The Upper Room

00:08

0

Q: How would you respond to this claim on Isaiah 53?

I was debating a Christian friend of mine, who has become somewhat persistent since I converted to the Jewish faith, but one of the critisms that he brought up, was that Isaiah 53 can't be about Israel, since in Isaiah 53:8, the servant is "cut off for the transgressions of my people" thus indica...

christianity

GratefulDisciple

16:05

Comments from this answer:

Mere Christianity is theology, with only hints of spirituality. It's an excellent foundation for any Christian spirituality though. The Narnia books would be closer to spirituality, so does The Four Loves. — GratefulDisciple 2 hours ago

@GratefulDisciple I don't know if the distinction has to be that dramatic. For an intellectually driven person theology could be the same as spirituality. At the very least they are probably symbiotic. — Mike Borden 4 mins ago

@MikeBorden This is also to address your object in my answer. Let's define "spirituality" first, and its relationship with a person doing "intellectual" theology. I would distinguish it like this.

Doing theology (which includes reading theology, including Mere Christianity) is using the "reason" part of the soul, but doing spirituality (which includes prayer, fasting, listening in silence, going to sacraments, meditating at the stations of the cross) involves the "emotion" and the "desire" part of the soul. Yes, they are symbiotic, but I propose that different activities use a particular faculty of the soul more than other faculties.

My concern is how most responders in that answer neglect the emotive part by reducing spirituality to theology. Worse still, the theology is reduced to Biblicism. This restricts the full range of how one is to relate with God.

Spirituality as an academic discipline tries to DESCRIBE the spiritual practices, hence McGrath's book, which is a descriptive, not prescriptive textbook. Once a reader understand a certain path for spirituality the person can then "go deep" in the practice to engage God THROUGH the practice. Because of symbiotic relationship with the undergirding theology, if the theology is orthodox, the experience doesn't go wayward, so it's safe.

GratefulDisciple

16:36

@Matthew I see you're here. What do you think Re: theology vs. spirituality?

Correction for this message: "how most responders to that Q (in the comments and answer) neglect the emotive part"

Matthew

@GratefulDisciple, I see you aren't in "my" room. 🙂 BTW, christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/103725 is a good example of why non-belief in YEC is harmful.

@GratefulDisciple I haven't been following that discussion. Off the cuff, though, I don't think the two should be separated. To be sure, there is an element of "spirituality" in the Christian life, but (it seems to me, anyway, that) those who seek it for its own sake tend to have serious issues in their theology. I guess I would define "spirituality" as our (emotional) relationship with God, while theology is the understanding of what God wants from us and our cultural relationship with God.

"Cultural" isn't exactly the right word, but it's the sort of relationship between employer and employee, or citizen and king, whereas the spiritual relationship is the sort of relationship between father and child. (Or, as too many people seeking "spirituality" would pursue it, the relationship between drinking buddies.)

GratefulDisciple

17:01

@Matthew Of course "spirituality" needs to have a firm definition to be debased into relationship between drinking buddies. Or maybe that's why some Christian groups have an allergy to the word "spirituality" as labelling what they are really doing as deepening father-child relationship. My theological+spiritual programme has been integrating the two, that @MikeBorden calls "symbiotic".

@Matthew If you read my answer, I don't think non-belief in YEC is harmful, but in fact creates more flexibility by focusing on the essential, i.e. in terms of the relationship more than the philosophical theories of soul.

@Matthew BTW, enough time spent on C.SE. Need to go back to work.

Matthew

17:25

@GratefulDisciple It also creates the "flexibility" to believe that any manner of theological teachings (allegedly) predate divine revelation and are therefore just made up nonsense.

Historical Genesis shuts down all sorts of nonsense before it can take root.

Mike Borden

20:39

@GratefulDisciple If we have to define spirituality before we can talk about it then don't we need theology right out of the gate? And, if theology, then theology informed by the written Word or it is worthless. Theologically speaking what is the definition of Christian spirituality? If it is defined as the living out of a personal relationship with God as Father on the basis of the work of Christ then the prerequisite is a new birth not "giving it a try".

GratefulDisciple

@MikeBorden Theology is "how to think" about God. Spirituality is "how to act" on that "about God" knowledge. Spiritual practice "doing" that "how to act". All 3 are needed and need to be connected for worshiping in "spirit and truth".

Theology in turn is based on a certain Bible interpretation. So Bible -> Theology -> Spirituality -> Spiritual practice. I don't understand why it is so controversial it seems.

While you are praying (which is the "practice") you act on the theory that prayer is what deepening your relationship with God (which is the "spirituality"). And along with that practice you have the theology that God listens and appreciates certain kind of prayers (the one that Jesus taught with the expectation that is NOT Propsperity gospel, for example), which is the "theology". And that theology is Biblical unlike prosperity gospel.

Example of Prosperity gospel spirituality would be: "you do tithing to show your faith", and spiritual practice would be to make sure you actually do tithing every month with that false theology in mind, because it's based on a false Bible interpretation.

I hope it's obvious how my terminologies is merely to organize the thinking, the theory, and the practice. What's wrong with that?

Mike Borden

@GratefulDisciple I spent a large part of my life as an unsaved person in a Bible > Theology > Spirituality > Spiritual Practice paradigm and was actually saved quite apart from it. Correct theology or the understanding of it cannot even happen without a new birth. All of what you are proposing is for those who already believe.

Matthew

@GratefulDisciple, some interesting citations on this week's Answers News.

"Whoever is ashamed of me (Jesus) and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." (Mark 8:38)

"The time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths." (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

GratefulDisciple

@MikeBorden I'm sure what happens in your case (the one you claim "was actually saved quite apart from it") can be put in that paradigm too, but one that is not codified. If you tell me the story, I can reconstruct the implicit Bible -> theology -> spirituality -> practice that were operational in your story. Because in my definition, EVERYONE has a an implicit theology, not the one that they necessarily can articulate explicitly.

The main problem is when people articulate "this is my theology" but what is operational is something else. Or when people just do certain thing thinking that that is the theology they use, but turns out to be something else. But this doesn't invalidate the paradigm, it's about getting out of ignorance.

Mike Borden

20:55

@GratefulDisciple A welcoming, believing fellowship is a wonderful place for a seeker to find God but let's not think it's encouraging that person to practice which will take him up the ladder past theology and to the new birth. It flows downhill. The only beneficial theology is the one that is informed by Scripture so why not focus on presenting the Bible rather than ritual.

GratefulDisciple

Like in Charismatic circle I'm familiar with, they practice casting out evil. They believe in their head that Christ has defeated the devil, but they operate as though he is not and develops the spirituality of "spiritual warfare".

Mike Borden

@GratefulDisciple Hopefully the Holy Spirit gets involved in that person (new birth) and they can begin with accurate theology ..... practice without following man. It's the theology of men that is tripping up believers, like those Charismatics you speak of. That's why Biblicism has to take precedence. Then theology, etc., all of which are very important.

GratefulDisciple

@MikeBorden Bible is text, the one alive is God. The seeker needs to contact God, being to being. The expectation comes from a certain understanding, which is theology. And when someone ask: "how to pray", that's spirituality. Praying and supporting each other in a small group IS a kind of spirituality. Worshipping on Sunday together in the congregation IS also a spirituality. Don't get hung up on defining "spirituality" as though it's a ritual / formula without contact to Being.

@MikeBorden We don't control the Holy Spirit. The theology is that Holy Spirit will help anyone who seeks God the right way, with the right motivation, and the right expectation (all those "rights" come from theology too). The spirituality is the sinner's prayer, responding to the gospel preached, etc. The practice is doing it (actually pray that prayer and actually be thankful that Jesus saves you, etc.

Mike Borden

@GratefulDisciple Who said anything about controlling the Holy Spirit? If someone asks me how to pray I would ask them if they believe in the Lord Jesus. If they don't I would suggest that they pray for that belief to come to them and offer to help. I would never suggest that a new believer start learning the theology of whatever Church they were attending. I would always recommend Bible study so that they have a basis to judge the theology.

@GratefulDisciple I realize that to a large extent these things are concurrent in experience but the precedence of what is written must remain as well as the precedence of the Holy Spirit within a person interpreting what is written. Studying God (theology) without the mind of Christ and the Bible doesn't make sense to me.

@GratefulDisciple "Everyone has an implicit theology", just sounds like "everyone has a particular worldview". I agree wholeheartedly but the renewing of the mind is not a product of theology; it is the indwelling spirit and the washing of water with the Word. I believe this refers to the written Word rather than uncreated Logos. Then comes the proper theology.

@GratefulDisciple I guess I don't have a problem with what you're saying technically but I guess it feels like you have the accent in the wrong place, if that makes sense.

GratefulDisciple

21:30

(sorry I had to step away)

@MikeBorden That would be what I do as well.

I agree, but I want to be careful that we use the term correctly.
"interpretation" is a human act, "convicting" someone of what is read (after interpretation) is the Holy Spirit act. Studying theory ABOUT God is a human act, convicting someone of the reality of that Being acting according to that theory is the Holy spirit act, and when you are convicted, you are said to have the mind of Christ who is convicted from the get-go (because he has beatific vision).

@MikeBorden Did I imply that "the renewing of the mind" is a product of theology? No, it's a product of God when we approach him with a true worship prescribed by orthodox- theology-approved spirituality. I'm just labeling the same thing using psychological terminologies that correlate to "washing of water with the Word" or "indwelling spirit" so it's more concrete and more easily communicable.

Mike Borden

@GratefulDisciple I will agree that interpretation is a human act but correct interpretation is not. An unaided human mind cannot correctly do so and therefore cannot create or understand correct theology. Not to ni-pick, but I would say that Christ has the conviction of the reality of that Being because He is that Being not because He has a particular kind of vision.

GratefulDisciple

@MikeBorden For the ordering, you are mixing up what God does and what human does. God and human do different things, and they are happening concurrently in respective orders. The ordering that I describe is from the human side.

Mike Borden

21:46

@GratefulDisciple "when we approach him with a true worship prescribed by orthodox- theology-approved spirituality" is where you lose me.

GratefulDisciple

@MikeBorden Who to say which one is "correct" interpretation? The idea that a private individual can come across a "correct" interpretation solely by Holy Spirit can make someone self-righteous and can lead one to become a cult leader. It is NOT necessary. What IS necessary is the convicting part. One can be convicted of their sin and can believe the gospel even though the interpretation / theology is not perfect.

THEN one learns in a particular church about more precise interpretation and theology while they make progress in discipleship being yoked to Jesus.

hold on, need to step away

Mike Borden

@GratefulDisciple I have to have supper with my family so ... til next time. I'll leave you with this: What, ultimately, exposes a cult leader if not the written Word correctly illuminated to the mind by the Holy Spirit? "The idea that a private individual can come across a "correct" interpretation solely by Holy Spirit" is my only safeguard. If He's not protecting me in that way I am in big trouble.

Transcript for