time, just realize that I am in the process of recharging my batteries. But do continue to send your comments. I am truly amazed by the number of daily visits this blog receives. Blessings!

Emotionally Healthy Spirituality: A Review

I read Peter Scazzero's Emotionally Healthy Church a year or so ago and found it most helpful and have recommended it to others. So, I was quite interested in seeing what he had to say in his newest book. The major thesis of this book is "It is impossible to be spiritually mature, while remaining emotionally immature."

Although Scazzero repackages and synthesizes much of what has been previously offered in the spiritual formation literature, this book still provoked much thought on my part. It offers ample doses of wisdom. While making the reader think deeply about oneself, the book is also decidedly pragmatic in its orientation. I may even use this book in a small group study at some point. But I do have some critiques. They deal lesser with the thrust and thesis of the book, and more with it's finer points.

With lists, charts, and detailed explanation the author shows the reader what unhealthy emotions look like. This is much appreciated. This feature is, perhaps, the book's greatest strength. My prayer is that God will use this book to help Christians to identify the correlation between spiritual and emotional immaturity. The correlation between spiritual maturity and emotional maturity is often misunderstood, minimized, ignored, or even denied. But with all that said, the author never quite defines what "emotion" is and where we go biblically to find emotions. Scazzero assumes his readers knows what he means by "emotions." I am not sure this was addressed in The Emotionally Healthy Church either.

Admittedly, most people have an intuitive sense for what healthy and unhealthy emotions are. It's one of those "you know it when you see it" kind of things. So, on the one hand, defining "emotion" may not be needed in a popular-level work. On the other hand, the next time someone asks you what "emotions" are, how would you respond?

It seems that if we are to speak of "emotional health" that we need to have some kind of working definition of "emotion" in mind. The works of Robert C. Roberts' Emotions: An Essay in Aid of Moral Philosophy and Matthew Elliot Faithful Feelings are helpful in this connection. Along these lines, Lyons' definition is helpful, "[emotion is] an evaluation of some object, event or situation in the world about me in relation to me, or according to my norms. . . . [emotions] reveal whether I see the world or some aspect of it as threatening or welcoming, pleasant or painful, regrettable or a solace . . ." (Emotion, 58-59). Lyons' definition reflects a recent trend among psychological researchers, namely, that there is a cognitive element to emotion that precedes feelings.

What then is a Christian understanding of "emotional health"? At the risk of oversimplification, can we say that it is a way we cognitively process and respond to life that is helpful for our and others' growth into Christlikeness? And to be "emotionally unhealthy" means that we cognitively process and respond to life in ways that impede our growth and the growth of others? My definition of "emotional health" is a work in process. But maybe this is something we can continue to ponder and nuance.

Scazzero states that being an image-bearer means that humankind has different dimensions: Social, intellectual, spiritual, physical, and emotional (18). Fair enough, but is that what biblical authors meant when they spoke of humankind being made in "the image of God"? Probably not. Here I defer to Robert A. Pyne's excellent discussion of the image of God in Humanity and Sin. Biblically speaking a better place to find emotions are those instances where where God and his people emote. Different words that biblical authors in connection with emotions might also be a better starting point for understanding emotions.

As is the custom of many evangelical spiritual formation authors, Scazzero integrates ancient and contemporary Catholic spiritual rhythms and psychology into his understanding of spiritual transformation. With this being the case he has taken hits from Christians who believe that contemplative spirituality is nothing more than new age thinking packaged in Christian verbiage. He has probably drawn fire from conservative Christians who are suspicious of Catholic spirituality in general. I am sure that "Bible-only" folks have dismissed this book because of its thorough appeal to psychology.

These aren't concerns of mine necessarily, yet it would be good to know how the author would respond to these critics. How do we as Bible-believing followers of Christ justify the integration of "secular" psychology, Roman Catholic spirituality, and non-Christian religious wisdom into our understanding of spiritual transformation? I believe this can be achieved, as I am sure is Scazzero. But we must not assume that all evangelicals will follow suit without some kind of theological justification for why we would appeal to wisdom found outside Scripture. It's tempting to write off "Bible only" folks and those with fundamentalist orientations. In a sad bit of irony, however, these are the folks who are most often in need of spiritual/emotional maturity. These are the folks who could benefit most from this book. My belief is that this book and others similar to it are in need of a word or two on the need for and value of theological integration in spiritual formation.

In his chapter "Journey through the Wall" the author notes that believers undergo different stages of life in their journey toward spiritual maturity. To be sure, there is wisdom in thinking about the changes we undergo in the seasons of our lives. But some caution is necessary here so that one doesn't fall into a "one-size-fits-all" way of looking at things. The drawback to stages-of-life approaches to maturity is that our stages of life don't always align with those portrayed in the stages-of-life literature. This was my frustration when I read The Critical Journey: Stages in the Life of Faith, the work from which Scazzero borrows. I can identify commonalities between the stages delineated in The Critical Journey and my own, but significant differences as well. To be sure, life seems to be cyclical and those who have gone on before us provide general patterns for us to our encouragement and imitation. But seasons-of-life "templates" do not always jibe with one's reality.

The author's reflections on the Dark Night of the Soul are much appreciated (122-33). My hope is that evangelicals will gain a greater awareness of this phenomenon. However, I do wonder if some temperaments and personalities are more sensitive to the Dark Night than others. In other words, the Dark Night might be more acutely felt by a introverted/sensing personality type as opposed to an extroverted/thinking personality type. I have undergone at least two Dark Night periods in my lifetime. When I explain this to people, some really track with me, others have no clue what I am talking about. To say it another way, some people experience the Dark Night and others do not--and probably will not given their personalities and circumstances.

Did Jesus, Paul, and the apostolic community believe that observing a Sabbath would be a way of developing spiritual maturity? Indeed, there is wisdom in taking a day off to rest from our labors to reflect upon the goodness of God. This is a welcome corrective for the activist impulse that characterizes so much of contemporary American evangelicalism. The Sabbath principle is a good one. But Paul seemed to leave some room for individual decision on this one: "Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds" (Rom. 14:5). Scazzero cites this text, but he takes it to mean that some choose to have their Sabbath on one day of the week, and others on another day of the week (166). While such a reading is possible, it seems more likely that Paul is allowing Christians the option of observing the Sabbath, or not observing it. Paul drives home the point that believers are to live harmoniously and not to look down upon each other because of their decisions to either observe the Sabbath or not to observe it. Though not all can do this, I have found personally that it works better for me to insert periods of rest throughout my week rather than having a day of rest each week. Hence, some of my days have more "rest" built into them than others!

In a couple of places the author mentions in passing that "union with God" is a goal of the Christian (e.g., 199). I have observed this statement in other evangelical spiritual life authors as well. Whether the author knowingly or unknowingly stated this, the goal of "union with God" reflects the time-honored "Triple Way" of classical mysticism: cleansing, illumination, and union with God. But isn't it true from the Pauline perspective that union with God is already, but not yet (Rom. 6:5; Gal. 3:27; 1 Cor. 6:17; 12:13; Eph. 1:6; 2:5-6)? In other words, the Christian life begins and ends with union with God. As Richard Lovelace observed nearly three decades ago, "Doubtless there is a valid place for both models in promoting Christian experience--some Christians need to work at one end of the series, some at the other--but it is my assumption that growth in faith is the root of all spiritual growth and is prior to all disciplines . . . . True spirituality is . . . simply true humanity released from bondage to sin and renewed by the Holy Spirit. This is given to us as we grasp by faith the full content of Christ's redemptive work: freedom from the guilt and power of sin, and newness of life through the indwelling and outpouring of his Spirit" (Lovelace, Dynamics of Spiritual Life, 19-20). I am sure that Scazzero would concur with this.

I could go on in my picky-ness, but enough for now. I believe that my criticisms are minor. I recommend this book. The wealth of wisdom contained within outweighs any of its weaknesses. I hope that this book will prompt others to recognize and write more fully on the much overlooked link that exists between spiritual and emotional maturity.

Quote of the Month

"Suffering speaks in its own words, words that can't be taken literally."

George Bernanos, The Diary of a Country Priest, 130.

Doubt

Over the years I have had several friends and former students who have come to a place where they have deep doubts regarding the truthfulness of Christianity. On different blogs and in chat rooms I have read accounts of Christians who are on the verge of losing their faith, if they haven't done so already. For some time time now I have had some hunches regarding why people arrive at such a place. To verify these gut feelings, I decided to revisit an older work written on this topic, Os Guinness's In Two Minds: The Dilemma of Doubt & How to Resolve It (1976). In 1996 a revised version of this book was released under the title God in the Dark: The Assurance of Faith Beyond a Shadow of Doubt.

While one might find bits and pieces written on this topic by different Christian and non-Christian authors, there aren't too many books devoted exclusively to doubt, that is, books written on this topic from a Christian perspective. Along these lines, the only work that comes readily to mind is Ruth A. Tucker's Walking Away from Faith: Unraveling the Mystery of Belief and Unbelief (2002). If you know of others that speak to this issue, let me know.

Thirty years ago Guinness wrote, "What is most damaging to Christianity is not that Christians doubt but that there seems to be so little open discussion and understanding of doubt. This must be changed" (17). In a postmodern age where doubt is considered a virtue and is more culturally pervasive than in previous generations, perhaps more Christian authors will rise to the occasion to address this.

In the meantime, however, Guinness's works are a good starting point. In Two Minds is a catalogue on the different varieties of doubt. He walks through each of the varieties highlighting the psychological and epistemological problems that each variety presents.

Especially appreciated are his clarifications concerning how doubt is to be defined: "Doubt is not the opposite of faith, nor is it the same as unbelief. Doubt is a state of mind in suspension between faith and unbelief so that it is neither of wholly and it is each only partly. This distinction is absolutely vital because it uncovers the first major misconception of doubt--the idea that in doubting a believer is betraying faith and surrendering to unbelief. No misunderstanding causes more anxiety and brings such bondage to sensitive people in doubt" (27).

Helpful too is his observation that some followers of Christ seem to be "energized" by doubt: "[they] gain that sense of identity which comes from subconsciously defining themselves by their problems. They disparage themselves for doubting and in the same breath defend their doubt like a treasured possession which nothing could persuade them to give up" (62).

Also appreciated is Guinness's appeal to mystery: "Some people misunderstand what the rationality of faith means. They imagine that they have believed in God because faith is rational--which it is--but they then expect every aspect of faith to be equally open to rational investigation--which it isn't. So when they come across the first element of mystery which they cannot understand, they conclude that Christianity is not rational after all. God has led them to believe that it was rational, but now apparently he has cheated them by unfairly slipping in a mystery. What they forget is that rationality is opposed to absurdity, not to mystery" (105). "Christianity's contention with rationalism is not that it has too much reason in it, but that it has very little else" (254).

I always like it when a author puts into words something I have believed. I posted a blog entry on sin and self-identity a few months ago. I found that Guinness put into words something that have been thinking about in this connection: "To believe with a single-minded, whole-hearted attention to truth is be 'most oneself'' it is to be in one's 'right mind' about truth. But when the believer doubts and is in two minds, he is not strictly 'himself,' and it is this crisis of identity which is the deepest damage of the faith-stress of doubt" (225). To put it another way, a crisis of faith/doubt is often closely associated with a crisis of identity.

There is much more to commend of this work than space will allow. But it is a book that is worth looking at if doubt is concern of yours or someone you know. I recommend the newer version God in the Dark. This book would make an excellent companion volume to Daniel Taylor's Myth of Certainty (1986).

As far as my hunches are concerned on the matter of why people walk away from the faith, Guinness provided ample affirmation. However, I would add that some evangelical epistemologies (mostly popular-level) leave little room for doubt. Certainty is unduly emphasized, to a degree that I am sure that the ancients would not have recognized. Invariably, a rigorously argued rational faith will sometimes "break before it bends." More can be said here, but I will save that for another post.

J. Lanier Burns: A Master at the Art of Theology

J. Lanier Burns is Research Professor of Theological Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. I first met Dr. Burns in 1988 as a graduate student in his Trinitarianism course. On the first day of class he told us in his gentlemanly Tennessee accent, "Now I know many of you are taking a full course load, you are holding down jobs, have ministries, and have family obligations. So, I can understand if you get sleepy in this class at this time of day. If you can't stay awake, just put your head on the desk and go right to sleep. I won't be offended." I thought that this was a gracious thing to say. Other professors were not so understanding. I said to myself, "I like this guy." I may have actually taken him up on his offer a time or two!

His course was rich in content, his viewpoints fresh. His life experiences added considerable depth to the lectures. Occasionally he would toss an overhead slide for us to ponder that had a lot of lines and arrows pointing in different directions which, to our neophyte minds, did not make a lot of sense. The general tenor of his lecture style was colloquial yet engaging. Sometimes the lectures would contain brief "sermonic interludes." Every now and again he would say things that went way over our heads. Sensing this, he would chuckle, then return to his lecture.

I came to know Lanier much better as a Ph. D student between 1991 and 1993. In my doctoral program the course work was conducted in "seminars" which were basically supervised research forums. I studied under Lanier in four such supervised seminars. As Ph. D students we appreciated his passion, graciousness, humor, and transparency. He was masterful story teller, but always to make a theological point. Whenever he sensed that any of us got a little cocky in our knowledge of things, he had a way of setting us straight. In other words, he didn't take any guff, from students or anyone else for that matter.

Even though these seminars were content-driven, he would take a moment to show us how to teach more effectively. For example, he told me that when making a lecture outline that students would be using, to use as short as sentences as possible. He said to let that sentence be a mental signal for more expansive thoughts I had in my own mind. He said that lecturers sometimes become so tied to reading their notes which does not make for the most effective learning on the part of students.

I have appreciated Lanier's heart for the local church and his burden for cross-cultural ministry. It became apparent to me that he had a pastor's heart. He also sought to build bridges between evangelicals who were of different doctrinal persuasions. Yet, he did this in such a gracious and truthful way that he would not compromise his own beliefs. I also appreciated the way he would encourage us as doctoral students in the area's of our strengths. He also remembered details about our lives and backgrounds. This told me that he was an attentive listener.

I have maintained regular contact with him over the years, though not as regular as I would like. Long after I completed my Ph. D. his wisdom still proves priceless. My wife also thinks the world of him! It is no exaggeration to say that Lanier has been a role model to thousands of students. I would include myself among that number. In my teaching I sometimes find myself doing something or saying something that causes me to think about what I just said or did. Occasionally, after pondering the matter a bit more fully, I will say to myself: "I learned that from Lanier."

Boredom

A friend of mine recently told me that the word "boredom" doesn't appear in the Bible. I think that this is due in large part to the fact that boredom seems to be a feeling brought on by the onset of the industrial age and the technological advances of the past two centuries. Maybe the ancients did experience boredom, but just didn't have a word for it! It would be interesting to discover how terms such as "boredom," "ennui," or lexical equivalents were employed in antiquity.

Neil Postman's 1986 work Amusing Ourselves to Death pointed out that technological advances in popular media give rise to more acute levels of boredom among people living in western cultures. This topic has also been capably handled in Richard Winter's book Still Bored in a Culture of Entertainment. Along these lines, I ran across an intriguing work titled A Philosophy of Boredom that I have added to my must read list.

It seems that much more Christian reflection on this matter is in order. It might not be too much of an overstatement to say that boredom may well become one of the major pastoral concerns of the 21st century. Especially is the case in light of the fact that people in western cultures are becoming more multi-sensory beings.

Isn't it true that boredom is a form of internal pain? I once met a woman in my workplace who told me the reason she drank too much was not because she was sad but because she was bored. To be sure, the line between boredom and depression is not always easy to distinguish. One psychologist has described boredom as, “an unpleasant, transient affective state in which the individual feels a pervasive lack of interest in and difficulty concentrating on . . . current activity" (Fisher, C. D., Boredom at Work, 396).

If it is true that boredom is brought on by an environment that is perceived to be dull, tedious, or lacking in stimulation, it raises the question of how many followers of Jesus in America are bored by church, their ministerial callings, and/or their brothers and sisters in Christ. Is living with boredom just a necessary part of living life in a fallen world? Is boredom a circumstantial weapon that Satan uses to get Christians discouraged? Does a proper response to boredom lead to development of character? Spiritual transformation? Rather than to be content with a boring life, should we instead look at life as “an adventure to live, a battle to fight, and a beauty to rescue”? Are invigorating relationships a step in the right direction as a cure for Christian boredom? 

Have I bored you with this blog entry?

Will the "Seeker Sensitive" Church

Become a Thing of the Past?

Bill Hybels and the leadership of Willow Creek Community Church recently announced that mistakes had been made in their approach to making disciples for Christ. These were brought to light in a research survey organized by Greg Hawkins, executive pastor of Willow Creek and published in the book: Reveal: Where Are You? This past summer at Willow's Leadership Summit, Hybels summarized the findings of Hawkins' book as follows:

"Some of the stuff that we have put millions of dollars into thinking it would really help our people grow and develop spiritually, when the data actually came back it wasn’t helping people that much. Other things that we didn’t put that much money into and didn’t put much staff against is stuff our people are crying out for."

"We made a mistake. What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and become Christians, we should have started telling people and teaching people that they have to take responsibility to become ‘self feeders.’ We should have gotten people, taught people, how to read their bible between service, how to do the spiritual practices much more aggressively on their own."

Willow's leadership is currently in the process of rethinking disciple-making. It will be interesting to see the direction this church will take in the years to come. Will a restructuring of the Sunday morning services mark the demise of the "topical" sermon? Will it mean that Sunday morning sermons will take on more of an expositional character (a la Swindoll or MacArthur)? While expository preaching might be a step in the right direction, I wonder what role small groups might play in the revamping of Willow's Sunday morning ministries. I suppose too, there is the option of continuing to do things as they have been done. Whatever steps are taken, Willow's leadership definitely faces some challenges.

This topic has generated a good bit of activity on the blog sphere. A lot of it takes on a "I told you so" kind of tone. Despite what critics have said of Hybels and his "seeker sensitive" model, it takes a good bit of humility and courage to admit that your ministry efforts of the past thirty three years, though well-intentioned, were based on flawed beliefs. My prayer is that Willow's leadership will be granted much spiritual and biblically informed wisdom in the retooling of their vision. May God bless their efforts with a harvest of spiritually mature saints in the years to come!