The article in question is Twelve Must-Read Books, in which twelve different professors from twelve different ares of study each suggest one book they think others should read. Except for The Brothers Karamazov and Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, I haven't read {or even heard of} the majority of publications on the list, which I find exciting.
Anyhow, the format of the article is basically to introduce the book being suggested, and then the professor suggesting it, allowing the professor a brief moment to explain why he chose the book he did, and even give a bit of advice to students.
The advice varied by professor. Some didn't give any at all. Others advised students to study abroad or unplug their television. Two pieces of advice stood out to me as questionable. Now, it is difficult to really judge what is meant by a blurb {which is the biggest weakness of such a format}, but my desire is to take the blurbs at face value and think about them a bit. And if I still feel a letter-to-the editor coming on when this is said and done, so be it.
First, a little background. The two little red flags that popped up in my head did so because of my recent exposure to David F. Wells' book Losing Our Virtue {which, by the way, I have almost finished}. The most striking contrast in the book {in my opinion} is that drawn between what Wells calls Classical Spirituality and Postmodern Spirituality. This is what inspired my post awhile back entitled Tale of Two Conversion Prayers. Between reading the two prayers and the other information contained in Wells writing, I came to realize that the Classical Spirituality, properly understood, had a deep appreciation, respect and humility in regard to Who is in charge {to put it in modern language}. For instance, in newer conversion prayers, there is usually something mentioned about God taking over the throne of one's life, or even the convert giving control of his life over to God. This stands in stark contrast to the Puritan prayer, the first sentence of which declares that the convert "could never have sought my happiness in thy love, unless thou had'st first loved me."
In this country, we citizens make someone our President. So, essentially, the power is in the hands of the people {actually, the electoral college, but that is another post for another day}. The point being, the people sit on the throne, for the President only rules by their consent. The Classical understanding is that God is on the throne already and that the sinner has not bowed to Him, has been in utter rebellion to God's rule. Conversion is not putting God on the throne, but rather acknowledging that He is already there and vowing to love and serve Him, which is the only appropriate response to the Almighty.
Now, all of this really does come back to my first red flag, which is a bit of advice given by Dr. Daniel Maltby: "Know thyself. We can't give to God what we haven't first possessed ourselves. Seek to understand what drives you, give that ability to God, and He will multiply your life with good things." I added those italics in order to emphasize the assumption that I wished to place in question. C.S. Lewis, in his famous statement about one's tiny gifts to God making Him "sixpence none the richer," was expressing the Classical understanding that all there is already belongs to God.
Biblically, to the best of my understanding, God calls His people His possession, whether they understand themselves their drives or not, whether they possess anything or anyone or not. I feel compelled to question the idea that Christianity calls one to possess oneself in any sense. Christianity is a following of Christ's example of pouring Himself out. It is acting not only in moments or areas of strength, but also {and often} in weakness. It is also not giving to the Church in accordance with our own drives and passions, but according to the need of the moment.
The second red flag is a little more vague. Spoken by Dr. Todd Hall, students are advised to "understand that spiritual growth is a messy, unpredictable process and that it is important to stay engaged with God and in community even when things seem dry or stagnant--that God is working in ways they can't yet see." I empasized with italics the portion of the statement I believe to be a faulty assumption. But allow me to also add that I completely agree with the second half of the statement--that one shouldn't walk away from the faith when times are dry, that sometimes one just doesn't see or understand how God is working in the moment.
Spiritual growth is explained here using II Peter 1:3-8:
His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust. Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.If one takes the II Peter passage to be a sort of outline of the spiritual growth process, one can only assume that this is an orderly process ordained by an orderly God. The writer goes one to say, "Perhaps the best summary of spiritual growth is becoming more like Jesus Christ. In 1 Corinthians 11:1, Paul says, 'Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.' Jesus Christ is the ultimate example of what it truly means to be spiritual."
To contrast, my observation is that sin and its consequences are messy and unpredictable. Sin can often have far-reaching ramifications that increase the difficulty of life both for the sinner and for those sinned against. {This is why it is so merciful of Jesus to give us the chance to "go and sin no more."} I have also found it true in my life that times of dryness are either the result of too much knowledge without actually acting on it {like when I was in seminary}, or sin in my life getting in the way of growing in spiritual maturity.
I think one should be careful in asserting that spiritual growth as messy and unpredictable is normative, or that students should expect it to be so. Should one expect trying times? Absolutely. We live in a fallen world. But spiritual growth should bring us great hope in this life, not be something difficult that we dread. Growth is exciting and natural and deserves to be expressed with far more positive terminology than "messy and unpredictable."
Comments? Assertions? Pleasant disagreements? Anyone?
Tweet
