Who does not crave spirituality? The idea of being spiritual is increasing in popularity across
America.
This desire is consistent throughout the secular world as well as the religious world.
Spirituality is a major attribute that generally people are seeking after in modern culture.
The reason for this desire for spirituality is derived from perhaps the overreaction against the concept of being religious.
No one wants to be perceived as religious because this term connotes many negative qualities to the masses.
People who are defined as “religious” are seen as intolerant, bigoted, unloving, and legalistic.
People who are seen as “spiritual” are typically described as open-minded, accepting, loving, and compassionate.
The religious label has become a “dirty word” in society while the spiritual label has become a positive title.
As culture flees from the religious label to embracing the spiritual label, much confusion has surfaced.
The desire to become spiritual has lead to some problems in this worthy pursuit.
The secular world has infused concepts of pagan mysticism into spirituality.
The denominational world has polluted spirituality with the false doctrine of direction operation of the Holy Spirit into the heart of a Christian.
These false attributes of spirituality are clouding the true concept of Biblical spirituality.
The purpose of this article is to remove the erroneous practices of worldly and denominational spirituality by focusing on the correct view of Biblical spirituality.
More on this tomorrow.
Related posts:
- Mystical Spirituality
- Biblical Spirituality
- Denominational Spirituality
- Review of “Emotionally Healthy Spirituality”
- Non-Denominationalism: You have to do more than claim it or rename it
Tags:
This entry was posted by Matthew
on Tuesday, October 30th, 2007 at 9:24 am and is filed under Christianity.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
About The Author
Matthew is originally from Nova Scotia, Canada. He has a beautiful wife named Charity and a precious baby named Gabrielle. He has graduated from the Brown Trail School of Preaching, Heritage Christian University with his Bachelors of Arts in Biblical Studies, Lipscomb University with his Master’s of Arts in Biblical Studies and his Master’s of Divinity at Freed-Hardeman University. He is presently working towards his Doctorate of Ministry at Harding Graduate School of Religion. His articles have appeared in the World Evangelist, the Highway to Holiness, The West Virginia Christian, The Christian Echo, The Firm Foundation, Church Growth, and the Gospel Advocate. He enjoys hockey, golf, boxing, and chess. In his spare time he enjoys reading numerous genres of books. Also, he is working on climbing all of the 14ers in Colorado. Matthew is the Pulpit Minister for the Castle Rock church of Christ.
Loading ...
Matthew,
You’re touching on an important subject. I see a couple of things slightly different. I think the yearning for spirituality isn’t so much a reaction against religion as it is a healthy reaction against modernism which was a way of being in the world that denied the mysterious (science was supposed to give us all the answers), and essentially ignored the spiritual side of man. Postmodernism critiqued modernism and suddenly it wasn’t stupid to speak of things “spiritual.” However, eastern philosophy as well as gnosticism have turned the project in a confusing and dangerous direction in our country. I think we should embrace the quest for spirituality and stand ready to be effective guides to those who are seeking.
Rather than argue that the so-called denominational world has “polluted spirituality with the false doctrine of direction operation of the Holy Spirit into the heart of a Christian,” I’d suggest that those in the church of Christ tradition have suffered under the false doctrine which suggests the Spirit is active through “word only,” or what Robert Richardson used to describe as the dirt philosophy. I’m sure you’ve read it, but in the event you haven’t, check out Participating in God’s Life by Allen and Swick.
By the way, Jesus wasn’t a big fan of “religion.” He came bringing light–that is, He brought reality, not religion, into the world. Whatever else we might say about the anti-theists such as Dawkins and Hitchens, their critique of “religion” if often quite accurate.
Grace to You,
Ben in Rochester, NY
Ben, thank you for a great comment. I have read the book you mentioned. Enjoyed it too. Tomorrow I am going to talk about direct communication from the Spirit, please check it out and let me know what you think.
Hmmm. Thought provoking. Challenging. And Critical. All good things.
I agree that “spirituality” is a critical concern in our contemporary society. This I think is a healthy alternative to what was once out there in the not too distant past.
Like Ben I have some different perspectives on a couple of matters. First, I cringe at your constant use of the term “denominational” simply because it is a coded word. The hidden “assumption” in it is that “denominational” is everything “they” embrace but “we” do not.
Second, the word “spiritual” is an adjective that simply means “of the Spirit” or “by the Spirit.” Spirituality is directly connected to the work of the Holy Spirit. The word is the tool of the Spirit … it is not the other way around. Of course I have written on the Spirit in Kingdom Come (ch.4). In addition to Participating in God’s Life which Ben referred to I would HIGHLY recommend Dallas Willard’s DIVINE CONSPIRACY which is a classic of our times.
Third, I agree with Ben one hundred percent that the rise in interest in “spirituality” is a reaction to the sterility Modernism.
And finally the reaction to “religion” is not without cause.
I am delighted you are writing on this theme as it is one that is needed. Show the flock what it means to walk in the rhythm of grace in the river of the Spirit.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
I too believe the rise in “spirituality” has come about as people saw their way beyond the modern world that ignored and rejected anything beyond the realm of natural sciences. I too also don’t like the word “denominational” as a description for others because I believe that the Churches of Christ can be or are just a denominational as some of the other Christian fellowship often accused of being denominational (some of who deny being denominational as much as the Churches of Christ do).
As for the practice of “spirituality,” we certainly want to practice a spirituality that is connected to and rooted in the Father, Son, and Spirit. The New Testament identifies this as discipleship or to be precise, it is whole heartedly expressed in the three imperative commands of Jesus which call us to ‘Repent,’ ‘Believe,’ and ‘Follow’ (Mk 1.14-17). It has to do with being under the kingdom (reign/rule) of God and living that kingdom life out in the fullest.
Donald Miller in his book “Blue Like Jazz” labels this life as “Christian Spirituality.” Miller emphasizes the fact that obedience cannot divorced from belief. True faith or Christian Spirituality is trust and obedience. In fact, Miller pushes this by insisting that what we believe is what we do – if we do not do X then we do not believe x. Thus, whether it be prayer, serving the poor, or some other spiritual discipline, the failure to do (obedience) stems from the lack of belief. While some may critisize Miller for overemphasizing this, he seems to be in line with what James had to say (James 1.22-25; 2.14-17).
BTW, my comments about Mark 1 are partially due something said by Eugene H. Peterson in “The Jesus Way: A Conversation on the Ways that Jesus is the Way” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 8-10. This is a book I just picked up last Saturday and am loving the read thus far. And why not? If you have read anything by Peterson before, then you know what a great thought-provoking and challenging writer he is.
- Rex
Thank you for the comments from all of you. Thanks bobby and Rex. I have read Divine Conspiracy and Blue Like Jazz. Both great books.
I think Bonhoeffer needs to be brought into this discussion. He is attributed as having a lot to do with the idea of separating religion and spirituality.
I think the reaction from modernism is expressed in people avoiding religious. Some people do not understand modernism or postmodernism, so the common word to express themselves is religion.
Some have said that they do not like the term or idea of using the word “denominational.” If you are one then you are one. Rex said, “some of who deny being denominational as much as the Churches of Christ do.” Yes we do deny this. Many of the congregations of the churches of Christ are not denominational churches. Yes, some have bought into the idea that they are and they have become just that.
Rex, also, brought in some Calvinistic teaching of saying, “Jesus which call us to ‘Repent,’ ‘Believe,’ and ‘Follow.’ One must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and that belief/faith leads one to repent of sin. Those who put repentance before faith, believe in a direct operation of the Holy Spirit.
Of course I will mention the faith response of baptism that puts one into Christ where spiritual blessings are given and realized by the believer.
It is possible to remain non-denominational or un-denominational. Bobby writes much about the restoration movement. Though they were men with faults like all of us they were striving to get away from state churches and denominational churches.
Sonny,
Rex simply used the order of ‘Repent,”Believe,’ and ‘Follow.’ as the text laid it out in Mark 1:14-17. So perhaps Mark was a Calvinist per your definition.
It’s a joy reading everyone’s comments.
Yes, I read the text. I assumed he understood the setting of the text. No not per my definition. This is teaching that comes from many who follow calvin’s teaching that the Holy Spirit works directly on ones heart before he believes and this repentance leads one to believe.
I am not meaning to argue. I too have enjoyed the comments
Sorry I forgot to say, “I was not calling Rex a Calvinist. Just saying that he brought in some teaching from Calvin. Sorry for not being able to make myself clear.
Sonny, You’re a lot of fun in these discussions. Don’t apologize for your disagreements; that is how we learn. Thanks for the interaction.
Sonny, I was simply using the order within Mark. Reformed theology was the furthest thing from my mind. But Jesus did call us to “Repend, Believe, and Follow” unless somehow the Gospel writers got that wrong.
As for Churches of Christ being denominational or non-denominational/un-denominational (semantics)… We can deny being a denomination all we want and there will still be others who accuse us of being a denomination. Likewise, there are still other Christain fellowship who flatly deny being a denomination just as much as we do despite the accusation of being a denomination by others.
I hate denominationalism and secterianism, as neither ‘ism’ was intended to be a part of God’s family. But why do we (the CoC) continue to accuse every other Christain fellowship of denominationalism as though they always meet all the criterion for being such and we meet none of the criterion for such term? The CoC needs to take a good look in the mirror because to often we are simply the pot calling the kettle black. Sometimes I think we in the CoC just need to reinact Barton Stone’s “Last Will and Testament” and will this body, the Churches of Christ, to desolve into union with the church of Jesus Christ.
It does not matter what others accuse us of, it only matters what we are. (Bad grammar) Again I was not starting an argument. Rex, you say you hate denominationalism but in the same breath say that you are a part of one. Come out my brother!
We do not have to be anything except the body of Christ. That is not judging anyone. Yes, we do need to look in the mirror. When we do we will see our worst enemy. That still does not mean that we are a denomination.
Why have become afraid of just being the body/church of Christ. That’s all we need to be. What every one else does is their business. We are not judges but servants.
Because in most conversations when our fellowship uses the term “church of Christ” (meaning the one universal body of Christ) it is generally only referring to the “Churches of Christ – A Capella” and does not include local congregations who marque sign does not say “Church of Christ” on it. The way in which we use the name “Church of Christ” (especially as an almost exclusive name) is either used in either a secterian or denominational manner.
Case in point… in my neck of the woods I attend a monthly meeting for preachers among Churches of Christ. However it is advertised as a meeting among the ‘church of Christ.’ Thus by definition it should be open to any preacher of the good news. But it is not. Instead it is open only to those who serve in a congregation of A Capella worship and who congregational name is “Church of Christ.” Thus the meeting is really only for those who serve in congregations that are part of a denomination that practices A Capella worship and identifies itself as the “Church(es) of Christ.”
I don’t like it and if I had my way, our congregation would just remove the name “Church of Christ” and call our selves something like the “Fall Creek Church” (we are one block from a creek named ‘Fall Creek’). But I don’t push for that because it would cause division and I believe congregation unity is more important than an issue like this, which even if I did have my way it would have little to no impact on our call to mission.
Any ways, I hope I am not sounding argumentive. I am not trying to be. I just believe we label other fellowships as denominational (in a very prejorative manner) when we are in fact guilty of the same offense. Again, the pot calling the kettle black.
I think you are right Rex about us calling everyone else denominational and us practicing denominationalism within the body. That is a good point. But we also need to strive to be anti-denominational, trying to unite the churches of Christ.
” Thus the meeting is really only for those who serve in congregations that are part of a denomination that practices A Capella worship and identifies.”
Rex you call them denominations but they are not. They do not believe in denominationalism. They denounce denominationalism.
Rex allow me to make a suggestion: go to the elders or men of the congregation if there are no elders and be honest with them and leave that congregation. With your wants and wishes you will teach what you want to happen and division will occur. Then go and find a church that is a community church and apply for a job there. If unity is that important to you then leave before it becomes disunity. You and others will say, “they split the church but your wants and wishes will bring division. It will not take long for it to happen.
I do not say this with anger but you do not understand undenominational Christianity.
When you took this work did you feel this way? If so were you honest? If you have changed your mind about worship and organization be honest now.
“…we also need to strive to be anti-denominational, trying to unite the churches of Christ.”
If you mean by that that we should be trying to unite all Christians from restoration churches, reform churches, free churches, etc… I am all for that. In fact, since I believe God has already made us one, I just try to practice the reconciled fellowship that God has already given us. I do it twice of month when I meet with other ministers from Ithaca who belong to a whole variety of denominations/fellowships (d/f). I did it tonight when I spent time with the local “Young Life” group and served alongside some other youth leaders from a different “tribe” than mine (if you will).
Of course, practicing such unity is not without difficulty. But what I have found is that outside the Churches of Christ, there is considerable unity among a lot of other d/f’s. In my experience, it has generally been the Churches of Christ who are hesitant to practice fellowship beyond its own tribe, although that is changing (and we are not the only group with this problem). The question is whether or not we, the CoC, will learn to practice such unity and fellowship with the larger body of Christ like the early Restoration pioneers. I think this is doable without abandoning the restoration ideal, much like it is for, say a Reformed Church that practices such fellowship without giving up their Reformed Ideal (because they believe that ideal is thorougly biblical, just like we believe the restoration ideals are rooted in scripture).
Any ways, this has strayed from the original subject of this post so I will quit being persnickety about this
.
Sonny,
First, I am not the only one whose preferance would be to drop the name “Church of Christ” on the sign. But that is all it is, a preferance. I never meant to immply that I hated the name “Church of Christ” on there.
Second, I am planning on leaving but not for that reason. But I do plan to find a congregation within the Restoration Movement where I am more theologically and practically suited for (and they are out there).
But I don’t understand why you would suggest I leave the denomination / fellowship of Churches of Christ. For starters, I know that the grass is not any greener on the other side. But even more, I do have a deep appreciation and love for the Churches of Christ and believe there are a lot of things that are “right/correct” about them. The issue of non-denominationalism / un-denominationalism (which I do understand) happens to be something I believe the Churches of Christ have generally been wrong on. But why leave? If every Christian leader among the CoC left for another tribe everytime they found something about the CoC they disliked, where would that leave the CoC? Perhaps God has actually been at work in leaders like Garrett and Ketcherside, Shelly and Cope to bring about some needed change among the CoC so that the CoC can continue to fulfill the purpose he has for the CoC (Not that I see my calling as a Christian leader on the same lever as any of the above mentioned names). So why suggest I leave? I suspect you disagree with some of the progressivism taking place within the CoC. If I am correct, would it be right for me to suggest you leave for another tribe (which I would never do)? Such a suggestion seems pretty dis-uniting itself.
Perhaps God has a purpose within this tribe for us all, traditional and progressive. For no matter who stays and who goes, the group known as Churches of Christ, like all other Christian tribes, will be a jar of clay and will only fulfill it mission and purpose by the grace and power of God.
Rex, I said you should leave the congregation you are in before it causes a division or a split. I did not take it that you “hated” the name “church of Christ.’ There are many congregations that you can work with that you all will agree. Such changes that you wish to make has/have caused divisions.
You said, “Perhaps God has actually been at work in leaders like Garrett and Ketcherside, Shelly and Cope to bring about some needed change among the CoC so that the CoC can continue to fulfill the purpose he has for the CoC.” Perhaps it is Satan himself that has been at work. The Lord’s return will answer that question.
I agree with you that we have gotten way off from what Matthew wrote about. rex just be honest with the brethren you work with. I know that you will. I don’t care for words like other tribes and such but I do understand what you are saying. Please, don’t take me as a mean spirited person.
Sonny,
The pot is calling the kettle black. I know Rex. He dislikes denominationalism, especially the sort claims it’s not a denominational group when all the rest of the world knows it is. As you noted, you are what you are. If you walk like a duck, quack lack a duck, and have feet like a duck–you’re a duck. The church of Christ fits the criteria. It’s a denomination. Of course, one can twist the definition to fit one’s preconceived notion, but then that just looks a bit desperate.
Ben Overbby
I don’t walk like a duck. I don’t quack like a duck. I don’t have feet like a duck. So therefore I am not a duck. I follow the Lord Jesus. I was born into His assemble/church. I worship the Father. So therefore I am a Christ-ian. I am not a denomination. Neither am I a duck.