August 12, 2009

• spiritual nutrition, part 1

  Some initial thoughts on "spiritual nutrition"...

  We're all familiar with the idea of making sure we're eating a balanced and healthy food diet.  Not that we always do, but we have some knowledge on how it's done.  For example:

  - Whole grains/carbohydrates - breads, cereals, rice, etc - foundation of diet, should compose bulk of intake

  - Vegetables and fruits - fresh vegetables and fruits, juices, etc - should eat a serving or more per day

  - Protein - meats, eggs, vegetable protein sources like soy/tofu, etc - some protein needed every day, especially for athletes, but can use vegetable protein to supplement meat protein

  - Dairy - milk, yogurt, etc - for calcium, etc

  - Fatty and sweet food - some fat/oil is helpful each day, especially oils high in ohmega-3 and ohmega-6 acids and low in saturated fat... but generally fatty and/or sugary/high-glycemic-index food should be minimized for best health

   

  What about spiritual nutrition?  The Bible uses the analogy many times between physical food and spiritual food - Scriptural teaching and thoughts-to-meditate-on that feed the soul and keep it healthy...  1 Corinthians 3:2, Hebrews 5:12, etc.
  Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited. Hebrews 13:9

  In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following.  1 Tim. 4:6

  Therefore, I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.  Acts 20:26-27
  Two aspects of this, followed by a quote and a question (the question that spawned this whole post):

  1. Personal - what are the essentials of spiritual nutrition for your and my own daily walk with God?   (to be combined with Biblical preaching/teaching from church, ideally)

  - Some people rely on devotional books which have a daily verse of scripture, some commentary, and a couple heartwarming anecdotes.  The advantage of this is that the convenience of it helps one stay consistent, it provides a bite-sized piece of Scripture to think about throughout the day with a minimum of effort.  The disadvantage is that it's kind of like a '90-second microwave dinner' - convenient and packed with the necessary calories, but overly processed and lacking in the full cohort of minerals...  i.e., it can lead to reliance on human commentators rather than teaching one to dig into the Scriptures for oneself.  Especially, if one only reads these pre-written devotional books, one can gradually absorb the theological biases of the commentators or organization, and become gradually hardened to the voice of the actual Scriptures.  The Pharisees had this problem too... Matthew 15:3.

  - Some people slowly work on memorizing a large chunk of Scripture.  The advantage of this is that when you're done, you know that passage of scripture really really well, and you have it memorized, in context.  The downside is that you don't get exhortation from other parts of scripture during this time.  Imagine eating steak every day for three months, without vegetables, bread, or anything else.  Steak is a good source of protein, but...

  - Some people flip the Bible open randomly each day and read a little bit to think about each day.  Advantage: One gets "the whole counsel of God."  Disadvantage: hard to remember what you've read earlier that week, because there's no theme... also, if one comes upon a confusing passage, how is one to understand it without study and commentaries and meditation and prayer and conversation, etc?

  - Some people use Bible-reading schedules like Andrew Murray's or the One Year Bible that has you read a little Old Testament and a little New Testament every day.  Advantage: continuity across days, and widely-varied 'nutrients' from across the Bible.  Disadvantage - one has to read so fast and so much that one has little time to ponder and 'chew on' the passage throughout the day.

  - What other thoughts or ideas can you contribute?

  2. Pastoral - When one is a spiritual teacher of others (either an church elder, or a teacher, or a sunday school teacher, etc), how does one decide what spiritual meal to cook up for your dependents?  (I am taking for granted that the BIBLE is what is being exposited, not the church fathers, C.S.Lewis, Augustine, Readers' Digest, or whatever other 'words of men' might tempt comparison with the written "Word of God")

  - "Expository" style - Preach/teach through one book of the Bible, verse-by-verse or chapter by chapter.  Advantage: It is easier to arrive at the contextually-accurate meaning of each passage when one is studying each book as a whole, and one doesn't have to worry as much about his/her own biases causing only one's "favorite" passages to be studied while ignoring the others.  Disadvantage: How does one choose which book to study at which time? Also, as one becomes aware of specific needs or areas of ignorance in the group, it is impossible to address those areas if one is bound to the structure of teaching on a different passage which has a different point.

  - "Topical" style - Pick a topic, either for one session or for a series, and develop it throughout the Bible.  As an example, it seems that Jesus and James preached topically (although they certainly jumped from topic to topic a lot).  Advantage: one can collect all of the relevant Bible verses and build a full understanding. Also, one can pick topics that are flexible and relevant to weekly current events or group questions.  Disadvantage: more subject to personal bias in which topics get picked.

  - Mixtures of the two above... As a variation on the "Topical" style, there are many "basic staples" and "essential vitamins and minerals" which are proposed as essential emphases by various preachers.  Tim Keller says "Always preach as if unsaved people are in the audience, and then eventually if you always preach that way, they will start coming" (i.e., he recommends adding "apologetics" as a supplement to every meal). Piper and Reisinger and the fundamentalists talk about weaving in the Gospel and God's grace into every sermon.  Others say people need to "drink from a moving stream", meaning that you should preach/teach out of what God is showing you in your own personal life.  But the risk is that if you're only focusing on what God is teaching you, you'll overlook what they need to hear for their own life situation.   Others recommend sharing of one's own failings so the audience can empathize and doesn't place the speaker on a pedestal.  Still others contradict this and say that that is 'preaching ourselves' rather than 'preaching Christ Jesus as Lord'.  Either way, all these 'vitamin additives' are pulling the meal away from the text being exposited, though they may be part of the 'relevance frame' (Acts 17, 1 Cor 9:22) that garnishes the meal and helps it to be better accepted and digested....   ????

  - What other patterns or ideas can you contribute?

  Interesting quote:

  But once preach the whole counsel of God, and you shall have both parties down upon you; one crying, "The man is too high," the other saying, "No, he is too low;" the one will say, "He’s a rank Arminian," the other, "He’s a vile hyper-Calvinist." How many there are kept in bondage through neglect of gospel invitations. They are longing to be saved. They go up to the house of God, crying to be saved; and there is nothing but predestination for them. On the other hand, what multitudes are kept in darkness through practical preaching. It is do! do! do! and nothing but do! and the poor souls come away and say: "Of what use is that to me? I can do nothing. Oh, that I had a way shown to me available for salvation."  -- Charles Spurgeon

   

  Question: What about when one is in an imbalanced church?  (And the rub is: every church is imbalanced in some way!)

  For example, what if one goes to a church in which everyone is all about love and friendship but they don't emphasize Bible study or doctrinal truth very much, and they just skip around to the "love" passages of the Bible but never talk about 2 John 1:10 or Jesus' "Hell" teachings, etc.  If one is given a sunday school teaching responsibility, should one say "I'll emphasize doctrine and apologetics here, because they don't get enough of this spiritual nutrient in their diet from the rest of the church", or should one try to present the exact balance found in Scripture (but how???)  ?

  Or what if one goes to a church that heavily emphasizes "higher-life"/"clean-up-your-life"/"improve-yourself" teachings and fits Spurgeon's description of a church that keeps multitudes in darkness through "practical preaching. It is do! do! do! and nothing but do! and the poor souls come away and say: "Of what use is that to me? I can do nothing. Oh, that I had a way shown to me available for salvation.""   Would one here place a heavier-than-Scriptural emphasis on "Grace, Grace, Grace", reasoning that they don't hear enough of it from their background?  Or would one teach both "to him who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly" AND "cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you doubleminded", knowing that your hearers will likely only hear the latter because of their background of legalistic/arminian teaching...  ?   Would you 'slant' your emphases based on one's perceptions of where one's pupils are at?  Or keep one's teaching 'unslanted' in the hope that eventually God's Word will do its work?
  Your thoughts are welcome.

  • 1:02 am
  • 3 Comments