“The history of Science is the history of bad ideas.”

This is a quote that I heard recently. I think that it is a rather tongue-in-cheek way of expressing our (post)modern culture’s current attitude with respect to the authority of science. During the modern period, science was king. The scientific revolution produced hopes of a Utopian society where virtually all problems would be solved due to human innovation, evolution, and advancement. But during the postmodern period, science has been humbled due to a realization that the process was not as clean as we thought. Human contamination, insufficient data, faulty presuppositions, and religiously and politically motivated studies have tainted our hopes that science is truly king.

Euclid said, “The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God.” Such is true, but how do we know that we have properly interpreted the “mathematical thoughts of God”? I believe in the authority of nature and many of our (scientific) conclusions about such. Every Christian should. I have written about this in times past. Romans 1 says that creation itself leaves people without an epistemic excuse about God’s reality. This, among many other things, provides a firm biblical foundation for cosmology, biology, physics, and rationality in the Christian life. In this sense, the study of nature is mandated for the Christian.

However, we need to be timid about our conclusions that come from science, knowing the ways that it, like the Bible, can be manipulated. More important for what I am talking about now, we need to realize how dynamic the conclusions of science can be.

I was a fitness trainer through the nineties as well as working in the fields of sports medicine. I was very good at what I did and understood the issues (at least I thought). I focused on weight loss physiology. I wanted to provide people with the best—the most scientifically accurate—routine for weight loss. When it came to losing weight though, I would tell people to engage in a steady-state cardio routine. This is one in which you would keep your heart rate up consistently and moderately for above thirty-minutes. Then about fifteen minutes of resistance training. Without getting into all the details of why, suffice it to say that this was the most accepted scientific method for such goals. When it came to nutrition, I was not faddish at all. I repudiated the fads. I wanted to stick to that which was scientifically verifiable and accepted: the food pyramid. However both have changed since the nineties. Now, in order to lose weight, your cardio must include more of a circuit training where your heart rate gets up into its anaerobic state every so often. This is something that I used to teach against with (scientific) resolve. On top of this, the food pyramid has been turned upside down and subjectivized! Now, I am not saying what I did before did not work…it did. But it was not really right. There is a stability to say that exercise and proper nutrition are essential to weight loss. But I am no longer quite so committed to a particular type of exercise and nutrition. It is not so stable. Some of my theories have been literally turned upside down! That is just one example of the sort of things that can dissolution a person toward so-called scientific conclusions.

Here is a list of some other things that have changed over the years with regard to scientific ideas:

• Maternal impression (the mother’s thoughts can influence the child’s)
• Human cell (simplistic to complex)
• The status of Pluto (no longer a planet)
• Piltdown man (scientific hoax about a “missing link” in evolution)
• The food pyramid (turned upside down)
• Health benefits of alcohol (bad for you one day, good for you the next) Continue Reading »

I sit here with a bit of a conflicted soul. On the one hand, I got the new issue of Christianity Today and found that it is devoted to the importance of doctrine in spiritual formation. Giddy. That is what I was when I read it. However, I also received an email yesterday that serves to curb my excitement, reminding me of the reality of our desperate condition. (I’ll get to the email soon).

Christians often scare me. Really, all religious people scare me. But Christians in particular because they are the ones I have to deal with everyday. I have a deep empathy for the so-called “new atheists” such as Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchens who find religion repulsive and counterproductive to the betterment of society. While I completely disagree with them for a variety of reasons that will not be covered here, I can put myself in their shoes and find myself saying the same things. Namely: Christians can be so bizarre.

Seriously, we can produce the craziest nutcases the world has to offer. Sadly, it is often our beliefs that are the issue. From the “God told me to kill my children,”  “I cannot talk to you because you are going through a divorce,” “If you say the earth is going around the Sun we are going to put you in jail,” to “Our ministry needs a million dollars or I am going to kill myself,”  we have our embarrassments. The things said and done in the name of God are astonishing and disturbing. Yes, I know. Everyone has their nutcases, but we have the tendency to breed a special variety. I have already, in times past, talked trash on my own breed: Calvinism. But now I am going to get after the species in general: Christians.

In the interest of full-disclosure I must tell you something. I have Gail Riplinger’s book Which Bible is God’s Word sitting right in front of me. Its basic argument is that all Bible translations other than the King James Bible are from Satan. Oh yeah, I am serious. The sin is not that I have this book, but that it is representative of times past when I was, for about six weeks, a KJV Only advocate, believing that all other Bible versions were from Satan. To make matters worse I was actually an outspoken evangelist of this belief. I told my family, my friends, and everyone who would listen about Satan’s plot to get you to read another version of the Bible. I can only imagine what the conversation sounded like. I had “evidence” that I thought was solid, but as I look back on this “evidence”, my face turns red. I guess I keep Riplinger’s book in front of me to keep me humble and always aware of how bizarre I can be.

Christianity is dangerous. The Bible is dangerous. Please don’t get me wrong. I believe that both, rightly understood, are wonderful and true. However, the “rightly understood” is so hard to come by. The difficulty is not that one has to be a super-genius to understand the Bible or the Christian faith. Quite the opposite. The Bible is wonderfully simple and so is the Christian faith.

I believe that the difficulty lies in two areas:

1. Christians believe that the Bible is God’s word.
2. There is not a bolt of lightening that strikes you when you interpret it wrong (i.e. there is no immediate evidence of or consequence for wrong interpretation.)

The reality of these two make a potentially lethal combination. They don’t make good bed-fellows and hence the Roman Catholic cry for an imperial authority to regulate such things. Although Catholics have their share of bizarre teachings themselves, their problem is bigger in my opinion since their bizarre doctrines get dogmatized and everyone must believe them. At least in Protestantism we can both recognize and repudiate our weird uncles. Catholics are stuck having to defend them for all time. (Another story, another time.)

Now for the bizarrity of the moment. . .

This is from an email I received from a concerned follower of our ministry. It is a phone message from his Bible Study leader. Every time I listen to this, I am reminded of the movie “The Jerk” when Steve Martin is getting shot at but he naively thinks the guy is shooting at the cans beside him. “Its the cans. He hates the cans!” Well, in this case: “Its the buildings. God hates the buildings.” Listen and you will see what I mean:

(Please note that the audio has been altered to protect the identity of the caller.)

 

 "He Hates the Buildings" [2:07m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (229)

Buildings are the whore of Babylon? Really? Satan is luring people into buildings which is the great apostasy? Really? Continue Reading »

Most certainly, there are many more things I love about Christianity than what I hate. However, I thought I would spend a bit of time here and open up the conversation in a different direction. These are the top eight things I “hate” about Christianity, in order.

(Oh, and since we have thousands of first-time visitors here everyday, let me be clear…I am a very committed Evangelical Christian.)

8. Unanswered prayer = God’s “no”. Prayer in general is hard. It is hard to keep up with someone whose relationship techniques do not mirror anything we practice on earth. The though-you-do-not-see-him-now-but-believe-in-him” (1 Pet. 1:8) thing is really bizarre. And when it comes to prayer (i.e. talking to God) it culminates in some frustrations. When I pray for something that does not get answered (i.e. my request does not happen), people often say, “that is God’s ways of saying “no” or “not now.” So, in Christianity, God’s ignoring is another way of rejecting a request? I don’t like that. I am not saying it is not true, its just I would prefer something else.

7. Testimonies, BC and AD. No, it is not the testimonies themselves, but the burden of what a testimony must bear. There has to be a former way of life before Christ (BC) and what you have become after Christ (AD). The burden is that in order to have a “great” testimony, pressure is placed upon you to present yourself in a nice and polished way that says, “Look what God has done with me: Can you believe it? You can be like me too.” Testimonies are more valid (not to mention more believable and inspiring) when the “finished product” (the AD) is never really finished at all, but still broken. I don’t like the shallow “now and then” of the Christian testimony format.

6. Watchdog ministries. Watchdog ministries. Lighthouse ministries. Appraisal ministries. They go by many names. They are full-time Christian snipers. Let me back up. There are certain ministries that exist to find and expose false teaching. I have no problem with exposing false teaching. Indeed, it is part of what we are to do as teachers…correct false doctrine. However, it is very rare to find a ministry or a person who does this well. Most of the ministries and people who do this are arrogant, ungracious, and counter-productive and themselves need to be exposed. I have worked for one of these ministries (a long time ago). After a while, the ministry becomes obsessed, concerning itself with nothing else other than beating someone up in the name of the Lord. When there is no controversy, like a drug addict in withdrawals, they begin to create controversy ex nihilo or go back to dead horses and kick them. Their goal soon loses the priority of truth, learning, and understanding. I think that many people would have nothing to talk about if there was not someone to kick.

5. Seeker-driven Churchianity. (“Churchianity: a term a took from my friend Michael Spencer). That’s not really the best way to put it. A better way might be “compromised Christianity.” The reason why it is often called “seeker churchianity” is based on its primary desire to fulfill the “Great Commission” through reaching the lost. But there is a line crossed. I cannot always tell you where it is, but I will go out on a limb here and say that the majority of Evangelical Churches today have crossed that line a long time ago. I carry I poker chip in my pocket. Written on it are the words “Leaving Lust Vegas.” It was taken from a church that was doing a sermon series about lust and decided to use a modern Hollywood and Las Vegas theme to communicate their message. I can’t imagine how much it cost to have these chips made (not to mention how little practical effect they really have). I also have a flier from a sermon series called, “Girls Gone Wild, Bible Style.” This was from a different church who was attempting to reach its audience in a relevant way. I understand why they do this and even admire their intentions. However, I hate it when the Church so much wants to reach the world that one can hardly tell the difference between the culture of the Church and the culture of Hollywood. The church is different and we should do things a particular way. Wal-Mart is different. Disney World is different. The movie theater is different. Fraternities at the University of Oklahoma are different. Congress is different. Just because one is different does not mean they cannot be relevant in accomplishing that which their purpose demands. Why is the church so scared of being different? Continue Reading »

In Matthew 18:21-35, Jesus tells a parable about the importance of forgiveness.  The message – whatever someone has done against you cannot compare to the wrong that God forgives us for.  Since God is willing to forgive a debt we cannot pay, we need to forgive others.  That means, whatever transgressions have been committed against you, you are no longer willing to hold that against that person.  Forgiving means to release that person from the obligation.

If you are like me, you may not have to difficult a time forgiving others.  Yes, I have had wrong done to me.  But whatever wrong has been done, I just attribute to a product of human depravity.  It is not worth holding that against a person and besides, I take serious the judgment against me if I am unwilling to forgive.

There is another aspect of forgiveness that I think is harder, and that is forgiveness of self.  I have made many mistakes in my life, many misguided decisions that have left scars and wounds long after the events those decisions caused.  I cling to passages such Romans 8:1-4, Colossians 1:13-14; and Hebrews 10:11-14.   If this is you, seeing yourself as Christ sees you enables that forgiveness.

But there is yet an even harder aspect of forgiveness that I don’t think is expressed nearly enough or openly enough as it needs to be.  You see, we can forgive human action because humans are marred and can be hurtful, selfish, or disinterested in how their actions impact others.  While we may not be pleased with choices we have made, especially the ones that have had lasting negative consequences, we can also chalk mistakes up to fallibility and lessons learned.  But what happens when the person you are most grieved with is God?  After all, he is love, and just, and pure.  He is supposed to have the kindest of intentions towards his children.  He is suppose to be good.

I don’t think anyone that claims Christianity, wants to readily admit that they might be harboring resentment against God.  That seems so…sacrilegious? irreverent? disrespectful?  But I do believe it is possible to hold unforgiveness towards God,  unforgiveness that remembers situations where we felt he was supposed to do something but didn’t or not allow something that did happen.  These may be unanswered prayers, death of loved ones, personal loss, humiliation or other tragic circumstances.  It may not be openly expressed, but in the deepest recesses of our souls, is remembrance that is held in abeyance to be released when certain triggers are pulled.

How do we know if we harbor unforgiveness towards God?  I suspect, the same way that unforgiveness is expressed towards others.  The sense of injustice, the feelings of hurt, the remembrance of supposed wrong that entangles itself in responses to certain situations.  Or maybe, in the quiet stillness, when thoughts of injustice impede progress to pray, to worship, to move forward, to let go.   There might be that sense of unrequited love, that sense of rejection for having put a good effort forward only to have it recoiled in return.  The heart sinks, burns, saddens and cries out “God, how could you?”

But unforgiveness is a prison.   The same torment that Jesus predicted for that unforgiving king in Matthew 18, is the same torment experienced when the heart harbors unforgiveness, including unforgiveness towards God.  It holds you captive and wraps you up in a cacophony of pity, pain and unrelenting desire to see a reversal of supposed misfortunes.  Unforgiveness towards God will disable the ability to see him for who he truly is.

Forgiveness requires a release of obligation for retribution.  No, I don’t think anyone would say they wanted retribution towards God.  But not allowing the heart to freely give, freely worship and freely yield probably has the same effect.  The release of obligation for retribution does not impose upon God requirements for him to correct situations or move in a way that would vindicate our sense of justice.  It is an acknowledgment that God in his sovereignty is working out a plan that is far greater than our finite minds can comprehend, even when holding out hands empty of satisfactory results.  Forgiveness enables trust.

So if this is you and you are holding unforgiveness towards God, please consider that the only person it is hurting is yourself.  He is good, though at times that goodness is misunderstood and not evidentialy seen.  Forgiving God is essential for moving forward in the Christian life and release from a harsh and unrelenting prison of torment.

Have you noticed the rise in psychic “hotlines” and TV shows nowadays? Five years ago, it would have been difficult to find even a psychic commercial on TV. Now, there are several half-hour infomercials, aired almost round the clock.

Have you also noticed New Age music cropping up here and there, not to mention the infiltration of Eastern Mysticism into the West, and increased UFO sightings (not to mention TV programs about them)? How about the rise of “what’s in it for me” attitudes, a morality of convenience, and a market-driven society (i.e., making a living as an end in itself)? While we’re at it, we could add the increasing denial of absolute truth by most Americans–even though a large proportion claim to be evangelical Christians, the prioritizing of relevance over truth, of pragmatics over knowledge, of feelings over beliefs. Al Franken, of Saturday Night Live fame, some years ago epitomized what we are seeing with his self-serving commentary (he humorously suggested that this decade should be labeled the “Al Franken” decade).

A New Kind of Charismatic

Part and parcel of this phenomenon is the rising popularity of charismatic Christianity–especially among those who had never been attracted to the charismatic movement before. Specifically, the Pentecostal/charismatic movement historically has roots in Wesleyan theology and practice. In other words, it has historically been associated with Arminian theology. The reason for this is not immediately obvious, but can be seen through a variety of connections. Arminianism teaches, among other things, that a person once saved can lose his salvation. Hence, Arminians put a strong emphasis on moral duty, as well as spiritual experiences, as the continued confirmation that one is still saved. It is a natural extension from this stance that the test by which a person knows he is saved is various manifestations of the Spirit. Thus the craving for supernatural experiences is both endemic to the charismatic mindset and necessary as continued confirmation of salvation.

But this craving for confirmation is not the motivation of many who have become charismatics in the last few years. Indeed, what is unusual about the current popularity of the charismatic movement, principally the Vineyard form, is that has attracted many Calvinists as well as many well-trained scholars. Every year at the Evangelical Theological Society meetings¹ I learn of a few more professors of theology who have joined the ranks of the Vineyard movement. Often, the response of colleagues when they find out about one these theologians is one of astonishment: “No! Not him! I never would have expected him to become a charismatic!”

Cognitive Christianity and the Impoverished Soul

Why are scholars suddenly becoming charismatics? What has happened in the last few years to attract the intelligentsia to this group?

We can give both a short answer and a long one. The short answer is that many Christian scholars have for a long time embraced a Christianity that is almost exclusively “from the neck up.” That is, theirs is a cognitive faith, one where reason reigns supreme. They are usually fine exegetes and theologians, able to defend the faith and articulate their views in a coherent, biblical, profound, and logical way. But (without naming names) many of these savants have lost their love for Christ. They love the Bible and know it inside and out. But their soul has become impoverished. They love God with their mind only; that is the extent of their spiritual obligation as they see it. In fact, for them, personal experience–especially of a charismatic sort–is anathema. It has no place in the Christian life. Study of the Bible so that they can control the text is what the Christian life is all about.

But when crisis comes–such as the death of a loved one, a teenage daughter’s pregnancy, or some major upheaval in their church ministries–their answers appear shallow and contrived, both to others and themselves. They have the inability to hurt with the hurting, though they know all the right verses on suffering! They begin to search for answers themselves, answers of an entirely different sort. Often, in the crucible of the crisis, they attend a charismatic meeting. And there, a “prophet” reveals something about their life. They are both amazed at the prophecy and deeply touched at the perception into their own condition. (Of course, cognitive types almost always marvel when other, more sensitive people, intuitively recognize traits and characteristics, internal workings and struggles in others.) Their souls get drenched with an emotional infusion that had been quenched for too long. It doesn’t take long before they hold hands with those whom they used to oppose, even to the point of now leading charismatic groups. They in fact become the theologians of a new breed of charismatic, giving a rather sophisticated rationale for charismata. In the process, they have gone through a paradigm shift: their final authority is no longer reasoning about the Scriptures; now it is personal experience. Continue Reading »

It’s a privilege to be the newest contributor to the Parchment and Pen blog.  I’m new to Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as Creative Director and Instructor, but I’m not new to the concept of online seminary.  For five years I worked as the Senior Internet Designer for Dallas Theological Seminary (http://www.dts.edu).  Computer Programming genius (not an overstatement) John Dyer and I developed most of the online education environment at DTS.

Designing and implementing an online education environment was a blast.  We used bleeding-edge technology at the time and developed a system which accommodated multi-language support.  What does this mean?  Many students were from countries other than the U.S. and took classes in languages other than English.  A large number of students were in countries where they could be imprisoned for proclaiming the name of Christ.

Can you picture the scene?  A student is living in a country hostile to the gospel, yet they’re earning a Th.M. from Dallas Seminary by secretly taking classes from Howard Hendricks and many other world-class professors in their own language!  It was a joy to go to work each day to help develop this platform; knowing lives were being changed and church leaders were being trained.

If the only possible way for you to receive a seminary degree comes from taking all your classes online, then I say go for it.  Dallas Seminary and several other prominent seminaries have developed robust accredited online education environments.  It’s better to go through seminary online than not-at-all.

Michael recently wrote a lot about the pros and cons of online seminary from a student’s perspective (link).  I wanted to take a different focus.  Looking at this issue from the eyes of the educational institution.  Here’s my bold claim:  A seminary can not afford to trade in their “brick and mortar” seminary for online education.  Yes, financially it makes better sense in the short-term.  I believe, however, if a seminary continues to grow in their online offerings it will eventually ruin the school.  Here are two reasons:

1. Character – The goal of a seminary is not to fill someone’s head with a bunch of facts so they’ll beat everyone at Bible trivia.  Seminaries must be very serious about graduating people who have grown in both knowledge, maturity, integrity and character.  Someone whom they can point to and say, “This person has our seal of approval, they are worth following.”  If a seminary is not equally concerned with orthodoxy and orthopraxy, they will become a degree-mill full of Pharisees.

Continue Reading »

It is one of those nights where someone should take the computer away from me, shut the internet down, and relieve me of all rights to this blog. Maybe there will be a miraculous advent and this post, after I hit submit, will vanish into the netherlands of cyberspace lost forever. Then I will just say phooey, and go back to sleep. (That has happened many times before).

I remember when I was twelve years old, God peeked out of the shroud of experiential darkness. This is going to sound silly to a lot of you, but it was special to me nevertheless. I was at the Quail Creek Elementary School Carnival. All the kids went back to it after “graduating” elementary school for years (to show how cool the “post-grads” were). Each year they had a cake-walk. You know . . . where you walked around a circle of 36 numbers while music played. When the music stopped, you stopped. If you were on the number that they called, you won a cake. At that point in my life, I had never won anything that I can remember, but I wanted to win this cake so bad. So I prayed. “Dear God, if you are listening, please show me by allowing me to win this cake. Amen.” Music played. I walked. Music stopped. I stopped. They called out “32.” I looked down. I was on 32. Wow! It was something special. God made me win the cake walk. He really did care! He really was there. The next year, same time, same place, same prayer. And you know what? I won again. It was unbelievable to this now 13 year old kid. God was on my side!

I once heard someone say that God is often more evidently present in your life when you are a young Christian. I don’t have any biblical reason to believe that is true at all. However, recently it seems that God does often hide and he is hard to find.

God first seemed to be AWOL the day my sister died. Our family had yet to be touched with any significant grief. I was always the optimist, being the first to see the good in everything. I changed my life in the mid-nineties. It stuck. I was on a spiritual high through seminary. When things seemed to be going south in any way for anyone, I was the go-to guy because I knew God was present, even in evil. Everything in my life and career seemed as if God’s providential guidance was so present that if you took a picture of me and looked at the negative, you would see a clear picture of God’s hand over my head.

Immediately, after Angie died, I still took the road less traveled. When my mother had her aneurysm and stroke and lay in a nearly total incapacitated state, I became a bit confused. The miracle of her life being spared soon turned into a curse of pain, suffering, and heart-ache beyond anything her death could have hoped for.

It was very hard to see God in this. It is still hard to see God in it four years later. The change I had hoped it would bring about in dad has not been realized. In fact, I think he is worse off than anyone and it hurts to think about. So much so, I can barely stand to call him anymore. There are many other terrible details that follow here that I will not mention due to confidence. Suffice it to say that there has been a snowball effect of trouble that does not relent.

However, as I wrote at this time, I was still optimistic: it was raining in the front yard and sunny in the back. In short, while things in my family were very tough and God seemed to be hiding, things in the ministry could not be better. I took heart at what God was doing. Continue Reading »

It is obvious that so many places are relying on distance education—virtual distance education. After all, it is more convenient for all parties in many ways. People who would never have the option of going to seminary are now being trained by the best teachers the church has to offer. Institutions are able to stay afloat because of the minimal overhead that they have to sustain, all the while providing the same courses by the same teachers. Soon, seminaries may not need campuses at all. It will simply require a virtual campus. No one has to travel…not even the professors!

Not only this, but think of the students in other parts of the world who certainly would not have this opportunity. As well, what about the isolated pastors who have shepherded their flock with not much more than a Bible. They are now able to join with the church worldwide and feed from some of the most gifted members of the Body of Christ.

However, with all of these benefits, I don’t think we (the Church) should be too quick to rejoice to the detriment of the better option. I believe that traditional on-sadite training is by far the best option and I think we need to recognize this before we celebrate ourselves to the point of the demise of one of our most important and valued assets—the local seminary.

A couple of, side-notes, caveats, or whatever:

1. I know that I am going against the grain here. I also realize that I am going against the grain to, what some may believe, is my own detriment. Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, of which I am the founder and president, exists in large part due to our virtual constituency. We are facilitating the training of thousands of lay-people, ministers, and ministers-in-training all over the world. I think that we do online education just as good as anyone out there. However, we have never purported to be a seminary or a substitute for seminary. At best, we are a stepping stone for those who might go into seminary. However, in reality, we are here to make theology accessible to those who may never have a chance to get the type of education that a seminary provides. We do not encourage our students to use our ministry instead of seminary training. As well, one of our main thrusts is to get people to use our curriculum locally. We have thousands of churches who have used or are using The Theology Program in their local venue. This is part of the reason why we built the Credo House and why I still teach at local churches.

2. I am going to use somewhat of a heavy-handed conversation stopper (or at least primer). I have been to local seminary. I have experienced the rigors of being on campus at an experienced institution that knows what they are doing. I took 126 hours of courses on campus at Dallas Theological Seminary. I have also experienced online education in many different forms. Since 2001, I have been engaged in utilizing the power of the internet to educate people in theology. I will continue to do this. Therefore, I speak from experience. I know what both are like. (Here comes the heavy hand): One simply cannot compare the level of training—the type of training—that is available onsite to that which does not come readily or easily online. Onsite training from a good institution that knows what they are doing is simply much more effective. Those who have not experienced onsite and online training like this do not have the experience to make effective arguements otherwise.

Okay, now to a few particulars:

RE: Online Ed vs. Onsite Ed

“But online education is just as good as onsite education. Michael, you need to get with the times.”

One thing that you have to understand about my thinking here is that preparation for ministry involves much more than education. If education is all you seek, I agree that online venues can provide such. But preparation for ministry goes beyond education in the proper sense. Besides many intangibles, the primary thing I speak of is mentorship that includes particular encouragement, shaping, fellowship, and discipline. Is it theoretically possible that these things can happen online? Maybe. But not only are they much much more difficult, it simply is not happening. Continue Reading »

Considering full-time ministry? Considering seminary? I don’t know of any question that I am asked more often than this: “I think I am being called into ministry but how do I know?” I don’t claim to be an expert on this issue, but I can offer some words of advice. Here are some questions that I think you should ask yourself (in order of importance):

1. Do you have an unrelenting passion? This involves a burning desire in your heart to impact the lives of others. It is a giddy excitement that others may gawk at. (Have you seen this gawk?) It is the type of passion that causes you to lose all other options and directions due to a mind that wanders to the feet of the Lord. I loosely paraphrase Charles Spurgeon: “If there is anything else that you can do, anything, do it. But if ministry is the only option that will satisfy you then consider it.

One of the things about being in ministry is that were something to happen, you are not normally qualified for anything else. I have often been brought to the place where I had to start considering other “career” moves and I get very depressed. Not only can I not find a passion for anything else, I am not qualified for anything else. I just don’t know what else I would or could do. I am committed to ministry. There is an internal compass that won’t point in any other direction.

2. Do you have personal integrity? Integrity, not perfection. None of us are really “qualified” in an absolute sense. You will have continual feelings of inadequacy all the time. This is normal. But the life of a minister of the Lord should be above reproach. This means that you should not have any areas of your life that, if discovered, would bring shame upon the Gospel. People are looking to discredit God. They will use you to do so. In a way, you are the punching bag for God. Continue Reading »

If you’re like me, you have probably heard spirituality expressed in many different ways, both from Christians and non-Christians alike.  Many non-Christians will make the claim that while they don’t believe in Christ, or religion for that matter, that they are spiritual.  Christians will make distinctions about what is or is not spiritual.

Spirituality is sourced in the work of the Holy Spirit.  Being spiritual means we are of the Spirit.  The spirit of man is connected with immaterial part of us that gives us life, will, emotions, and thoughts.  It is our heart, soul and mind.  Apart from God, man’s spirit is dead in sin and cannot respond to God properly  (Ephesians 2:1-3; 1 Corinthians 2:14).  This person is not of the Spirit.  This is why I believe an unbeliever cannot be spiritual – existential or experiential maybe – but not spiritual.

Therefore, it necessitates understanding the work and purpose of the third person of the trinity in relation to the believer.  We are unable to accept God’s gift of salvation without the work of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3).  He baptizes into the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:26) and resides within the believer a mark they are God’s (Romans 8:9). The Holy Spirit gives gifts to every believer to be used for his purpose (1 Corinthians 12:6-7). He brings the ministry of Christ and the presence of God into our being (John 15:26) so that we may walk out a life that increasingly represents that connection into our lives – in thought, word and deed.

With the Holy Spirit residing in the believer, being spiritual means the believer is following after the spirit instead of the flesh because the two are opposed (Galatians 5:16-17).  The flesh here is not our physical bodies but it is a that nature endemic in humanity that opposes God and does not want to subject thoughts, words, or actions to him (Romans 8:7).  Being spiritual is opposite of carnality, which is allowing the flesh to dominate.  We are being carnal when we allow our thoughts, words and actions to mold themselves after that nature of flesh that wants to put us first instead of God, so that the ministry of Christ is not the predominating motive for us.  This is why Paul told the Corinthian church they were being carnal (1 Corinthians 3:1-4).

However, I believe many have turned the idea of being spiritual into an esoteric concept that divorces thoughts towards God from the reality of living in a physical universe in a physical body.  Spirituality becomes some type of mysticism that opposes the elements of reason and participation in culture.  It treats the material world as evil.  It becomes a way of attaining to a higher secret knowledge that others do not have.   But that is not spirituality it is gnosticism, which is based on ancient Greek philosophy of dualism whose fruits led to heretical ideas about Christ in the early church.  Nor is spirituality putting a God or church label on everything and dismissing what doesn’t have it as non-spiritual.  Spirituality is not just doing ministry; ministry can be carnal.  Spirituality is not separating from the world we live in and creating our own subculture but it is endeavoring to live in that world to bring Christ to it.  That is the purpose of allowing the Holy Spirit control of our lives.

Being spiritual means we are allowing the control of the Holy Spirit in our lives so that in all we do, points others to Christ.  Being spiritual means we are allowing the the gifts of the spirit to be used in a manner that glorifies God.  It means we are not allowing ourselves to be dominated by a system of thought that puts us and our desires at the center of the universe.  Being spiritual impacts all of our material and immaterial faculties so that Christ is represented in every area of our lives.  Being spiritual means that we can use reason and intellect in a way that puts God at the center of our thoughts instead of flesh. Being spiritual is maintaining an unbroken fellowship with God in the midst of a broken and fallen world while not allow its system of thought to motive our thinking.

So if we are performing our secular jobs in a way that glorifies God, that is spiritual.  When we sacrifice our time for the work of ministry, that is spiritual.  When we use our intellect to learn and understand more about our faith, that is spiritual.  When we make a choice towards God and away from ourselves, that is spiritual.

In his book, He That is Spiritual, Lewis Sperry Chafer says this

The spiritual life is not passive.  Too often it is thus misjudged and because of the fact that one, to be spiritual, must cease from self-effort in the direction of spiritual attainments and learn to live and serve by the power God has provided.  True spirituality knows little of “quietism”.  It is life more active, enlarged and vital because it is energized by the limitless power of God…Living in unrealities is a source of hindrance to spirituality.  Anything that savors of a “religious pose” is harmful.  In a very particular sense the one who has been changed from the natural to the spiritual sometimes needs to be changed to a naturalness again, meaning of course, a naturalness of manner and life.  The true spiritual life presents a latitude sufficient to allow us to live very close to all classes of people without drawing us from God.  Spirituality hinders sin, but should never hinder the friendship and confidence of sinners….True spirituality is an adorning.  It is most simple and natural and should be a delight and attraction to all. (Chafer, pp 140-141).

I think Dr. Chafer makes some good points about being spiritual.   I highly recommend reading his book.