In this series I am attempting to describe central principles for the spiritual life as well as practices that directly and strategically implement them.  Thus far we have been discussing the principle:

A life poured out in love is the starting point of all true Christianity, the source and summit of all true humanity.

with its negative formulation:

A life lived for one’s self or within which self-giving remains ancillary is the sure path to a life of de-humanizing futility. God does not recognize this as Christianity regardless of a superabundance of Christian jargon, activities, ideas, etc.

Now I would like to give three practices to begin implementing this principle. I say “begin implementing”, because there is no way to turn on the “love switch,” so to speak, and become mature in love instantaneously. We cannot expect to attain the heights of perfection any time soon. But we should set our course in that direction (more on this later).

1) Resolution

I encourage you to make the resolution, “I resolve to spend every waking minute for the sake of love.” Make it your (verbally) expressed ambition to be a full and unreserved offering of love to God and the world. I know it sounds grandiose, but how do the following resolutions sound: “I resolve to…half-heartedly love,” or “…love with three quarters of myself,” or “…love when it suits me,” or “…love until it gets challenging.” Of course no one makes resolutions like these, but devoid of an all encompassing determination, are these latter resolutions not reflective of the way we thus live? I imagine the “every waking minute” part is a little unnerving as well. I think it functions simply to make concrete that which has great potential to float off into the netherworld of ethereal ideology. If I am loving with my whole self am I then not loving with all of my time? Or alternately stated: is it possible to love with my whole self if it does not include all of my time?

This resolution, however, cannot be made once and then laid to rest. It must be re-affirmed regularly and held out as the plumb-line by which we judge and evaluate past and potential decisions.

2) Schedule

If loving with my whole self means loving with all my time, then it matters how I spend my time. If you are at all like me, if I don’t plan how I will use my time it just seems to get away from me. Of course, that can happen even when I do schedule my time but it happens a lot less. I like to have, and attempt to follow, a weekly schedule where I plan all of my time usage in blocks. This allows me to strategically implement my values (principally, that being love) into my life and ensure that I am prioritizing those things which are most important. To have a “value” or “vision” that does not practically work its way into a scheduled pattern of life is likely little more than a pipe dream. To wax eloquently about values is meaningless drivel if they never get seriously implemented. A primary way to do this is by scheduling.

Different people like to schedule in different ways. Some prefer 15 minute increments. Others prefer to work generally in larger blocks of 30, 60 or 120 minutes. Some like to schedule using a day-planner that they stick in their bag. Others use their computer, phone or other electronic devices. However you make it work, take time to sit down and think carefully about how you are using the major segments of your day and time. Ask yourself to what end or for what reason each segment is being used. Are they for love or some other reason? Allow some things to fall under the criticism of the criterion of love and be reduced and/or eliminated. Don’t get too bogged down in soul searching. Just ask yourself if you are using a given segment of time to pour yourself out in self-giving love, or if you are using it to consume more money, power and people for your own selfish advantage. If you can’t firmly and quickly answer the former, then you have a pretty good indication that the answer (which you might not want to admit) is the latter.

I will add here briefly that to make your life a whole and unreserved offering of love does not mean non-stop constant hectic behavior. It also does not mean doing ministry all of the time. The next principle we discuss will address this issue directly.

3) Reach Out

This final practice is an easy way to tell if your approach to relationships is consumer-based or love-based. I have a pretty specific definition for what I mean by “reaching out:” Freely associating with people of a lower social rank. That might initially sound strange, but it strikes me that strong distinctions of social status exist not only in “those countries” over the ocean, but right here in America. Certain people have higher social ranks and associating with them, in a manner of speaking, causes us to accrue social rank. We can “leech” some of their social equity, so to speak. The same scenario plays out even in the Church. People will freely associate with others who entertain them, affirm them, open doors of opportunity for them, grant them a higher social rank, enhance their standing in the dating world, etc. But I find it much less common for people (and by this I mean Christians in the Church) to reach out by freely associating with people of a lower social rank.

By “freely” I mean its not their assigned role or function. It would be normal for “greeters” or “ushers” to talk to people they don’t stand to benefit from. They have to. It’s their job. By “associate” I don’t mean very much at all – simply to establish friendly connections. Think through your life and try to remember when people of higher rank have freely affiliated with you. When I was in middle school youth group, I’m not sure if I can think of a single high school person ever engaging me in a conversation. Growing up in church I can remember very few adults who would initiate a dialogue or intentionally speak into my life. When I was a freshman at a Christian college, I can recall hardly any juniors or seniors (or faculty!) taking a noted interest in my life. The few people who did, as I look back, had a tremendous impact on my life. Perhaps this is why I am so passionate about deconstructing the social hierarchies that persist in the shared life of the people of God.

I plan to come back to develop this idea further in a later post because it is not simply a nice “outreach strategy” or “feel-good approach,” but was central to Jesus’ ministry (eating with social outcasts) and Paul’s understanding of the Gospel (cf. 1 Cor 1:26ff; Gal 3:27ff). Though this may seem obvious to some, I will leave you with four real simple and practical ways you can reach out to people that will be meaningful to them:

1) Actively greet them – i.e., go a little out of your way to say hello

2) Engage them in conversation

3) Show interest in their life by asking them questions about their life and actively listening

4) Encourage them in the Lord and affirm them in their identity in God.

Related posts

• Love Allows No Syncretism with Consumerism (Principles and Practices for the Spiritual Life, Part 1c) (2)
• Why Use Written Prayers? (A series explaining the logic and reasons behind Christian liturgy and worship) (1)
• Why Greek Matters (Part 5) – Closing our bowels (1 John 3:17) (0)
• The Surrender of the Son (0)
• The Person and History of the Holy Spirit Part 2: Trinitarian Ecstasy (cont.) (0)

Among Evangelical and Charismatic Christians, reactions to liturgical aspects of worship and prayer vary greatly from intrigue, to delight, to bewilderment, to straight up scoffing. This series will attempt to explain some of the reasons behind liturgical prayer aimed at people with little or no (positive) experience with it, though ideally it will also be an encouragement to those already versed in such tradition. I will give lists of reasons for various aspects with (hopefully) brief explanations. Today we’ll look at written prayers, pre-written prayers that is. Many people have a hard time seeing why someone would ever want to repeat pre-written prayers as a part or even a significant part of one’s devotional life. Here’s a few thoughts, though by no means exhaustive:

1) They teach us how to pray – most people learned to write by copying letters printed in a book, or even tracing over them. We learned math by repeating “times tables” over and over until they were automatic. Using written prayers works in the same way. We “trace over” the prayers of the Saints, and over time, they become a part of us.

2) They “prime the pump” – written prayers solve the dilemma of what to say while praying. Instead staring off into space or daydreaming during our prayer time, we can “prime the pump” using written prayers to get us started.

3) They remind us what “we ought to pray” – when left to our own devices we could easily pray only for that which immediately concerns us, kind of like a “tyranny of the urgent,” only in prayer. As C.S. Lewis says, “The crisis of the present moment will always loom largest. Isn’t there a danger that our great, permanent, objective necessities—often more important—may get crowded out?”

4) They infuse our prayer life with rich biblical and theological content – My own spontaneous prayer can only possibly be filled with whatever biblical content I have in retrievable memory and am able to string together into coherent sentences on the fly. On my own, lets count on that being rather limited and as C.S. Lewis remarked, in danger of quickly dispersing into “wide and shallow puddles.” Written prayers make instantly accessible a rich depth of content in prayer without requiring the least bit of ingenuity on my part.

5) They connect us to the wider church, both geographically and historically – I can pray in unity with believers all over the world and throughout history by praying the same words with them.

6) They are time-tested – of course not all are, but many written prayers in historic liturgies are over a thousand years old. These have stuck around for reasons that are well worth exploring.

7) They are short and stay focused – this helps people engage with them over against the rambling or “stream-of-consciousness” praying that so often occurs when one person prays for a long time. So many topics are covered in no organized or coherent fashion that it is nearly impossible to stay connected. The other people attempting to pray often zone out because they can’t keep track of what is going on. Written prayers are shorter and to the point. They are unified around a coherent theme and with a specific objective. This helps either an individual or a group connect and agree with them.

8 ) They spare us from narcissism (i.e., idolatrous idiosyncrasy) – we naturally gravitate around our pet doctrines, ideas, passions, and concerns. We are certainly entitled to them. However, when we only entertain and accept our own premises, we are moving into dangerous ground. If prayer only bears the mark of my uniqueness, it may keep me locked up in the bubble of that same uniqueness. Written prayers call us out beyond the confines of our limited understanding and perspective, to a participation in the thoughts, issues and concerns of the wider church.

9) They are easy and accessible – no spiritual acumen is needed, no special experience, talents, gifts, anointings, or education, simply the ability to read. You can be a complete novice in prayer, or a veteran believer who is overwhelmed with frustration concerning their prayer life, and instantly access an incredibly rich prayer life. Written prayers are for everyone and accessible immediately.

10) They are unifying – Because they are so easy and accessible, they can be immediately unifying for people of all different “levels” in experience of prayer. Everyone is on an equal playing field. There are no “prayer experts” who must lead the way as the “novices” sit in befuddled silence. All engage, all participate, all are one.

11) They help us relax – It is remarkable how much anxiety people have about what and how they pray and worship, especially in public. With written prayers, all you have to do is say the words that are already given to you, with no other expectations. In other words you can spend less time worrying about what you are going to say, what other people are going to think about it, how to have a really good prayer, etc., and focus your energy on actually praying and connecting with God.

12) They teach us grace – this is ironic considering the frequent accusations of written prayers being stiff and “religious.” Written prayers teach us that prayer is about God and not about our effort. Many people try so hard to have a prayer life and feel so defeated. The Church’s treasury of written and liturgical prayer is one of God’s greatest gifts to us. It is sheer grace that we can have such an easy entry-point into prayer of unspeakable wealth and depth. Thus prayer is not so much about how disciplined, spiritual, discerning, passionate, contemplative, etc. we are – it is about God’s grace freely given to us who are in such desperate need.

I think in conclusion it is more than appropriate to end with a prayer from the Book of Common Prayer:

Almighty God, who pours out on all who desire it the spirit of grace and of supplication:  Deliver us, when we draw near to you, from coldness of heart and wanderings of mind, that with steadfast thoughts and kindled affections we may worship you in spirit and in truth; through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen.

Related posts

• Developing a Consistent Prayer Life (5)
• Religion is Not a Bad Word (6)
• Practical Suggestions for Celebrating the Church Year (2)
• Opposition to Pre-Written Prayers Comes From the Spirit of the Age (Developing a Consistent Prayer Life Part 2) (5)
• My Personal Prayer Action Plan (Developing a Consistent Prayer Life Part 3) (1)

I am personally not a fan of new-years resolutions, because most never get accomplished. However, I’ve decided to take some time to reflect on what it might mean to “sanctify” the coming year to God. My thoughts here are following Jurgen Moltmann’s book Spirit of Life.

Moltmann takes issue with popularized conceptions of “spirituality.” Sometimes spirituality means nothing more than “religiousness” or “devotionalism.” Such equations can cut off spirituality from everyday life. It can also establish a schism between the “religious,” that is, the clergy and the cloistered, and the laity, the common person. One group is “spiritual” and the other, the overwhelming majority, is unable to access such a place. It can also drive a wedge between the “spiritual” and the sensory, assigning greater value to the “spiritual” and a diminished or even negative value to the sensory and bodily experiences of life. Furthermore, life can be neatly separated into its superior “vertical” (Godward or heavenly) and ancillary “horizontal” (relational, human or earthly) dimensions. This dichotomization disintegrates what God made a coherent whole, and in effect “splits life in two, quenching its vitality.” (Jurgen Moltmann, Spirit of Life: a Universal Affirmation, p. 84)

However, it is of fundamental concern that the concept of “spirituality” be vitally connected to the Biblical understanding of the Holy Spirit. Spirituality is, after all, “life in God’s Spirit.” In the Old Testament, the ruach (Spirit) is the power that created all things and interpenetrates the life of all the living (Ps. 104.29ff., Gen. 1). In the New Testament, the Spirit is the power that raises Jesus bodily from the dead, inaugurating the “final springtime of creation (Rom 1.4; 8.11; 1 Tim 3.16),” the definitive restoration of life on earth (Moltmann, p. 84). This gives us an understanding of the Spirit that is immanently connected, rather than opposed, to physical, material, bodily, sensory and relational life.

Overcoming dualistic tendencies with regards to the Spirit and spirituality, Moltmann wants to understand “spirituality” as vitality, as a love for life. This expresses itself in an affirmed social and bodily existence. “In the experience of the Spirit, the spring of life begins to flow in us again. We begin to flower and become fruitful. An undreamt-of love for life awakens in us, driving out the infection of resignation, and healing painful remembrances. We go to meet life expecting the rebirth of everything that lives, and with this expectation, we experience our own rebirth, and the rebirth we share with everything else.” (p. 95)

We can then reach out to the world with the eagerness, innocence and expectation of a child (Matt. 18.1-5). A jaded attitude towards ourselves and the world melts with the rising of a vibrant love for life. The release of the body from the fears of “age-aquired wisdom,” which cynically expects the triumph of death, frees the arms to extend and embrace. The love of life empowered by the hope of resurrection looses the shackles of the soul with a penchant for retreating into the refuge of isolation. Open to the world, faith, hope and love once again flow in the risky endeavor of whole-hearted living (p. 97).

Life in the Spirit is not life against the body, it is life against death. It is everything that stands against the maniacal death drives of modern culture. It is awakening from the slumber of apathy and mechanistic living. “In this world, with its modern ‘sickness unto death,’ true spirituality will be the restoration of the love for life – that is to say, vitality. The full and unreserved ‘yes’ to life, and the full and unreserved love for the living are the first experiences of God’s Spirit, which is not for nothing called fons vitae, ‘the well of life’” (p. 97).

Moltmann wants to recast the concept of sanctification in light of the theology of the Spirit he has already been developing.  He begins by discussing John Wesley’s “methodisitic” holiness. John Wesley’s “societies” arose at the time of the burgeoning industrial revolution. “The Christian discipline to which they submitted themselves and their bodies corresponded precisely to the discipline of their work in the factories” (p. 166). Wesley’s methods had a healing effect on isolated people who had been forced to leave home to search for work in the factories. It gave them community, stability and self-confidence in a time when there was much uncertainty and instability. However, because we are leaving the industrial age and moving into the post-industrial age, we need a renewed vision of the Christian life that is “related to the sickness of the given society in a healing way” (p. 171). The discipline of the industrial revolution has produced a society where production and efficiency have become the highest virtues. When such happens, the human body is reduced to a machine and the mind to a computer. No time remains for full-blooded feeling. The integrity of human being is sorely violated. The simultaneous growth of production and consumption that have flourished under the myth of progress have shown their debilitating effects on the psychological, relational and ecological condition of life on earth. As our production and consumption increases, we find ourselves unable to engage in living-giving relationships that God created the human race to enjoy mirroring His triune fellowship of love: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

A renewed concept of sanctification begins, for Moltmann, with the concept of spirituality as vitality and is embodied in the rediscovery of the sanctity of all life. Recognizing the holiness of all life effectuates the ethic Albert Schweitzer termed ‘reverence for life’: “Anyone who loves ‘the living God’ loves the life of all living things” (p. 172). This has communal (loving brothers and sisters), social (loving the poor and weak), and ecological (loving creation) dimensions. Reverence for life also “requires the renunciation of violence towards life,” including violence towards creation and violence towards one’s own life.  The “violent regimentation” of one’s own life and body produces physical and psychological infertility, an inability to grow. The life oriented toward self-mastery, which by nature blocks off “whole sectors of life” must be loosed to allow for the “spontaneity of faith” (p. 173). This requires a greater trust in God than the discipline that breeds deeper mistrust. While this may seem contrary to Wesley’s methods, it is not contrary to Wesley’s intention “to heal soul and body” (p. 173). Wesley understood sin as a sickness that required healing (p. 164). The faithlessness, fear, anger and violence that lie hidden beneath ruthless discipline and regimentation must today be recognized as part of the sickness of sin the soul needs to be healed from. In such, specific actions are not sanctified, but entire lives are sanctified in the presence of the God of life. The word “holy” is again recognized in terms of its semantic origin: to be holy is to be made whole, to have integrity of being and life restored to a fragmented and divided existence, for the brutal violence of self-domination and other-manipulation to be relinquished in the trusting spontaneity of faith and sanctifying affirmation of life (pp. 175-6).

With this said, it might seem an attempt to cast off restraint and discipline, that any related “New Year’s Resolutions” would be about loosing the shackles of a regimented, scheduled existence. Such would be a superficial reading. I still plan on having and keeping a schedule. I have a passion to be a faithful steward of everything God has given me, especially time. However, it is true and essential to maintain there is nothing inherently Christian about discipline and it can be remarkably unchristian when it functions to destroy the goodness of what God loves. My New Years resolutions mostly relate to resisting the freneticism that schedules out the breathing space which enables the heart to live and delight in love. I am also keen to resist the constant encroaching of technology which seeks to mechanize life and dull the affections. God calls us to live a quiet and peaceful life, for in this stillness alone can the heart truly be present to God and there discover the “broad and open space” of love for live within which it can flourish and thrive.

My 2010 New Years Resolutions:

1) to never for any reason tell someone else that I am busy and thus imply that my “busy-ness” is more important than them or is an excuse to treat them poorly (thanks to my undergrad spirituality professor Mike Walters for this gem).

2) to leave my phone on silent and not check or send text messages while in the prayer room or when having a conversation with someone. Both when in prayer and in conversation I want to be fully present to the persons involved and not constantly detaching by frenetic digital communication.

3) to check my e-mail no more than twice a day. This is related to the previous one as far as frenetic digital communication goes. I am not so important that I need to be constantly accessible. I will also not upgrade my cell phone to be able to get email or internet. I’ll sacrifice having “the world at my finger tips” in order to maintain my sanity and quietness of being.

4) to regularly give people my undivided attention when talking with them, to interrupt less, speak less and listen more.

5) to periodically (though not frequently) allow significant relationships to disrupt my schedule.

6) to regularly remind myself that the people “under” me as a leader are not cogs in a wheel but people with precious and vulnerable hearts, abounding with love, hope, hurt, fear and God-inspired dreams.

7) to breathe deeply and be more fully present to God.

Related posts

• The Person and History of the Holy Spirit Part 2: Trinitarian Ecstasy (cont.) (0)
• The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God – IHOP Outpouring/IHOPU Awakening (2)
• Prayers for Revival – Gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 1:5ff) (0)
• Love is How We Open to Life (Principles and Practices for the Spiritual Life, Part 1d) (1)
• Emotions Commanded in Scripture (0)