quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
And anything can be legalistic, including legalistically applied anti-legalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not too keen on the idea of disciplines and practices, although I'm sure I have them. Naming them 'disciplines' and 'practices' seem suspiciously like a nice way of saying 'legalism', so I tend to try to steer clear if I possibly can. So far the approach has worked well.

---

Is naming it "Quiet time", a word often favoured among our evangelical brothers and sisters, any less legalistic? Whatever name you give it, it seems to me to be the same thing.


I find having a minimum rule of prayer (Morning and Evening) helpful. I pray various Orthodox prayers, read the Epistle and Gospel from the lectionary, and add my personal petitions. I also like reading from Church Fathers or Desert Fathers (e.g. see here). Substitute your favourite theologian if you like (a fellow parishioner devours St Augustine's books continually). That's not to say there are days where I don't do this, for there are, but making it a priority is very helpful, as is some regularity.

Corporate worship is also very important. I'd also say participating in the sacraments, which I find of great benefit.

As is making a conscious effort to change: when you fall, cry "Lord have mercy!" or similar, and get up, determined, by God's grace, to not do it again. And, if you're anything like me, when you do do the same thing, cry "Lord have mercy!" again, and get up, again determined, by God's grace, to not do it again. Repeat ad infinitum until the end of the your life.

God bless.
Ian.

[ 25. October 2005, 03:25: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Could be a discipline. Could be a habit. Could be obsessive compulsive disorder. Could be a legalism. Our church meets regularly at 9 am on Sundays, but I suspect that is more a pragmatic thing, as if we changed the time each week or met on an ad hoc basis, it would be difficult to get everyone together.

I tend not to have a regular time of prayer or bible reading, although I wouldn't complain if others wanted to.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Sorry, my previous post was a response to Spiffy DWS.
 

---

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Oh, and I forgot to say something, but aj said it better than I would've. Even if you don't feel you are praying "well" or whatever, keep at it. God's grace is still working.

As my avatar's namesake wrote:

quote:

---

Fight always with your thoughts and call them back when they wander away. God does not demand of those under obedience that their thoughts be totally undistracted when they pray. And do not lose heart when your thoughts are stolen away. Just remain calm, and constantly call your mind back.

The Ladder of Divine Ascent

---

quote:

---

A brother said to an old man, “Abba, I go and beg the old men to speak to me about the salvation of my soul, and I do not remember any of their words, so what ought I to do? Continue to ask them, but do nothing? In truth, I am altogether in impurity.” Now there were two empty jugs there, and the old man said to him, “Bring me one of the jugs, put oil in it and then scrub it with water, then go and put it back in its place.” He did this several times. The old man said to him, “Now bring the two jugs together, and see which is the cleaner.” The brother said, “That in which I put the oil.” The old man said to him, “So it is also for the soul; for, even if it retains nothing of what it has asked, yet it is more purified than the one which has not asked anything.”

---

quote:

---

As is making a conscious effort to change: when you fall, cry "Lord have mercy!" or similar, and get up, determined, by God's grace, to not do it again. And, if you're anything like me, when you do do the same thing, cry "Lord have mercy!" again, and get up, again determined, by God's grace, to not do it again. Repeat ad infinitum until the end of the your life.

---

Waving to Ian from my own ungraceful sprawl farther down the ditch.
 

---

Posted by spook (# 8769) on :
 
I would say reading the bible, praying and wholehearted worship all help spiritual growth. Having others pray with and for you also helps...
 

---

Posted by Charis (# 206) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Just a branch on the vine:
How does one stay fresh and vibrant in faith without becoming a legalist?

---

What a wonderful question.

I've almost just about perhaps concluded I need to do whatever I want to do in my life, including some really outrageous stuff, and that God will still take me where he wants me.

I hope I'm right...
 

---

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
I pray, read inspirational literature, attend Meeting, etc. etc.

But I think the thing that has helped me grow spiritually in a most profound way has been being present to and engaging the wounded world (I include my own wounds in this).

"Let your life speak." Sure, sounds good on paper--but enacting it requies the kind of self-reflection and compassion towards others that can create spiritual growth over time.

I don't want to encourage an either/or discussion--prayer is very important, IMHO....but there is a worldly connection that can go along with prayer to help a person be a part of the wider community of God's creation.

[edited for typo...hope I got 'em all ]

sabine

[ 25. October 2005, 14:49: Message edited by: sabine ]
 

---

Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Could be a discipline. Could be a habit. Could be obsessive compulsive disorder. Could be a legalism. Our church meets regularly at 9 am on Sundays, but I suspect that is more a pragmatic thing, as if we changed the time each week or met on an ad hoc basis, it would be difficult to get everyone together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy da Wonder Sheep:
I agree with sabine (and p.s. I was cooking last night, sabine, that's why I missed you in the cafe!) that prayer is an important aspect of opening yourself up to God, but there's also the, "okay, now get out and do something about it!" part of our faith that isn't emphasised quite as much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Could be a discipline. Could be a habit. Could be obsessive compulsive disorder. Could be a legalism. Our church meets regularly at 9 am on Sundays, but I suspect that is more a pragmatic thing, as if we changed the time each week or met on an ad hoc basis, it would be difficult to get everyone together.

I tend not to have a regular time of prayer or bible reading, although I wouldn't complain if others wanted to.

---

quote:

---

The correct response to misuse is not disuse but right use

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:

I assume that you only go to your sunday morning church service when you feel like it, and avoid any habits of regular attendance that you might or might not be developing, just to nip any latent legalism in the bud before it gets going?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

If I do not have a regular structure for prayer/bible reading it does not happen more often than not and I meander on aimlessly. Having the framework of the discipline (whilst not having to stick to it legalistically), frees me to spend time with God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

If I do not have a regular structure for prayer/bible reading it does not happen more often than not and I meander on aimlessly. Having the framework of the discipline (whilst not having to stick to it legalistically), frees me to spend time with God.

---

It's just that I am always in the presence of my Father through the work of the Lord Jesus. I'm never away from Him. Nor is anyone who has put their trust in him for forgiveness of sins.

---

quote:

---

Oh, and is there anything wrong with meandering on aimlessly? When I was little I used to love to do that with my parents.

---

quote:

---

Frameworks and disciplines I associate with work, study, school and housework, and I like to get away from those things. Thank God I can do it in my relationship with Him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
The problem with evangelical spirituality is that it is about making Christians, but not disciples. At risk of stating the obvious the words disciple and discipline share the same root, do they not? Surely, spiritual disciplines are just the practical outworkings of intentional discipleship?

---

quote:

---

[a. F. discipline (OF. also dece-, dese-, desce-, 11th c. in Hatz.-Darm.), ad. L. discipl{imac}na instruction of disciples, tuition, for discipul{imac}na, f. discipulus pupil, DISCIPLE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
No, meeting with my brothers and sisters in Christ is important for me and them, so wild horses wouldn't keep me away. Getting 3 little girls out the door in time sometimes threatens to, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:
(Apologies if people find the marriage analogy an overly sentimental way to describe our relationship with God, but I do think the metaphor holds).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Anyway, the only way out of relying on our own experience is God's kindness, and only he can supply that. He gives it freely to those who ask, which is why I think the idea of practising spiritual discipline is potentially insulting. It's like working to pay off a nice Chrissy present.

---

(The wall's on the wrong side, but hey!)

No, no and thrice no!

Ok, somone gives you a piano for Christmas. Which is the better use of it: leave it in the corner of the room looking pretty or to sit yourself down regularly in front of it and practise (and possibly get yourself some lessons)?

Carys

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pure as the Driven Yellow Snow:
Isn't this still the legalism versus grace debate.

Do you play your piano out of a sense of duty, cos it is the right thing to do, or do you play it out of thankfulness for the gift it is.


Looking at the intent rather than the same outcome?

---

But, if the outcome is that you learn to play the piano (which was presumably the idea the giver had in giving you the piano) does it matter if there were times when you only played out of a sense of duty?

Duty can carry you through a time when you're struggling to be thankful for the gift and you're not sure there's any point practising because you're not getting anywhere and you'll never be any good at this piano lark and scales are just boring. It's hard to see at those times that you are getting somewhere and whilst scales are boring they give you the background to be a really good pianist.

In the same way, at times prayer can be hard, and we're convinced that we're useless at it and everything else and we're worse than we were last year and it's all pointless. But praying through those times teaches us more than at the highs. At least that's what C.S. Lewis argues in Screwtape!

Carys

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

Carys and m.t., I see what you are saying but I just can't see where you would see those ideas in the Bible. Which, because I'm wanting to approach questions like spiritual discipline as an evangelical, matters quite a bit to me.

---

I'm not an evangelical, so the facts that traditionally such practices have been taught to disciples by the Church and empircally I've found them beneficial are sufficent for me. But I'll try and point to possible starting points.

quote:

---

Matthew 6:6
But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

---

When, not if.

quote:

---

Luke 11:2
He said to them, "When you pray, say: " 'Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come.

---

A set form.

quote:

---

# Matthew 28:19
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

---

As I quoted earlier today (I think on the Purg thread) the etymology of discipline is the instruction of disciples, so making disciples involves discipline. And whilst discipline in the sense of what people complain is lacking in schools has move a way from its root, discipline in the sense we are using it hear is a lot less far removed.

quote:

---

Romans 12:12
Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer.

---

Faithful in this context implies regularly which in turns implies a discipline.

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 7:5
Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

---

A temporary discipline (abstaining from sex) is good in order to devote oneself to prayer.

quote:

---

Ephesians 3:14
[ A Prayer for the Ephesians ] For this reason I kneel before the Father,

---

Posture as part of prayer, the externals are helpful.

quote:

---

Colossians 4:2
[ Further Instructions ] Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful.

---

quote:

---

I would have problems with the analogy of practising the piano if it were to imply in any way that we begin our Christian lives a long way from God and have to use discipline and practice to get closer to him.

---

quote:

---

1 Thessalonians 5:17
pray continually;

---

The importance of prayer.

I hope that helps. But I ask in return: Where in the Bible does it say that only things explicitly in the Bible are helpful?

quote:

---

It is quite a nice analogy and I'm sorry to treat it clumsily, but it's as if God not only gave us the piano but transformed us into concert pianists and gave us the desire and the joy of playing. I can already imagine the counter-counter-analogies that might occur, but that's why I ask where such an idea might find its grounding in Scripture?

---

But even concert pianists need to practise.

In my analogy, I see being a concert pianist as being the equivalent of being like Christ. We are to become more like Christ. I presume you acknowledge that we do not become exactly Christ-like at our baptism/conversion but grow in his likeness as we work out our salvation in fear and trembling?

quote:

---

Romans 12:2
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

---

We are commanded to be change in order that (in the future, change) we will be able to test what God's will is. That is a skill we acquire (in some sense). Setting time aside for prayer is a good way of not conforming to the world's pattern which can tend to excessive busyness.

Carys (who wonders whether this exchange should actually be on the purg thread)

---

 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
I'm frankly still trying to wrap my head around the mentation of someone who, on a Christian forum, wants to argue about whether spiritual disciplines are a good thing.
 

---

Posted by Caz... (# 3026) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I'm frankly still trying to wrap my head around the mentation of someone who, on a Christian forum, wants to argue about whether spiritual disciplines are a good thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caz...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I'm frankly still trying to wrap my head around the mentation of someone who, on a Christian forum, wants to argue about whether spiritual disciplines are a good thing.

---

Why? Because it works for you and therefore it must work for everyone?

---

quote:

---

I am always in the presence of my Father through the work of the Lord Jesus. I'm never away from Him.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 7:16
"And when you fast, don't make it obvious, as the hypocrites do, who try to look pale and disheveled so people will admire them for their fasting. I assure you, that is the only reward they will ever get. But when you fast, comb your hair and wash your face. Then no-one will suspect you are fasting except your Father, who knows what you do in secret. And your Father, who knows all secrets, will reward you.

---

quote:

---

Ephesians 6:18
Pray at all times and on every occasion in the power of the Holy Spirit. Stay alert and be persistent in your prayers for all Christians everywhere.

---

quote:

---

Why? Because it works for you and therefore it must work for everyone?

---

?????????????????????

Why all the defensiveness?

Is this some sort of cross-continental cultural misunderstanding that this clueless Yank doesn't get?
 

---

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caz...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I'm frankly still trying to wrap my head around the mentation of someone who, on a Christian forum, wants to argue about whether spiritual disciplines are a good thing.

---

Why? Because it works for you and therefore it must work for everyone?

---

quote:

---

What Gordon appears to be saying though is all must not!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:

quote:

---

What Gordon appears to be saying though is all must not!

---

Indeed. It would be useful if GC could come back here and explain what his position actually is, in case we've all misunderstood him. Useful, but not likely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
We are already as close to God as it is possible to be this side of heaven, because we are in Christ through faith.

---

quote:

---

But the key question for me is not the practice of spiritual discipline itself (although it would be nice to get it a bit defined) but the question of what we think we are achieving by practicing it. Although I don't oppose certain forms of spiritual discipline [still awaiting definition], I don't think we are achieving anything by it. We are already as close to God as it is possible to be this side of heaven, because we are in Christ through faith.

---

Thanks for explaining. But, at least for me, I hold a different point of view.

As Christ said, "Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect". Paul makes constant reference to 'finishing the race' and 'struggling against the flesh'. We need to be transformed into the likeness of God, in this world or the next. We need to overcome our sinful desires and our indeed our sin. Christ has accomplished all, Christ has accomplished our redemption: but we still need to do our part. No doubt this is where we start to diverge.

It's painful, bloody painful -- but necessary. And, if we aren't perfect at the end of this life, the transformation awaits us after death -- and we need to go through it there.

Ian.

[ 28. October 2005, 00:02: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Although I don't oppose certain forms of spiritual discipline [still awaiting definition], I don't think we are achieving anything by it. We are already as close to God as it is possible to be this side of heaven, because we are in Christ through faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Gordon,

Do you really think we were talking about rolling naked in thorns to counter lust (St Benedict?) or flagellating ourselves on the way to church? Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I rather thought it was clear that the spiritual discipline being talked about was with the aim of us overcoming our passions and drawing near to God. Though if people want to roll around in thorns and whip themselves, I won't judge -- even if I may look askance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not sure why people think I've achieved theosis or anything like it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the one with a wonderous new avatar, Josephine:
...or in prelest...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Since theosis is the goal, and spiritual discipline a tool for reaching that goal, if you've already reached it, you have no need of the tool.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not sure I've said 'spiritual discipline' is wrong, but I do find it a slightly woolly concept. To what does it refer? Does it refer to 'self-discipline' (Humblebum's paraphrase)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Or does it refer to something right up the other end of the spectrum (and I don't necessarily say that any of you are suggesting this) corporal mortification, such as the wearing of a cilice (as seen on TV, or rather, I am sure as eggs that we will get the idea from the upcoming Da Vinci movie). From an evangelical perspective, there is a lot to be said about why such practices are questionable.

Obviously from my (conservative evangelical) perspective I oppose the second and support the first.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
By the way, Carys, thankyou for the Bible texts. I don't believe they support the idea of spiritual discipline in the sense of praying regularly at a set time (for example). I think they support the idea of praying, which I do frequently.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Being saved from hell, and living with the Lord Jesus and his children forever is the goal. But yes, anyone who is in Christ (which happens by trusting him for forgiveness) has achieved that goal already, through what he's done on the cross. So if this is what you mean by theosis, then you're right, I have no need of spiritual discipline. Nor does anyone else who loves and trusts Jesus.

---

[irony]
Right enough Gordon, God only cares about your eternal destiny - he has no interest at all in the transformation of your character...
[/irony]
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Being saved from hell, and living with the Lord Jesus and his children forever is the goal. But yes, anyone who is in Christ (which happens by trusting him for forgiveness) has achieved that goal already, through what he's done on the cross. So if this is what you mean by theosis, then you're right, I have no need of spiritual discipline. Nor does anyone else who loves and trusts Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Morning all (Sydney time), just stepping in with a bit of trepidation as I realize, being out of Hell, that I must now turn my brain cells on.

I'm not sure I've said 'spiritual discipline' is wrong, but I do find it a slightly woolly concept. To what does it refer? Does it refer to 'self-discipline' (Humblebum's paraphrase)? If so, then that is part of the fruit of the Spirit (ie self control) and consequently rather hard to argue against. In fact, I wouldn't start.

---

quote:

---

seem suspiciously like a nice way of saying 'legalism',

---

quote:

---

He gives it freely to those who ask, which is why I think the idea of practising spiritual discipline is potentially insulting.

---

quote:

---

Or does it refer to something right up the other end of the spectrum (and I don't necessarily say that any of you are suggesting this) corporal mortification, such as the wearing of a cilice (as seen on TV, or rather, I am sure as eggs that we will get the idea from the upcoming Da Vinci movie). From an evangelical perspective, there is a lot to be said about why such practices are questionable.

Obviously from my (conservative evangelical) perspective I oppose the second and support the first.

---

quote:

---

But the key question for me is not the practice of spiritual discipline itself (although it would be nice to get it a bit defined) but the question of what we think we are achieving by practicing it. Although I don't oppose certain forms of spiritual discipline [still awaiting definition], I don't think we are achieving anything by it. We are already as close to God as it is possible to be this side of heaven, because we are in Christ through faith.

---

quote:

---

By the way, Carys, thankyou for the Bible texts. I don't believe they support the idea of spiritual discipline in the sense of praying regularly at a set time (for example). I think they support the idea of praying, which I do frequently. At least I think I do, because I don't tend to keep records and I am a bit absent-minded about these things and quite a lot more besides, so my wife tells me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not sure why people think I've achieved theosis or anything like it. I just know that I'm "in Christ" because of his work and his work alone. So are you, if you trust him.

Phillipians 3:10-12 explains this well, especially the words "not that I have already attained this".

Gotta go, back later.

---

quote:

---

Philippians 3:10-12
I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the one with a wonderous new avatar, Josephine:
...or in prelest...

---

[Ignorance]
What is "prelest"? My (obviously incomplete) dictionary doesn't have it.

Thanks,
Ian.

---

quote:

---

The term prelest is a Russian word which has come into Englisg usage for lack of a precise equivalent, although it is often translated as "spiritual delusion ," "spiritual deception," or "illusion," accepting a delusion for reality in contrast to spiritual sobriety. Prelest carries a connotation of allurement in the sense that the serpent beguiled Eve by means of the forbidden fruit. (Apart from its spiritual context, the word in Russian is often used in a positive sense of something charming, "lovely.")

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Hi Josephine,

I had picked up that you were using irony, but thanks for pointing it out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Since theosis is the goal, and spiritual discipline a tool for reaching that goal, if you've already reached it, you have no need of the tool.

---

Being saved from hell, and living with the [heavenly father] and his children forever is the goal.

---

quote:

---

But yes, anyone who is in Christ (which happens by trusting him for forgiveness) has achieved that goal already, through what he's done on the cross. So if this is what you mean by theosis, then you're right, I have no need of spiritual discipline. Nor does anyone else who loves and trusts Jesus.

I'm not sure what you understand by the term 'spiritual discipline', however, and it may be different from what I understand by it?

---

Hopeful we've explained why it is that we thing that there is more to theosis than just being justified. It's not that everything is ok once we're converted, but that we are turned to fact the right way and then have to get on with living the right way, but knowing that we won't get it right and continually turning back (repenting) and trying again.

Carys
 

---

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Thanks for the explanation of prelest Carys. And for all your other wise thoughts to which I add my .

To me, unless I'm misunderstanding Gordon, my confusion stems from (1) what Ricardus wrote: I was sure evangelicalism also encouraged us to strive to be ever more holy. I'm sure it does. I have a book in front of me with at least one evangelical author (J Packer) being quoted:

quote:

---

In relation to sin, [holiness] takes the form of a resistance movement, a discipline of not gratifying the desires of the flesh, but of putting to death the deeds of the body.

quoted in Search Me, O God, Andrew Atherston, 2003, Grove Books, Cambridge

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Thanks for the explanation of prelest Carys.

---

quote:

---

And for all your other wise thoughts to which I add my .

---

quote:

---

To me, unless I'm misunderstanding Gordon, my confusion stems from (1) what Ricardus wrote: I was sure evangelicalism also encouraged us to strive to be ever more holy. I'm sure it does. I have a book in front of me with at least one evangelical author (J Packer) being quoted:

quote:

---

In relation to sin, [holiness] takes the form of a resistance movement, a discipline of not gratifying the desires of the flesh, but of putting to death the deeds of the body.

quoted in Search Me, O God, Andrew Atherston, 2003, Grove Books, Cambridge

---

and (2) as Carys said, bearing the fruits of love, peace, patience... Which, at least for me, takes effort.

---

quote:

---

9. The Holy Spirit lives in all those he has regenerated. He makes them increasingly Christlike in character and behaviour and gives them power for their witness in the world.

---

quote:

---

Am I misunderstanding you Gordon? Or do you believe that none of this is necessary?

Thanks; In Christ,
Ian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I used to follow the traditional Reformed (and especially 17thC Puritan) view of sanctification as that bit of the Christian life that comes inbetween

justification (the point where God declares the sinner 'not guilty' because they've trusted in him)

and

glorification (theosis, the beatific vision, what have you, whilst recognizing that those things are not identical to each other).

The verse that first gave me pause was 1 Cor 6:11 "But you were washed, you were justified, you were sanctified".

Which suggested to me that the Reformed view of sanctification

(what most Shipmates on this thread seem to be linking fairly closely with 'spiritual discipline')

---

quote:

---

was, if not wrong, at least using the idea of sanctification in a way which was not the way the Bible normally used it.

As I understand it the word 'sanctification' in the original Greek ('hagiadzw') means that the one sanctified now belongs to God, literally they have been 'separated' or 'set apart' (the Greek word group 'hagiadzw' is also translated as 'holy' or 'saintly') . That is, as far as the New Testament is concerned, we are already 'holy' and we are already 'saints'.

---

quote:

---

There is the slight problem that we continue to sin. This problem will be fixed permanently when we die or go to heaven, whichever comes first. In the meantime, we are to live out what we are. I am still not sure whether 'spiritual discipline', however it is defined, has any part in this. I know that God discplines us, and that we are required to respond to his grace and his discipline. Whether it is wise to get much more prescriptive than that about how we stop sinning, well, I'm just not sure. Some of you lot seem to be.

---

quote:

---

There were some specific questions and points addressed to me which I'm not trying to avoid (really, TW), but that is the framework from which I might start to answer them, and I thought it was important to get that into place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
`We are required to respond to his grace', yes, and spiritual disciplines are ways of doing that!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Being saved from hell, and living with the Lord Jesus and his children forever is the goal. But yes, anyone who is in Christ (which happens by trusting him for forgiveness) has achieved that goal already, through what he's done on the cross. So if this is what you mean by theosis, then you're right, I have no need of spiritual discipline. Nor does anyone else who loves and trusts Jesus.

---

Gordon,

Is it your view that we are never made *actually* holy, just *counted* holy? Because that is not how I understand Evangelicalism.

If we are actually to be made holy, then clearly there is lots of scope for us to be made more Christlike, which is where the spiritual discipline comes in. (You don't even have to abandon Jean Calvin on this one: the process may be just as much a work of the Spirit as your conversion.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Hi Carys,

Well, I promise to come back. There are a number of questions floating around, but I think this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
`We are required to respond to his grace', yes, and spiritual disciplines are ways of doing that!

---

is the one that might need to be picked over.

If instead of 'spiritual disciplines' you'd said 'faith', my particular difficulty would be over. But you didn't!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I used to follow the traditional Reformed (and especially 17thC Puritan) view of sanctification as that bit of the Christian life that comes inbetween

justification (the point where God declares the sinner 'not guilty' because they've trusted in him)

and

glorification (theosis, the beatific vision, what have you, whilst recognizing that those things are not identical to each other).

The verse that first gave me pause was 1 Cor 6:11 "But you were washed, you were justified, you were sanctified".

Which suggested to me that the Reformed view of sanctification

(what most Shipmates on this thread seem to be linking fairly closely with 'spiritual discipline')

was, if not wrong, at least using the idea of sanctification in a way which was not the way the Bible normally used it.

As I understand it the word 'sanctification' in the original Greek ('hagiadzw') means that the one sanctified now belongs to God, literally they have been 'separated' or 'set apart' (the Greek word group 'hagiadzw' is also translated as 'holy' or 'saintly') . That is, as far as the New Testament is concerned, we are already 'holy' and we are already 'saints'.

---

quote:

---

Justification = Something past tense that happened when we became Christians

Sanctification = An ongoing process (present and future tense) that will continue until glory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Just a branch on the vine:
How you grow spiritually? What disciplines/practices help you connect to God/Jesus? How does one stay fresh and vibrant in faith without becoming a legalist?

Just wondering – I was hoping some fresh ideas would help me see things in a way I haven’t been able to previously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not too keen on the idea of disciplines and practices, although I'm sure I have them. Naming them 'disciplines' and 'practices' seem suspiciously like a nice way of saying 'legalism', so I tend to try to steer clear if I possibly can. So far the approach has worked well.

---

If that works for you then fair enough. But for me 'disciplines' are there to help not hinder. In a busy life it is sometimes good to have a set time/period of time for prayer and certain goals, wether spiritual or practical.

Being disciplined does not mean being legalistic, in fact since starting a certain 'disciplined' way of life I have found it very freeing. When I am disciplined people wonder what I am on I am so joyful, when I let it slip I am not so good. But it is horses for courses.

Just a branch on the vine....I grow when I am disciplined, prayer times/periods, goals, confession, penitence etc...but what works for me may not work for others.
 

---

Posted by Dogsbody (# 9355) on :
 
sorry to double post but missed the edit window.

What is wrong with discipline? I have to be disciplined to spend time with certain members of my family instead of just saying Hi now and again. I love my family but may sometimes neglect them (paremts, husband) or pay them little attention or no undivided attention. I sometimes have to be disciplined to spend proper time with them. The same goes for God. For me I owe him more than an arrow prayer or a fleeting 'please help me'. Personally a discipline helps me spend quality time with Him. I owe Him that. Incidently, my motives for such discipline are partly selfish, since I always feel much better after a good half hour deep in prayer.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:


But reading and re-reading this last post of yours, you appear to be nit-picking with theological words in order to show that you personally (along with all those who are in Christ) actually ARE as holy as you could ever be expected to be (since we're taking the proof texts at face value here), and hence no further transformation of character is required.

[irony]Wow - I'm really quite impressed... [/irony]

---

quote:

---

seasick:

You show us your faith without spiritual disciplines and we'll show you ours with them.

---

quote:

---

humblebum:

So you've arrived at the position that self-discipline is (for all practical purposes) irrelevent to living the Christian life....<snip>
The framework you've attempted to construct from the New Testament says that self-discipline is irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Paul:

If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world do you submit to regulations—'Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch (referring to things that all perish as they are used) according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promotin self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

---

quote:

---

humblebum:


By the way - can I apologize to "Just a branch on the vine" for all this? This was a perfectly nice thread about useful advice for praying and spiritual growth, before it got completely sidetracked

---

quote:

---

Gordon Cheng said:
which I take it is an allusion to James 2:18, "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works."

I think if this is what you had in mind, you need to show that the 'works' intended include the so-called spiritual disciplines. Isn't James rather exhorting us (looking at the context of this statement) to making sure that our brother or sister is not "poorly clothed" and is not "lacking in daliy food" (James 2:15)? That sort of work is for their benefit, not ours. By contrast, the way 'spiritual discipline' has been discussed on this thread so far, it has been with the idea of producing benefit for the one performing the discipline. So no, I don't think that on the basis of James we can argue that faith expresses itself in 'spiritual discipline', with the exception I've already noted*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
How [do] you grow spiritually?

Only by trusting God's word, the Bible (which, by definition, includes doing what it says)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
If God blesses daily prayer by answering it, it is because it is prayer, rather than because it is daily. There are other sorts of spiritual discipline that would seem to me to be of doubtful or even negative value, such as the wearing of a cilice, and even something like fasting. Doubtful because I don't see where God has promised to bless such things.

---

But spiritual disciple is not precisely an end in itself to be blessed. It is more a kind of training. Fasting teaches us how to forgo things we want but don't need - so that, if in real life we have to make real sacrifices, we are to some extent prepared for it by having already trained ourselves in abstinence.

You're probably going to respond, "How can we train ourselves? Surely only grace and grace alone will provide the abstinence?" Now, ISTM we are all politely stepping round the issues of free will and Calvinism and all the rest of it that underlie this sort of question. However, you yourself said (IIRC!) that grace does not operate independently of normal human interactions, e.g. that we are predestined for salvation but that this must still be made manifest by our conversion. In the same way, there is no reason why the process of "sanctification" should not be made manifest by spiritual discipline. In the hypothetical situation that Calvin was right, of course.

[ 28. October 2005, 22:21: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
If you're going to answer my questions for me, Ricardus, then what need is there for me to post? Wait a minute

Yes, I agree, with the answer you said I would give to your question.

However the better paradigm (Better Because Biblical! ) for what I do day to day, I suggest, is not 'training' but 'response'. I respond to the realization of grace by praying. It may turn out that it's a daily habit. It may turn out that it's a seven-times daily habit. It may turn out to be completely random and disorganized. I suspect that has got to do with what the psychologists call 'personality. Those who are more habitual tend to look down on those who aren't and sanctify their habits by calling them 'spiritual disciplines'.

correct me if I'm being too cynical, though
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 

quote:

---

Those who are more habitual tend to look down on those who aren't and sanctify their habits by calling them 'spiritual disciplines'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Those who are more habitual tend to look down on those who aren't and sanctify their habits by calling them 'spiritual disciplines'.

---

quote:

---

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.

25Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. 26Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. 27No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

---

quote:

---

The second issue is ongoing sin. I'm told that the answer to this is spiritual discipline.

To which I say, if you mean by that the spiritually produced fruit of self control, and responding to God's grace by faith expressing itself in love, then I have no problem with this. The way to such spiritual discipline is to comprehend God's grace shown in Christ. There is no other way. We comprehend it by hearing about it in the gospel and, by God's grace and Holy Spirit, trusting what we hear.

But if you mean something other than this, such as reading the daily offices, silent meditation, or even personal prayer at a regular time of day, then the best that could be said about them is that you are free to do them. If God blesses daily prayer by answering it, it is because it is prayer, rather than because it is daily. There are other sorts of spiritual discipline that would seem to me to be of doubtful or even negative value, such as the wearing of a cilice, and even something like fasting. Doubtful because I don't see where God has promised to bless such things (whereas I do see, by contrast, where he has promised to answer prayer). And even daily prayer wouldn't be blessed by God if we were praying in opposition to his revealed will or, as James says "You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AdamPater:
Gordon, I've just been struck with the gaping realisation that you seem to believe that you only encounter the Holy Spirit by reading and understanding the Bible.

That's not true, is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Well, Carys posted a selection of texts here. I would add 1 Corinthians 9:24-7:

quote:

---

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.

25Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. 26Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. 27No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

---

Hence, training, which implies discipline, of which habit is a form.

In any case, experience alone suggests that habit is useful.

And now I'm afraid I must depart.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Ricardus: Although, useful because it is a habit? Now I'm back to, where is that in the Bible? Which, from your perspective, you may or may not feel to be an important question, but from my end is, er, fundamental.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:

***If you are an ordained Anglican clergyperson who has VOWED to uphold the standards of this church, then you have also, by default, VOWED to be regular in prayer and reading of the scriptures. In most places outside of Sydney, and as far back as the Church of England and its affiliates have existed, this has been taken to mean praying Morning and Evening Prayer. This is a discipline imposed by the Church as a bare minimum: precisely because if we are not "plugged into the source" there's no way we can do effective ministry to God's people, or preach the gospel effectively. If I, three or four years from now, were not doing this then I would be breaking vows I had made before God - of which I would be extremely wary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
So the question is, to those of you who do practice spiritual disciplines of some sort, I imagine you would feel that of necessity, you would have advanced spiritually beyond the point that I have reached? Or is that a silly thing to ask?

---

quote:

---

Put slightly differently, would you consider me, in light of what I've said, to be spiritually stunted and to be greatly helped by what y'all are engaging in?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AdamPater:
"There are no silly questions, only silly people." But for that one I'd make an exception. Comparative spiritual performance tracking has never crossed my mind, and I believe it to be forbidden in scripture and in any case contrary to the whole vibe.
)

---

quote:

---

Originally poster by AdamPater:

Isn't that the sort of thing you should discuss with your spiritual director?

(Do you honestly not have one?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:


What's a 'spiritual director'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
What's a 'spiritual director'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AdamPater:
Attempting to engage with your disingenuousness is more of a trial than my spirit can bear, Gordon. You are a liar, a deceiver and a stumbling block to the work of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
What's a 'spiritual director'?

---

quote:

---

So the question is, to those of you who do practice spiritual disciplines of some sort, I imagine you would feel that of necessity, you would have advanced spiritually beyond the point that I have reached? Or is that a silly thing to ask? Put slightly differently, would you consider me, in light of what I've said, to be spiritually stunted and to be greatly helped by what y'all are engaging in?

---

quote:

---

Being saved from hell, and living with the Lord Jesus and his children forever is the goal. But yes, anyone who is in Christ (which happens by trusting him for forgiveness) has achieved that goal already, through what he's done on the cross. So if this is what you mean by theosis, then you're right, I have no need of spiritual discipline. Nor does anyone else who loves and trusts Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Yes, I thought the 1 Cor 9 verses might appear in the discussion, so thanks for mentioning them, Ricardus.

---

quote:

---

A genuine question: I've admitted on this thread to not having spiritual disciplines, to working against having them and to finding them personally unhelpful (at least I think I said that last one; if I didn't say it earlier I am now).

---

quote:

---

So the question is, to those of you who do practice spiritual disciplines of some sort, I imagine you would feel that of necessity, you would have advanced spiritually beyond the point that I have reached?

---

quote:

---

Or is that a silly thing to ask? Put slightly differently, would you consider me, in light of what I've said, to be spiritually stunted and to be greatly helped by what y'all are engaging in?

By the way, I think I've said it before but just to make it clear again, I don't believe there is such a thing as the effort-free Christian life. In fact, I believe it is much harder being a Christian than not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by AdamPater:
"There are no silly questions, only silly people." But for that one I'd make an exception. Comparative spiritual performance tracking has never crossed my mind, and I believe it to be forbidden in scripture and in any case contrary to the whole vibe.
)

---

I thought spiritual disciplines were supposed to bring you closer to God? The terms 'farther' and 'nearer' must mean something.

---

quote:

---

What's a 'spiritual director'?

---

quote:

---

This morning at church a lady told me that she believed the crisis that brought down here marriage was when she started to read the Bible daily. I have no idea whether that has anything to do with our discussion, but I thought I might mention it and youse can tell me what to make of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Yes, farther and nearer mean something for me as an individual, but what I (and AdamPater, I think) would say is that we can know for ourselves whether we are closer to God, but that it is not our place to judge on where other people are.

---

quote:

---

When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?" Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
A genuine question: I've admitted on this thread to not having spiritual disciplines, to working against having them and to finding them personally unhelpful (at least I think I said that last one; if I didn't say it earlier I am now).

So the question is, to those of you who do practice spiritual disciplines of some sort, I imagine you would feel that of necessity, you would have advanced spiritually beyond the point that I have reached? Or is that a silly thing to ask? Put slightly differently, would you consider me, in light of what I've said, to be spiritually stunted and to be greatly helped by what y'all are engaging in?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
But if the exercise of 'spiritual discipline' becomes a primary expression of faith, that sounds like something that could work against spiritual growth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I don't agree with Gordon's take on the Bible, but if he's saying something like the notion of distance from God is about perception not reality, then I'd say he's right.

If faith depends on how close we feel to God, I don't see it has much value at all. If spiritual discipline is only some people's take on how to live a better life, if they find feeling close to God helps with that, then fair enough.

---

quote:

---

But if the exercise of 'spiritual discipline' becomes a primary expression of faith, that sounds like something that could work against spiritual growth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Why has the OP provoked such strong reactions from some Shipmates?

---

They're not good Christians.
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
The goal for the athlete is to win. The goal for the Christian is to become by grace what God is by nature. It takes effort, either way.

---

quote:

---

I think the single thing that has had the most impact on my spiritual growth was reflecting on Luther's Small Catechism ... trying to put it into practice in my dealings with other people, has been of enormous benefit to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
What do you mean by a primary expression of faith? Spiritual discipline is good because it helps foster other goods, rather than being an end in itself. Piano practice is good because it helps you become a good pianist, but the definition of "good pianist" is not "one who practises a lot".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
]I think what I'm struggling with is the connection between learning a skill, becoming a virtuoso even, and the process by which we become more God-oriented. Ordinary secular life seems like a natural environment for that.

---

quote:

---

My unexpected agreement with Dave leads me to suspect that we may be talking about two different religions; one with spiritual disciplines and one without.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Because I find nothing in scripture to suggest that spiritual disciplines (defined broadly as habits I seek to inculcate to strengthen my relationship with God)

---

quote:

---

The experience of heaven comes about in one of two ways only; firstly by passing through death and judgement, secondly (and as the only alternative) by being present on the day Christ returns to judge (in which case we are transformed without dying). This thread is helpful in thinking that through.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I think what I'm struggling with is the connection between learning a skill, becoming a virtuoso even, and the process by which we become more God-oriented.

---

quote:

---

Ordinary secular life seems like a natural environment for that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AdamPater:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Because I find nothing in scripture to suggest that spiritual disciplines (defined broadly as habits I seek to inculcate to strengthen my relationship with God)

---

I for one wouldn't be happy with your broad definition at all: you, once again, insist on reading far too much independent effort into what can only ever be seeking to cooperate with God's grace and work.

---

quote:

---

Following your style of argument, I would point out that, being in Christ, and joined with him in his death and resurrection, we have already died and risen again. Nothing more is to be done, for Christ has done all, in all. Heaven is where God is, and heaven enfolds us now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Even the idea of 'co-operation' I would be uncomfortable with. By nature I am unco-operative.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Following your style of argument, I would point out that, being in Christ, and joined with him in his death and resurrection, we have already died and risen again. Nothing more is to be done, for Christ has done all, in all. Heaven is where God is, and heaven enfolds us now.

---

Funnily enough, I believe that this is what the New Testament teaches; Ephesians 2:1-10 would be one example of this.

---

quote:

---

Paradoxically (and I believe some liberals would write it off as contradictory, but I don't think this is you Adam) the New Testament also insists that there is a part of this experience of heaven that is as yet unrealized.

---

quote:

---

One really clear example of where the New Testament works to resolve antinomy is Romans 6, where Paul insists that we died with Christ, and that although we are now in Christ, yet we await the day where we will be raised with him (although it is obvious that Christ has indeed been raised).

So we are to live out what we have become, although we are still looking forward to being united with him in resurrection (although we are now united). You see the tension I'm sure. That living out what we are to become refers to offering the parts of our bodies as slaves to righteousness. Obviously I have yet to be persuaded that there is anywhere in the Bible where it is linked to some specific activity such as daily prayer.

---

quote:

---

An even starker example of this tension is in Philippians 2:12-13. "Therefore my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in your absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling...

[suggesting to the casual reader that the Christian life is a life of effort and strain]

for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

[suggesting what appears to be, but I believe isn't, the opposite, which is that God is the one doing the work].

---

quote:

---

Whether you call this co-operation or not I don't know.

---

quote:

---

I would prefer not; I am uncomfortable with the language if it suggests two equal partners (or even somewhat unequal partners) working to achieve an end.But even here I don't see that Paul is endorsing a notion of specific spiritual disciplines; he seems to be exhorting the Philippians to an entire life dedicated to working out the consequences of having already belonged to Christ through the gospel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Even the idea of 'co-operation' I would be uncomfortable with. By nature I am unco-operative.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Luther:
A Christian man is most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to everyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
It's just that my basic (human) nature has an intense hatred of discipline and any sort of law (even the obvious, brilliant, stunningly right ones such as "do not murder") which can only be overcome by a miracle. I don't believe my hatred of discipline can be overcome by discipline.

---

quote:

---

13. We affirm that the righteousness of Christ by which we are justified is properly his own, which he achieved apart from us, in and by his perfect obedience. This righteousness is counted, reckoned, or imputed to us by the forensic (that is, legal) declaration of God, as the sole ground of our justification.

We deny that any works we perform at any stage of our existence add to the merit of Christ or earn for us any merit that contributes in any way to the ground of our justification (Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8–9; Titus 3:5).

14. We affirm that, while all believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and are in the process of being made holy and conformed to the image of Christ, those consequences of justification are not its ground. God declares us just, remits our sins, and adopts us as his children, by his grace alone, and through faith alone, because of Christ alone, while we are still sinners (Rom. 4:5).

We deny that believers must be inherently righteous by virtue of their cooperation with God’s life-transforming grace before God will declare them justified in Christ. We are justified while we are still sinners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But the part of spiritual discipline that is legalism (and you can't tell me that there is no such part) must be utterly rejected and committed to the flames. IMHO.

---

Alas, I do so tell you.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
The entire argument, as I understand it, is built around avoiding merit, and attributing everything to Christ.

Personally, I don't think that the argument holds water. If you have the capacity to believe in Christ, you have the capacity to employ spiritual discipline in order to grow spiritually.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AdamPater:
Alas, I do so tell you.

---

quote:

---

The word I highlight is the word I deny. We have no such capacity.

---

Yet I rejoice in the observation that I do, in fact, believe in Christ, and even more so that I am continuing to learn what it means to believe in Christ. Having observed me in this state, I must conclude that I have the capacity to be in this state. Ipso facto, QED, up-ya-bum, yah-pooh-sucks. You're wrong.

All by the grace of Christ, of course. I'm sure you wouldn't be wrong in any other way
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by AdamPater:

quote:

---

Originally posted by AdamPater:
Alas, I do so tell you.

---

To be more precise I should say, I do so tell you about the things I'm talking about, and I agree with you about the things that you seem to be talking about, but I can't seem to communicate that the things about which I am speaking are not the things about which you are speaking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
That would be because speaking of spiritual discipline is, as much as we might like it to be otherwise, really a matter of speaking of the externals of behaviour rather than the inward working of grace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:
By the way - can I apologize to "Just a branch on the vine" for all this? This was a perfectly nice thread about useful advice for praying and spiritual growth, before it got completely sidetracked into a discussion of the idiosyncracies of Gordon's own personal doctrine of soteriology.

---

Not a problem. The whole thread has been helpful, actually. I don't feel too badly about dropping off the face of the earth, because I doubt I could have added much to the thread anyway.

[tangent]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng: Even the idea of 'co-operation' I would be uncomfortable with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
That would be because speaking of spiritual discipline is, as much as we might like it to be otherwise, really a matter of speaking of the externals of behaviour rather than the inward working of grace.

---

Can't be both/and? Only either/or?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AdamPater:
Abraham cooperates with his Lord.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
In much the same way, presumably, as light cooperated with God when God said "Let there be light".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AdamPater:
Honestly, you are making absolutely no sense at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Response is the right word, though, isn't it. I don't believe Abraham had a free choice in the matter, .... <snip>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AdamPater:
Gordon, over the past 24 hours, I've been carefully assuming that you don't understand what others a talking about. The past hour leads to believe you are living a caricature of Calvinism that I've tried to tell Catholic and <shudder> "liberal" friends doesn't really exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AdamPater:
He had no choice in the matter? No choice at all?

---

quote:

---

TW, if I pursue a religion that involves no spiritual discipline whatsoever (and that is what I am currently committed to doing, with the previously noted qualifications about 'self-control' on page 1 of this thread), then I suggest it is at least possible that it is a different religion from one that does involve spiritual discipline.

---

quote:

---

(surely not - it must be an accident on your part)

---

There is an existing Hell thread for you to say this sort of thing on. But thank you for your question; if you are able to rephrase it with the personal attack removed I will have a go at answering.
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
One thing puzzles me. I thought Anglican clergy were required to do spiritual discipline, in the form of saying Morning and Evening prayer daily? I'm sure this is the case in the Church of England at least.


 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Sniping? Moi? Having seen the way you argue on many threads now surely I would have no grounds for complaining that you shift your ground when you've lost the main point?

Anyway, to be helpful let me rephrase my observation: The Abraham story, taken as a whole, is a good illustration of a believer co-operating with God, rather than "believer as flesh covered automotan". What say you, O bellicose imbelicile?
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Ricardus: No such requirement exists in Sydney Dio. But if it did, it wouldn't quite fit into the same sort of arguments about legalism I'm putting here. It would be a requirement imposed by the denomination, and Christian freedom would mean that I would be free to submit to it.

A significant part of the issue for me in this discussion is why something is done. If it's simply a matter of habit, or perhaps even if I pray because I suffer from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (at the moment it's just my posting on SoF that is a result of that ), that would have a different moral dimension to it than if I believed that the discipline itself was bringing me closer to God.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
TW: No, not there yet. Keep trying though
 

---

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
<why am I doing this?>

Gordon, I'm not sure that there's a "moral" point to these things at all. They are activities with practical value. Perhaps like washing your hands before a meal.

I don't see the "sniping" to which your refer. Your "debating" style is very frustrating: you don't show much interest in researching any point for yourself (such as "what's a spiritual director?", a question which a moments research on the Ship would answer), and you don't show much interest in exploring the way in which others use words differently to yourself.

I conjecture that this is related to the "Reformed" caricature I mentioned ealier: you universe is the product of logical deduction from your axioms, and so your "debate" is unable to venture beyond the universe you have defined. The concept of turning an argument back upon its assumptions in a dialectical fashion, so as to provide some advance in knowledge, appears to simply not occur to you.

I said, sincerely, that I'd pray for you. Why did you welcome that? What possible good could prayer do, give that the Almighty has already spoken?
 

---

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
for Paul's attack on certain types of spiritual disciplines, we don't need him speaking in triplicate, we already have him in singlicate attacking practises like fasting and the keeping of special days; whilst allowing that it may not in any and every circumstance a sin to do these things.

---

quote:

---

Galations 4:10
You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!

---

quote:

---

Romans 14:5-6**
One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

---

quote:

---

Colossians 2:20-23 If with Christ you died to the elmental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—do not handle, do not taste, do not touch (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh

---

quote:

---

1 Tim 4:1-4 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
What I object to in The Wanderer's approach is an assumption that I am deliberately evading questions that I find difficult. To assert this is a debating tactic I'm not interested in responding to, except to deny.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Carys: with regard to fasting, 2 passages spring to mind just off the top of my head (relevant phrases italicized).

quote:

---

Colossians 2:20-23 If with Christ you died to the elmental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—do not handle, do not taste, do not touch (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh

---

Also

quote:

---

1 Tim 4:1-4 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

---

Both passage seem to be targetting certain forms of spiritual discipline and pointing out that they are actually deleterious to spiritual health.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:

Surely then, this is a different situation from
the light in Genesis 1, since light has no will and makes no choices at all - free or otherwise.

---

I have two arguments that suggest the difference is not as great as appears.

The first is from the narrative parallelism of Genesis 1 and Genesis 11, where in both cases it is the unstoppable call of God that determines what will happen next (and Gen 18 and Gen 22 must be read in the light of this as continuing examples of how Abraham responds to the call of God - uh-oh, I answered TW's question )

The second argument is that Paul explicitly makes this connection between the word of God in creation and the word of God to Abraham, in Romans 4:17.

So it is not a connection I'd be making if the Bible didn't make it. It is a theological connection, not a psychological one. I agree that light does not think and choose in the way that we do, but that is not the point. The point is that God's word achieves what it sets out to achieve; his grace in speaking is irresistible.

The theme of the unity of purpose of God in creation and redemption is rich and deep. I recommend Covenant and Creation by W.J. Dumbrell if you want to follow this up.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Actually this response to me is a case in point to the assertion that you ignore difficult questions. You've answered my footnoted question about which passages you were meaning (which I mainly asked to see where you were coming from because I could not think of any specific anti-fasting comments in Paul and I don't think your suggestions are) but ignored my main point which was how you reconciled Paul's supposed comments against fasting with our Lord saying `when ye fast'? That was the question to which I really wanted the answer. You see to me, our Lord's words trump St Paul's!

Carys

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:

Surely then, this is a different situation from
the light in Genesis 1, since light has no will and makes no choices at all - free or otherwise.

---

I have two arguments that suggest the difference is not as great as appears.

The first is from the narrative parallelism of Genesis 1 and Genesis 11, where in both cases it is the unstoppable call of God that determines what will happen next (and Gen 18 and Gen 22 must be read in the light of this as continuing examples of how Abraham responds to the call of God - uh-oh, I answered TW's question )

The second argument is that Paul explicitly makes this connection between the word of God in creation and the word of God to Abraham, in Romans 4:17.

So it is not a connection I'd be making if the Bible didn't make it. It is a theological connection, not a psychological one. I agree that light does not think and choose in the way that we do, but that is not the point. The point is that God's word achieves what it sets out to achieve; his grace in speaking is irresistible.

The theme of the unity of purpose of God in creation and redemption is rich and deep. I recommend Covenant and Creation by W.J. Dumbrell if you want to follow this up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I am fascinated by how much I agree with you

---

It is unusual. I doubt it will happen too often though...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
On this issue I'm not sure how useful it is to distinguish secular from religious life. Fasting relates to eating, which would surely count as "secular". By non-secular do you mean such practices as, say, regular Bible study? But Scripture (alongside Reason and Tradition, of course) is supposed to be as much a foundation of my "secular" life as of my "religious" life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
The assumption seems to be that sincere practice of disciplines associated with some Christian traditions, like say regular Bible study or fasting, are in themselves of spiritual benefit. If spiritual growth is the process by which eternal values become our own, I don't see that any human activity of itself can be said to result in spiritual growth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:
I don't believe that the kind of disciplines we're talking about are of spiritual benefit in themselves. They are about training ourselves in attentiveness to God - if God weren't speaking, then no amount of listening on our parts would help us hear him better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
How is attentiveness to God different to doing the right thing? The notion of right implies attentiveness to all the relevant factors. 'What God says' only seems like a religious way of including some personal values, something I guess we'd all hope to do all the time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Perhaps my wariness about 'spiritual discipline' is that the change it's intend to effect can be seen as somehow of a different order to all the 'ordinary' stuff. It makes taking God seriously sound like something that cannot be a natural everyday whole-life thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lutheranchik:
But why, Dave, is a daily prayer practice not an everyday thing for Christians?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lutheranchik:
But that's the mindset -- a largely willful disconnect from healthy, wonderful, time-tested practices of prayer, of meditation, of living more mindfully in the world, until someone of the correct theological p.o.v. gets around to reinventing the wheel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:
My own experience of spiritual direction (from within the Ignatian tradition) really has been all about getting in touch with what God is doing and saying about and through all the everyday whole-life stuff - finding God in all things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Where I am is I guess more theoretical, attempting to locate a relationship with God in secular terms. I don't know where that will lead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:

But I am a little dismayed that you are unprepared to engage with the way other people read the passage, except to reassert your own exegesis. It does seem unfair for you to expect all discussion on this thread to be steered by your own exegetical framework, if you're not going to spend time taking an interest in the exegetical frameworks of other people.

---

quote:

---

Ex. 32:11 But Moses implored the LORD his God and said, “O LORD, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘With evil intent did he bring them out, to kill them in the mountains and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from your burning anger and relent from this disaster against your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, to whom you swore by your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your offspring, and they shall inherit it forever.’ ” 14 And the LORD relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people.

---

quote:

---

2Th. 3:1 Finally, brothers, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may speed ahead and be honored, as happened among you,

---

4. Because there are plenty of examples in the Bible of really triffic people who pray for others, and I feel on this basis that it would be a really nice thing if we all did it for each other, not just the people in the Bible.

That's all I can think of for the moment.

[idle comment follows]

Incidentally (and this is a general comment, not just aimed at you Adsy) because I am a kind of obssessive guy (and not at all because I am disciplined) I typed the word 'discipline' into my Bible programme, and found only one place in the whole Bible where we discipline ourselves, and that is the example of 1 Cor 9:27 that we've been talking about.

It made me wonder if we feel we lack discipline, we ought to ask the Lord to do it for us? After all, he is the one who does most of it in the Bible. He doesn't tell us to do it. He tells us that it is a sign of his love. Which makes me speculate as to whether, if we have to do the discipline ourselves because God isn't, we have somehow missed out on being loved by God?

Anyway, that is a fairly idle question, so if you think so too feel free to ignore it or treat it with all the respect that TW thinks I treat his questions with

[/idle comment ends]
 

---

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
Yeah, and I've heard someone argue black and blue that "socio-economic" isn't in the bible either.

So your God commands you to do stuff that you believe to be futile, since he's sovereign anyway. Weird. He sounds kind of lonely.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
It's not futile at all. If I didn't pray, my Heavenly Father wouldn't answer. And besides, I love spending time talking to him. He doesn't get all saracastic like some of youse.

ETA: Oops, sarcastic. Sara's some bird I know. Actually, so is SAR, who just flu in the other day.

[ 01. November 2005, 00:23: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
 

---

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
Except when He giggles at Jonah for being so grumpy after He hasn't given him the wherewithal to respond appropriately?
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Oh yeah there is that. And the end of Job. And...


OK, so I have separate Bible reading times to my prayer times. Keeps my sarcasm separate from the Lord's, at least.
 

---

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Mmm...I may disagree with Gordon on this, and on many other things as well no doubt, but I thank him for his explanations -- it's helped me to see where various friends are coming from. I can't fully understand it, as I have a different view, but I have a better idea.

quote:

---

Which makes me speculate as to whether, if we have to do the discipline ourselves because God isn't, we have somehow missed out on being loved by God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
The alternative as far as I can tell means pretending to accept Christianity in order to participate in a community of God-interested people. Seems somehow not that conducive to spiritual growth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

It made me wonder if we feel we lack discipline, we ought to ask the Lord to do it for us? After all, he is the one who does most of it in the Bible. He doesn't tell us to do it. He tells us that it is a sign of his love. Which makes me speculate as to whether, if we have to do the discipline ourselves because God isn't, we have somehow missed out on being loved by God?

---

quote:

---

You may think that you will be full of determination to resist outward trials if God will only grant you inward favours. His Majesty knows best what is suitable for us; it is not for us to advise Him what to give us, for He can rightly reply that we know not what we ask. All that the beginner in prayer has to do -- and you must not forget this, for it is very important -- is to labour and be resolute and prepare himself with all possible diligence to bring his will into conformity with the will of God. As I shall say later, you may be quite sure that this comprises the very greatest perfection which can be attained on the spiritual road. The more perfectly a person practises it, the more he will receive of the Lord and the greater the progress he will make on this road; do not think we have to use strange jargon or dabble in things of which we have no knowledge or understanding, our entire welfare is to be found in what I have described.

---

quote:

---

Fix your eyes on the Crucified and nothing else will be of much importance to you. If His Majesty revealed His love to us by doing and suffering such amazing things, how can you expect to please Him by words alone? Do you know when people really become spiritual? It is when they become the slaves of God and are branded with His sign, which is the sign of the Cross, in token that they have given Him their freedom. Then He can sell them as slaves to the whole world, as He Himself was sold, and if He does this He will be doing them no wrong but showing them no slight favour. Unless they resolve to do this, they need not expect to make great progress. ...I repeat that if you have this in view you must not build upon foundations of prayer and contemplation alone, for, unless you strive after the virtues and practise them, you will never grow to be more than dwarfs. God grant that nothing worse than this may happen -- for, as you know, anyone who fails to go forward begins to go back, and love, I believe, can never be content to stay for long where it is.

---

quote:

---

Ricardus: No such requirement exists in Sydney Dio. But if it did, it wouldn't quite fit into the same sort of arguments about legalism I'm putting here. It would be a requirement imposed by the denomination, and Christian freedom would mean that I would be free to submit to it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Um sweetums

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Duo: So presumably you'd dispute my understanding that I (and all who trust Jesus) are already "in Christ", and that it is not possible to be loser to someone than to be in them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I don't understand the last part of your sentence? How can someone be a 'loser'? To whom are they a 'loser'?

---

Can't you see the 'c'?? Oh...

Meant 'closer'.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Here's another thought, and I'm sorry it's all coming a bit randomly. In Hebrews 5:8 Jesus learns obedience through suffering.

I think this means the suffering that came to him because he was fulfilling his mission as a servant to all. If this is how Jesus learns obedience, isn't it the best way for us to learn obedience? (ie by suffering as we serve others).

Even if you wanted to stretch this suffering-in-service to individual acts of self-discipline, ISTM such acts would only have value insofar as they expressed obedience to the command "Love your neighbour". The idea of a solitary spiritual discipline is hard for me to understand.
 

---

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Ah...sorry. The spam filter must be getting rid of cs today.


I suppose it depends on how you interpret "in"; to me, we are in Christ, but not yet fully; we see as through a mirror darkly, but we will one day see fully. If our eventual aim is to be in God and that "God will be all in all", the "in" we are in currently is not complete. To me. And thus we work at being ever more conformed to the image and likeness of Christ.

How do you see the change, if any, between what we are and how we are now, and what life in God in heaven will be like?
 

---

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Even if you wanted to stretch this suffering-in-service to individual acts of self-discipline

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Duo: So presumably you'd dispute my understanding that I (and all who trust Jesus) are already "in Christ", and that it is not possible to be [c]loser to someone than to be in them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Talk about evading what I said and setting up a straw tangent, as it were. It also seems to be an odd understanding of being "in Christ". I wonder how you reconcile that proposition with one you have previously advanced here: that we are all inherently broken and sinful (even the Virgin Mary, as I recall).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
So Gordon are you saying there is no growing in holiness in this lifetime at all?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
So Gordon are you saying there is no growing in holiness in this lifetime at all?
-------------------------------------------------

I think I am, yes.

---

quote:

---

We ought to act like citizens of heaven, which we are (in Christ). What happened to Israel in the wilderness, and in 722 BC, 587 BC, 33ish AD and 70 AD are good reminders to me about why I ought to be what the bible tells me I am.

---

quote:

---

Jer. 31:31 says:
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
So Gordon are you saying there is no growing in holiness in this lifetime at all?

---

I think I am, yes. "Holiness means "saintly", or if were to translate it fully, "separate" or "set apart". We've already been separated because we were "redeemed" by Jesus, in the same sense that Israel was redeemed from Egypt. Once they came out, they weren't in Egypt any more, which was why they were called a "holy" nation.

Mind you they didn't act holy, which got them into bother. The New Testament keeps telling me to act holy ("Be holy because I am holy") and believe me, I need it. We ought to act like citizens of heaven, which we are (in Christ). What happened to Israel in the wilderness, and in 722 BC, 587 BC, 33ish AD and 70 AD are good reminders to me about why I ought to be what the bible tells me I am.

---

quote:

---

So we are changed because of the Holy Spirit's indwelling, not (I am contending and you will notice that others are disagreeing) by the use of spiritual disciplines, either in and of themselves or in some co-operative sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Morning and Evening Prayer (which is, by and large, a discipline of reading Scripture incidentally)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Actually this response to me is a case in point to the assertion that you ignore difficult questions. You've answered my footnoted question about which passages you were meaning (which I mainly asked to see where you were coming from because I could not think of any specific anti-fasting comments in Paul and I don't think your suggestions are) but ignored my main point which was how you reconciled Paul's supposed comments against fasting with our Lord saying `when ye fast'? That was the question to which I really wanted the answer. You see to me, our Lord's words trump St Paul's!

Carys

---

Sorry about that, I really don't mean to miss questions. Feel free to repeat them, I find there are lots of questions flying past and I don't doubt I am missing some.

"When you fast" suggests to me that fasting is permissible. That is not the same as assuming that everyone will do them; eg I might say in a talk I give "When you fill out your tax return", not at all assuming that everyone in the audience is a taxpayer. I think I've said a few times that certain practises are not forbidden.

---

quote:

---

I understand that fasting might be considered a spiritual discipline, but I'd want to see it argued more clearly. It may not be a spiritual issue at all in the New Testament, it may simply be expedient in the light of the urgency of a particular situaton and the time that might be spent in prayer. Or it might be something that we don't do, now that we are in Christ and united to his resurrection. You don't fast when the bridegroom is with you, by his Spirit (cf John the Baptist)

---

quote:

---

*I don't think that it is possible to argue that fasting is not a spiritual discipline even if you only practise it occasionally and irregularly.

---

quote:

---

Ian: well, yes, but the discipline that the Lord gives us in the Bible, for better or worse, tends to be the boot up the backside variety, aka unwanted suffering. Is there an example of the sort you're talking about? I may be obsessive but I'm also a bit lazy.

---

quote:

---

*Talking to a shipmate last night, we wondered whether discipline was being heard in the sense of what people claim is lacking schools and thinking of being punished if you failed. That is not what I mean here.

---

quote:

---

That is a misunderstanding of the points being made here and of the meaning of "spiritual discipline" which are practices designed to develop us spiritually, not to punish us. None of us can miss out on God's love - it is there for all, all of the time. We certainly don't have to punish ourselves, as a proxy for God's punishment, in order to merit that love.

---

quote:

---

That sort of situation is a parallel to my relationship with God much of the time. The spiritual disciplines are a way of helping me concentrate so that I focus on him rather than on all the other bits and pieces in my life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Morning and Evening Prayer (which is, by and large, a discipline of reading Scripture incidentally)

---

Yes!!

Will come back and treat your post a bit more seriously at some time, GF.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I do read the Bible regularly and pray, so I think I have kept what I promised, but it's a habit I sometimes fall into rather than a discipline.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
All I'm doing is giving reasons why I would think Abraham is not a good example of "cooperation with God" so much as willing response to God's prior action.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Things that might fall into the broad grab-bag of things known as 'spiritual discipline' include habits, duties, requirements imposed by the church or denomination (eg the timing and regularity of services), requirements imposed by government (eg government legislation regarding Holy days or clerical dress), legalisms, obsessions, self control, repeated ascetic practices, pragmatic arrangements regarding scheduling of activities, certain types of sado-masochism, mystic practices, eucharistic rituals, lectionaries, observance of saints days, the repetition of phrases, the blanking of the mind, daily Bible reading, well practiced choral music.

Taken as an overall category, it is like being given a sandwich containing ham, cheese, lettuce, mould, snail bait and rusty nails. One bite at the right point may be nutritious, another bite may lead to internal injuries, a different bite from another part may kill within hours.

For this reason I doubt the usefulness of the term 'spiritual discipline' and would like to see it broken down into its constituent parts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Humblebum, I've no doubt that the term 'cooperation' may include 'willing response to God's prior action', but it is not equivalent in meaning. The term 'cooperation' also leaves open the possibility that we might be making an independent contribution to our salvation, which I believe the Bible excludes as impossible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
My personal difficulty with the word 'spiritual discipline'....<and stuff>...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Taken as an overall category, it is like being given a sandwich containing ham, cheese, lettuce, mould, snail bait and rusty nails. One bite at the right point may be nutritious, another bite may lead to internal injuries, a different bite from another part may kill within hours.

For this reason I doubt the usefulness of the term 'spiritual discipline' and would like to see it broken down into its constituent parts.

---

quote:

---

Humblebum, I've no doubt that the term 'cooperation' may include 'willing response to God's prior action', but it is not equivalent in meaning. The term 'cooperation' also leaves open the possibility that we might be making an independent contribution to our salvation, which I believe the Bible excludes as impossible

---

quote:

---

My personal difficulty with the word 'spiritual discipline', and I think I may have mentioned this at a fairly early stage, is how vague it is. In the course of being vague, the term manages to cover over a variety of possibilities, some good, some indifferent, some spiritually dangerous. emphasis added

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The use of morning and evening prayer is not spiritually dangerous, under certain circumstances.

---

quote:

---

I infer from this statement that you think that under certain circumstances the use of morning and evening prayer is spiritually dangerous (otherwise why the qualification?). Therefore I have to ask what you think they might be?

---

quote:

---

Apart from the danger of legalism, which has already been conceeded and which can creep in to any activity however healthy, I can't think of any spiritual discipline which I would regard as "spiritually dangerous". Could you be specific and name the practices you are thinking of? It might help to clarify things here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Sure TW. I have noted the questions, and would like to have a proper go at answering, but have a sermon I need to finish. Unless I increase my evasiveness factor by several degrees, I feel the answer (no matter how nicely I put it) is likely to refresh my call to Hell. So I think, with apologies, the reply to this one will have to wait until Monday.

---

But arguably being more evasive will also lead to a renewal of the call to hell as frustration with your `evasions' has already been expressed here.

(and thanks Wanderer for administering the kick I'd contemplated!)

Carys
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
And there I was trying to be ever so gentle and tactful. Clearly I need more practice.
 

---

Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on :
 
Just to add to the comments for Gordon to respond to whenever he catches up...

The thing that strikes me here Gordon, is that you seem preoccupied with hypothetical meanings of words that might hypothetically be included in a definition of the term, but are plainly not meant by any of the people using them here.

With regards to "spiritual disciplines", several posters have pointed out that we're not talking aboJust to add to the comments for Gordon to respond to whenever he catches up...

The thing that strikes me here Gordon, is that you seem preoccupied with hypothetical meanings of words that might hypothetically be included in a definition of the term, but are plainly not meant by any of the people using them here.

With regards to "spiritual disciplines", several posters have pointed out that we're not talking about authoritarian discipline i.e. the kind of discipline that might or might not be maintained in schools - but rather disciplines in the same sense that piano playing is a discipline (in the world of music), or javelin throwing (in the world of athletics). We're talking about self-disiplined spiritual activities that train the practitioner in self-control and attentiveness to God. It's primarily about things that we choose ourselves to engage in - not something that is imposed on us by a church or government authority.

We're simply discussing "spiritual disciplines" in the normal sense that Christianity has used the expression - Richard Foster's "Celebration of Discipline" or Donald S Whitney's "Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life" give an overview from an evangelical perspective.

Your sandwich analogy doesn't really work, since no-one but yourself has suggested that the mould, the snail bait or the rusty nails should be put into the sandwich. We're holding out a variety of sandwiches (ham, egg & onion, blt) and saying "aren't sandwiches great?", and you're responding "no, no, hypothetical rusty nail sandwiches would be horrible". Which leaves the sandwich offerers feeling quite perplexed.

With regards to "cooperation": can you give an example in everyday language where the word "cooperation" could imply the possibility of an independent contribution to a shared goal? If I say that "I am cooperating with the police" I mean that I am going along with their investigations and am doing what they ask of me - there is no implication in the phrase that I am conducting my own private investigation.
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Isn't it Tuesday in the Antipodes by now? How strange that GC hasn't shown up........
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
.... at least, not here. He has been seen on the Ship, quite recently.
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Time rolls on and still no sign of GC. Carys, my dear, would you consider PMing him and asking him to return here? I would do it myself, but the last time I tried to get him to return to a thread he called me to Hell because he felt I was persecuting him, and I'm sure he wouldn't do that to a lady. Being a sensitive soul I would rather not get called to Hell again (although the experience was actually rather pleasant, with lots of kind people popping up to say pleasant things about me).
 

---

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Time rolls on and still no sign of GC. Carys, my dear, would you consider PMing him and asking him to return here? I would do it myself, but the last time I tried to get him to return to a thread he called me to Hell because he felt I was persecuting him, and I'm sure he wouldn't do that to a lady. Being a sensitive soul I would rather not get called to Hell again (although the experience was actually rather pleasant, with lots of kind people popping up to say pleasant things about me).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Carys, your PM box is full.

---

quote:

---

This is a busy week so I can't spend much ship time. TW will be able to come and tell you that it's because I'm evasive but hopefully the rest of you will understand that I need to spend some quality time doing a bit of non-ship stuff. Occasional quick replies on other threads may let you know that I'm still alive but this thread is now at the stage where I need to give some more detailed thought to what's being said.

---

quote:

---

TW, old bean, you seem to have taken my call to Hell rather to heart.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
This is a busy week so I can't spend much ship time. TW will be able to come and tell you that it's because I'm evasive but hopefully the rest of you will understand that I need to spend some quality time doing a bit of non-ship stuff. Occasional quick replies on other threads may let you know that I'm still alive but this thread is now at the stage where I need to give some more detailed thought to what's being said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Careful Carys. If you keep insinuating that GC is being evasive he might have to say that he is "not offended" by you as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Mea Culpa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

BTW has anyone seen Gordon posting of late?

Carys

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
BTW has anyone seen Gordon posting of late?

---

Yes, he was here not long ago... so

(bump)

(for the next time he comes back)

[ 20. November 2005, 11:40: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
The key here is the word 'co-operation'.

If we can co-operate with God, then 'spiritual discipline', defined however, is essential.

If we can't, it is otiose or worse.

But I contend that it's not possible to co-operate with God, unless you so loosen the meaning of the word 'co-operate' that it means "God doing whatever he wants to do, and me doing what I must". Before we talk about the possibility of spiritual discipline, then, we ought to talk about whether or not we can co-operate with God.

So, can we find in the Bible a meaningful example of anyone co-operating with God? Off the top of my head, I can't think of one.

Creation didn't co-operate with God when he caused it to come into being. It just did what it was told. (Actually, if we assume that men are creatures, that fact alone is enough to prove the case and nothing more can or should be added. QED.)

But if more is needed...

Adam contributed sin, and through sin came death. If sin is defined as 'co-operation', then again I suppose we can be said to have co-operated with God in our salvation.

Abraham did what he was told. "Go". (Gen 12:1) and he went.

Israel in Egypt had no choice whatsoever in whether or not they could be rescued out of Egypt. So certain was it that they would be rescued that the means of commemorating their rescue was provided before that rescue had occurred. (Exodus 12)

Israel in the wilderness had no choice but to be God's chosen people. They received God's designation as 'chosen people' and royal priesthood' without once being asked permission as to whether they really wanted to belong to God (Exodus 19:1-6)

Israel in the promised land had no choice but to accept God as their king. Their one attempt to reject God as king was named Saul, and he (and thus their choice) failed. If co-operation could be defined as 'stiff-necked rejection', then I suppose Israel in the promised land could be said to have co-operated with God.

Skip a few years...

Israel in exile had no choice as to whether or not they would receive the Spirit. They were dead, and God made them alive. Once alive, they couldn't choose to stay dead. (Ezekiel 37)

There is more to the Bible than the Old Testament, but it's not strictly necessary to prove the point that co-operation with God is impossible, so perhaps we could stay there just for the moment? In fact I would like to confine the discussion to the moment of creation, but it seems unlikely that I will be allowed to.

Cheers one and all, and see you in the (Aussie) morning
 

---

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
Our Lady co-operated with God when she said "Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it unto me according to thy word" - she made the choice to obey God's will and bring about the incarnation. Ergo, co-operation with God is possible .
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by seasick:
Our Lady

---

Your Lady, sunshine, not mine. Anyway, that's New Testament, so I'm not talking about it at the moment. Goodnight!
 

---

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Abraham did what he was told. "Go". (Gen 12:1) and he went.

---

quote:

---

There is more to the Bible than the Old Testament, but it's not strictly necessary to prove the point that co-operation with God is impossible, so perhaps we could stay there just for the moment? In fact I would like to confine the discussion to the moment of creation, but it seems unlikely that I will be allowed to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seasick:
Our Lady

---

Your Lady, sunshine, not mine. Anyway, that's New Testament, so I'm not talking about it at the moment. Goodnight!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Creation didn't co-operate with God when he caused it to come into being. It just did what it was told. (Actually, if we assume that men are creatures, that fact alone is enough to prove the case and nothing more can or should be added. QED.)

---

quote:

---

Israel in the promised land had no choice but to accept God as their king. Their one attempt to reject God as king was named Saul, and he (and thus their choice) failed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AdamPater:

quote:

---

There is more to the Bible than the Old Testament, but it's not strictly necessary to prove the point that co-operation with God is impossible, so perhaps we could stay there just for the moment? In fact I would like to confine the discussion to the moment of creation, but it seems unlikely that I will be allowed to.

---

Confining discussion so as to exclude counter-examples? Is this what you call thinking?

---

quote:

---

AP:
qb]Joshua 24:14-16 more than suggests people having an option, and therefore cooperating.[/qb]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Huh? Why should we confine the discussion to the OT, or indeed to the moment of creation? Yes, God created, but did he create automata or free beings?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Creation didn't co-operate with God when he caused it to come into being. It just did what it was told. (Actually, if we assume that men are creatures, that fact alone is enough to prove the case and nothing more can or should be added. QED.)

---

Why QED? The fact that we were unable to cooperate in one instance does not imply that we are unable to cooperate in all circumstances.

quote:

---

Caught. Quite right Ricardus, there are some fairly serious minor premises that need to be supplied. So I can't legitimately confine things to the moment of creation, and so I don't.

[quote]Ricardus:[qb](Besides, I put it to you that, since I was not formed out of the dust in the Maternity Ward, my parents cooperated to quite a significant extent in my creation.)

---

If I was talking about the New Testament I would move to John 1:12-13. As we're no, the spiritual rebirth of the nation Israel in Ezekiel 37 will have to do. No more choice about that than you had in your parent's bright ideas about your existence.

quote:

---

Israel in the promised land had no choice but to accept God as their king. Their one attempt to reject God as king was named Saul, and he (and thus their choice) failed.

---

Unless you see Israel has having a single collective will, doesn't that prove the opposite of what you intended? Certain individuals in Israel chose to reject God as king and enthrone Saul: hence if they had accepted God instead, that would also have been a choice on their part. The choice to accept God - by which I presume you mean the enthronement of His preferred candidate David? - was mostly made by different individuals later on.

---

quote:

---

YHWH:
Obey the voice of the people in all that tey say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Huh? Why should we confine the discussion to the OT, or indeed to the moment of creation? Yes, God created, but did he create automata or free beings?

---

For answer to your "huh?" see my answer to Adam. On my view, God did not create either automata or free beings. He created human beings with a choice and a moral responsibility to choose rightly.

---

quote:

---

Not sure what you are asking about Saul, but see below.

---

quote:

---

As for the daily offices question, I am taking your earlier advice and trying to take things step by step. For the sake of system I am trying to restrict my answers at the moment to OT and co-operation. I don't know if that discussion will resolve satisfactorily, but whether it does or no I am then thinking I would move to talk about the NT and then back to the question of spiritual discipline. The daily offices (from an Anglican perspective) question is up the top of that list as I believe their author took a thoroughly Calvinist view of the question of co-operation with God, and reflected this in the cntent of the offices.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Yes, God created, but did he create automata or free beings?

quote:

---

On my view, God did not create either automata or free beings. He created human beings with a choice and a moral responsibility to choose rightly.

---

What does that mean? Does chosing rightly not imply co-operation?

---

quote:

---

BTW who said we were talking about Cranmer's offices?

Carys

---

quote:

---

The Wanderer:I would be very grateful if you could give some simple answers to those two questions as that might clarify a lot of the earlier discussion.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Jesus:
"When you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Gordon,

Regarding the Lord's Prayer, Jesus said: "When you pray, say..."

Not, "When you pray, say something like this..." or "When you pray, base your prayer on the following structure..."; He said, "When you pray, say..." Hence the widespread use of the Lord's Prayer in its form as given. It is in that sense the most perfect prayer, as it was given by our Lord Himself.

---

quote:

---

I also think you're misunderstanding Jesus' injunction to not 'heap up empty phrases' and on 'vain repetitions'. Empty phrases are those devoid of meaning; it is a danger we can all too easily fall into, but this is why we have Jesus' admonition -- to instruct us that when we pray we are to mean what we pray.

---

But one of the surest ways of evacuating something of meaning is to repeat it over and over. That doesn't even need a biblical argument to back it up, it is an easy experiment to try and confirm for yourself. Repeat after me ten thousand times: Ian Climacus is a genius..."

quote:

---

And, at least in Orthodoxy, one is not to make up one's own spiritual disciplines; they are given by one's spiritual director or confessor. They are experienced persons and guide one.

---

I doubt they'd do a better job than Jesus. And if it's possible to turn the most perfect prayer ever into something that is meaningless babble, it is possible to do it with anything.

[Edited shipmate's name]

[ 20. November 2005, 23:41: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Double post: Sorry hosts, there is a line that you will recognize needs editing as it violates one of the shiply rules. The mistake was unintentional, please accept my apologies (and to you, Ian )

[ 20. November 2005, 23:36: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
 

---

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Now I am aware of traditions in which the Lord's Prayer is imposed as a spiritual discipline, and those who are saying it are required to repeat it many times, and such repetition is represented as being useful and possibly necessary to the person's forgiveness.

---

quote:

---

... this occurs in direct violation of the commandment to "not heap up empty phrases".

---

quote:

---

I don't particularly mind if people want to pray the Lord's prayer, even though I think it was addressed to the Twelve and was answered at the cross.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

The Wanderer:I would be very grateful if you could give some simple answers to those two questions as that might clarify a lot of the earlier discussion.

---

TW, even the saying of the Lord's Prayer as a spiritual discipline could be dangerous. I am not sure that the Lord's Prayer was ever designed for repetition, but even if it was, Jesus introduces this prayer by saying (in Mt 5-7, the sermon on the Mount)

quote:

---

originally posted by Jesus:
"When you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

---

Now I am aware of traditions in which the Lord's Prayer is imposed as a spiritual discipline, and those who are saying it are required to repeat it many times, and such repetition is represented as being useful and possibly necessary to the person's forgiveness. Yet this occurs in direct violation of the commandment to "not heap up empty phrases". Many people will be able to say from personal experience that vain repetition of the Lord's Prayer is not just a hypothetical but a real danger. I even heard the DJ of a radio programme play "The Lord's Prayer" (the song by the nun, using the words of the LP) twice in a row, on the grounds that he'd been particularly naughty that week. A silly example, but it reflects the thinking of repeating the prayer to atone for sinfulness.

If it's possible for even the Lord's Prayer to be misused, then how much more is it possible for any spiritual discipline invented by humans to be spiritually dangerous. Richard Foster in his book Celebration of discipline actively commends the emptying of the mind and the meditating on a repeated phrase. Again, this would seem to be an example of "heaping up empty phrases".

I think my view of other so-called 'spiritual disciplines' can fairly be extrapolated from the examples given, so hopefully this answer gives you what you are looking for in the way of clarity.

---

quote:

---

"Our Parent which art in heaven, be gracious to us, O Lord, our God; hallowed be thy name, and let the remembrance of thee be glorified in heaven above and in the earth here below. Let thy kingdom reign over us now and forever. The holy men of old said, Remit and forgive unto all men whatsoever they have done against me. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil thing. For thine is the kingdom, and thou shalt reign in glory for ever and for evermore."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Oh, and Ricardus, once you've asserted that God is absolutely sovereign (in a theist rather than a deist sense, but I don't see how you could be absolutely sovereign in a deist sense) can we really speak of the possibility of such a God creating free beings? Our freedom would of necessity limit God's, as he would not be then free to over-ride our freedom. Yet this is an absurdity, if it has already been acknowledged that God is absolutely sovereign. Or perhaps you don't acknowledge the idea of an omnipotent God in this sense?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
The purpose of emptying the mind is to clear away the "background chatter" that is most people's thought processes in order to bring a greater degree of mental focus on the phrase in question. Some people find it helpful to repeat the phrase in question, others, like me, do not.

In any event as the purpose is contemplation of the deeper meaning of the text or phrase, any repetion of it is not really the point. Repetition of any prayer for the sake of the discipline is not the point.

Contemplative practice is the very reverse of "heaping up empty phrases". That dismissive term suggests speaking formulaic words without really understanding them, without any real practical or spiritual focus, a vocal "going through the motions". Just blather in other words. Meditating on the words, reading them, reading around them in the Gospels - that is a very different exercise.

---

quote:

---

Duo:

One way of looking at this is that Jesus was saying "Here's a good example of a worthy prayer, complete in itself, and you all know how it goes."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The key here is the word 'co-operation'.

If we can co-operate with God, then 'spiritual discipline', defined however, is essential.

If we can't, it is otiose or worse.

---

quote:

---

In fact I would like to confine the discussion to the moment of creation, but it seems unlikely that I will be allowed to.

---

quote:

---

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

---

quote:

---

If it's possible for even the Lord's Prayer to be misused, then how much more is it possible for any spiritual discipline invented by humans to be spiritually dangerous. Richard Foster in his book Celebration of Discipline actively commends the emptying of the mind and the meditating on a repeated phrase. Again, this would seem to be an example of "heaping up empty phrases".

---

quote:

---

I don't particularly mind if people want to pray the Lord's prayer, even though I think it was addressed to the Twelve and was answered at the cross.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Why is meditating on a phrase "heaping up empty words"? If you are gaining new understandings of the phrase, and of God, I cannot see that the words are empty. Remember, we've all conceeded that legalism is a danger here, as it is in every area of the Christian life.

---

quote:

---

Well it was addressed to the ancient Israelites / the Twelve / the church at Corinth so it can't possibly apply to me. What's more it seems to carry the implication that all of Jesus' teaching was summed up by the cross - and can therefore be disregarded. Would this mean that Paul, writing post-crucifixion, has a lasting authority thaat Jesus has not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Ricardus: I believe that in Pharaoh's case, it would be particularly difficult to avoid the conclusion that he himself, as an individual, was not free to resist God's will; unless we were to rewrite the Exodus narrative in such a way that the LORD's comments on what was going on were deliberately excluded. Here, at least, the question of 'individual will' versus 'single collective will' doesn't arise to confuse our discussion.

---

quote:

---

Ricardus, once you've asserted that God is absolutely sovereign (in a theist rather than a deist sense, but I don't see how you could be absolutely sovereign in a deist sense) can we really speak of the possibility of such a God creating free beings? Our freedom would of necessity limit God's, as he would not be then free to over-ride our freedom. Yet this is an absurdity, if it has already been acknowledged that God is absolutely sovereign. Or perhaps you don't acknowledge the idea of an omnipotent God in this sense?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Perhaps you could give an example of meditating on repeated words where you gain new understandings of that phrase, and of God. Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Yes, God created, but did he create automata or free beings?

quote:

---

On my view, God did not create either automata or free beings. He created human beings with a choice and a moral responsibility to choose rightly.

---

What does that mean? Does chosing rightly not imply co-operation?

---

That's the ambiguity I'm trying to exclude, by speaking about what's going on in a different way. The trouble with a term like 'co-operation' is that it appears to impugn the sovereign freedom of God in such a way that we could resist the divine choice. We can't, and I prefer not to use a term like co-operation, which suggests that we can. The Old Testament examples that I'm using leave the initiative, the nature of what is promised, and the complete responsibility for enacting the fulfilment of the promise, with God. His grace is irresistible.

---

quote:

---

your view is a greater threat to His omnipotence than mine, because my view leaves open the possibility that He might subsequently decide to take our autonomy from us and control us, whereas you are excluding the possibility of His ever creating autonomy.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

BTW who said we were talking about Cranmer's offices?

---

Oh, OK, that makes it a bit more complicated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
However I am still intrigued by Cary's question (when could the Daily Office be dangerous) and mine (which Spiritual Disciplines you consider dangerous). I would be very grateful if you could give some simple answers to those two questions as that might clarify a lot of the earlier discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

The Wanderer:I would be very grateful if you could give some simple answers to those two questions as that might clarify a lot of the earlier discussion.

---

TW, even the saying of the Lord's Prayer as a spiritual discipline could be dangerous. I am not sure that the Lord's Prayer was ever designed for repetition, but even if it was, Jesus introduces this prayer by saying (in Mt 5-7, the sermon on the Mount)

quote:

---

originally posted by Jesus:
"When you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

---

Now I am aware of traditions in which the Lord's Prayer is imposed as a spiritual discipline, and those who are saying it are required to repeat it many times, and such repetition is represented as being useful and possibly necessary to the person's forgiveness. Yet this occurs in direct violation of the commandment to "not heap up empty phrases". Many people will be able to say from personal experience that vain repetition of the Lord's Prayer is not just a hypothetical but a real danger. I even heard the DJ of a radio programme play "The Lord's Prayer" (the song by the nun, using the words of the LP) twice in a row, on the grounds that he'd been particularly naughty that week. A silly example, but it reflects the thinking of repeating the prayer to atone for sinfulness.

If it's possible for even the Lord's Prayer to be misused, then how much more is it possible for any spiritual discipline invented by humans to be spiritually dangerous. Richard Foster in his book Celebration of discipline actively commends the emptying of the mind and the meditating on a repeated phrase. Again, this would seem to be an example of "heaping up empty phrases".

I think my view of other so-called 'spiritual disciplines' can fairly be extrapolated from the examples given, so hopefully this answer gives you what you are looking for in the way of clarity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Perhaps you could give an example of meditating on repeated words where you gain new understandings of that phrase, and of God. Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes.

---

I have to say I'm amazed. Haven't you ever done this? You've never read a phrase in the Bible thoughtfully, considered its associations and meanings, read it again, found new ones springing to mind? It can be a very fertile process. I believe the technical term is "lectio divina".

---

quote:

---

Now you've got me confused, TW. Perhaps you could give an example of meditating on repeated words where you gain new understandings of that phrase, and of God. Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Grovelling aplogies Carys - I have no idea how that ugly apostrophe ended up there. I would love to be able to say that it was preordained, and that therefore I have no responsibility for the mistake, but I can't. It was my stupidity, I screwed up and I apologise.

---

Well, I managed to call you Ian which is fairly stupid too! Not sure how I managed to confuse you and Mr Climacus. And you got it right in hell (on the cathedral thread) before I'd objected here so I'll let you off!

And I agree with the rest of what you posted!

Carys
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Thank you, Mildred - name confusion is not a problem!

And, for the sake of clarity, I would like to repeat my earlier question:

quote:

---

I am still intrigued by Carys' question (when could the Daily Office be dangerous) and mine (which Spiritual Disciplines you consider dangerous). I would be very grateful if you [GC] could give some simple answers to those two questions as that might clarify a lot of the earlier discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Perhaps you could give an example of meditating on repeated words where you gain new understandings of that phrase, and of God. Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes.

---

I have to say I'm amazed. Haven't you ever done this? You've never read a phrase in the Bible thoughtfully, considered its associations and meanings, read it again, found new ones springing to mind? It can be a very fertile process. I believe the technical term is "lectio divina".

---

quote:

---

The Wanderer:
Well in the past I have spent time slowly repeating the phrase "The Lord is my shepherd". As a result each one of those words (except "The") has become far richer to me, and my vision of God has grown.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Dangerous apart from legalism that is; that was accepted as a problem right back in the very first post of this thread.

---

quote:

---

Carys:
Aaah, so we hit the root of our disagreement which has little to do with spiritual disciplines and a lot to do with Calvinism! I do not believe that Grace is irresistible. It is offered to all, but we can refuse it and thus condemn ourselves to hell. Others have taken this discussion of Calvinism further and I agree with Ricardus that:

quote:

---

your view is a greater threat to His omnipotence than mine, because my view leaves open the possibility that He might subsequently decide to take our autonomy from us and control us, whereas you are excluding the possibility of His ever creating autonomy.

---

I've long thought that Calvinists are more concerned with God's sovereignty than he is. This is the God who emptied himself and became as men are and being as men was humbler still, even to the point of accepting death, death on a cross'!

---

quote:

---

The Wanderer:
I would love to be able to say that it was preordained, and that therefore I have no responsibility for the mistake

---

quote:

---

it is a waste of time that confers benefit only in the sense that others think of you as being more spiritual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Even "is" and "my" have all sorts of unexpected benefits tucked away in them - and I'm not even any good at meditation.

---

quote:

---

TW:
If I were the sort of person to take offence easily then I think I might be offended by your comment:

quote:

---

it is a waste of time that confers benefit only in the sense that others think of you as being more spiritual.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by me:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Even "is" and "my" have all sorts of unexpected benefits tucked away in them - and I'm not even any good at meditation.

---

What benefits?

---

Just as you have time of course, The Wanderer, no hurry at all and feel free to take as long as you like.
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
You want answers within the hour? Or even within the half hour? Some people would take offence at that, and point out all the other things they have to do. However I shall simply push all my other commitments to one side, and answer you as promptly as I can.

"Is' makes me think of the eternal now; the unchangeabiity of the one whose name is YHVH. All other things come and go, bloom and fade, God alone is, world without end.

"My" the eternal, transcendant Creator has humbled himself to have a relationship with me. There is an endless wonder that I can use the word "my" of God.

All that and a lot more besides, This isn't reading for comprehension, or academic understanding, but letting the words sink in so that the implications unfold. (And I'm sorry that all the above sounds a bit twee and Patience Strong-like; these are part of my own personal mediations that I don't normally put into words for anyone else.)
 

---

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
Thanks, The Wanderer, for taking the time to respond so promptly to those questions. It is a relief not to have to wait weeks to see a reply to repeated queries, and to receive a reply that addresses the question so clearly and directly, without flippantly avoiding the issue. Thanks.
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
You're welcome.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
"Is' makes me think of the eternal now; the unchangeabiity of the one whose name is YHVH. All other things come and go, bloom and fade, God alone is, world without end.

"My" the eternal, transcendant Creator has humbled himself to have a relationship with me. There is an endless wonder that I can use the word "my" of God.

All that and a lot more besides, This isn't reading for comprehension, or academic understanding, but letting the words sink in so that the implications unfold. (And I'm sorry that all the above sounds a bit twee and Patience Strong-like; these are part of my own personal mediations that I don't normally put into words for anyone else.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
it's helpful, unless I don't like what I'm reading, in which case it's annoying.

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure I've said 'spiritual discipline' is wrong, but I do find it a slightly woolly concept

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Perhaps you could give an example of meditating on repeated words where you gain new understandings of that phrase, and of God. Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes.

---

I have to say I'm amazed. Haven't you ever done this? You've never read a phrase in the Bible thoughtfully, considered its associations and meanings, read it again, found new ones springing to mind? It can be a very fertile process. I believe the technical term is "lectio divina".

---

As I said earlier to Duo, I am trying to see if there is any difference between what you describe and what I would call “reading for comprehension in a quiet environment”. My same question applies to this:

quote:

---

quote:

---

The Wanderer:
Well in the past I have spent time slowly repeating the phrase "The Lord is my shepherd". As a result each one of those words (except "The") has become far richer to me, and my vision of God has grown.

---

This sounds like reading for comprehension (apart from the fact that you have memorized the text), except I would suggest that there are more efficient ways of doing it. Unless you mean something by “richer” that goes past the notion of meaning? And if so, how? It’s all a bit vague.

---

Gordon, for the final time, to characterise lectio divina as "reading for comphrehension in a quiet environment" trivialises both activities. I've come to the conclusion that you are actually incapable of getting the point of this.

Context, as well as literal meaning is vital to our understanding of the literal words printed on the page. We can understand that in ordinary reading. If I say "Don't leave your wallet lying around him" I am clearly implying he is a thief, not simply that you shouldn't place a wallet in his vicinity.

You finally managed to admit that historical context has a bearing on understanding that particular passage of Matthew. Well think of that historical context, cultural context, emotional context as being part of that "richer" meaning that might be understood by pondering on, meditating on a passage of the Bible. In other words there is a meaning going beyond the words printed on the page. Except that this meaning was transmitted by God to imperfect fallible humans to be read by other imperfect fallible humans.

Which means we have to think about it. That's not simply a question of comphrehension of the written words. My example above of the wallet is literally comphrehensible as words and as a sentence, but the literal apparent meaning is not the meaning that I was actually conveying. That is a very simple example of the search for true meaning in a sentence. The Lord's Prayer is far more complex than this for it talks both of the Kingdom that is through the Passion of Christ and the Kingdom that is to come.

I've read, sung and prayed the Lord's Prayer many times. Yet each time I do there is some word or phrase that seems to stand in relief. I've found it helpful to pause a moment and think why and what that might mean for my spiritual life. That is not a vain activity or one borne of repetition.

Jesus ,in part because he had to in an occupied state ("let he who can catch my meaning do so.") talked to his followers in metaphor and simile while trying to explain complex ideas of theology in terms that they would not only understand but believe. Think of all the similes for the Kingdom for example "The Kingdom of Heaven is like a mustard seed." That phrase simply in terms of something great and powerful coming from something insignificant or as something growing organically from a tiny beginning like a plant from a seed. And so on. And so on.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Dangerous apart from legalism that is; that was accepted as a problem right back in the very first post of this thread.

---

Legalism is one danger and it’s good that you keep reminding us of it. It’s the pre-eminent danger. But the “heaping up of empty phrases” to which Jesus refers is not only the problem of legalism, as massive as that is, but simply that it is a waste of time that confers benefit only in the sense that others think of you as being more spiritual. That’s why Jesus reminded those who prayed in public, or with the heaping up of words, that “they have their reward”. No doubt the Pharisees would’ve protested vehemently that what they were doing was not legalism but had real spiritual benefit for them and for everyone who practised it. This doesn’t mean that they were right.

---

I suspect that the Pharisees probably thought they were keeping the Law through their prayers and thus obeying the will of God, the giver of that Law. But there is doing the will of God quietly and in silence and being seen by others to be doing it, for the sake of the display or public spectacle. Of course the other benefit of praying ostentatiously is that others see you doing it and think better you for it. That's a reward of a sort too - but not the real reward that Jesus meant. But yes, unless they were completely cynical, I'm sure they did think that they were doing something spiritually good for themselves and for others. Their mistake in that respect does not invalidate other thoughtful, God-focussed spiritual practice that aren't simply heaping words on each other.

No one on this thread has argued for the practice of any spiritual discipline for its own sake or as some sort of formulary of words or practice. That is empty, a waste of time. Any spiritual practice is only valuable if it deepens our understanding of and relationship with God.

quote:

---

If you and I met together at the same time each day and had the same conversation, using the same words and the same posture and the same intonation, using a small collection of identical phrases, then I would hope that eventually some kind third party would appear at our side and either recommend some sound medical advice or suggest gently that there would be better ways in which to employ our time.

---

Probably not, I suspect. You are describing a lot of casual human interaction there. I don't need to engage in a discussion of the numinous in order to buy a bus ticket.

But we should really make an effort in our interaction with God, to get closer to try to grow spiritually. If some practice gets in the way of this, then it is foolishness, as St Teresa of Avila said of a nun who had spent so long in contemplation of God that she had neglected food and drink, to the detriment of her health. St Teresa was a great mystic but also a very practical woman.

Having re-read this I come to the conclusion that you are simply re-defining terms to avoid use of terms like "spiritual discipline" to what you do in your own life. A rosa mystica by another name would smell as sweet.

quote:

---

A word about Saul (in answer to Carys): Saul as much as anything represents the personification of Israel’s disobedience (1 Sa 8:7-9). He is made king, at least in part, to teach Israel the folly of their rebellion. He gains the throne as a temporary concession to Israel’s hardness of heart; he loses the throne through disobedience.

quote:

---

Carys:
Aaah, so we hit the root of our disagreement which has little to do with spiritual disciplines and a lot to do with Calvinism! I do not believe that Grace is irresistible. It is offered to all, but we can refuse it and thus condemn ourselves to hell. Others have taken this discussion of Calvinism further and I agree with Ricardus that:

quote:

---

your view is a greater threat to His omnipotence than mine, because my view leaves open the possibility that He might subsequently decide to take our autonomy from us and control us, whereas you are excluding the possibility of His ever creating autonomy.

---

---

I've long thought that Calvinists are more concerned with God's sovereignty than he is. This is the God who emptied himself and became as men are and being as men was humbler still, even to the point of accepting death, death on a cross'!

---

I agree with you that the heart of our disagreement centres around the sovereignty of God, although given that I agree with you that “this is the God who emptied himself and became as men are and being as men was humbler still, even to the point of accepting death, death on a cross”, I am not sure that you have understood Calvinism. I would respond to Ricardus by saying that God is indeed limited in his autonomy, at the point at which he has bound himself by his own word. If we discover that he says that he is a God who predestines the elect, then we have discovered a gracious self-limitation within God, revealed to us by his word.

Similarly when The Wanderer says:

quote:

---

The Wanderer:
I would love to be able to say that it was preordained, and that therefore I have no responsibility for the mistake

---

he reveals not so much that something he did was not preordained, as that he hasn’t rightly understood how divine sovereignty and human responsibility work together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
So even after your explanation of what 'meditation' means, I am still no clearer on why this is any different from what I call 'reading for comprehension', or more usually, 'reading'. Is there some extra dimension that you've not elaborated on?

---

quote:

---

A rosa mystica by another name would smell as sweet.

---

quote:

---

If reading your Bible regularly counts as a spiritual discipline, I suppose I do it. Mostly it's a requirement of my job, and I don't have a set time, and occasionally I just feel like doing it, and quite often I do it with my daughters. Is that discipline? OK then, but as there's nothing particularly disciplined about it from where I'm sitting, it's an odd use of the word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
A word about Saul (in answer to Carys): Saul as much as anything represents the personification of Israel’s disobedience (1 Sa 8:7-9). He is made king, at least in part, to teach Israel the folly of their rebellion. He gains the throne as a temporary concession to Israel’s hardness of heart; he loses the throne through disobedience.

---

quote:

---

I agree with you that the heart of our disagreement centres around the sovereignty of God, although given that I agree with you that “this is the God who emptied himself and became as men are and being as men was humbler still, even to the point of accepting death, death on a cross”, I am not sure that you have understood Calvinism. I would respond to Ricardus by saying that God is indeed limited in his autonomy, at the point at which he has bound himself by his own word. If we discover that he says that he is a God who predestines the elect, then we have discovered a gracious self-limitation within God, revealed to us by his word.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

it is a waste of time that confers benefit only in the sense that others think of you as being more spiritual.

---

---

This is simply my meditation on Jesus' words "do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words". It's not meant as personal attack, so please don't be offended on my account. Although, meditating on your words, I see that you weren't!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Well, I don't want to criticize those insights, TW, but possibly you have a rigidly intellectual definition of "reading for comprehension" that deliberately excludes appeal to related theological concepts or application to life, emotion or being. I don't, and so what you call "meditation" I call "reading for comprehension". Also, I would reject any way of reading the Bible that draws a barrier between academic understanding and the normal conclusions associated with careful reading.

---

quote:

---

So even after your explanation of what 'meditation' means, I am still no clearer on why this is any different from what I call 'reading for comprehension', or more usually, 'reading'. Is there some extra dimension that you've not elaborated on?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Meditation is taking just a few words, rolling them around your mind until you begin to feel their meaning instead of just giving your academic assent to them. I sometimes think it's like sucking an old fashioned gobstopper - if you're patient and suck it very slowly than lots of different colours appear. If you lose patience and just crunch it you still get the taste but never see the colours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Well GC I'm on my way to bed again, and it's almost 24 hours since you last posted here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
hi Joyfulsoul,

No, I do have some understanding about the nature of meditation but because I am approaching the question from an evangelical perspective, and attempting to discipline myself to use vocabulary in a way that is shaped by scripture alone

---

Have you not looked at meditation mentioned in scripture? I'm not certain this position is scripturally tenable.
 

---

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Well GC I'm on my way to bed again, and it's almost 24 hours since you last posted here.

---

Well TW, have a nice sleep. You are repeatedly harrassing me to participate in a voluntary forum in a way that suits your timetable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
... because I am ... attempting to discipline myself to use vocabulary in a way that is shaped by scripture alone, ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Well 24 hours is more reasonable than 28 minutes which is all you gave him to answer a question of yours yesterday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As for falling off page 1, you will notice that Purg currently goes for 8 pages. Even unbumped, a thread will stay in Purg for three weeks and still only have reached page 7. I mean, feel free to bump it, but you ought not to imagine that a failure to respond immediately means a lack of interest or concern, or anything else for that matter. the current oldest thread in Purg has not been posted on for nearly two months.

---

quote:

---

Duo:
Which means we have to think about it. That's not simply a question of comphrehension of the written words. My example above of the wallet is literally comphrehensible as words and as a sentence, but the literal apparent meaning is not the meaning that I was actually conveying. That is a very simple example of the search for true meaning in a sentence. The Lord's Prayer is far more complex than this for it talks both of the Kingdom that is through the Passion of Christ and the Kingdom that is to come.

---

quote:

---

The example "Don't leave your wallet lying around him" suggests all sorts of things about the speaker, the implied subject, the hearer, and much more besides. To read it for the bald meaning of the words is, with all due respect to your undoubted skills as a barrister, to read it much in the manner that a country solicitor would attempt to unpick a fairly obvious and mundane section of the Australian Tax legislation. It is narrow, wooden, literalistic, legalistic, dry and (apart from the interests of the person who wants to minimise their tax) utterly tedious way of approaching reading. If this is what "reading" means to you or to large sections of the Western world, little wonder that some might feel put off by the idea of thoughtful interaction with serious literature (or even reading the morning paper!).

---

quote:

---

In fact, speaking from an evangelical point of view, reading the Bible is the only way in which God addresses himself to heart, mind and spirit with clarity, love, power and authority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
(I've been using the term "reading for comprehension" but I think I'm going to discard it now, as it just sounds like the sort of thing a patronising shoolteacher says to an eleven year old, and I don't like it. "Reading" will do just fine.)

...

Reading is an engagement of the person with the text. In the case of the Christian reading his Bible, it is a direct and unmediated engagement of the spirit of the person with Spirit of his Creator—nothing less.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
If someone believed reading the Bible was any less than this, it's no wonder that they might want to escape into meditation or mysticism, and no wonder that they might think so disparagingly of evangelical belief.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
In fact, speaking from an evangelical point of view, reading the Bible is the only way in which God addresses himself to heart, mind and spirit with clarity, love, power and authority.

---

quote:

---

If someone believed reading the Bible was any less than this, it's no wonder that they might want to escape into meditation or mysticism, and no wonder that they might think so disparagingly of evangelical belief.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
It seems to me unhelpful to take a term with diverse conations, such as "reading" and insist that it must always be used in exactly the same way no matter what the circumstances. However, that's just me. Your mileage may vary.

---

quote:

---

Carys:
[qb]Who's talked of escaping from the Bible into meditation or mysticism? What we've been meditating on have been the words of scripture!

---

quote:

---

From the World community for Christian meditation website:
As it is not in our own language it does not have any thoughts attached to it and does not encourage us to think.

---

quote:

---

Rowan Williams, Bede Griffiths, Jean Vanier, William Johnston, the Dalai Lama and Mary McAleese.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Tho' to be fair and answer your question. That page you presented was on mantras not meditation which I hope you understand are not only different things, but also different words.

---

quote:

---

Meditation is Christian because of the faith of the person meditating. The mantra is our expression of this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
I'm still waiting to know the situations in which saying the office is spiritually dangerous.

---

quote:

---

Carys:
We've admitted that all disciplines are in danger of falling into legalism

---

quote:

---

Carys:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

A word about Saul (in answer to Carys): Saul as much as anything represents the personification of Israel’s disobedience (1 Sa 8:7-9). He is made king, at least in part, to teach Israel the folly of their rebellion. He gains the throne as a temporary concession to Israel’s hardness of heart; he loses the throne through disobedience.

---

I.e. He did not co-operate with God!

---

quote:

---

ALMIGHTY God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness, and live; and hath given power, and commandment, to his Ministers, to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the Absolution and Remission of their sins : He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel. Wherefore let us beseech him to grant us true repentance, and his Holy Spirit, that those things may please him, which we do at this present; and that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure, and holy; so that at the last we may come to his eternal joy; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Er, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here Gordon. I think Duo's point was exactly that a sentence cannot be read purely for the bald meaning of the words.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
In fact, speaking from an evangelical point of view, reading the Bible is the only way in which God addresses himself to heart, mind and spirit with clarity, love, power and authority.

---

What exactly then is the point of prayer, the sacraments or indeed the Holy Ghost in evangelical theology?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
(I've been using the term "reading for comprehension" but I think I'm going to discard it now, as it just sounds like the sort of thing a patronising shoolteacher says to an eleven year old, and I don't like it. "Reading" will do just fine.)

...

Reading is an engagement of the person with the text. In the case of the Christian reading his Bible, it is a direct and unmediated engagement of the spirit of the person with Spirit of his Creator—nothing less.

---

<snip>

You're trying to contend that anyone who doesn't treat "reading" in this fullest sense of the word must be a maladjusted member of a small subset of society, but I disagree. All of us who have been brought up with a western education have been taught to read with our head and not our heart (to use a crass metaphor), and so we all have a tendency to approach the written word using the skills and methods we acquired in English Comprehension classes.

---

quote:

---

My unexpected agreement with Dave leads me to suspect that we may be talking about two different religions; one with spiritual disciplines and one without.

---

quote:

---

It's one reason why I've at no point—anywhere in this thread or indeed in the whole of my life to date—made any blanket suggestion that all spiritual disciplines are wrong.

---

quote:

---

I'm arguing rather for an integrated approach to reading, that recognizes that any distinction between 'head' reading and 'heart' reading is unhelpful.

---

this seems to me a deeply confusing oversimplification. I use the word "read" to cover all sorts of literature, from skimming a computer manual to find the answer to a problem, to perusing the newspaper for political insights, enjoying Pride and Prejudice for its irony and insight, or analysing "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day" to help a class prepare for an exam. IN the same way, the word "eat" could cover cramming a sandwich into my mouth as I rush out of the house and spending all evening dining with friends. English is a rich language, full of subtlety and allusion. Why make it less than it is, by forcing one word to do what many are designed for? (I'm just an old fashioned evangelical at heart - if the richness of the language was good enough for Tyndale,Wycliff and Bunyan then it's good enough for me )

[ 24. November 2005, 07:03: Message edited by: The Wanderer ]
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
My view as expressed on this thread hasn't changed in the least, TW, but I'm pleased that you've finally caught up with it.

I do think of mysticism as a different religion to Christianity, insofar as I've been able to understand it, but given the overall woolliness of what is said about spiritual discipline, I'd hesitate to make any sort of pronouncement there, doubly so, now that you seem to have caught my meaning.

I do recognize nuanced understandings of reading, but to me, when it comes down to it it's all reading in the end. Just good reading and bad reading. As you've worked out by now, I'm a simple soul that way, as in so many things.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Actually TW, while I've got you old feller, and while we seem to have come close to a minimisation of our mutual incomprehension, would you mind giving me your opinion on this question from the previous page:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:


So, for example, this website for the World Community for Christian meditation recommends a meditation on one word which, although it is found in Scripture, appears to have been chosen specifically to exclude thinking of the word as Scripture. I notice the comment associated says:

quote:

---

From the World community for Christian meditation website:
As it is not in our own language it does not have any thoughts attached to it and does not encourage us to think.

---

At this point in discussion I make no value judgement on either the statement or the website from which it comes. I simply observe that it appears to be quite a different style of meditation from the one that people seem to have been describing in the last page or so

---

quote:

---

I do think of mysticism as a different religion to Christianity, insofar as I've been able to understand it,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Carys:
Who's talked of escaping from the Bible into meditation or mysticism? What we've been meditating on have been the words of scripture!

---

Just quickly: Fair enough and on re-reading, that sentence in my post should have omitted the word "meditation". Apologies for that confusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
And just a v quick question: Is there not more to the idea of 'meditation' in Christian tradition than simply the idea of meditation up on Scripture? And what is that range, in people's views? (genuine question)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Sorry, you probably picked up that those last two were posted in a rush.

So, for example, this website for the World Community for Christian meditation recommends a meditation on one word which, although it is found in Scripture, appears to have been chosen specifically to exclude thinking of the word as Scripture. I notice the comment associated says:

quote:

---

From the World community for Christian meditation website:
As it is not in our own language it does not have any thoughts attached to it and does not encourage us to think.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
While others contemplate the meditation question further, let me have a further go at one of the questions I'm being asked to deal with:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
I'm still waiting to know the situations in which saying the office is spiritually dangerous.

---

But you have already given one such example, acknowledging a part of what I'm saying, when you said:

quote:

---

Carys:
We've admitted that all disciplines are in danger of falling into legalism

---

Right! So there is a large part of my answer already, acknowledged by you, and agreed by others, and I'm not sure where I get by repeating it. Indeed, this answer stands alone as a substantial risk to do with saying the daily offices or as you yourself say, "all disciplines".

---

quote:

---

The other point that I tried to make is that repetition can be meaningless, a heaping up of empty phrases.

---

quote:

---

If you and I met together at the same time each day and had the same conversation, using the same words and the same posture and the same intonation, using a small collection of identical phrases, then I would hope that eventually some kind third party would appear at our side and either recommend some sound medical advice or suggest gently that there would be better ways in which to employ our time.

---

quote:

---

me: Nos Da
Dad: Bon nuit
me: Buenos noches
Dad: Das vadanya*
me: Gute Nacht
Dad: Good Night

*This is my attempt at writing what he said. I also know (and we knew at the time) that it isn't the Russian we wanted and later I found out from a friend that what we wanted was Dobre Noche.

---

quote:

---

Now various people have replied "yes, but it need not be and can be quite useful". OK, I can see that and as far as I can see I have acknowledged it a number of times. It's one reason why I've at no point—anywhere in this thread or indeed in the whole of my life to date—made any blanket suggestion that all spiritual disciplines are wrong.

---

quote:

---

But you have asked about the situations in which saying the daily office is spiritually dangerous; and I've responded now by telling you that it is dangerous when it becomes legalistic (and you've agreed that this can be a problem), and secondly when the repetition becomes meaningless.

Could the daily offices be done non-legalistically, or could they be repeated without heaping up empty phrases? Of course. And I've never said differently.

---

quote:

---

Oh, and another problem would be if you were actually saying wrong things. That's why I like Cranmer's offices, because they are so throughly Calvinistic in their understanding of our total depravity and God's irresistible and unmerited favour through Jesus.

---

quote:

---

While we're on a roll:
What's your point here? "Non-co-operation" is a fairly euphemistic way of describing outright disobedience on Saul's part, I must say. British understatement?

But the opposite of disobedience is not co-operation (as you seem to be implying) but faith alone. Saul was disobedient and lacked faith; by contrast David 's frequent disobedience was wiped out and covered over because of his faith.

---

quote:

---

I don't know if my answers here are satisfactory but can I have a couple of marks for effort?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The Holy Ghost applies the word of the gospel to the heart and mind of the believer. He does not speak independently of Scripture, although I am not clear on the role of the Holy Spirit in revealing God through creation post-conversion. I am attracted by Karl Barth's position in Nein! but find him ultimately unpersuasive on this question. I have a few other theories but that is, perhaps, another thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
No, I'm arguing rather for an integrated approach to reading, that recognizes that any distinction between 'head' reading and 'heart' reading is unhelpful. If I read the Bible as an academic and that reading doesn't inform and change my life and being, then that particular reading ought to be consigned to the overfull bin outside my office door. It is not at that point 'another' way of reading, it is a wrong way of reading. Commit it then to the flames.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:

quote:

---

I do think of mysticism as a different religion to Christianity, insofar as I've been able to understand it,

---

Why? Plenty of posters have been testifying here to the long and venerable history of mysticism within Christianity, so I am genuinely mystified that you can think of it as a separate religion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

But I would answer the question by saying that as I only ever encounter God in a way that I can speak about through the words of Scripture, any religion that encourages me to encounter God outside or beyond that word written is different from the religion that I've put my faith in. Not a particularly enlightening answer, perhaps, but I'm not sure I can do much better than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Yes there is more to meditation in the Christian Tradition than lectio divina. My point in objecting to your comment was not that Christian meditation had to be focussed on scripture but that in the discussion we were having no-one had brought up (AFAICR) broader ideas of meditation or indeed mysticism and so your comment was a red herring or possibly even a straw man in terms of our discussion.

---

quote:

---

Whilst I agree that we shouldn't make the distinction entirely when we are reading the Bible, unless we recognise the danger by knowing that the distinction potentially exists we are in danger of making the distinction without knowing it! Also, I would say that there are occasions on which the amount of head/heart involved is different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I only ever encounter God in a way that I can speak about through the words of Scripture, any religion that encourages me to encounter God outside or beyond that word written is different from the religion that I've put my faith in. Not a particularly enlightening answer, perhaps, but I'm not sure I can do much better than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Weird. weird. See, reading through this thread, I can't find any evidence that the Wanderer, Carys, or any others are arguing that meditation or spiritual disciplines are found apart from scripture.

In fact, I think they might be suggesting that these disciplines are found in scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:

quote:

---

I do think of mysticism as a different religion to Christianity, insofar as I've been able to understand it,

---

Why? Plenty of posters have been testifying here to the long and venerable history of mysticism within Christianity, so I am genuinely mystified that you can think of it as a separate religion.

---

Fair warning: I know about as much as mysticism as I do about Buddhism, which is almost nothing. So if it's reasoned critique you want, you are speaking to a near-ignoramus.

But I would answer the question by saying that as I only ever encounter God in a way that I can speak about through the words of Scripture, any religion that encourages me to encounter God outside or beyond that word written is different from the religion that I've put my faith in. Not a particularly enlightening answer, perhaps, but I'm not sure I can do much better than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
In calling myself a Christian, indeed in praying,"Our Father," I feel constrained to recognise my bond with all Christians everywhere, even those with whom I disagree. Both here, and on the "Are Penetcostals Evangelical" thread, you seem to disown those who do not fit into your own criteria of acceptable Christian behaviour. This I find puzzling, and would appreciate your reaction to my perecption, particuarly if I am mistaken.

---

quote:

---

so why do you feel the need to denigrate what others find helpful?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
This leaves open the possibility that I could be proved wrong from Scripture

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
[...] The Bible reminds me constantly that God is judge, and the thought of usurping that role terrifies me. By an extension of the principle I would never dare to pronounce on the eternal fate of an entire class of people. What a terrifying responsibility, and what an awful judgment I would then be opening myself up to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
[...] The Bible reminds me constantly that God is judge, and the thought of usurping that role terrifies me. By an extension of the principle I would never dare to pronounce on the eternal fate of an entire class of people. What a terrifying responsibility, and what an awful judgment I would then be opening myself up to.

---

Interesting, Gordon, but I don't see the action supporting your claims.

---

quote:

---

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

---

quote:

---

So I think it's fairly unremarkable to suggest that a solely Bible-based religion (or one that claims to be) is not the same as a religion based on Bible + tradition, reason and/or experience.

---

Right.

As I have said elsewhere before now, the claim to be "solely Bible-based" saddens me because it takes the focus from God and relationship with God, and turns belief into an idolisation of words - which is a very narrow view of the world and of God, as far as I can tell. While God has revealed Godself in the words of Scripture, God is by no means bound by or contained within those words. And it is my belief that while Scripture is commended to us as revelatory, God never intended that it should become stifling shackles. Rather, the words are the foreground of the reality of God, the reality we are designed for. Knowing that reality, I just don't understand why anyone would want to take mere words and claim them as the only handle on God's reality.

So Gordon, I take it your position is exclusionist: that nothing should be engaged in unless advocated directly and literally by Scripture.

(Coming to think of it, this makes sense of your position on other things, such as the non-existence of Sacraments.)

Everyone, I think we will all have to acknowledge that Gordon is right: we subscribe to different religions, and speak entirely different languages. Is there any point in further dialogue?
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Hi Nunc,

I am often helped by dialogue with people I disagree profoundly with. I learn things, my ideas are tested and I am forced to abandon and question old ways of thinking, whilst finding that other ideas are strengthened or seen with a new freshness. But I certainly wouldn't want to force people to speak with me who didn't want to.
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Recently I have been very challenged by the "Our" in "Our Father" as I have meditated on the Lord's Prayer. Through it I have felt God reminding me of my links and obligations to Christians everywhere, even those with whom I disagree (some of whom may even have posted on this thread ).

GC I feel saddened by your approach as it sounds exclusive to me. We are both part of the body of Christ, and that body is diminished if either one of us is not in place (that's my reading of 1 Corinthians anyway). Drawing lines and saying. "I'm not in the same religion as him/her/them," just sounds terribly sad to me.

[ 26. November 2005, 10:34: Message edited by: The Wanderer ]
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
But we can still be friends?
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Hi Nunc,

I am often helped by dialogue with people I disagree profoundly with. I learn things, my ideas are tested and I am forced to abandon and question old ways of thinking, whilst finding that other ideas are strengthened or seen with a new freshness. But I certainly wouldn't want to force people to speak with me who didn't want to.

---

quote:

---

Paul in 1 Corinthians 4:3-5

But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The Holy Ghost applies the word of the gospel to the heart and mind of the believer. He does not speak independently of Scripture,...

---

quote:

---

For me, Scripture points outside of itself towards the reality of human experience and of God. The Bible encourages me to connect with God both with and without itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm a Christian, yes. So, I gather, are you.

Here's dictionary.com on religion (definition 1 b.)

quote:

---

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

---

By this fairly commonplace definition, Christianity (as well as being a religion), contains a number of different religions—Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, various brands of Orthodoxy; the list could be expanded.

So I think it's fairly unremarkable to suggest that a solely Bible-based religion (or one that claims to be) is not the same as a religion based on Bible + tradition, reason and/or experience.

---

quote:

---

Don't you mean that God doesn't speak in a way that is inconsistent with Scripture?

I'm sure you agree with 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for ...) but what about prophecy? There's a good section on it in 1 Corinthians 14:1-25.

For me, Scripture points outside of itself towards the reality of human experience and of God. The Bible encourages me to connect with God both with and without itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
prefer to discuss who Jesus is, what he did, and how we ought to respond.

---

Goodness, Gordon! You mean there is actually something that you do??

Reaching way, way, way back to the OP, something I have found helpful and aspire to do far more regularly is a daily or weekly examen. This simple exercise is beautifully described and discussed in Sleeping with Bread.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by AdamPater:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
prefer to discuss who Jesus is, what he did, and how we ought to respond.

---

Goodness, Gordon! You mean there is actually something that you do??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Duo:
Which means we have to think about it. That's not simply a question of comphrehension of the written words. My example above of the wallet is literally comphrehensible as words and as a sentence, but the literal apparent meaning is not the meaning that I was actually conveying. That is a very simple example of the search for true meaning in a sentence. The Lord's Prayer is far more complex than this for it talks both of the Kingdom that is through the Passion of Christ and the Kingdom that is to come.

---

Sorry for just ripping a small part of your post, Duo, but this bit has been really helpful to my thinking. It seems to me that this is an extraordinarily weak, attenuated, and flabby view of what reading actually is.

(I've been using the term "reading for comprehension" but I think I'm going to discard it now, as it just sounds like the sort of thing a patronising shoolteacher says to an eleven year old, and I don't like it. "Reading" will do just fine.)

The example "Don't leave your wallet lying around him" suggests all sorts of things about the speaker, the implied subject, the hearer, and much more besides. To read it for the bald meaning of the words is, with all due respect to your undoubted skills as a barrister, to read it much in the manner that a country solicitor would attempt to unpick a fairly obvious and mundane section of the Australian Tax legislation. It is narrow, wooden, literalistic, legalistic, dry and (apart from the interests of the person who wants to minimise their tax) utterly tedious way of approaching reading. If this is what "reading" means to you or to large sections of the Western world, little wonder that some might feel put off by the idea of thoughtful interaction with serious literature (or even reading the morning paper!).

Reading is an engagement of the person with the text. In the case of the Christian reading his Bible, it is a direct and unmediated engagement of the spirit of the person with Spirit of his Creator—nothing less. It's not some dry, arid intellectual pursuit done by academics when they are trying to gain their doctorates in the pneumatology and anthropology of Romans 7. In fact, speaking from an evangelical point of view, reading the Bible is the only way in which God addresses himself to heart, mind and spirit with clarity, love, power and authority.

If someone believed reading the Bible was any less than this, it's no wonder that they might want to escape into meditation or mysticism, and no wonder that they might think so disparagingly of evangelical belief.

---

Gordon, you old mystic.

The great irony of this post is that it in fact demonstrates precisely the Catholic understanding of what lectio divina is as a spiritual exercise. You are in fact describing an intellectual, emotional and spiritual engagement with the text of the Bible, which goes beyond the comphrehended meaning of the words.

Which means that your disagreement with me is simply your insistence on a form of words. My disagreement with you is that you won't realise that you have actually just repeated the points that I and others have made to you.

"Reading" however intellectual, emotional and spiritual that process is actually too narrow a term. "Reading the Bible with intellectual, emotional and spiritual engagement, applying the lessons learned from that to yourself and your relationship with God and then living the Gospel life as a friend of God" is nearer the truth, as indeed is made clear from the many Biblical citations given in this document and the discussion on them, especially [1967] to [1972].

But you knew that of course.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
I am as familiar with the Roman Catholic catechism as you would naturally expect me to be.

Looks like we have resolved our disagreement then.
 

---

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I am as familiar with the Roman Catholic catechism as you would naturally expect me to be.

Looks like we have resolved our disagreement then.

---

quote:

---

2706 To meditate on what we read helps us to make it our own by confronting it with ourselves. Here, another book is opened: the book of life. We pass from thoughts to reality. To the extent that we are humble and faithful, we discover in meditation the movements that stir the heart and we are able to discern them. It is a question of acting truthfully in order to come into the light: "Lord, what do you want me to do?"

2707 There are as many and varied methods of meditation as there are spiritual masters. Christians owe it to themselves to develop the desire to meditate regularly, lest they come to resemble the three first kinds of soil in the parable of the sower.5 But a method is only a guide; the important thing is to advance, with the Holy Spirit, along the one way of prayer: Christ Jesus.

2708 Meditation engages thought, imagination, emotion, and desire. This mobilization of faculties is necessary in order to deepen our convictions of faith, prompt the conversion of our heart, and strengthen our will to follow Christ. Christian prayer tries above all to meditate on the mysteries of Christ, as in lectio divina or the rosary. This form of prayerful reflection is of great value, but Christian prayer should go further: to the knowledge of the love of the Lord Jesus, to union with him.

---

quote:

---

There are as many and varied methods of meditation as there are spiritual masters.

---

quote:

---

boring old lectio divina

---

Boring? Not in my experience. But you probably know more about the subject than the rest of us.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Hi tw nice to see you again.
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
*snort*



[ 29. November 2005, 11:08: Message edited by: Nunc Dimittis ]
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
*snort*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Ah. As I said earlier, I had the sneakingest suspicion there was a fraction more to the whole meditation thing than just the boring old lectio divina. But, staid evangelical that I am, I'd just be wanting a bit more than the RC catechism on this one. Such as a Bible reference.

---

Gordon

Could you possibly comment on whether you agree with the passages of the RC Catechism that Duo has cited? Or do you need point-by-point biblical proof texts to be supplied before you can make up your mind as to whether you agree or not? (And with out wishing to sound beligerent, could you please try to act a little less like a parody of yourself? Pretty please? )

As a Good Little Evangelical myself, it all sounds like really good advice to me. (The only bit I have any discomfort about is the reference to the rosary - since I'm uneasy with some aspects of Marian devotion. But on the whole, I feel that that would be nit-picking).
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:

Could you possibly comment on whether you agree with the passages of the RC Catechism that Duo has cited?

---

quote:

---

There once was a rabbi, who like all rabbis would answer questions with more questions. However, this rabbi hadn't quite gotten the hang of directing the question so his students would work their way logically to the truth. His students ended up in a serious muddle, intellectually and spiritually frustrated. One day, the rabbi's best student threw down his study books and exclaimed, "Rabbi! I am so sick of your questions! For the love of all that's good and holy, would you just give me a straight answer to one question, or I will leave your study and go herd goats!"

"I will try," the rabbi said, saddned and a little afraid his favorite and best student was willing to leave his study on what seemed (to the rabbi) to be a rather capricious whim.

The student took a deep breath. "Do you know what point you are trying to make with all these questions?"

The rabbi peered at his student, and said, quite befuddled, "What's your problem with questions?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
My own view, summarised down to a sentence, is this: prophecy outside Scripture is indeed a revelation of God to the prophet, he or she then ought to feel free to tell others (1 Co 14:32 suggests that they may likewise choose not to); the congregation to which the prophets belong must then weigh the truth of it (1 Co 14:29).

---