There are those who seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge;
That is curiosity.
There are those who seek knowledge to be known by others;
That is vanity.
There are those who seek knowledge in order to serve;
That is love.
Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153)
Some time back, I posed a question in the Wednesday night men’s class: “What do we say to someone who does not believe they are lost or need God and their lives are, for the most part, satisfying”? We had quite a bit discussion, mostly it was suggested that it is Christians’ responsibility to make sure non-Christians understand they are in jeopardy. Today as I read a section in “How (Not) to Speak of God” entitled The End of Apologetics, there were some interesting thoughts that hint at some answers to the question. I will paraphrase them briefly. The author asserts that the 20th century church reflected an obsession with apologetics ( a term which refers to the formal justification or defense of doctrine). He says further, that legal terminology is often employed within the apologetic discourse so as to give the impression that Christianity can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt by a cold and objective analysis of the empirical evidence for its claims. The apologetic process employs “power discourses” to build an apologetic case via the use of either reason or miracle. In the former case, the rational and logical case is so compelling that it must be accepted by anyone who wishes to be rational. The latter builds an apologetic case through demonstration such that the other must believe. These “power discourses” attempt to present faith in such a way that rejection, if not impossible, is utterly irrational. The result being “converts” with no heart, having been compelled to bow their knees regardless of their motives or desires. The author suggests a different kind of discourse based on 1 Corinthians 2:1-5
1 And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.
Paul’s suggests a “powerless discourse” which refrains from resting his faith on wise words or the miraculous, instead endeavoring to create a space for the Spirit’s power to arrive, a power that is not compelled by human might or miraculous wonder. Instead of closing thought down – by telling people what they ought to think – this discourse opens up thought. Unlike “power discourses” (which attempt to forcibly bring people to their knees), the discourse of Paul acts as an aroma. It is in this “powerless discourse”, unlike a religious discourse that is a type of drink designed to satisfy our thirst for answers, that one experiences the teaching of Jesus which is salty, evoking thirst. In a world where people believe they are not hungry, we must not offer food but rather an aroma that helps them desire the food that we cannot provide. As I considered these thoughts, it becomes apparent that I need to think about what “opening up space” and “aroma” mean pragmatically
It has occurred to me that my daily routine is increasingly becoming a rut. The quote below from the Asbury Theological Seminary Kingdom Tide reader reminded me of one of the perils of traveling in a rut.
Fixed habits don’t change easily; no one leaves his or her assumptions quickly. If you rely more on your own reason and hard work than on the Spirit’s power, which brings you under the obedience of Jesus Christ, you will wait a long time for illumination; for God intends to make us fully subject to Him so that, inflamed with His love, we will rise above the narrow limits of human reason.
Thomas à Kempis (Donald E. Demaray, ed.), The Imitation of Christ, 1:14:3
Why is it so hard to change? Even when the need is clear and compelling, change is most often avoided. In a recent lesson, Erwin McManus cited a study conducted on people who were told that in the absence of some change in their life style they were going to die prematurely. The study showed that only one person in seven made changes necessary to prolong their life. 15% ! I was startled by that statistic until I though about my encounters with the need to make changes in my own life style.
Why are we like that?
Maybe you can think of other reasons why we don’t change. If the threat of death doesn’t work … More importantly, I would like to understand what enables the one of seven to make changes.
For the most part, I think about change in the context of “before and after” i.e. TV’s “The Biggest Loser”
Perhaps a prequel to “The Biggest Loser” would be enlightening.
