Letting the gospel go deep

Tags

"false dilemma", "losing perspective", "Scott Peck", "spiritual growth", "The Road Less Traveled", balance, causation, mind, truth

In his sermon, the pastor referred to letting the gospel get deep into us.  His statement triggered some reflection on my part.  I asked myself, “Where does the gospel go when it goes ‘deep’ into us?

I assume that “deep” encapsulates our psychological states of mind, our set of first principles that we rationally accept, our goals and purposes, our expectations, fears, and dreams – “Deep” refers to all those causes that determine our specific actions.

These first principles, psychological states, spiritual loyalties, hopes and fears, could go back as far as very early in our life.  They could go back to as recently as yesterday.  They easily could be linked to specific socialization and acculturation processes we individually experienced.  They could be linked to being insulted yesterday or abused the day before.

For the gospel to go deep in the way I have mentioned, we have to consciously visit this past, to the degree it is possible, and study the degree that those inherited items conform to the gospel.

It takes my mind back to when I read Scott Peck’s The Road Less Traveled, and I considered like never before how spiritual maturity and depth involves our righteously revisiting our past.  We may not want to do that.  We may want to let the sleeping dogs lie.  But, can the gospel get deep into us without our consent??

This issue also takes me to the issue of sanctification.  Some put their focus on sanctification being a process.  Others focus on the need for a crisis experience when we consciously recognize how sinful we really are even as Christians.  It is unfortunate that some people want it to be either crisis or process.  It is that either-or reductionism that I have mentioned before in different contexts.  But, letting the gospel “go deep” into us needs to be understood as both a crisis moment and a process of getting coming to grips with why we do what we do.

Any comments or reactions??  – Use the comment box.  I will appreciate your feedback.

 

My grid of interpretive categories

Tags

"better understanding my social environment", "grid of interpretive categories", "living more freely", "making decisions consistent with godly morality", "needs and resources", fear, love, power, truth

As I continue down several of life’s paths simultaneously, by now I have what I call my grid of  interpretive categories.  This grid helps me understand not only what I do, but what others, both individuals and groups, do.  In this post I only have space to introduce them, but even that will help explain where I am in this journey of life with Jesus.

Power – I see the exercise of power everywhere, and usually it is not pretty.  I got into this issue well over 30 years ago, when asked to lead a church retreat in another country.  In a summary fashion, what is involved is not complex, although its extension in life is vast.

I have needs of many kinds; I have resources of various kinds.  Other people are in the same situation.  To the degree that my resources can satisfy their needs I have power over them.  To the degree that their resources can satisfy my needs, they have power over me.  This dynamic is present in all human relationships – family, churches, colleges, all levels of government, businesses, – all of human life.

Although we have power, seldom is it used virtuously.  Almost always, power is exercised in function of personal plans, hopes, desires, etc., taking advantage of our resources vis a vis other’s needs to get from them something they would not do otherwise.

Love – This is the antidote to power, where some other person’s well being becomes the driving force of my behavior.  This is how God loves, why Jesus died, and what the Holy Spirit is creating in us.  When the well being of the other is what drives me, I am freed from abusing power.

Truth – This is the condition pertaining when our statements correspond to what actually (truly) is, and not to only what we believe, but what we know is the case.  Anything can be believed.  Much less can be known.  Action based on belief may turn out profitable.  Action based on knowledge will turn out profitable.   It is truth that sets us free, not opinions, not speculations, not even blind belief.

Fear – This is an unavoidable element in this 4 part grid of interpretive categories.  We simply live with it, because we live with the reality that at any time our sources of pleasure will be eliminated, and without our pleasures we (speaking generically of humanity) have lost our reason for living.  We live in fear of “losing” something of value.  

Many years ago, I ran across the expression that eventually in most people’s life they come to the point where their income ceases to depend on what they have to say to be acceptable by others.  In other words, they are made aware of how much they have lived in fear when it is too late to change any of the past.

This is my grid.  With it I examine myself.  Through it I view and interpret others.  To the degree I take advantage of these four categories for understanding life, I live better and more freely, better understand my social environment , and better trust the Lord for spiritual abilities to make decisions consistent with godly morality.

I hope the grid may help you.

 

0091120

Truth / Love . . . . Faith / Reason

Tags

faith, love, reason, truth

Faculty meetings can range from mundane to invigorating, all in the same meeting!!  This happened one day when an invited guest was explaining his thinking about truth vis a vis love.  Now, this was a topic that interested me big time.  It still does.

I have observed that some people are driven by truth to seek love.  Some people are driven by love to seek truth.  This does not necessarily set love and truth as contrary with each other.  It simply means that not everyone is motivated the same way at the same time.

Perhaps having concluded  that “God is a God of love” is a true statement about God, I will be motivated to experience that love.  That would be a case of Truth driving me to Love, at least to God’s love.  On the other hand, perhaps I have experienced the love of someone who has my well being as a core value.  Sensing that, I want to know if that desire is simply an individual trait on the level of someone being an extrovert or an introvert.  In other words, what is the truth about that desire?  My wanting to know the truth about that person has been motivated by love.

I was delighted during that faculty meeting to be pursuing the topic.  It got even more interesting when the speaker transitioned from the love-truth issue into the faith-reason issue.  Would his point be that either faith must be the foundation for reason, or that reason must be the foundation for faith?  Do I know because I have faith, or do I have faith because I know?

Unfortunately, the speaker did not recognize that the fallacy is not to select either faith over reason, or reason over faith.  The fallacy is to make a selection in the first place.  To make either faith or reason dominant over the other is to shoot ourselves in the foot.

Rather, let’s think of each of them as we think of our arms and legs; they don’t compete with each other, but complement each other.  Each contributes to the general well being of something bigger than either – our entire body.  Comparably, the mind (reason) and the spirit (faith) serve something else that is bigger than either.  Depending on the body’s activity, one of the two (arms or legs) may have a greater role to play at a given moment.  The goal determines the role of each.  And, depending on the person’s activity, either faith or reason may have a more active role than the other at a given moment.  But, it is foolish to think of either of the two as being more important, or serving as the measure of the other.

0040202