Tag: Discipleship

Posted on

Two Conversations

In prayer, we have a model for a holy conversation. Calvin writes that in order to experience prayer’s power, we must “have our heart and mind framed as becomes those who are entering into converse with God.” That is, we are prepared not just to share our thanksgiving and petitions with God, but also to listen.

In their book Literature Through the Eyes of Faith, Susan Gallagher and Roger Lundin use a conversation as a model for reading: “Understanding another person or a book is thus not a matter of casting off our own assumptions in order to put on those belonging to someone else. Instead, when we read, we are striving to hear what the other person has said about a subject that matters to us.” That is, we come to a book to have a dialogue, not simply to be passive and be lectured to.

If our traditional model of prayer is a time of simply speaking, our traditional of model of reading is simply listening. Calvin, Gallagher, and Lundin ask us to realize that both practices require an actual dialogue.

In this vein, I am struck by the final metaphor George Herbert uses for prayer in “Prayer (I)”: “something understood.” That word “understood” is not talking about something implicit or a meaning below the surface. The word is Old English in origin, and the “under” actually means “between.” At the heart of our spiritual lives are to be two great loves: for God and for others. We can exercise these loves in conversation–in speaking and listening–through prayer and reading.

Posted on

Finding a Balance

As I approach the New Year, here are five areas for which I pray that God will help me find a happy medium.

  1. My commitment to discipleship at home (with my family) and at work (with my colleagues and students)
  2. My input (the things I read, watch, consume) and output (the things I read, teach, and create)
  3. My view of literature as a means for social action and source of delight
  4. My commitment to orthodoxy and my commitment to orthopraxy
  5. My pursuit of glorifying God and my pursuit of enjoying Him forever

The balancing act required for the goals I want to achieve are less quantitative than qualitative. I pray for the emotional and rational discernment necessary to feel and know how to let God work in my life in these areas today and in the days to come.

Posted on

Three Ends

Yesterday, I responded to an observation by Susan Gallagher and Roger Lundin about our obsession with origins as opposed to ends. This prompts the question: what are the proper ends of reading literature?

Gallagher and Lundin advocate for three:

  1. Cultivation: the active ordering and structuring of the creation God has given us
  2. Delight: joy found in the
  3. Love: committed and humbling service to God and our neighbors

My courses tend to get atomistic after the first class. We pick up different works and interpret them as specifically as we can for the purposes of developing particular writing / analytical skills, but the ends or purposes of all those readings get lost. As I try to give students a paradigm for interpretation that glorifies God and helps them enjoy him better, these ends will be good hooks for the reading and writing we do.

Posted on

Purpose and Origin

For several centuries, however, the emphasis has been shifting from questions of ends to questions of origin. When we seek to explain something, we are no longer likely to ask, “What was the end for which this object has been created?’ but “What was its source?’ To understand something, we tend to want to learn where it has come from and how it works; we think of facts as items to be calculated or explained to help us understand how things have developed.

From Literature Through the Eyes of Faith

In the quotation above, Roger Lundin and Susan Gallagher identify one sign of our culture’s move away from Christianity: we ask for something’s origin instead of its purpose.

The “origins” move is genealogical. My wife and I joke about how literary theory’s constant dictum is “everything is constructed.” What that discussion tends to obscure is the purpose or end of the cultural practice under examination.

As I put together biographical notes for my upcoming literature classes, it’s far easier to find facts that explain the origins of an author’s work. Jhumpa Lahiri was a Bengali immigrant who had academics as parents and spent a key time of her life in New England. This would go a long way towards explaining where the key elements in her short story collection Interpreter of Maladies came from, but it does very little to explain why she wrote the stories in the first place.

In an interview last year, Lahiri commented, “I know that writing is a way of expressing oneself, of communicating. But it’s not made for the reader. Of course there will always be a reader; but when I write I don’t think about that hypothetical person.” Writing, she contended, is “an internal dialogue.” Given the role that interpretation, translation, and just plain old communication play in her collection’s stories, this claim about writing’s purpose can go much further in helping us figure out what her writing is doing than simply providing biographical facts that can be matched one-to-one with details inside the story.

I will take Lundin and Gallagher’s admonition to focus as much if not more on something’s purpose than its origins and will attempt to direct my students to do the same.

Posted on

Grades and Sanctification

“This A is not an expectation to live up to, but a possibility to live into.”

From The Art of Possibility

In the quotation above, Rosamund and Ben Zander encourage us to give ourselves and those we teach As. The point is to remove the comparative measurements that too often stifle and paralyze us.

To make a theological analogy, the Zanders encourage us to use grades as an act of sanctification rather justification. Justification of course is “an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins,” according to the shorter Westminister Catechism. No amount work on our part will earn us that pardon, and it doesn’t matter what the quality of that work is or how long we do it for. Sanctification, on the other hand, is a process no less of grace “whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.”

I will be meditating on how this distinction should work itself out in my assessments and the joy, love, and peace that accompany the work of the Spirit in our lives.

Posted on

Interaction, Not Substitution

This discussion of the history of changes in our language, and in specific Christian uses of language, has brought us to a point where a redefinition of metaphor is in order. In place of the long-standing Aristotelian view of metaphor as substitution, as a process in which poetic words “stand in’ for literal ones, we could perhaps say that the metaphorical process is one of interaction. When we use a metaphor, we say that one thing is another. We take a word from its conventional context and apply it to a new situation.

From Literature Through the Eyes of Faith

In the quotation above, Roger Lundin and Susan Gallagher present a new way of understanding metaphor. Since this site’s title–Education is Discipleship–is a metaphor, it’s worth thinking about how those two words interact.

The current connotations of discipleship and education are spiritual and secular respectively. The interaction between the two stresses the similarities between the two enterprises, that both discipleship and education produce growth through the act of learning. For Christ’s followers, the language of education–of students and teachers, disciples and rabbis–was the easiest way to understand the Messiah’s work. The great commission contains the word that means “teach” and commands us to go create more students.

A great deal of money and research over the past three decades has been spent figuring out we learn best. All of this material should be grist for our discipleship mill. No, education will never fully encompass the work of discipleship, but noticing the interaction between the two is a way of both understanding what Christ has called us to do and discovering new ways of learning more about him and the world.

Posted on

Interpretive Paradigms


The understanding we acquire through reading of literature can help us make sense of human actions, just as an understanding of human behavior is essential for a deep appreciation of literature.

From Literature Through the Eyes of Faith

In the quotation above, Roger Lundin and Susan Gallagher make the point that interpretation is fundamental to human life. God made a meaningful, significant universe so our lives, not just our experiences with books, are sense-making endeavors.

We call a coherent interpretive framework a PARADIGM or MODEL, and as I teach my intro to literature course this spring, I will be asking the questions below. Each pertains not just to reality but to the fictional worlds we read.

  1. What is the most fundamental reality in the world?
  2. How do human beings fit into that reality? 
  3. What are the most important rules of that reality?
  4. What are the consequences of following or breaking those rules?
  5. What kind of future does the world hold?
Continue reading “Interpretive Paradigms”
Posted on

Do You Love Reading?

If someone were to ask me if I love reading, the short answer would be yes.

The longer answer would be yes, if…

  • I get to discuss what I’m reading with a friend
  • I can listen to what I’m reading
  • The book makes me do better work
  • The book makes me laugh
  • I leave the experience with more joy

The books I love most come with stories about how I read them, not just what they were about.

Continue reading “Do You Love Reading?”
Posted on

Reader Types: The Professional and The Status Seeker

As I continue to think about kinds of reading and readers, I turned to C.S. Lewis’s An Experiment in Criticism today. The book’s entire premise is that it’s easier to talk about differences among kinds of readers instead of kinds of books.

In the book’s second chapter, Lewis makes clear that people who love reading (“the few”) are not morally superior to those who do not love reading (“the many”). He also makes clear that not everyone who seems to be part of “the few” is really in that number. We have the professional and the status seeker to deal with.

Read more