Thoughts on ‘Spirituality’

The current interest in ’spirituality’ is both salutary and alarming.  It is salutary because in its best forms it challenges not only the prevalent philosophical materialism of the modern world but also the perfunctory corporate exercises of many Christians. It is alarming because, although spirituality is generally regarded as an ‘applause-word’, it is often so ill-defined that it can mask gross error.

A definition of ’spirituality’ cannot readily be induced from the NT, despite the use by Paul of words translated as ’spirit’ and ’spiritual’. Rather, the term derives from French-Catholic thought, and approximates to what earlier writers might have referred to as ‘the spiritual life’. Until the Reformation, various elements were prominent at different times: the sacraments, community, prayer, asceticism, martyrdom, vows of poverty and celibacy, images, monasticism, etc. By the time of the Jesuit Giovanni Scaramelli (1687-1752) a sharp distinction was made between ascetic theology and mystical theology, the latter dealing with extraordinary states of consciousness and their manifestations during times of mystical union with God. ‘Thus “spirituality” became a discipline, “spiritual theology,” to be distinguished from dogmatic theology, which tells us what must be believed, and from moral theology, which tells us how we must act.’

The Gospel is about what God has done, not what we do

In the April 2009 edition of the journal Themelios, D.A. Carson ponders the meaning of the word ‘Gospel’.

We must distinguish between what God has done, Carson argues, and what we must do as a response to that.  But only the first of these can properly called ‘the gospel’.

If the gospel is the (good) news about what God has done in Christ Jesus, there is ample place for including under “the gospel” the ways in which the kingdom has dawned and is coming, for tying this kingdom to Jesus’ death and resurrection, for demonstrating that the purpose of what God has done is to reconcile sinners to himself and finally to bring under one head a renovated and transformed new heaven and new earth, for talking about God’s gift of the Holy Spirit, consequent upon Christ’s resurrection and ascension to the right hand of the Majesty on high, and above all for focusing attention on what Paul (and others—though the language I’m using here reflects Paul) sees as the matter “of first importance”: Christ crucified. All of this is what God has done; it is what we proclaim; it is the news, the great news, the good news.

By contrast, the great commands to love God with all our being and to love our neighbour as ourselves, do not constitute the gospel.  Nor is the gospel believing in Christ, or joining a church, or practicing discpleship.  Nor, again is it the exercise of social justice.  We may well regard all of these things as necessary consequences of the gospel, but they are not the gospel itself.  The gospel is what God has done for us in Christ, and in particular his cross and resurrection.

Dig Those Plausibility Structures

D.A Carson has a helpful comment on ‘plausibility structures’ – patterns of thought that are taken for granted within a given culture – and how these change over time:-

As western culture progressively drifts from its Judeo-Christian heritage, new challenges to accurate and forceful communication are erected. It is sometimes helpful to think in terms of ‘plausibility structures’. A plausibility structure is a social structure of ideas that is widely taken for granted without argument, and dissent from which is regarded as heresy. For a long time the plausibility structures of our culture were in large measure Christian. It was widely accepted, without debate, that there was a difference between right and wrong and between truth and error; that human beings have been made by God and for God, who will one day be our Judge; that God sets the rules; that he sent his son Jesus. Even if people were a little fuzzy as to who Jesus was or what he did, these were among the ‘givens’. Today, however, as empirical pluralism develops, there are fewer and fewer plausibility structures in most western nations, but the ones that remain are tenaceously held. And these are anything but Christian: no religion is superior to any other religion; God exists primarily for my satisfaction and fulfilment; God is so much a God of love it is unthinkable that he could be angry; all religions say much the same thing anyway; religion is not a matter of objective truth but of subjective faith.

Carson, in When God’s Voice is Heard (eds Green & Jackman), 153f

Misunderstanding God’s Kingdom

D.A. Carson has an article in a recent edition of Evangelicals Now entitled ‘Common Errors in Understanding the Kingdom’.

Here’s a summary of what Carson has to say about various misunderstandings of the kingdom of God that are around at the moment:-

Exegetical Fallacies

It seems to me that it is we lay preachers who are particularly prone to commit exegetical crimes, lacking as many of us do a technical grounding in the original languages of the Bible.  ’A little knowledge is a dangerous thing’ when it comes to drawing conclusions about the ‘literal meaning’ or the ‘original meaning’ of words.  Here are some of the exegetical fallacies identified by D.A. Carson:-

Carson on ‘The Lost Message of Jesus’

Plenty has been thought, said, and written about Steve Chalke and his comments on atonement in The Lost Message of Jesus.  Although N.T. Wright (who endorsed the book) has said that he doesn’t think that Chalke intended to deny penal substitution, Chalke has gone on record to confirm that he did.  (See here for Garry J. William’s reply to Chalke, and here for a penetrating review by Donald MacLeod).

As for The Lost Message of Jesus, D.A. Carson begins his critique by noting that the title displays a somewhat confrontational stance – others have got the message wrong and Chalke is going to tell us how to get it right.

The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God

It might seem strange to describe the doctrine of the love of God as ’difficult’.  But it is, and D.A. Carson explains why.

Pluralism and its impact

D.A Carson, in The Gagging of God, has some very helpful things to say about pluralism and its impact.  Among the different forms that pluralism takes, the following are to be distinguished:-

1. Empirical Pluralism. This refers to the sheer and actual diversity of race, value systems, heritage, language, culture, and religion in many Western and some other nations. Although it gives rise to particular challenges and opportunities, it is neither intrinsically good nor bad.

2. Cherished Pluralism. This adds the ingredient of approval to empirical pluralism. Diversity is seen as a Good Thing, something to be celebrated.

3. Philosophical or Hermeneutical Pluralism. The stance is ‘that any notion that a particular ideological or religious claim is intrinsically superior to another is necessarily wrong.’ Within a postmodern culture, the supremacy of rationality, and that of objective truth, have been dethroned.

Carson on McLaren

I’ve been reading (well, listening to, actually, on my MP3 player) Brian McLaren’s book, A Generous Orthodoxy. McLaren is a leader in the Emerging Church movement and is an engaging writer and speaker. I found D.A. Carson’s review of McLaren’s writings in Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, 158-182, to be fair and perceptive. Carson evidently thinks that McLaren, in his generosity, is giving too much away. I’m inclined to agree with him. Anyway, here’s a summary of Carson’s comments.