In two short posts, rather than critique some of the “radical” books we brought up a few weeks ago I think I’d rather re-imagine them a little bit, hoping to (in some small way) contribute to the conversation as it plays out among friends, church members, and visitors.
There has been a steady stream of literature introduced into the Christian marketplace offering substantial criticism of modern day, North American Christianity. I would say that the so-called “radical” books fit well within this niche, as they all, on different levels offer critiques at what the church in North America has produced or for that matter failed to produce. So far so good. On these points I find it hard to disagree with them. To be blunt (and brief!), I think North American Christianity is theologically shallow, materialistic, and not particularly Christian.
The first two should be easy to understand. The last may need some qualification. When I say that North American Christianity is “not particularly Christian,” I mean the link between the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the practice of many North American Christians (and their churches) is not entirely apparent. The link could be entirely detached, as it appears to have been with the Episcopal Bishop M. Budde, who called the resurrection of Jesus an “outlandish proposition” (!) or it could be the more subtle detachment but more Jesus and Bible friendly moralistic, therapeutic, deism of much of the Evangelical world. After all, reducing Jesus from the incarnate Son of God and necessary atonement for sin to some exemplar for a better career, a more proficient parenting, or the key to time management has just as little to do with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus as Bishop Budde’s denial of such things. They appear different in full bloom but they come from the same seed.
If this is the current state of affairs, and I believe it is, what then is the fix? What the “radical” books suggest, that I wholeheartedly endorse, is discipleship. But what does this word “discipleship” mean? Perhaps it means teaching others about Jesus. This is discipleship. On this front, recovering some old school catechism, a strategy advocated by J.I. Packer, couldn’t possibly be a bad thing. Discipleship could also be teaching people to do, or not do, certain things. This too is a good thing. Whereas praying, Bible reading, serving the poor, sharing the faith, etc. come quite naturally to some, others must be taught the hows and whys of such things. That is discipleship. But discipleship, particularly the radical kind of discipleship I think we want to see, is more than simply knowing and doing the right things. I would suggest a truly radical discipleship is also, if not primarily, about loving the right things. This is where I think we’re coming up short.
In the old days (like 1500 years ago) people thought quite a lot about why they did the things they did and why they thought the things they thought. Within the Christian tradition, knowing and doing are not activities in an of themselves but rather were the fruit of the deeper, more substantial activity of loving. So for example, Gregory of Nyssa describes love as the “inherent affection towards a chosen object” that “attaches” one being to another through affection (On the Soul and the Resurrection). Love doesn’t just attach emotion, but it attaches the whole being (emotions, thoughts, actions, etc.) to the object. Similarly, Augustine describes love as that which “allures and unites us” to the things we love (Confessions IV.XIII). If you ask the old dead guys, they’ll tell you that your thoughts and actions are dictated by your love. What you love you think. What you love you do.
It may be worth pausing for a moment to answer at least one objection. We are after all, rational creatures are we not? Loving is not central, thinking is! Well, I’m not so sure. Perhaps you have friends with children. Perhaps your friends think that everything their children do is blog worthy, exceptional, unique, and magnificent. But you and I know better! We know that “little Johnny” is not blog worthy, but rather he’s a little devil! So how is it that the parent‘s thoughts about the child are so distorted? It is quite simple actually. The parents love “little Johnny,” and their love has shaped their thoughts.
The point is argued well by Freud and later C.S. Lewis. Freud called belief in God (thinking) a “collective neurosis” that was really a longing for a father (loving). So the longing (loving) shaped the believing (thinking). This appears to be a damaging obstacle to those of us with faith. But years later Lewis showed this argument to be a bit of a double edged sword. Lewis argued that unbelief in God (thinking) must be “an admirable gratification of one of our strongest impulses” (loving) because it gives us permission to live without fear of judgment or any higher authority (see Lewis, “On Obstinancy in Belief). All that to say, you think what you love. You do what you love.
If love is as central as what we argue above then perhaps the formation of the heart, not simply our thoughts or our behavior, ought to be the chief concern of a would be disciple maker. So then, how is love formed? Consider the following from Richard Sibbes:
Things work upon the soul in this order: 1. Some object is presented. 2. Then it is apprehended by imagination as good and pleasing, or as evil and hurtful. 3. If good, the desire is carried to it with delight; if evil, it is rejected with distaste, and so our affections are stirred up suitably to our apprehension of the object. 4. Affections stir up the spirits. 5. The spirits raise the humours, and so the whole man becomes moved.
-Sibbes, The Souls Conflict with Itself
What’s he saying? You see something, then you imagine if it is good and pleasing or evil and hurtful. If good and pleasing, you love it and attach yourself to it and pursue it with mind and body. The more you perceive the goodness and pleasure in something, the great attachment it has over you. So if we want people, mind and body attached to God, what must we do? It seems obvious and simple . We must hold God up to be our highest and most pleasurable good, activating the imagination and firing up people’s love.
The English reformer, Thomas Cranmer, knew this well. Consider the following:
But if the profession of our faith of the remssion of our own sins enter within us into the deepness of our hearts, then it must kindle a warm fire of love in our hearts towards God, and towards all other for the love of God, —a fervent mind to seek and procure God’s honour, will, and pleasure in all things, —a good will and mind to help every man and to do good unto them, so far as our might, wisdom, learning, counsel, health, strength, and all other gifts which we have received of God and will extend, —and, in summa, a firm intent and purpose to do all that is good, and leave all that is evil. (Cranmer, quoted in Null’s Thomas Cranmer’s Doctrine of Repentance pg 185)
Perceive the goodness of God in the remission of sins, says Cranmer, and it kindles a warm fire of love in the heart. Once this is done, everything else (might, wisdom, learning, counsel, health, strength etc.) falls into place.
For a short post, I’m out of room to discuss method. But I’ll leave you with one or two thoughts to leap off of from here. When we teach people to think rightly about Christ, or when we teach people certain distinctive Christian behaviors we must aim at the heart. The goal is not right thinking, nor is the goal right doing, the goal is right loving. We must ask “how can I convey this information in such a way as to increase love and delight in God?” or “how can I teach this practice or behavior in such a way that love for God is increased?” Starting here is a hard road, but I’m convinced it bears good fruit, and warm hearts in the long run.