The Christian Imagination

Meditation. It’s a word most often associated with Eastern religions like Buddhism and Hinduism. Also referred to as Contemplative Prayer and Centering Prayer, there are those on both sides, pro and con, as to whether this type of prayer is Christian. It is associated with the likes of St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, Thomas Merton, and the Desert Fathers.

One of the things that makes the anti-meditation argument hard to analyze is the arguments I’ve seen are from people who also believe that Charasmatic and Pentecostal perspectives are also wrong, and in a sense, anything mystical or supernatural seems suspect. One argument seems to imply that because some of these ideas are from people who are Catholic, that alone makes them wrong, which is really poor reasoning. The article against CP quoted above is pretty good though.

It is evident that meditation, in some sense, is Biblical. I just found 16 occurences in the NIV doing a quick search. Foster says it’s 58. Most of the time, the context seems to be talking about consciously and actively meditating on the law or something concrete. Foster states “It is this continual focus upon obedience and faithfulness that most clearly distinguishes Christian meditation from its Eastern and secular counterparts” (Foster, 16). Foster makes the effort to distinguish the Christian version from the Eastern versions, though it could be argued that some of the ‘methods’ are still too close. Also, he later mentions that Eastern meditation is about being empty, while Christian meditation is about being filled. Among those quoted as supporting meditation: Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Foster begins his chapter talking about how we are too busy. True. He gives some examples of meditation in the Bible. Then gives his definition: “Christian meditation, very simply, is the ability to hear God’s voice and obey his word” (Foster, 17). Fellowship. Communion. Intimacy. Creating space that allows Jesus to work. Honestly, there is a lot Foster says that is really good, and that I personally find helpful in my life and find completely Biblical. I say partially because I think people paint Foster with too broad a brush, ignoring most of what he says in proving him wrong. That is unfortunate.

The primary questions surrounding meditation as presented by Foster, is whether the purpose and methods are Christian or not. I’m not one of those who believes that everything must be explicitly mentioned in the Bible in order to be valid (and honestly, if all Christians believed that, Christians wouldn’t be doing lots of things, think about it). Also, something being a part of another religion doesn’t automatically make it wrong (there are, after all, some similarities across the lines, are there not?). That said, when adding methods not mentioned in the Bible, there is need for discernment, and when those methods seem to be drawn from other religions, that’s a valid concern.

As the site above states: “Nowhere in the Bible is prayer a technique or a way to go beyond thinking. Creating a whole theology of prayer apart from the Bible is dangerous, precisely because we are entering an area fraught with subjectivism, truth based on experience, and therefore, an area where we can be deceived.” The writer, Montenegro, also mentions that some who promote this form of prayer talk about going beyond reason to really hear God. “The false dichotomy in our culture between mind and heart does not exist in the Bible! Our culture associates feelings and often spirituality with the heart, and separates that from thinking, but this is a modern concept, not a Biblical one.”

Interesting. This is really too big a topic for a blog post. I haven’t resolved this, partially because some of it is semantics. There are times in prayer when I really have no words to give. There is a time to slow down and listen to God. There are times when I get answers when I stopped thinking about things and let them go.

I’m not sure how I feel about the idea of detachment though, even if, as Foster says, we detach in order to be attached. I’ve had conservative Christians tell me not to desire and, in essence, be detached, so let’s not pretend that this concept isn’t there. The Bible does say ‘Die to self.’

Topic Next Weekend: Prayer

I’ve referenced Richard Foster and Celebration of Discpline before, and may talk about the Spiritual Discplines at some point. I was introduced to Foster at my Anabaptist college (who are very different from any variation of Baptist), so perhaps I didn’t realize just how many people really don’t agree with him.

I came across a very Baptistic website who counters all things emergent and contemplative at http://apprising.org/. It seems to come from a perspective that God only speaks through Scripture and there are no modern charasmatic gifts and such. Uses the word heresy a lot. His logic isn’t as good as he thinks it is, but he does raise some good questions. So, before discussing Celebration of Discipline, I thought I’d reference the opposing viewpoint.

There are a lot of people in the Christian tradition over the last 2000 years who have practiced what Foster calls The Spiritual Disciplines. Some would say that some of these have weak Biblical support, or none directly. The inward disciplines are meditation, prayer, fasting, and study; the outward disciplines are simplicity, solitude, submission, and service; and the community disciplines are confession, worship, guidance, and celebration.

Now, whether Foster’s explanation of some of these is Biblical is one discussion, especially as to the importance of these means of grace, as they are called. On the surface though, it seems to me there’s sufficient mention of meditation, prayer, fasting, and study in the Bible for their practice to be Biblical in some fashion. Confessing to another person is Biblical, as is worship. The outward disciplines are not mentioned as commanded acts, though there is mention or modeling of each to a degree. So, if I continue this post series, I’ll refer to the Bible as the primary source.

It’s good to look at the Bible and ask how Biblical things are. We should question things. What confuses me is that a given conversative Christian may be quick to condemn a more liberal Christian for being unbiblical, but it less willing to be open to being called unbiblical themselves, as if the status quo of a given denomination must be defended at all costs, because everything else is heresy. Honestly, that kind of logic scares me.

Now, with over 200 varieties of Baptist, it’s hard to use that term to generalize, plus I know some awesome Baptists! But if we’re going to talk about extra-biblical practices, I’ve seen plenty in Baptist churches I’ve been too. Is wearing a suit or your Sunday best Biblical? Does the Bible say we can’t drink alcohol? Is Sunday School a Biblical command? Are we commanded to sing hymns? Is the pulpit commanded? Are pews commanded? Some would say that even some of the elements of modern church services have pagan foundations. Yet, what a pastor wears from a pulpit is a big deal to guys like John Macarthur. And in fairness, some people are too ready to condemn the so-called traditional church for things like these. And so it goes.

So, from the introducation to Celebration of Discipline, I find these encouraging words:

“The moment we feel we can succeed and attain victory over sin by the strength of our will alone is the moment we are worshipping the will. Isn’t it ironic that Paul looks at our most strenuous efforts in the spiritual walk and call them idolatry, will worship? Willpower will never succeed in dealing with the deeply ingrained habits of sin.”

I wrote the following on my personal blog after reading that: It dawned on me, recently, in simplicity, that if I don’t have a close relationship with God, born of time spent with Him in honesty and humility and joy, that I won’t serve Him very well, that I won’t be as holy as I could be, that I won’t be as loving as I could be. And so I’m intent on doing that, spending time with God for like an hour a day, for the purpose of, spending time with God, and letting Him do what He does, cause my efforts just don’t seem to amount to much, even my efforts to be good and be better. I’ve had times where I’ve felt close to God. Recently, I really haven’t, except for a few moments. And it’s all seemed more like work than joy. Maybe we have too much of an end in our religion. Maybe the means is all that matters. We throw the words “relationship with God” around, though our prayer lives show how much we mean those words. But prayer too, is too often focused on the end rather than the means.

Very interesting post and comments at Faith and Theology: why churches should stop performing weddings. One of his main points is how we sometimes elevate romantic love and marriage to an idolatrous level, and he has some potent quotes from Bonhoeffer.

If we begin to refuse church participation in wedding ceremonies, perhaps the way will be opened for a renewed sacramental understanding of marriage. The church refuses to recognise the marital relationship – or, for that matter, “the family” – as the fundamental social unit. Instead, the Christian community recognises the body of Christ as the fundamental social order of the new creation. And within this new society, within this economy of friendship and hospitality and self-giving, the church also bears witness to particular instantiations of Christian friendship, to specially gifted loci of generosity and hospitality and self-giving love.

This, of course, goes against a fair amount of popular evangelical teaching on the nuclear family. I suggest reading the whole post and some of the comments to better understand what’s being said. I think he raises some good questions, and the dialogue that results is very interesting.

I really liked this comment from Kristie:

One thing I might venture to suggest for those who are having a difficult time grasping the point here is to sit down and really talk with the single people in your churches. Not necessarily with the college students or even the twentysomethings, but those who are 30 or 40 or 50 and still unmarried. Ask them how they perceive their singleness to impact their inclusion in the church body. Are they treated in accordance with Ben’s paraphrase, “For in Christ Jesus, neither marriage nor singleness is anything; what counts is a new creation”? Or are they marginalized and made to feel less than human? I believe that they are often marginalized, and this is because (I think) the church has indeed bought into society’s idolatry of romance (and marriage and “family values” for that matter) and doesn’t quite know what to do with those who are “alone” in this sense, except pity them or perhaps play matchmaker for them. I love reading Bonhoeffer on this point – he actually seems to take Christ’s redefinition of the family seriously: “Who are my mother and my brothers?…Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” Ben is absolutely correct—the body of Christ is fundamental social order of the new creation, and so it ought to be of the church here and now in anticipation of the new creation. All other relationships must be understood in appropriate relation to this supreme reality.

I so relate to that. I like my church, and feel I have a place there, though I do wonder at times where I fit in as a 30-something single. Most of my friends are A) single college students or B) married couples, because, well, that’s primarily who is part of our church and coffee house, and my heart resonates with so many of these people. I don’t relate best to people in my ’season of life,’ but to people who have the same passions and interests and questions. It’s just hard to get away from the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) pressure put on me by society, and sometimes by church culture, of what my life is supposed to look like, when I should be married, and all that, especially when I would like to be married, with all the self-denial and growth that comes with it. But you know, I have a good life, and there’s plenty I am doing and can do for the kingdom, and my life will be worthwhile, whether I ever get married or not. So it’s refreshing for me to read post’s like the one above to be reminded that God’s kingdom is not always like what some church cultures say it is.

As long as wer’re talking politics, I thought I would repost what I wrote on another blog back in December 2006. Rumsfeld is no longer in the picture, but his legacy lives on. Oh, and I just realized their website is no longer there, so my links to source material are no longer valid. I may have the source documents around, or feel free to do a search for the Project for a New American Century.

I was just reading a post from Jim Wallis’ blog. I found the following quote really interesting.

And don’t start in about Saddam. I was against him when Washington treated him like a pal—guess who was the liason to the Butcher of Baghdad: Donald Rumsfeld. We helped Saddam in his war with Iran and even helped him target his use of WMD’s against Iranians.

Rumsfeld, along with Dick Cheney, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, and Steve Forbes are part of a neo-conservative think tank called The Project for a New American Century. Back in 2000, they published a report called Rebuilding America’s Defenses. The report is not without merit, but it does draw some controversial concluions. Here are a few quotes:

About the US enforcing global security, not just US security (later called a Pax America):

At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals. The challenge for the coming century is to preserve and enhance this “American peace.”

How this security is meant to favor US interests:

The true cost of not meeting our defense requirements will be a lessened capacity for American global leadership and, ultimately, the loss of a global security order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity.

The following quote is from the NAC report Iraq: Setting the Record Straight. Do you know who said it?

What if [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction….Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he’ll use this arsenal.

That’s right. Bill Clinton. The NAC details all the reasons why they feel the Iraq war was justified. If you’d like to read a 100 page detailed explanation from the source, there it is.

This letter, written by the NAC to Bill Clinton in 1998 is rather eye-opening. They talk with a sense of urgency about the threat of Saddam, WMDs, and removing Saddam from power.

This article by Duane Shank of Sojourners (a Christian organization) explains in more detail.

So there you have it. We helped Saddam build his empire. The man who helped bring him down helped build him up, Mr. Rumsfeld. The NAC, including Chaney and Rumsfeld were largely responsible for the George W. Bush Administration’s foreign policy. The NAC wanted Saddam out of power, period, back in 1998. Their 2000 report reinforced that Saddam was a threat. This report also talks about maintaining a Pax Americana and policing the world, with US interests at the forefront. Thus, any talk linking Iraq to Al Qaeda as a justification is just that, a justification for what they already intended to do.

Yes, Saddam was a threat, but it’s hard to take talk about freeing the Iraqi people seriously when we don’t apply our ‘ethic’ consistently. Genocide is going on in Sudan, and we are doing what? China commits human rights violations (as do others), and we use economics as leverage. For the record, I do not think the Iraq invasion was just. When we strike first (a pre-emptive war) and there are significant civilian casualties, that breaks two just war principles. Do a search for ‘Just War’ in Google and see what you come up with.

Has the US ever done anything wrong? Is there any legitimate reason why anyone in the world would hate us? Yes and yes. The US has done a lot of good in the world too. We are loved and hated, rationally and irrationally. I embrace my country. I am an American. We have done great things as a country and made mistakes, and sometimes do things that are questionable (CIA anyone?). I was reading Thomas Merton once and he was talking about the lunacy of the Superpowers focus on Nuclear Weapons and destruction. Is something as powerful as a nuke ever justified? Is modern war even just? Two examples that I have a hard time with the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Bombing of Dresden. The Japanese cities were more significant militarily than Dresden. Still, all were civilian population centers. Dresden is still questionable. It is argued that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war sooner and saved lives in the long run. If true, that is really disturbing to me. In the battle of us versus them, is it as simple as pragmatically deciding that our lives are worth more than theirs, and therefore, any means necessarily to win is acceptable, even if it means destroying thousands or millions of lives, even innocent lives? As a Christian, I just have a hard time with that, as it just doesn’t line up with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It’s a complex world though, where people have layered motives for their actions, and where everybody is not as good as we’d like to believe. There are people who do evil things, and who will not stop doing evil things unless they are threatened with violence, and so we use violence. We seem to be rather uncomfortable though with the notion that there can be evil in our own hearts. We don’t like to think that we can possibly do anything wrong.

While violence is part of the world we live in, as a Christian, I believe in a higher ideal. Too often I think we take the easy way out, the way of the world, the pragmatic solution. Non-violent peacemaking isn’t always the best solution, but you know, if we took it seriously, and if we used it more often, I wholeheartedly believe it would be more effective. What’s that you say? It doesn’t work? It’s not reality? I beg to differ. Read A Force More Powerful: A Century of Non-Violent Conflict