Training vs. Trying to be Like Jesus

by JD Senkbile/3enkbile

Here's an excerpt from John Ortberg’s book, The Life You’ve Always Wanted:

There is an immense difference between training to do something and trying to do something.

Spiritual transformation is not a matter of trying harder, but of training wisely. This is what the apostle Paul means when he encourages his young protégé Timothy to “train yourself in godliness.” This thought also lies behind his advice to the church at Corinth: “Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever.”

Respecting the distinction between training and merely trying is the key to transformation in every aspect of life. People sometimes think that learning how to play Bach on the keyboard by spending years practicing scales and chord progressions is the “hard” way. The truth is the other way around. Spending years practicing scales is the easy way to learn to play Bach. Imagine sitting down at a grand piano in front of a packed concert hall and having never practiced a moment in your life. That’s the hard way.

…Learning to think, feel, and act like Jesus is at least as demanding as learning to run a marathon or play the piano. For me, this truth brought light to the darkness. For the first time as an adult, I found the notion of following Jesus a real, concrete, tangible possibility. I could do it. Following Jesus simply means learning from him how to arrange my life around activities that enable me to live in the fruit of the Spirit.

Yesterday at our Coram Deo gathering, I said we should start comparing our Christian walks to Michael Jordan shooting jump shots. Besides being genetically gifted, the reason MJ may be the greatest player to ever play the game of basketball is his drive and work ethic outside game time. He made literally thousands of shots a week. Jordan was always focused on the success, not the failure, and he believed that he could be the best ever. What if we lived the Christian life like that? What if we actually believed we could successfully follow Jesus and started from a point of hope rather than failure? It’s right there for the taking, but he isn’t going to do it for us. No, Jesus is too good for that. He calls us to join him in the process (mission).

Cheap Grace

At Coram Deo we say that the gospel changes everything. That's not revolutionary; it's just the Bible. But you wouldn't know it from the face of the evangelical church in America.

Today I happened to pick up a back-issue (April 2005) of the magazine Christianity Today. In it was an interview with Ron Sider (photo) in which he says that the evangelical movement is "riddled with hypocrisy." Sider is a longtime social-justice activist whose book Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (1977) should be read thoughtfully by all of us. His comments in CT nail the core of the problem in American Christianity. And his solution is a return to the biblical gospel. Here is an excerpt:

We need to rethink our theology. We need to ask, "Are we really biblical?" Cheap grace is right at the core of the problem. Cheap grace results when we reduce the gospel to forgiveness of sins only; when we limit salvation to personal fire insurance against hell; when we misunderstand persons as primarily souls; when we at best grasp only half of what the Bible says about sin; when we embrace the individualism and materialism and relativism of our current culture. We also lack a biblical understanding and practice of the church.

I would think that evangelicals would want to get biblical and define the gospel the way Jesus did - which is that it's the good news of the kingdom. Then we see that it means that the way to get into this kingdom is through unconditional grace because Jesus died for us. But it also means there's now a new kingdom community of Jesus' disciples, and that embracing Jesus means not just getting fire insurance so that one doesn't go to hell, but it means embracing Jesus as Lord as well as Savior. And it means beginning to live as a part of his new community where everything is being transformed.

The Suffering Servant vs. the Honorable Prophet

The violent protests that erupted around the world earlier this month over cartoons of the prophet Muhammad showed the essence of the difference between Christianity and Islam. "The work of Muhammad is based on being honored and the work of Christ is based on being insulted." No one has written more lucidly about the contrast than John Piper. Follow this link, read... and worship.

So We Had Glazed Donuts for the Lord's Supper

We practice shared leadership at Coram Deo. That is partly a response to the biblical idea of what it means to be a body (each individual part doing its part, Eph. 4:16), and partly a conscious attempt on my part to resist the intoxicating lust for control (which happens to be a significant heart idol of mine). The upshot of this is that unpredictable things do happen, regularly.

Like this morning, when glazed donuts symbolized the Lord’s body in our Communion observance.

Before you write this off as an obnoxious, postmodern, emerging-church experiment, realize that the architect of this morning’s feast does have a seminary degree. So I tend to trust his thoughtfulness and reflection on these matters. Kurt often talks of viewing the Lord’s Supper through multiple facets, and I have given him permission to help us explore those facets. (This morning’s facet: the sweetness of Christ’s sacrifice.) Having said that, I must confess that as Gavin was preaching a masterful sermon, I was wrestling with the abnormality of having donuts and grape juice instead of bread and wine.

The inner wrestling brought me face to face with the question of truth and preference. I began to ask: why am I bothered by donuts in communion? Is bread more biblical than bread-cooked-in-oil-with-a-hole-in-the-middle? Is this a matter of truth? Or a matter of preference? Even as I write, my soul isn’t totally at rest. I take seriously the role God has given me to guard sound doctrine (Titus 1:9) and guide obedient worship (1 Cor 14:37-40). But I also like conflict and tension and messiness – especially in my own soul. Following Jesus is not formulaic.

I opened my copy of the Westminster Confession to the section on “The Lord’s Supper,” where I found the words “bread” and “wine” to describe the elements. So I reasoned that if it’s literal obedience we’re after, substituting grape juice for wine (as is common in many evangelical churches) is at least as big of a stretch as substituting donuts for bread. The whole experience revealed to me at least one angle on the matter that I didn’t want to think about: I prefer plain bread because that’s just what I’ve come to expect. It has little to do with biblical regulations and a lot to do with my cultural preference.

If donuts became the norm every week, I would have to object. But by the same token, if a certain form of bread becomes so ‘normal’ that it defines what communion is, are we not simply elevating our cultural preferences to the place of truth? (I mean that as a question. Your comments are welcome.)

Caveat: The Lord’s Supper is a thing of deep spirituality and mystery. It is not to be trifled with. And I do believe that the elements are prescriptive, not descriptive. Bread is the basic staple of life. As it sustains us physically, so Christ sustains us spiritually (John 6:32-33). (So donuts are a stretch, since they fall in the category of “junk food” and not “basic sustenance”). Wine, as it lingers on the palate, reminds us both of the bitterness of Christ’s death (Matt 27:48) and of the joyful feast that is yet to come when we are reunited with our Bridegroom (Matt 26:29).

So I believe in bread and wine. But I also believe in the prophetic role of bringing us to confront our worship norms, asking why we have them and what they have to do with the fabric of the gospel – which is at least one thing that happened for me this morning. Thanks, Kurt, for taking us there.

Cultural Architecture

If you look over there in the left-hand column on this blog, you'll see my smiling mug with the phrase "Cultural Architect, Coram Deo Church" underneath. I have taken a lot of crap for this title. My brother left me a voice mail asking if I did 'cultural architecture consulting.' Some not-so-friendly critics of Coram Deo suggested that in a truth-compromising sellout to postmodernistic cultural relevance, I had given up on the title "pastor."

Au contraire. The culture of a community IS the most important reality about it. Think about the places you have worked, or the schools you've attended: they have a defining culture. Business consultant James Alexander says, "The culture becomes highly ingrained to the point of becoming invisible to the members of the organization. That is why it is so difficult for group members to talk about their culture, because it operates at a level blow our normal consciousness." Commenting on the culture within a church, John Burke writes, "That intangible 'feel' [of a church] is the culture. [T]hough it may be imperceptible to regular members... the culture makes all the difference in the world in a post-Christian society."

No matter what we preach, teach, say, or do, it's our communal culture that defines us as a church. The task of a leader is to create a certain culture - one that reflects the values of the Kingdom and the heart of Jesus. That's my task. And that's the task of all of us who make up the core of Coram Deo. We are culture-shapers.

So yes, I am pastor. I am a shepherd. I am a servant of Jesus. And because I am those things, I am a cultural architect.

'Nuff said. Boo-yah to the naysayers.

Strangest Thing Overheard in Orlando

(I swear I'm not making this up.)

Setting: a new-agey jewelry/instrument/art store where Gavin and me were browsing around for some cool gifts

Woman to guy at counter: "Do you guys sell skulls?"

Guy at counter: "No... (pause)... we DO have some shrunken heads over there, but no skulls."

Is it just me, or is that just a little bit outside the norm?

The Executive Center of Your Life

This quote from Dallas Willard is an adequate summary of our conversation about the heart:

The human heart, will, or spirit is the executive center of a human life. The heart is where decisions and choices are made for the whole person...

So does this mean that spiritual transformation is simple - just start with the heart, and it will all work out? Not quite...

This does not mean that the whole person actually does only what the heart directs, any more than a whole organization does precisely what the CEO directs...

Think of it this way: heart/will/spirit is the primary agent in transformation, and yet it's not the only thing that needs transformation. Transformation is complex, but it always starts with the heart.

...[H]uman life as a whole does not run by will alone. Far from it. Nevertheless, life must be organized by the will if it is to be organized at all. It can only be pulled together "from the inside." That is the function of the will or heart: to organize our life as a whole, and indeed, to organize it around God. And of course life must be organized, and organized well, if one's existence is to be even fairly tolerable to one's self or those around. Every civilization of any type has recognized this.
...When successful, spiritual formation (or really, re-formation) unites the divided heart and life of the individual.

(all quotes are from Renovation of the Heart by Dallas Willard)

The Nuances of Possibility

On Sunday morning I asked the question, "Was it possible for Samson to resist Delilah and obey God?" Then we answered that question by saying "yes and no." In one sense, it was possible: each of us is a responsible moral agent, and can choose to obey or disobey. But in another sense, it wasn't: Samson's character had been formed, and his actions were simply the outworking of his character. It wasn't possible for him to act contrary to his character.

I could tell some of you were wrestling with this a little bit, because it's messy and you don't like the way I nuance definitions. (Sorry, that's the nature of language!!) This quote from John Frame might help:

Was it possible that Jesus' bones could be broken? ...Well, yes, in the sense that they had the same material composition as other human bones... On the other hand, God prevented the breaking of Jesus' bones in order to fulfill prophecy (John 19:36). So there is also a sense in which Jesus' bones could not be broken... The breaking of Jesus' bones was physically possible, but impossible by virtue of God's decree. So the concept of possibility is... complex. We are inclined to say that every event is either possible or impossible. But we can see that some events... are both possible and impossible in different respects. (from The Doctrine of God, p. 132)

Hope this helps clarify the ways in which 'going against your character' can be both possible and impossible.

Perspective on Spiritual Formation

In our discussions about spiritual formation at Coram Deo, I've quoted quite a bit from Dallas Willard. Many of these quotes are from his book Renovation of the Heart; but here is a link for a very good 5-page article that summarizes the essence of his thought regarding spiritual formation.

Orlando, Day 3

After rescuing JD from the jaws of this fierce gator, we spent some time pondering a challenging question asked by one of our trainers today:

Is the city here for your church, or is your church here for the city?

What do you think? The right answer, of course, is that Coram Deo should exist for the city - that is, we should long for God's kingdom to come in Omaha and for Omaha to be a better place because of it. Our church exists to serve the city in the name of Christ.

But is that really what drives us? What do you think?