Only a few days remain to maximize your giving to the 501c3 religious nonprofit, EIDOS Christian Center, and thereby help to fund the further development of our website's ministry ... O'h, and did I also mention that you too can benefit from your giving?

We need to raise at least $4000 more by December 31, 2011 in order to take advantage of a matching grant.

Thanks to a generous EIDOS donor, $5,000 has been pledged for every $5,000 received by December 31, 2011. So, this will ensure that the value of your donation goes beyond your own individual contribution.

Moroever, thanks to the gracious support of Biola University's Christian Apologetics Department, for every $50 or more donated, supporters will receive my CASE for CHRISTIANITY CD series. Of all my media products, I think this one will be most useful in your ministry to others. You can learn more about this series by going here.

Finally, if you donate $200 or more, I will happily offer you space on our forthcoming SUPPORTERS page to promote your name, business/ministry, and a bio about who you are. This is the least that I could do, and would like to gladly do it, and thereby promote your patronage.

Will you please consider giving $50, $100 or $300 to EIDOS? We really need your support today! Of course, any amount will be gladly accepted and stewarded.

<DONATE NOW>

Increasingly, people of all ages are looking for solid, Christian knowledge resources. Our website, including the work of our Associated Blog Contributors, is helping to support seekers and learners worldwide.

JPMORELAND.com is reaching many more lives than I could ever do alone. Within less than a year, we’ve seen over 31,000 visits to our growing website – without the distraction of advertising. And get this: we have visitors from 117 different countries, including the UK, Brazil, South Africa, Sweden, India, Japan, and even Saudi Arabia. This is no mere Southern California phenomenon!

Will you join EIDOS donors in this endeavor?

Warmly,

J. P. Moreland, Ph.D.
Director

The Methodological Claim says, "there is only one way to answer [the question of HG], and the proper method is not by appealing to personal experience or citing godly authorities who disagree [but only by appealing carefully to the biblical text]." Previously, I argued that the Methodological Claim is false. In this post, I show a serious implication of the Methodological Claim for everyday knowledge, and offer an alternative suggestion for how to decide on issues like HG.

Even though the Methodological Claim is false, it’s popular. In the case of HG, this popularity seems to be because people recognize that personal experience and testimony are fallible. It's almost always possible to be mistaken with respect to beliefs formed on their basis, and the simplest way to avoid being mistaken in these cases is to deny the evidential value of experience and testimony. Of course (and thankfully), this skepticism is applied selectively and inconsistently.

Here's the problem: if one adopts such radical skepticism toward experience and testimony regarding issues like HG, there’s no principled way to resist treating any and all other experiential and testimonial claims likewise. Skepticism toward HG would also mandate a kind of global skepticism that’s inappropriate—a skepticism in other areas where skepticism would be inappropriate.

No one should hold a view that entails such global skepticism. It would mean giving up much of what we in fact know, since a vast number of our beliefs are justified either directly via our experience of the world, or indirectly via the testimony of credible witnesses. (Think here of beliefs such as, "That voice sounds like Dad's," [when hearing a sound of a certain type] or, "There are salamanders in the yard," [when looking at the yard and seeing salamanders] or, "Lincoln was shot in Ford's Theatre," [after reading a Lincoln biography] or, "There are rocks on the moon." [after watching a TV show].)

Give all those up. That's the unfortunate cost of global skepticism.

Such skepticism has detrimental consequences for spiritual knowledge; I don't think a Christian—or anyone else—should endorse it. The worries motivating the Methodological Claim could be addressed without endorsing something so radical and implausible. Personal experience and the testimony of credible people should generally be taken as truthful unless and until there are specific reasons to judge them otherwise.

The Methodological Claim is false. So how do we assess HG, both the practice itself, and the various “words” people claim to receive?

Of course, we must guard against gullibility, cavalier attitudes and the potential for theological error—these are valid concerns. But if it turns out that experiential and testimonial evidence confirms rather than disconfirms HG, one may not ignore that evidential force merely on the basis of principle. Instead, treat HG just like any other claim—deal with each instance of purported divine "speech" case-by-case, assessing them according to the details of each case. No special methodological restriction will do them justice.

So because of the historical nature of Christianity, as one writer puts it, only those people “had access to the Lord, flesh to flesh.”  For us, people living at this particular time in history, one question to think about is:  how is Christ in our midst?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s answer is that Christ confronts us in every person that we meet. “Christ walks on the earth as your neighbor as long as there are people.”

This thought is beautifully expressed in Leo Tolstoy’s short story, “Where Love is, There God is Also.”  A poor shoemaker, Martuin Avdyeitch, reads in Matthew’s Gospel, about Simon, the Pharisee who invited Jesus to his house and the woman who shows up, uninvited, washes Jesus‘ feet with her tears and wipes them with her hair.  After reading it he is concerned that he is like the Pharisee because, just in case “Christ the Batyushka” visits him, he does not have the slightest idea how he should receive him.  Eventually Avdyeitch falls asleep and hears his name three times and a voice says, “Martuin, look tomorrow on the street. I am coming.” So the next day, skeptical but expectantly, he finds himself looking out the window, waiting, watching for Christ.  He has three encounters with different people and is able to bless them in simple but tremendous ways.  That night, as Avdyetich is putting away his work he thinks of his dream--”Christ the Batyushka” visiting him, and hears a voice, “Martuin!  Did you not recognize Me?”  “Who?” he asks, and out of the corner of the room, one after the other, appear the same people whom he had blessed that day.  Then they vanish.  Avdyeitch’s soul rejoices.  He opens the New Testament and begins to read,

“For I was hungered, and ye gave me meat.  I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger and ye took me in... In as much as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” (Matthew 25)

Then Avdyeitch understood that the Savior really called on him that day.

Merry Christmas and may we experience Christ in our midst this season and always.

The second distinction needed to clarify discussions of spiritual direction is related to the training and maturation of spiritual directors. The flaw, not fatal but significant, in most treatments of spiritual direction is that they lack a developmental dimension in their description of the director. They treat the role and ministry of the director as if this is a static reality, rather than the product of a set of capacities that grow and mature. On a more profound level, the spiritual director is fundamentally in a dynamic relationship with God, and thus direction will reflect the movement in that relationship.

The practical consequences of this neglect of development are greater than they may first appear. Andre Louf, in Grace Can Do More, presents a masterful description of an ideal spiritual director. This director is fully open to the movements of the Holy Spirit, in self and directee. He captures the contemplative dimension of spiritual direction better than any author I have encountered.

Yet Louf’s account remains an idealized portrait, perhaps giving the impression that anyone who cannot remain constantly open to God’s leading should not even consider giving direction. At times, he even seems to suggest that the director who departs from this ideal in a direction session for even a moment ought to immediately consider the relationship with that directee irrevocably lost. Louf writes of direction (“accompaniment” in his terminology) as a ministry in which the grace of God is paramount, yet there seems to be little grace for the limitations of the director to surrender to grace. Perhaps this is too harsh an evaluation, as Louf’s work is invaluable in helping the director understand the spiritual posture to enter into in direction. Still, the long path of learning to live in that posture is missing.

By contrast, most books present a picture of the ordinary, if experienced, director in the midst of ongoing ministry. They are, appropriately, written from the experience of directors in their own ministry, and perhaps in their experience training others for direction. Fundamentally, however, they tend to be professional books; they are akin to doctors, lawyers, or accountants describing professional standards and best practices. If such examples seem divorced from ministry (a division I do not agree with), consider instead the role of a pastor. These books are the equivalent of a description of how an experienced pastor prepares sermons, performs marriages and funerals, and provides basic counsel to parishioners. Again, this serves an admirable and entirely worthy purpose. However, such treatments flatten the sense of development from someone beginning to discern the hint of a calling toward offering direction to the competent spiritual director to the director with a truly unique gifting beyond general competency. Thus, the person beginning to discern a calling may be faced with an awareness of seemingly insurmountable deficits in comparison to the director described in such books, while the experienced director may find that a mastery of the basic capacities of direction leaves no vision for future development nor a way for this ministry to continue to reflect the ongoing movement of the Holy Spirit in the director’s own spiritual journey.

The birth of Christ in our souls is for a purpose beyond ourselves:  it is because his manifestation in the world must be through us.  Every Christian is, as it were, part of the dust-laden air which shall radiate the glowing epiphany of God, catch and reflect his golden Light.  Ye are the light of the world- but only because you are enkindled, made radiant by the one Light of the world. Evelyn Underhill

Advent is a time when we learn how to wait for the Lord who comes in love. This implies that there is a proper way of waiting that characterizes Advent.  Henri Nouwen, in his essay “Waiting for God” invites us to look at Elizabeth, Zechariah, Mary (in the Gospel of Luke) who exemplify this kind of waiting.  First, there is a sense of promise, says Nouwen.  Mary, Elizabeth and Zechariah are promised children through whom God will do great things.  Thus, Zechariah and Mary, holding on to that promise, praise God, remembering that He is “full of mercy, bringing light to the dark... guiding our feet in the path of peace.”

We too must wait with a sense of promise, says Nouwen; because “we have already seen the footsteps of God.” We have tasted His goodness and want more (or want to want more).

So we wait confidently, hopefully; preparing ourselves by slowing down, clearing our minds and hearts to make more room for Jesus, which also means saying no to the chaos, hurry and materialism associated with “Christmas” in our culture.

The second thing that Nouwen points out is that this kind of waiting is active, not passive.  By active waiting, Nouwen means having confidence that what is going to happen is going to change and transform things and that we are eager and alert to be a part of it, to be present to it.

But one might ask, “What is going to happen?  Jesus has already come. What’s the big deal?”  As one Christian writer puts it, we are waiting and watching to see what might happen if we allow Jesus in more fully, more deeply; praying always, that He will “enable with perpetual light the dullness of our blinded sight.”

Spiritual direction is the ministry in which one believer helps another to discern God’s presence and activity, in order to seek a faithful response.

This distinction also helps clarify the methodology of spiritual direction. The varying approaches to spiritual direction can be grouped along a continuum of formal versus informal, as well as along a continuum of directive versus non-directive. The later distinction refers to the nature of the director’s role, particularly degree of authority. The former refers to the degree to which direction is set-apart from normal activity in an intentional way.

It is most helpful to view spiritual direction as a ministry of spiritual guidance (helping others discern and respond to God’s work) that is characterized by a methodology that is relatively non-directive and formal in nature. Other ministries of spiritual guidance may have one feature or the other. Preaching may serve as a ministry of spiritual guidance and be formal, but it is necessarily directive. Listening to a friend over coffee may result in discernment and response to God and may be non-directive, but it is not formal.

Different directors may still display a variety of orientations within this perspective, showing greater or lesser degrees of formality and directivity.

• A more formal director might schedule regular appointments with specific end-times, while an informal director may meet as needed for as long as the session seems helpful. Formal directors are more likely to have a sense of the “professional” dimensions of spiritual direction, which might include a formal ethical code (such as that provided by the Evangelical Spiritual Directors Association or the interreligious Spiritual Directors International ) and professional insurance, as well as accepting or requiring payment from directees.
• A less formal director may or may not be aware of such considerations, and will tend not to introduce them into the direction relationships (often seeing them as a hindrance).
• A more directive approach will tend to include more statements of what the director is discerning, often a more prominent teaching role by the director, and perhaps more authoritative assignment of spiritual practices to the directee.
• The less directive approach consists primarily of a ministry of listening, with the director’s discernment focused on helping the directee discern. Statements by the director regarding her own discernment and teaching may occur, but they play a much less prominent role. Likewise, the director will often help the directee consider various spiritual practices and reflect on their use, but will rarely “assign” them in any sense stronger than suggesting them as helpful possibilities.

My own approach toward spiritual direction tends strongly toward the formal, non-directive approach. I approach spiritual guidance with a much more flexible stance, often engaging in approaches that might be considered informal spiritual direction or (less often) directive forms of spiritual direction (teaching a course in formation with required spiritual practices is such as example).

In my ministry as a spiritual director, however, I only move from the formal and non-directive stance when I have a strong sense that doing so would be helpful to the directee in this particular instance, and I return to the default stance as soon as possible.  Such an orientation is helpful in preserving the distinctive approach of spiritual direction, rather than moving more broadly into spiritual guidance (or into another activity entirely). It is particularly helpful for directors in training to be formed in such an approach, as it is easier to move from the formal and non-directive to the informal and directive (which seem to be the default approaches of most forms of spiritual guidance) than the other way around.

Clarifying spiritual direction as a relatively formal and non-directive ministry of spiritual guidance greatly simplifies the discussion of spiritual direction, allowing for agreement on what exactly is being discussed. It also highlights the intentionality of the ministry, that is the direct focus of the spiritual director on spiritual direction per se. Movement from this model can then be seen as an exception, and that exception can be considered as either intentional flexibility or an unintentional deviation from the model.

So, one such HG objection, as given by Greg Koukl, holds that the Bible fails to support HG and that therefore, this lack of evidence warrants rejecting it. Call this the “No-Evidence Objection”. The question of whether the Bible in fact supports HG is an important question, which J.P. Moreland addresses here, and in any case, the data (or its interpretation) is not relevant to assessing the objection. Instead, I’ll argue that the No-Evidence Objection is unsound because it makes an unjustifiable methodological assumption.

The reasoning behind the No-Evidence Objection is flawed. It's flawed because it excludes certain kinds of evidence (or reasons): the evidences of personal experience and credible testimony. Or to say it another way, it in principle limits what can count as evidence. And generally speaking, it's unjustifiable to treat some piece of purported evidence for any hypothesis as inadmissible simply because of its being the kind of evidence (or reason) it is.

But this is what the No-Evidence Objection does. Koukl’s view, for instance, is that the only way to settle the question of HG is by looking very carefully at the text of the Bible, and likewise, that to attempt to justify HG from experience is to reason circularly (for example, see his discussion here). But I don’t mean to single out Greg here; for many thoughtful people would affirm with him that "there is only one way to answer these questions [about HG], and the proper method is not by appealing to personal experience or citing godly authorities who disagree [but only by appealing carefully to the biblical text]." (See here, p.6). Let’s call the quoted material “the Methodological Claim.”

The Methodological Claim does all the “work” in the No-Evidence Objection. If someone (1) thinks that the Bible is silent on HG, and (2) affirms the Methodological Claim, it's no wonder HG comes out as unjustified: the conclusion doesn’t follow in any way from biblical teaching, but rather from a certain assumption about what can count as evidence. This is an epistemological issue, and not simply a biblical-theological or hermeneutical issue.

The Methodological Claim should be rejected for at least three reasons.

First, the Bible itself pretty plainly supports the idea that we can know truths about God extra-biblically (see, for instance, Romans 1:19-20). A person can come to regularly experience themselves as moral-spiritual creatures of a Creator, even if they don’t know that to have a basis or witness in scripture. (An argument could be made that this knowing is the result of what it means to be made in the imago Dei).

Moreover, when it comes to other issues—like the arguments for God’s existence—Greg even agrees that we can know truths about God extra-biblically. It’s just that when it comes to HG, he rejects this way of thinking about things.

Second, the Methodological Claim fails to account for an important distinction. Although the Bible is the ultimate source of knowledge of God, it is not the only such source. If that is true, then it would seem to at least counter the Methodological Claim by showing how it is inadequate as an approach (however well-intended!) or perhaps easily falsifiable. For the Methodological claim seems to land us in an unfortunate false dilemma: either trust scripture as the only reliable source of knowledge about HG or trust personal experience. It can’t account for credible testimony.

Curiously, Greg even agrees with this ultimate/only distinction in this article, but the distinction doesn’t appear to do much epistemological/methodological work for him when considering how to approach evidence for HG.

Third, and more seriously, the Methodological Claim is self-refuting. It entails the view that if a proposition about God is not in the Bible, it isn’t true (or at least we cannot know it to be true). But, the Methodological Claim itself is not contained in the Bible, so it isn’t true (or at least we cannot know it to be true).

The upshot of all this is that because the Methodological Claim is false, even if the Bible were silent on HG, the No-Evidence Objection would be no objection to HG at all.

1. Ancient Near Eastern historical narrative/biography functioned not merely to chronicle events, but to teach theology/ethics.  Much of the Bible is this genre and a central theme of Holy Scripture is how we are/are not to relate to God and each other as members of His covenant people.  Thus, the examples of God speaking to people (including ordinary people—Gen 25:23, Acts 6:5, and 8:6, Acts 19:1-7, esp. v. 6) throughout both Testaments are meant to teach us how we can expect God to speak (without, of course, expecting God to continue to give authoritative scripture to the whole church).
2. God deeply desires intimacy and relationship with his people (cf. Isaiah 58:9-11; Hosea 11:8), and these characteristics obtain among people—human or divine—by regularly speaking to each other.  The Bible is an authoritative revelation to the whole church, but intimacy and relationship require personal communication in addition to this (for more on this, see my earlier post here).
3. God speaks to people to correct wrong thinking (Phil 3:15; cf. Eph 1:17, I Cor 14:24, 26, 30-31).
4. The Holy Spirit speaks to us in applying the Bible’s teaching to our specific situation (I Cor 2:14).
5. God speaks to us to give us guidance (Isaiah 30:21, John 10:3,4,16,27, Acts 13:2, 16:6, James 1:5).  In the John texts, Jesus says his sheep hear his voice.  Some have understood the context to imply that this means that the unsaved hear God’s effectual call to come to salvation.  But this has the odd result that we can hear God’s speech/drawing/prompting before we are saved but not afterwards.  In fact, the alleged context in John 10 (of unbelievers being called to salvation) can be taken in one of two ways:  it defines the meaning of the sheep hearing Jesus’ voice (thus, limiting the text’s meaning to unbelievers) or it determines a range of application in this context (to unbelievers) of a broader principle that applies to all God’s sheep whether before or after salvation.  The text does not make clear which is intended, and the latter fits other passages I am citing, the virtually universal experience of Christians, and it avoids the odd result mentioned above.
6. Jesus is our model in communicating with God (John 5:19).  Jesus is not speaking about His unique prerogative as God or Messiah, because the context is Jesus doing the works of the Father due to Jesus’ intimate communication with Him (and subsequent empowerment by the Holy Spirit), and Jesus explicitly says that we will do greater works than he did (John 14:12).  If Jesus needed to be lead by the Father in this, how much more do we?  Moreover, it is now widely acknowledged by NT scholars that Jesus did what he did as a human being we are to model ourselves after in dependence on the filling of the Holy Spirit and in communication with the Father (cf. I Cor 11:1, I Thes 1:6).  Finally, Jesus delegated his authority to us and we need the same tools he needed to carry out that delegation.
7. God sometimes speaks by placing impressions in our minds (Nehemiah 2:12) and through a still small voice (I Kings 19:12).
8. Regarding the claim that when God speaks, it is clear and we don’t have to learn to hear his voice, (A) it seems that Samuel needed to learn to distinguish/hear God’s voice (I Sam 3:1-21); (B) there was a school of prophets in the Old Testament and, among other things, it would seem natural to think that they were learning to discern/hear God’s voice; (C) In the NT, prophesy is a gift that, as will other gifts like teaching or evangelism, grows and develops with time and experience as one learn to enter more fully into the practice of that gift. That is why there were tests of prophesy (I Cor 14:29, I Thes 5:19-22), viz., that as people learned to hear God, they sometimes made mistakes and gave words sincerely though they were mistaken. (D) We have to learn God’s most authoritative speech, the Bible, through hermeneutics, exegetical practice and so forth, and many believers are mistaken about what exactly is God’s biblical speech (in debates in textual criticism and differences between Catholics and Protestants about which books belong in the canon). If God has allowed there to be differences about what belongs in Holy Scripture and we have to work hard to learn to rightly divide it, why can’t there be differences about whether a personal communication was/was not from God and effort needed to learn how to understand such communication?

For further considerations about objections to “hearing God,” you might be interested in this ongoing series by Tim Bayless.

In traditions with an established history of spiritual direction, the practice has often been dominated by clergy. This creates confusion, as the practice is then identified with a wide-variety of activities characterized more by who is doing them then by the nature of the practice. Thus, confession, pastoral counseling, and a casual conversation might all be “spiritual direction” if a Roman Catholic or Anglican priest is involved. In contrast, there are many Christians who have begun adopting the practice of spiritual direction only recently. They may be less likely to identify spiritual direction with the work of the clergy, but they can contribute to the same confusion by identifying spiritual direction with ministries that are more established in their churches. Thus, mentoring, counseling, and a wide-variety of “discipleship” programs are re-named “spiritual direction.” Surely, these ministries are changed in the process, but direction becomes a revision of other ministries rather one with a distinct nature. Finally, there are a wide-variety of programs offering training in spiritual direction, with methodologies and philosophies that are not entirely reconcilable with each other. Thus, spiritual direction as defined and practiced by directors from one center of training may be quite different from that of others.

While some of the methodological differences may prove quite intractable, much greater clarity can be reached regarding the nature of spiritual direction. Adopting a distinction between “spiritual direction” and “spiritual guidance” is a helpful beginning. The phrases are sometimes used interchangeably, and a wide variety of others terms serve as synonyms for one or both (“spiritual accompaniment,” “soul friend,” etc). Drawing a distinction between the two, however, is immensely helpful in clarifying the sometimes ambiguous ministry of spiritual direction.

“Spiritual guidance” is a broad term, which includes “spiritual direction,” along with a host of other ministries. It refers to any ministry in which one believer helps another (or several, even many, others) to respond to God. At its core, this involves first seeking to discern what God is doing, then faithfully responding to His initiative. However, the breadth of approaches and situations sometimes obscures this first step. For example, the preacher offers spiritual guidance through helping an audience respond to the work of God initiated through the Word of God, and also through the work of the Holy Spirit in each listener who encounters the Word. The preacher, and many in his audience, may not be directly aware of this as a ministry of spiritual guidance, thinking of it instead in purely pedagogical terms. Nevertheless, preaching is one of the most common forms of spiritual guidance given and received in contemporary Christian settings. Likewise, most Christians experience spiritual guidance through informal, often undefined, relationships with other Christians. The friend who listens and reflects with a fellow believer may be engaged in a profound ministry of spiritual guidance.

Spiritual direction, then, is merely a form of spiritual guidance. It is also the paradigmatic example of spiritual guidance. This is not the result of direction being a more elevated ministry than other forms of guidance. It is certainly not the most common ministry. It is, however, the most focused form of spiritual guidance; it is the ministry in which the intention toward spiritual guidance is the most explicit. By way of definition, spiritual direction is the ministry in which one believer helps another to discern God’s presence and activity, in order to seek a faithful response.

See here for Part One and Three of this Series

While direction, even in its most specific sense, has a long history, it has now taken on a popular appeal that it perhaps has never had. The reasons for this new appeal are many and are beyond the scope of this paper, although they may include the turn to a more individualized or personal spirituality (even among those most committed to traditional faiths and religious institutions, for whom it is a complement rather than a competitor to “institutional” or communal religious practice), a greater focus on both the spirituality and ministry of the laity (especially in the Roman Catholic church), and the recent emergence of a Protestant (especially Evangelical) interest in the field (multiplying the audience for literature and training programs in direction, as well as bringing fresh perspectives to the ministry).

The literature on spiritual direction is vast, offering varied perspectives and no end of practical guidance for directors. However, there are notable limitations in most books on direction, often caused by ambiguity.

In this blog series, I will describe two ambiguities that limit the study and practice of spiritual direction, offering clarifications and distinctions in response.

The first is the confusion over what spiritual direction is, which I will attempt to remedy by offering a distinction between “spiritual direction” as a specific ministry characterized by a formal and non-directive methodology and “spiritual guidance” as a broader ministry.

The second confusion I will address is an ambiguity about the necessary capacities of spiritual directors. I will suggest this ambiguity results from the lack of a developmental perspective on the ministry and formation of spiritual directors. Responding to this need, three broad stages in the development of a spiritual director will be discussed. Two areas of capacity (listening skills and discernment) will be treated as examples of such stages.

The goal of this series is to develop these distinctions to a degree that they may serve practicing spiritual directors in clarifying their ministry, pastors in understanding their broader ministries in relation to direction, and both directors-in-training and those offering training to directors in viewing more clearly understanding and articulating the roles and abilities of a director.

<Read Part Two>