Baptism in the Holy Spirit Redux

It has been a while since I last posted anything on Baptism in the Holy Spirit. The topic has come up again recently in my reading so perhaps its time to post some more thoughts.

First of all, I finally got round to reading Jesse Philips paper on Subsequence. Don’t be put off by the fact that this is just an undergraduate essay – this is a very mature and persuasive defense of the Pentecostal view of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit as subsequent to regeneration (without insisting on tongues as an evidence). I will also be hoping to engage with Simon Ponsonby’s modified third wave view in his “God Inside Out” book at some point on my blog.

But today I just want to share some recent thoughts on the meaning of the word “baptism” and “filling”, when applied to the Holy Spirit.

It is universally agreed that whatever Baptism in the Holy Spirit (BHS) refers to, it can also be described with a number of equivalent terms – “clothed with power”, “received the Spirit”, “filled with the Spirit”, “fallen on them” and so on. In other words, BHS was not a technical term in the minds of the NT writers, but a descriptive term – describing the nature of the event.

Baptism of course literally means “plunging”, “immersion” etc. But we also seem to have attached the meaning of “initiation” to it. i.e. BHS is the “initial” reception or power encounter with the HS.

But what if the NT writers who use the term BHS are not thinking of “initiation” at all, but simply drawing on the metaphor of the Spirit as water. This image has good biblical pedigree both in the OT and NT (c.f. Isa 44:3, John 4:14, 7:38-39). I recently noticed that every single reference to BHS also includes a mention of baptism in water in the very same verse/sentence. See (Matt 3:11,16; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16,21; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 2:38; 8:16; 10:47; 11:16; 19:2-5).

The one exception is of course the famous 1 Cor 12:13, which nevertheless also picks up the image of the Spirit as water saying “we were all made to drink of one Spirit”.

Could we therefore argue that when the terms “baptism” and (I also think) “filling” are used in relation to the Spirit, we are to think primarily of the following imagery – ourselves as a cup / vessel, and the Spirit as water.

Mark 7:4 says that the Pharisees had various customs including washing cups, literally “baptising cups”. I fill a cup when I pour water into it to drink. I baptise it when I put it into the washing up bowl to be cleaned. If a cup is filled, then it must be deliberately tipped over for anything to flow out. If a cup is baptised, then it can’t help but overflow as it comes back out the water.

If this is indeed the picture that the NT writers have in their minds as they use terms such as baptism in the Holy Spirit and filling with the Spirit then perhaps I can draw the following implications from the analogy…

“Baptism in the Holy Spirit” then refers to such an overwhelming flooding of the Spirit that something flows out. Pentecostals say tongues, I would say some form of speech – tongues, prophecy, praise, crying “Abba Father”, preaching, witness etc. BHS always entails being “filled”, and thus can be spoken of in such a way.

Being “filled with the Spirit” however can also refer to something that is, externally speaking, not so dramatic, such as when a cup is filled with water from a jug. It speaks of the Spirit giving us that internal joy and spiritual resource that enables us to pour ourselves out in ministry, witness, service, but may not necessarily overflow at the very moment of filling. It is this filling that we are to continually seek (Eph 5:18), which may of course entail a power encounter (i.e. a baptism) or may simply be a “filling”.

According to this scheme therefore, a person is regenerated by a work of the Spirit and indeed filled with the Spirit at conversion but may not necessarily be simultaneously “baptised”. If a new convert had never experienced a “baptism” in the Spirit, (though they may have been filled), the church leaders would naturally lay hands on them and pray for them that they would receive this experience that brings assurance and propels into ministry and mission.

Hence 1 Cor 12:13 speaks to a normal charismatic church – all have known this “baptising” into the Spirit. As a believer goes on in their Christian life, they are to seek regular (daily) fillings with the Spirit, and God in his grace may occasionally also baptise (immerse) them subsequent times in his Spirit in a way that again results in spontaneous vocal overflow.

I realise that in saying that I’ve probably made myself unpopular with both Pentecostals (because on this view you could be baptised in the Holy Spirit multiple times), and with third wave (because the BHS is not equivalent to conversion). As usual I welcome comments. I’m sure there are plenty of objections you can come up with. I might turn this into a more formal essay at some point, but I will let my ideas be refined by criticism first.

Theological Training Courses

I have a question for my readers (yes, both of you!) today. Does your church run any kind of theological training course, and if so, what content does it have? I have been looking around at various things going on and noticed that most church theology courses tend to run for about 10-15 “sessions”, which either run on an evening, or for half a day on a Saturday. What I find more interesting, though, is what material is covered.

Here’s four distinct approaches I have noticed, with some reflection on their advantages and disadvantages.

1. Foundational

These courses don’t actually teach theology as such, but attempt to give people the tools with which they can study theology for themselves. Typically this will involve a focus on epistemology and hermeneutics, along with some history of the Canon of Scripture and why Christians believe it. The Theology Program is perhaps the best example of this I have come across.

Advantages – if it works well, you will have equipped people to think critically about their own beliefs and evaluate others

Disadvantages – many churches would rather give people “the answers” on a theological topic & feel uncomfortable with people “deconstructing” their theology

– it takes skilled teachers to do this well

2. Systematic

This is perhaps the most common approach. The course runs like a mini Systematic Theology, with one lecture covering each major topic. Newfrontiers has a “Word Plus” course that runs along these lines.

Advantages – Systematic Theology textbooks will provide a wealth of source material to teach from & can also be used as a course text

– churches can choose the topics they will cover, allowing them to explain their denominational stance on particular “key” issues

– each lecture can be taught by a different person without a significant loss of continuity

Disadvantages – not sufficient time to cover any one topic in much detail

– can simply become an exercise in giving people the “right opinions” on any given topic rather than encouraging them to think for themselves.

3. Topical

This simply takes one sub-topic of theology and covers it in depth. This might be pneumatology, or ethics, or ecclesiology etc. I have recently been listening to the St Aldates School of Theology lectures on eschatology which take this approach.

Advantages – Gives enough time to really cover all the aspects of a topic in depth.

– Allows time to reflect on differing opinions and come to strong convictions

– If a different topic is tackled each course, the same people can keep coming back to learn new stuff, rather than simply attending once

Disadvantages – Requires significant preparation, as ready-made course material is harder to come by

– Works best if led by one person as it needs significant continuity week to week

4. Biblical

Churches that are into expository teaching may well choose this option. It is more often termed a “School of the Word” than of theology. Essentially, you work your way through a book of the Bible verse by verse or chapter by chapter.

Advantages – course materials / study guides / commentaries are readily available

– can be used to teach good hermeneutical method

– gets people stirred up to do Bible study, and gets people more Bible-literate

– as with the topical approach, people can go on as many courses as they like if the book chosen changes each time.

Disadvantages – can mean that some of those “whole Bible” big topics of systematic theology never get addressed in depth because they are only alluded to in passing

Questions

Does your church (current or past) run any theological training courses?

What approach does it take?

Have you been on it and did it work well?

Forthcoming from Baker Academic

I must confess that I spend far too much time looking at the “coming soon” pages on various publishers websites, planning what I will buy and read next after I have finished (!) the huge mountain of books by my bedside.

Baker Academic were always one of the worst for making it easy to find what was coming soon, and keeping it up to date, but they have recently redeemed themselves by posting a comprehensive guide to their forthcoming releases in the format of three PDFs.

Here’s what’s on my shopping list…

Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament edited by G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson. I’ve heard rumours about this one for years, and it finally is set to appear in Nov 2007. At 1,152 pages and with a very distinguished list of contributors this is surely set to become the standard work looking at OT use in the NT.

Baker Exegetical Commentary on Acts by Darryl Bock. Coming in October 2007 this is a welcome follow-on from the man who wrote what is widely recognised as the premier evangelical work on Luke.

Baker Exegetical Commentary on Matthew by David Turner (Feb 2008). I don’t know much about David Turner, but the BEC commentary series is rapidly becoming one of my favourites. Combined with R T France’s recent volume on Matthew in the NICNT series, this is a good time to be studying the first gospel.

Reformed and Always Reforming by Roger E Olson (Oct 2007). This is one of those books that could go either way. It is subtitled “a postconservative approach to evangelical theology” and looks at the contributions of theologians such as Grenz, Vanhoozer, Pinnock and Volf. I’ve come across postevangelical, postchristian and postcharismatic, but postconservative is a new one on me.

Spiritual Formation as if the Church Mattered by James Wilhoit (Feb 2008). Another book with an arresting title. The point seems to be that much writing on “spiritual formation” focuses on the individual Christian’s discipleship with little or no reference to the church.

Central Themes in Biblical Theology edited by Scot Hafemann and Paul House. This covers seven themes in 336 pages – “The Covenant Relationship”, “The Commands of God”, “The Atonement”, “The Servant of the Lord”, “The Day of the Lord”, “The People of God” and “The History of Redemption”. This looks like it would be good as a reference to use for an overview of these subjects that repeatedly crop up throughout the Bible.

The Jesus Legend by Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory Boyd. Subtitled “A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition”, this comes with glowing reviews from historical Jesus heavyweights such as Richard Bauckham and Craig Evans. It looks like a genuinely useful contribution to the debate although at 480 pages it may be too long for the casual reader to tackle.

The Evolution Controversy by Thomas Fowler and Daniel Kuebler. This book is designed to present the different sides in the debate rather than to argue for one particular position. I’ve been looking for a book that will do this for a while, as I have not kept up to date understanding all the different approaches found amongst evangelicals.

Getting to Know the Church Fathers, An Evangelical Introduction by Bryan Litfin (Oct 2007) looks like it will be a good way to start learning about the church fathers from an evangelical perspective, getting the basic facts on their lives and teaching without getting too bogged down by the sheer volume of their writings (I got Augustine’s City of God recently and it is huge!).

New Wine 2007

We’ve just got back from this year’s New Wine, and as usual, we found it to be a great time of meeting with God, and being inspired and refreshed through the worship and the Word. The highlight this year was Simon Ponsonby’s morning Bible teachings on the Great Commissions of the four gospels and Acts. If you haven’t heard him before, head over to the St Aldate’s sermons page and have a listen. He’s one of those all too rare people who bring Word and Spirit together, combining passion with theology.

While you’re there, check out some of Charlie Cleverly’s sermons. He also spoke a number of times at New Wine, on Song of Songs, and on martyrdom, based on his book “The Passion that Shapes Nations“.

I also bought Simon Ponsonby’s new book, “God Inside Out“, which is a theology of the Holy Spirit. I’m liking what I’m reading so far. Expect a review here soon.

Book Review – Christ’s Radiant Church (John Hosier)

This book is of particular interest to those who like myself are part of the newfrontiers family of churches. In it, John Hosier seeks to set out what are the values of the “new churches” that have sprung up over the past 30 years and of newfrontiers in particular.

Most of the material in this book will not come as a surprise to those who know the movement well. It starts off reiterating an uncompromising passion for the church, which is “fundamental to God’s glorious purpose in the earth.”

I suspect that most, if not all, the chapters in this book were originally seminars or sermons given by John Hosier, edited slightly to make them more suitable for a book format, but it still retains the style of spoken rather than written word. He draws regularly on his thorough knowledge of the book of Revelation, as well as touching on many other Biblical passages as he goes through each theme.

The first chapter is on the topic of Restoration, which is interesting as I feel that this word has been largely lost from the vocabulary of the new churches. “God’s ultimate purpose is restoration”, and this purpose will be accomplished through establishing his church as a colony of heaven on earth. Thus the restoration of the church to match God’s intention as revealed in the scriptures is a matter of the utmost importance. The church is restored in order to be the demonstration of God’s wisdom to the world.

Salvation is listed as a core value, particularly that the church is made up of those who are saved. He expounds Rom 3:21-26, and underscores the newfrontiers’ commitment to a vicarious understanding of the atonement.

As would be expected, apostles and more generally “Ephesians 4” ministries are covered in some depth. The case is made that while the “twelve” and the apostle Paul are understood to have non-repeatable roles in church history, nonetheless the ministry of “apostle” is ongoing, and indeed one of the gifts that Christ gave the church after his ascension.

This moves on naturally to a discussion of God-given leadership, which is considered vitally important. The main leadership of churches is seen in teams of elders (not apostles), who are to exercise servant leadership.

Next up is God’s lavish and undeserved grace, which perhaps is one of the “flagship” doctrines newfrontiers churches seek to be known for. Avoiding legalism at all costs, the Christian is to look to the Holy Spirit rather than the law as the dynamic for a holy life.

There are two chapters on water baptism and Spirit baptism (fire). Newfrontiers churches practise believer’s baptism, and remain broadly Pentecostal in their doctrine of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. The latter remains the more controversial doctrine, with many prominent charismatics equating the baptism in the Spirit with regeneration. However, Hosier puts forward a strong case, based in part on Lloyd-Jones, and also drawing from David Pawson, that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is a distinct experience, though we should normally expect it soon after conversion.

In a chapter on worship he defends the more lively style of the new churches against the more formal worship of traditional churches, although this debate has moved on a long way now from when the new church movements began. Another chapter deals briefly with the charismatic gifts of tongues and prophecy, again a significantly less controversial topic than it was in the early days of the restorationist movement.

I was interested to see a chapter devoted to prayer. Certainly the new churches have a very different and more dynamic style of prayer meetings than those typically found in the traditional denominations. However, my personal experience is that there were far more prayer meetings in my old Baptist church than I have found in newfrontiers. Possibly this is a value that needs to be recovered.

The chapter on money emphasises the importance of cheerful, generous giving, while rejecting the tithe as a binding law on New Testament believers. Marriage and family each had a chapter of their own. Again the emphasis on these topics varies greatly from church to church.

The topic of women is probably the most controversial in the book, as newfrontiers retain the more traditional evangelical view known as complementarian, against the egalitarian approach which seems to be more prevalent in charismatic circles. Hosier argues carefully but firmly, working mainly from 1 Cor 11 (the passage on head covering), explaining why newfrontiers churches do not appoint female pastors or elders. He did however note that there was a diversity of practise in regards to whether women could preach. I think that this is an issue that does need some clear teaching on, as many churches prefer simply not to mention it and hope that no one asks!

The book then moves on look at the kingdom (already not yet) and mission, underscoring the commitment to plant churches as the primary means of extending the kingdom.

The chapter on flexibility is very interesting. In it John Hosier lists a number of issues over which there has been a change of direction. For example, some churches are now embarking on building projects, having originally intended to avoid doing so. Other changes include various models of house group or “cell group” being tried. I couldn’t help thinking that it wasn’t so much that flexibility is a core value as that we have backed away from a more dogmatic and inflexibile idealism of the early days of restorationism. Whether this is a good thing or not is debatable.

The final chapter is on hope, and again we possibly see a modification of the more postmillenial roots of restorationist churches. John Hosier himself holds to an amillenial eschatology, but an “optimistic” one, in which the church does indeed experience triumph and restoration while at the same time there may be persecution and even apostasy.

After reading the book, I reflected on what the “missing” values were. Perhaps we might have expected to reiterate a confidence in the Bible as the Word of God, along with the conviction that we can find direction for the ordering of our churches in it. Also I felt that preaching and holiness deserved a mention. I don’t think the omission of these mean that they are not valued, but we should be careful lest they be taken for granted. Many in the new churches came out of reformed evangelical circles and so a thorough working knowledge of the Bible was second nature to them. We do need to ask though whether the next generation, those who grew up in the new churches, are getting a well rounded foundation, or whether we are so focused on the values that make us distinctive, that these other things get neglected.

Overall, it is a fascinating book for those in newfrontiers, and it will hopefully challenge all who read it to consider whether these “values” are really being believed and lived out in our churches. If it has a weakness, it is that a book of this length cannot really do justice to such a broad range of topics.

God is Most Glorified…

John Piper is famous for the quotation “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.” As obvious as it now seems, when I first heard it, it seriously challenged my way of thinking about worship. Before I had the idea that God was most glorified when I did something I really didn’t want to but I did it anyway just because he wanted me to do it. Indeed, the motive of doing something for pleasure was frowned upon by many Christians.

Those who complained of dull worship meetings were deemed unspiritual, because worship is about glorifying God, not about how we feel. This way of thinking, if taken to its logical conclusion would result in us making our worship meetings as miserable as possible, so that by participating anyway we would somehow signal a greater commitment to God.

But John Piper’s groundbreaking book Desiring God changed all that. Suddenly it became clear that passionless worship could never glorify God. In fact it dishonoured him. Churches that were afraid of making their worship more lively or contemporary no longer needed to fear that somehow this was a capitulation to selfish desires.

Twenty years on from the publication of that book, and John Piper’s argument is commonplace in evangelical and charismatic churches alike. We seek after vibrant, enthusiastic (even ‘extravagant’ and ‘undignified’) worship, knowing that the more our joy in God overflows, the more glory we bring him.

But there is a danger. What happens if John Piper’s quotation gets abbreviated very slightly?

“God is most glorified when we are most satisfied.”

I reckon you could say this in many churches and few people would notice the missing words. But it is heresy! And it is becoming the way many are thinking. If this is our guide, then the only criteria for judging a worship service is whether we enjoyed it. Did people dance? Was the worship band on top form?

But God is only glorified if our delight is found in him. Were people’s hearts directed towards him? Was the dancing merely because it was good music or because people were literally overjoyed at the wonder of their salvation?

God is looking for worshipers who will worship in spirit and in truth. Isaiah warned that it was possible to honour God with your lips while your heart was far from him.

Let us therefore not be satisfied with people having “fun” in our worship meetings. Let us press in to ensure that our joy is found in God himself. True worship consists of rejoicing in his truth and delighting in his presence. Good music helps, but can never be a substitute for true worship.

Book Review – Brothers, We Are Not Professionals (John Piper)

In this provocatively titled book, John Piper urges pastors of churches to focus on what is truly important and be radical in their ministry. He is concerned that so many pastors are getting so caught up in learning professional business techniques that will help them run their churches more efficiently that they lose sight of what they are really supposed to be doing.

But rather than critiquing trends in the modern church, John Piper prefers to write 30 short chapters each giving pastors something to be passionate about. His own remarkable fire and earnestness shines through this book, and you cannot fail to be stirred by it.

He starts off as we would expect with his typical emphasis on the glory of God, calling us to live in “Christian hedonism”, seeking to glorify God by delighting in him.

He controversially urges pastors to tell their people not to serve God. Why not? Because of the potential for a legalistic “debtor’s ethic” – where we attempt to repay God out of gratitude. He states that:

The gospel is not a help-wanted ad. It is a help-available ad. Nor is the call to Christian service a help-wanted ad. God is not looking for a people who to work for Him but people who let Him work mightily in and through them.

Piper moves on to cover a broad range of topics. He makes a plea for the learning of Greek and Hebrew, for reading Christian biography, and for serious study of the biblical text. He urges that we feel the truth of hell, and lead people to repentance through their pleasure, by which he means to point people to God as the source of real pleasure. He warns against fighting sin with “pea-shooter” regulations.

While many of the chapters are about things that a pastor should preach and teach his congregation, the focus is much wider than the Sunday morning meeting. Piper calls his readers to get a passion for mission, to defend the cause of the unborn, to love their wives, to stand up against racism, and to reject materialism.

This book ranks right up there with the best of John Piper’s writings, and I pray that many pastors and church leaders will read it, and heed his call to radical ministry, refusing to be sidetracked by the latest strategies and technologies, and focusing on being who God has called us to be, and doing what he has called us to do.

A Secular Church?

Dave Bish posted an interesting link to a lecture by Mark Dever on why Jonathan Edwards got fired. In it he quoted J H Thornwell, a Southern Presbyterian Theologian who wrote in 1832 concerning his denomination:

Our whole system of operations gives an undue influence to money. Where money is the great want [i.e. need], numbers must be sought, and where an ambition for numbers prevails, doctrinal purity must be sacrificed. The root of the evil is in the secular spirit of all our ecclesiastical institutions. What we want is a spiritual body, a church whose power lies in the truth and the presence of the Holy Ghost. To unsecularise the church should be the unceasing aim of all who are anxious that the ways of Zion should flourish.

(quote is 32 minutes into the MP3)

Surprising how relevant it seems to our own day (perhaps the ‘church growth’ movement is not as novel as some think). I also like the way he goes beyond a mere diagnosis of the problem to highlight the need of the church to be one whose power is found in “the truth and the presence of the Holy Ghost”. Or as we might say today – a church of “the Word and the Spirit”.

Trinity .NET

If you ever read a systematic theology, one of the most technical parts is the explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity (or, as my four year old daughter Lily calls it, the “holy, blessed and glorious chimney”). Wayne Grudem has gone beyond mere words and attempted to use diagrams (Systematic Theology p253-255) to explain both what is not meant as well as what Christians believe. But as a computer programmer, I prefer to think in terms of classes and interfaces. So here I present the doctrine of God in C#.

First we need to define some interfaces, to give us the three persons of the Godhead. An interface allows us to define the properties and methods of an object, without having to specify how they are implemented (which is good because it is easier for us to say what God does than how he does it). Naturally, there will be some commonality, defined in IPerson, as well as certain activities unique to each member of the Trinity.

public interface IPerson {

}

public interface IFather : IPerson {

}

public interface ISon : IPerson {

}

public interface IHolySpirit : IPerson {

}

Now the temptation would be simply to finish this off by creating a class that implements all three interfaces:

// No! Heresy!

public class God : IFather, ISon, IHolySpirit {

}

But this would not do! We would have created the heresy of modalistic monarchianism, and defined a unitarian God – one God who can appear in three different forms. We need concrete classes to represent the fact that the three persons of the godhead are indeed real and distinct persons:

public partial class Father : IFather {

}

public partial class Son : ISon {

}

public partial class HolySpirit : IHolySpirit {

}

Notice we have defined these as partial classes. We will not be able to compile our code. This is because God is infinite and cannot be fully known. There is more to each person of the Trinity than we are able to comprehend. But God is not unknowable – he has revealed himself to us – hence we do have these partial classes. We of course must not stop here, for so far we have got another heresy – tritheism. We cannot simply have three objects kicking around – we need a container class to represent the Trinity. We must continue to construct our C# doctrine of God:

[LoveAttribute]

[HolinessAttribute]

public static final class God : IFather, ISon, IHolySpirit {

private static readonly List<IPerson> persons = new List<IPerson> {

Father.Instance, Son.Instance, HolySpirit.Instance

}

public override Equals(object other) {

return false;

}

}

A few things to notice:

  • This is a static class – there is only one God. He is a singleton. We need not concern ourselves with race conditions on startup as he is also eternal (a new keyword perhaps for C# 4.0).
  • This is a final class – we will not be adding any capabilities to God in the future – he is complete
  • This is a public class – God is knowable because of his self-revelation
  • The list of persons is private and readonly – the Trinity will not be accepting any external additions of new IPersons
  • If we want to apply any custom attributes to our class (such as FaithfulnessAttribute, JusticeAttribute, LoveAttribute), we will apply them directly to the God class, as they apply equally to all three persons. I have not shown the definitions of these attributes but naturally some will inherit from CommunicableAttribute and some from IncommunicableAttribute.
  • Despite my comments above on modalistic monarchianism, I have actually chosen to apply the IFather, ISon and IHolySpirit interfaces to this class. At the very least, IFather is necessary as the Bible quite interchangably refers to the Father simply as God. But also the Son and Spirit are not wrongly described as “God” either.
  • This means that the God class implements IPerson. I leave it to your own understanding of ontological equality and economic subordination to determine how a call to a method or property of IPerson would be delegated to the appropriate member of the Trinity. Naturally you could make explicit calls to individual members of the Trinity by casting God into the appropriate Person’s interface, but they may choose to delegate back up to the godhead. Hence calling Jesus.Forgive(me), Father.Forgive(me) and God.Forgive(me) will achieve the same operation.
  • We have chosen to call our class God, but Godhead, HolyTrinity or even Yahweh may have been a more appropriate naming choice (feel free to discuss in the comments).
  • Notice we resisted the good C# programmer’s instinct to implement additional interfaces. God is not ISerializable, IClonable, and certainly not IComparable.
  • We have found it quite easy to override the Equals method – nothing is his equal, so we shall return false.

Thank you for listening to my first installment in my forthcoming magnus opum – Theology .NET. Next up I will be explaining the algorithm behind the doctrine of election.

Book Review – The Great Omission (Dallas Willard)

The introduction to this book claims that there exists a “Great Disparity” in Christianity, between the hope of “new life”, and the actual experience of many Christians. Despite many shining examples through church history, the fact remains that many believers do not live noticeably differently from the world around them. He asks then, is this a problem with the gospel itself – does it really have power to transform? Or is it a problem with ourselves?

If it doesn’t work at all, or only in fits and starts, that is because we do not give ourselves to it in a way that allows our lives to be taken over by it.

Dallas Willard argues that the urgent need of the church is to recover the practice of “discipleship”.

A disciple is a learner, a student, an apprentice – a practitioner, even if only a beginner. … Disciples of Jesus are people who do not just profess certain views as their own but apply their growing understanding of life in the Kingdom of the Heavens to every aspect of their life on earth.

So the book is devoted to exploring how we become disciples. After all, the in the Great Commission, Jesus tells us “as disciples to make disciples.” It is our failure to do this that is the “Great Omission”.

The book itself was not written as a book. It is a series of essays, lectures, book reviews and interviews all around the subject of discipleship. For the most part, this approach works surprisingly well, although it does mean a certain amount of repeated material, and perhaps a little loss of focus towards the end. While most of the chapters are accessible, a few of the lectures are a bit more academic, and more philosophical in nature. However, Willard is very quotable – I found myself underlining large parts of this book, and I will share some of these sections in this review.

The first chapter establishes the idea that “discipleship is not optional”. He states that:

Most problems in contemporary churches can be explained by the fact that members have never decided to follow Christ.

The problem is not easily fixed by telling people that Jesus is “supposed to be Lord” of their lives, as though it were an optional extra. He points the finger at explanations of the gospel that merely focus on “salvation” and missing any concept of “obedience”. The Great Commission has been modified from “make disciples” to “make converts and church members”.

A disciple is someone who has counted the cost, and desires above all else to be like Christ. They therefore “systematically and progressively rearrange their affairs to that end”. But if there is a cost to discipleship, there is also a cost to non-discipleship:

In short, non-discipleship costs you exactly that abundance of life Jesus said he came to bring.

The second chapter deals with the question of “why bother with discipleship”. After all if you can have your sins forgiven so you get to go to heaven when you die, surely that is good enough. He strongly opposes this viewpoint.

There is absolutely nothing in what Jesus himself of his early followers taught that suggests you can decide just to enjoy forgiveness at Jesus’ expense and have nothing more to do with him.

He agrees with Tozer’s assessment that the idea of accepting Jesus as Saviour but postponing obedience to him as Lord is in fact heretical.

This “heresy” has created the impression that it is quite reasonable to be a “vampire Christian”. One in effect says to Jesus, “I’d like a little of your blood, please. But I don’t care to be your student, or have your character. In fact won’t you just excuse me while I get on with my life, and I’ll see you in heaven.”

Failure to become disciples will result in us remaining “locked in defeat as far as our moral intentions are concerned”.

Only avid discipleship to Christ through the Spirit brings the inward transformation of thought, feeling and character that “cleans the inside of the cup” (Matt 23:25) and “makes the tree good” (Matt 12:33)

Willard anticipates some possible objections to this teaching. The first being that calling to serious discipleship could be construed as Pharasaism.

[The Pharisees] located goodness in behavior and tried to secure themselves by careful management at the behavioral level. However, that simply cannot be done. Behavior is driven by the hidden or secret dimension of human personality, from the depths of the soul and body and what is present there will escape. Hence the Pharisee always fails at some point to do what is right, and then must redefine, re-describe, or explain it away – or simply hide it.

In contrast, the fruit of the spirit, as described by Jesus, Paul, and other biblical writers, does not consist in actions, but in attitudes or settled personality traits that make up the substance, of the “hidden” self, the “inner man”.

The second objection is that the call to discipleship is thought by some to be in antithesis to grace – an attempt to pay back God for our salvation which we did not earn. He repeatedly replies to this objection with the assertion that

Grace is opposed to earning, not to effort. Earning is an attitude. Effort is an action.

We must stop using the fact that we cannot earn grace (whether for justification or for sanctification) as an excuse for not energetically trying to receive grace. Having been found by God, we then become seekers of ever-fuller life in him.

In other words, calling Christians to put all their effort into following Jesus is not in any way anti-grace, but is in fact quite biblical.

So having established the importance of discipleship, he then goes on to explain the practical ways one goes about becoming a disciple. He uses the term “spiritual formation” to describe the process of the transformation of our spirits to become more Christlike. The methods he proposes may surprise some. He does not focus on typical devotional activities such as Bible reading, prayer and church attendance. Nor does he suggest things such as exercising spiritual gifts, evangelising or social action. Rather, he sees spiritual disciplines such as solitude, silence, fasting and meditation as being key to spiritual formation. Other disciplines he encourages are private hymn singing and Bible memorisation.

This is perhaps again a point on which many evangelicals will get nervous. While the “spiritual disciplines” are not outright rejected, they certainly are not thought to be primary as means of spiritual growth. The second part of the book sets about explaining in greater detail how these spiritual disciplines are able to transform our character.

Spiritual disciplines are activities in our power that we engage in to enable us to do what we cannot do by direct effort.

Spiritual formation is the process whereby the inmost being of the individual takes on the quality or character of Jesus himself.

Spiritual formation does not aim at controlling action. … God is looking for those who worship him in spirit and in truth. We cannot fake before God. … To focus on action alone is to fall into pharasiasm of the worst kind and to kill the soul.

He takes some time to criticise the concept that God will just transform us with a lightning strike of the Spirit without the need for a process. This is common in some evangelical circles where the prayer is that God will send revival on us to change us in an instant without any need for effort on our own part.

What we must understand is that spiritual formation is a process that involves the transformation of the whole person, and that the whole person must be active with Christ in the work of spiritual formation. Spiritual transformation into Christ-likeness is not going to happen unless we act.

As I often point out to folks, today we are not only saved by grace, we are paralysed by it.

Again he urges us not to reduce the gospel to merely dealing with sin. “A gospel of justification alone does not generate disciples”. We are to trust in Jesus for everything, not just forgiveness of sins. “The gospel is new life through faith in Jesus Christ.”

For Willard, the most important part of spiritual formation is learning obedience. For this reason, we must regain an appreciation of Jesus as teacher. He bemoans the fact that few if any churches have any strategy for systematically teaching believers all the teachings of Jesus. He stresses the vital importance of Scripture memorisation. Being transformed in our characters so that we can obey him involves deliberate planning on our part.

We enter into each of Jesus’ teachings by choosing different behaviours that are relevant, finding the space – making the arrangements – in our lives to put them into action and re-visioning the situation in the new behavioural space that includes God.

The later parts of the book spend some time explaining the value he sees in disciplines such as solitude and silence, both of which he considers to be very important. The final section of the book is given to short reviews of books that may prove helpful. Many of these are written by or about Christian “mystics” and perhaps would be treated with a level of suspiciousness by many evangelicals. But Willard argues that there is much to be learned from them, particularly in regards to focusing our hearts and minds on God as we spend time in solitude with him.

This is certainly a provocative and challenging book and one I would thoroughly recommend. The call to discipleship is conspicuous by its absence in many churches, which can focus solely on doctrinal correctness, or evangelism, or social action without ever really addressing the transformation of the character. He does a good job of addressing some of the concerns that may be raised by his emphasis on discipleship, although I suspect that not all readers will share his enthusiasm for the spiritual disciplines. But in any case, this book deserves a wide readership and I pray that it will be instrumental in putting discipleship and spiritual formation back on the agenda in many churches.