Brad Bergfalk and I are both tiring with the prose of James Houston, and one of us thinks the book better than the other. But, here is our fifth part (on chp 6). Brad Bergfalk and I are both tiring with the prose of James Houston, and one of us thinks the book better than the other. But, here is our fifth part (on chp 6). Summary (Brad Bergfalk) After reviewing the meaning of personhood in the three false categories of mentoring (heroic, stoic, and therapeutic), Houston embarks […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":197,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[476],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-747","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-books"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nSummary<\/strong> (Brad Bergfalk)
\nAfter reviewing the meaning of personhood in the three false categories of mentoring (heroic, stoic, and therapeutic), Houston embarks on a discussion of the meaning of personhood in the context of Christian discipleship. The problem that one encounters when speaking about \u201cthe Christian person\u201d is that our culture has succeeded in redefining \u201cpersonhood\u201d as individual in relation to self.
\nHouston distinguishes between the \u201cindividual\u201d and \u201cpersonhood\u201d by
\nsuggesting that the \u201cindividual\u201d understands humans as being created in
\none\u2019s own image, while \u201cpersonhood\u201d understands that humans were created
\nin the image of God. Likewise, the \u201cindividual\u201d sees their identity
\nbased on human action, while \u201cpersonhood\u201d accepts that they are \u201cmade
\nrighteous\u201d by God. Freedom is defined by the \u201cindividual\u201d as autonomy,
\nwhile the category of \u201cpersonhood\u201d understands freedom in relation to
\nbeing \u201cgrounded\u201d in Christ. Finally, Sin is understood by the
\n\u201cindividual\u201d as \u201cself-enclosure\u201d and disobedience, and for \u201cpersonhood\u201d
\nsin is understood in the context of discipleship and \u201copenness to God\u201d
\nand God\u2019s calling.
\nFor Houston, the definitive understanding of \u201cpersonhood\u201d takes place in
\nthe context of Christian discipleship. And thus the process of
\ndiscipleship is a process of transforming autonomy to become \u201copen\u201d to
\nthe other. Quoting Fenelon, Houston argues that \u201cconformity to Christ
\n(as an act of discipleship) reconstructs one\u2019s whole manner of \u201cbeing\u201d
\nand \u201cdoing.\u201d The tendency in the church is to blur these categories thus
\nChristian discipleship is often about \u201cbecoming a more efficient
\nreligious entrepreneur\u2026of the Gospel (p. 118).\u201d
\nThe distinctions of Christian discipleship for Houston include the
\nfollowing: First, discipleship is always God\u2019s initiative; second,
\nJesus\u2019 call to discipleship is inclusive; third, discipleship always
\ninvolves radical reorientation; fourth, discipleship means sharing in
\nthe ministry of Jesus (this sounds strangely like \u201cThe Jesus Creed\u201d);
\nand fifth, discipleship is expressive of Christ\u2019s suffering love. On the
\nbasis of these distinctions, Houston concludes this chapter by
\nsuggesting the \u201cart of letter writing\u201d as a form of Christian nurture
\n(presumably as a function of the mentoring\/discipleship process).
\nBrad\u2019s Response:<\/strong>
\nWhen Houston describes some of the by-products of a distorted view of
\npersonhood being a Christianity of efficiency rather than of
\ntransforming relationship, I am ashamed to say that I have succumbed to
\nthis distortion from time-to-time throughout my Christian experience.
\nThe notion that our relationships to Christ exists in isolation from
\nothers is one of the dominant characteristics of contemporary
\nevangelicalism. Returning to an understanding and practice of Christian
\ndiscipleship that is rooted in a radical reorientation from the present
\nage will be both painful and liberating for those who have the courage
\nto go against the prevailing Christian culture.
\nScot\u2019s Response:<\/strong>
\nI like Houston\u2019s distinction between individualism and personhood \u2014 the latter offering for us a more robust perception of human nature and our calling as Christians. He has a very nice chart on p. 114.
\nHere\u2019s a profound comment: \u201cWithout God, humanity is a mystery. But, likewise, without humanity God is unknowable\u201d (115).
\nPersonhood, Houston maintains, is an open category. He calls it (and man did I jump up and down on this one) \u201can iconic existence, because it is like a window, looking out to the future of God\u2019s intent of love\u201d (117). Now that\u2019s a good definition of personhood.
\nHouston rather imperceptibly wandered into letter writing as a form of relationship in discipleship, and he pulls out all kinds of interesting quotations from letters.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"