I love 
. Do you? Click here.
First published November, 1993
Welcome to the second edition of Symposium, which contains more and longer (and better) letters to the editor than any other publication I know of. It's also larger than Symposium 1. This is partly because of the good letters I received in response to the previous issue (and the amount of space it took to answer them adequately; they raised some great questions, as you'll see). Partly, too, the article for discussion next time is larger than the previous ones, again because there was so much to say.
Planning for future issues is still flexible. It's become clear that we need to spend some time on basic things such as the Scriptures and the Church; I've also recently become interested in the process of discussion and change of opinion itself, largely through reading Edward de Bono's book I am Right, You are Wrong. I'm delighted that so far, in contrast to other exchanges of opinion in the Church of which I am aware, nobody has called anybody's spirituality into question in Symposium because they hold different positions. However, the process of discussion could benefit from some specific examination, particularly before we get into the kind of controversial issues on which people feel strongly.
Mike McMillanContributing Editor.
by Mike McMillan
In the framework of our discussion on 'responsible Christianity', both Ian and Ross have remarked that the most pressing question raised by RC is 'what does the spiritual life consist of?' or 'what is meant by "spiritual"?' This indeed needs clarifying. Most of the church and most of the world seems to mean by 'spiritual' what I mean by 'spooky'; something other-worldly or supernatural or any of these other terms that are only meaningful in non-Hebrew, post-pagan cultures. The Bible doesn't know about any of this. What it means by 'spiritual' is that you love God, love your neighbor, act justly and mercifully and help widows and orphans in their distress. (James 1:27 is the specific verse alluded to, but the concept is throughout the Old and New Testaments.)
How do I, practically, relate to God day by day? The answer is by obedience to his revelation, by setting all that I do in the light of that revelation, and in relationship with his people.
In terms of a devotional life, at the moment, my thoughts are these: Every consideration of the devotional life must take into account the mind (the propositional), the emotions (the affective), and the will (the volitional) in humankind. I know that's a hoary old Greek division and it's actually a unity, along with the body, but these terms have some use, especially since those are the categories which we in fact operate in because of our cultural background.
Now. My contentions are, first, that we have an adequate resource for the propositional aspect: the Scriptures (and the teaching of wise men and women based on these Scriptures). We don't need to seek further propositional revelation from God. Secondly, whatever the place of the emotions it is not to decide on the validity of the propositions or to lead the will; nor is emotion the goal of devotion. Thirdly, only through the conformity of the will to the revelation of God will we come closer to being like him, which should be the goal of devotion (and which will involve emotion, more in some than in others).
Garry Friesen has a widely forgotten chapter in Decision Making and the Will of God (Multnomah, 1980 - chapter 15) in which he maintains that 'guidance is personal' under what he calls the 'wisdom view' (which is part of what I mean by 'responsible Christianity'). I will quote and remark upon his points at some length.
'One apparent strength of the traditional view is the sense that God's leading is personal and direct. . . . The most common misconception of the way of wisdom is that it is impersonal - that God is excluded from the decision-making process', Friesen says (pp 243-244). His argument in response is the same as mine: if this is truly the biblical position (and the belief of the majority of Christians throughout history), then it cannot have this flaw. He calls to witness the apostles, who, he says, 'never defended their decisions on the basis of inward impulses which led them to God's "perfect will"'. In fact, he notes, the trend in Scripture is away from a determinative 'leading' for each of our decisions; this happens much less in the New Testament than in the Old, yet few would argue that the new covenant is less personal than the old. Israel had guidance from God to regulate every aspect of their daily lives, from choosing their leaders to (in the wilderness) when they were to camp and when to march, and how far; God told them what foods they could eat, what cities certain people were to live in, the exact size and location of the temple, what punishments to give for various crimes, how their economic and political affairs were to be conducted, and how the corners of their garments were to be decorated. We, by contrast, are free and responsible to determine these things for themselves.
A child's decisions are largely made by the parents. Part of the process of growing up is learning, and being given the freedom, to make these choices ourselves. This does not mean that we are left without parental guidance- we have had years of parental guidance dating back to the times when they did make the decisions for us, which is then available as a basis for our decisions. The parallel with God is found in two places in Paul's writings. 'For everything that was written in the past', he says, 'was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.' (Ro 15:4.) And even more strongly to Timothy: 'All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the person of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.' (2 Tim 3:16-17.) This doesn't leave a lot of room for the necessity of continuing subjective guidance.
However, people feel uncomfortable with this. I feel uncomfortable with it. Friesen suggests:
Perhaps the problem is that, at first glance, there seems to be nothing in the way of wisdom that corresponds to the sense of intimacy with God that is usually identified with the inward impulses. . . . What we are talking about. . . is the involvement of the emotional aspect of our being. . . . There are two things we must bear in mind about our emotions. The first is that they can be greatly influenced by a host of things. . . . The second factor is that emotions can affect our lives. . . either as initiators or as responders. They can be the means whereby one determines "reality," or they can be the means whereby one responds to truth. . . .
One of our criticisms of the traditional view is that it tends to put the emotional cart before the intellectual horse. . . . While the emotional element is real, it is misinterpreted because the process has been turned inside out. Those inner impressions are not the "still small voice" of God; they are the emotional "voice" of the person himself [sic]. One's own feelings are not an authoritative source of directon for making decisions. But because they are mistakenly taken as divine guidance, they are often regarded as being authoritative. . . .
It is entirely possible for [a person holding this view] to feel "out of fellowship" with the Lord for no valid reason; it is equally possible for him to "feel good" about his relationship with God even though he is living in disobedience.
The wisdom view gives our emotional makeup its rightful place. Our feelings are designed to express our response to objective reality. . . .
'[T]o walk by sight [2 Co 5:7] would be to require perceptible proof of God's presence and ongoing direct communication of His will. But that approach amounts to testing God (Dt 6:16, Mt 4:7). . . . to walk by faith is to act on the basis that what God has said is true.
'To spell this out further, there are three specific steps that can be identified in the process of cultivating a personal relationship with God. Intellectually, one must learn what God has declared to be true and real. Volitionally, one must take God at His word and accept His pronouncements as being true. Then one can respond emotionally in accordance with God's moral will.' (Decision Making, pp 245-249.)
Friesen goes on to set out the ways in which God is involved in our lives if we practice the wisdom view/RC:
So, Friesen concludes, every act of obedience is proof of God's personal involvement in our lives.
Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper, in his book To Be Near Unto God (Baker, 1979), goes further and asserts that the exercise of the will in obedience to God is an essential part of coming to know him. His argument is that 'if the knowledge of God is eternal life, then this knowledge of God cannot be something apart from life. Bring to mind again and again that eternal life is not life in the hereafter, but in the present.' (p 187.) This is not the only, the sufficient, or the complete knowledge of God, but it is indispensible and cannot be replaced by knowledge gained through understanding or feeling. He gives the example of the mention in the Lord's Prayer of being forgiven as we forgive others, and remarks, 'He who so bends his will that at length he himself has no other will than to forgive his debtor, comes through this his will to the knowledge of the compassionate God Who forgives him.
'To God, forgiveness is no outward rule which he applies. Forgiveness comes from His will to forgive, and this will to forgive comes from His Being. If now you come to will like this of yourself, then you become conformed in this to your Father who is in heaven. What Jesus said: "Be ye perfect, as your Father who is in heaven is perfect," is in this particular point then realised in you; and feeling thus that you are of the family of God, you come to a knowledge of God that is not a lesson learned by heart, but one that springs from your relationship to God itself.'
One of the most difficult and disturbing things about emphasising an intellectual understanding of the Scriptures as being important to our relationship with God is that it priveleges intellectuals, those with the natural gifts and time to spend in study of the Scriptures. Kuyper's schema addresses this problem. He says, no doubt with John 5:39-40 in mind:
'If now you seek the knowledge of God mainly in education, and if you say that this knowledge thus obtained is everlasting life, how cruel you become. . . . If knowledge of God is eternal life, then increase of this knowledge must be obtainable by some means within everyone's reach - the scholar in his study, the labourer at his work, the busy mother in her home.'
He is far from downgrading academic knowledge, and in fact considers it indispensible (for how can we obey what we do not know?). So, while placing importance on experience as part of the way in which we come to know God, he avoids the trap of using experience to determine our theology. Nor does he see the source of the willingness to obey God in us, but in God's work within us as he indwells us by his Spirit (otherwise it would simply be 'good works'). And this is my next point: the Spirit living within us is not there to answer our hard questions, but to conform us to the image of God. We already have that image within us, and we grow closer to it as we obey God. Consider the parallel passages of Eph 5:18 ('be filled with the Spirit') and Col 3:16 ('let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly') and you will see the intimate connection.
Different positions give different places and priorities to the mind, will and emotions. The chart below is a rather simplified schema (and will not work on some browsers, unfortunately):
| Primary | Secondary | Tertiary | Typical of: |
| Mind | Will | Emotions | Responsible spirituality |
| Mind | Emotions | Will | Quietism, academic pietism |
| Will | Mind | Emotions | Legalism/works-righteousness (whether Roman Catholic, liberal or fundamentalist) |
| Will | Emotions | Mind | Ditto |
| Emotions | Will | Mind | Extreme ('Old-style') Pentecostalism |
| Emotions | Mind | Will | Less extreme ('Modern') Pentecostalism, emotional pietism |
To clarify: by legalism or works-righteousness I mean any system (no matter what the supposed theology) in which it is more important to obey or do than to understand, an approach which sits ill with Romans 14:5's insistence that each person should be fully convinced in his or her own mind as to what is right. By quietism, I mean an approach which emphasises contemplation with the will completely passive as being the way to attain intimacy with God. By pietism, I mean an internalised, academic or emotional faith that makes little external difference in a person's life. Academic pietism will mainly emphasise understanding the truth of God, then a personal emotional response to that truth, and perhaps finally action on that response; less academic pietism will start from an emotional response to God, see that as having some bearing on truth, and then allow for or sometimes encourage action on this truth. I believe that this last pattern is the most common among NZ Christians, whether Pentecostal/charismatic or not.
Examples: A Bible study is being held. Brian, the leader, reads the text, and encourages the people in the group to say how they feel about the text, and how they intend to apply it to their lives. This can work on either of the pietistic patterns; John may interpret the text in the light of his emotional response, while Jo responds emotionally to her interpretation of the text. In neither case will much work be given to the interpretation step, and both the interpretations and the applications have the potential to be wildly off-base.
The final pattern shown above is typified by what Friesen calls the 'traditional view' of decision-making: an emotional impression is given intellectual content, and this is taken as a basis for action. Tim is reading a Christian magazine, sees an ad about Bible colleges and has some kind of emotional response. He states, 'I feel the Lord wants me to go to Bible college.' He sends away for the calendar. It arrives, and is convoluted and full of high-flown vocabulary. Tim is discouraged and says, 'I don't feel that this is the Lord's will for me at this time.' The calendar is filed and forgotten.
To summarise, then: I believe that the idea of 'spirituality' as somehow having to do with mysticism, fasting, meditation, prayer, and/or a subjective 'relationship' with something fuzzy which is identified as 'God' is false, and derives more from Greek matter-spirit dualism than from anything found in Old or New Testaments. True, the Old Testament prophets were into some of this stuff; but I am arguing that this is not, and indeed was not, the norm for believers living in the real, everyday world. There, spirituality has much more to do with whether you are honest in your business, helpful to your neighbours, human to your family and don't slander people you dislike than with how long your quiet time is. The Puritans used to refer to things such as prayer, Bible reading and study, listening to the teaching of the Word, participating in worship, receiving the sacraments, and meditation as 'means of grace', and we do well to remember that they are means- not ends. The point is not to do these things. The point is (partly at least through doing these things, but never entirely) to be transformed into the image of Christ.
Again, this transformation has much more to do with how you treat other people than whether you smoke (while alone), swear (while with people who won't be offended), wear particular styles of clothing (except when it is excessively provocative to the other sex), or do a number of other things which have been defined by traditional pietism as 'unrighteous'. Righteousness is having your relationships right; with God, but also with others. A friend of mine used to work with a man who made a considerable fuss when a product with the brand name 'Lucifer' was brought into the office, because it offended his Christian sensibilities. Yet he was well known in the office as a pilferer who would take any company property which happened to be lying around. This does not impress the average non-Christian in the slightest, and I can't say I'm much impressed either; but it differs only in degree rather than kind from the actions of hundreds or thousands of Christians every day.
Another, more trivial example: before displaying your piety by naming your son after one of the more obscure ancestors of King David, consider the way in which Ephesians instructs you clearly to display your piety: 'Fathers, do not exasperate your children.' (Eph 6:4.)
This is responsible spirituality.
Ian: My response to the Symposium as a whole and to your summary of RC and its relationship to other forms of spirituality is a feeling somewhere between unease and anger. These are emotions; I'm quite good at them. They help me to live and work in the community which is my home, a place in which I would be loath to apply my mind to problems and issues with the rigour and skepticism I use at university, as this would likely unpleasantly upset the faith and fragile reality other members of the community have. Faith not worth having perhaps? Do you want to pick up what's left of it after a dose of higher criticism, postmodernism or the sociology of knowledge?
I exercise different aspects of my character in different situations. They are all of value and I would hope there is no priority. They are also (as you mention above) all thoroughly integrated and can't be separated from each other.
I feel you denigrate emotions and will to the benefit of mind. A response given is to quote Kuyper to the effect that all must be able to have knowledge of God without scholarly travail. How is this to be achieved by those lesser mortals who are more emotional or willful than intellectual, in the light of your table? Are all our efforts, if not in vain, at least second best?
I think the problem comes with the idea of 'knowing'. You seem to be intellectualising this. You ask 'How can we obey what we do not know?'. Does a child know its mother? Yes and no. No, it doesn't in the sense that its father does, or the mother's friends, relations, workmates or parents. Does this stop the child obeying its mother?
What is your response to verses about seeking God's wisdom, not human wisdom, or God choosing the simple rather than the wise? Do you think that RC is a product of Descartes' 'I think, therefore I am?' My response to this is to note that 'Cogito, ergo sum' can also be translated 'I doubt, therefore I am.' What needs to be in existence before doubt? Belief! I would contend that in all our Christian living there is an element of Kierkegaard's 'leap of faith' which can't be bridged completely by Scripture or human reason, but only by Jesus, the only complete 'Word (action) of God'. Why do I contend this? Because I don't believe God can be completely understood. We see in a mirror dimly, and we must join with the groaning of creation over this until Christ's return. To quote John of the Cross 'God isn't there to be understood, but to be loved'.
In response to Garry Friesen, I do not believe our feelings merely respond to objective reality; I believe that they help create it.
Mike: Thanks for your contribution, which like your earlier one has forced me to think through some issues which hadn't occurred to me- 1 Co 12 in action again. In fact, the message of 1 Co 12 about diversity in the church is very much at the heart of your objections and my reply.
Before I start my real reply, may I say that academic rigour and even skepticism are not necessarily the enemies of a biblical faith; in fact, they can be used in the critique of higher criticism, postmodernism, the sociology of knowledge etc. On this last, if you can get hold of a copy of Today's Christian No 29, the cover article is on Bruce Waltke, Professor of Old Testament at Regent College (formerly at Dallas and Westminster Seminaries). He is a scholar who combines high academic excellence and a knowledge and discerning use of such concepts as the sociology of knowledge with a deep and genuine commitment to, love of and submission to the Scriptures as the Word of God. It can be done (though it's done rarely). It's the placing of the Scriptures above anything human, including our reason, which is infected by the Fall (but won't contradict properly interpreted Scripture if properly applied), which makes the difference. As Peter C. Moore puts it in Disarming the Secular Gods, 'the Bible sees reason as dependent on revelation and not vice versa. Biblically it is not "I think, therefore God is"; but rather "God is, therefore I think."'
All of us who are maturing as whole people do as you say you do: we exercise different aspects of our personality and different parts of our being in different circumstances. Part of personal development, I believe, is developing confidence and competence in using them all in all the various circumstances with which we have to deal. (Including, if I may say so, applying intellectual rigour to our faith when appropriate.)
Having said this, different people will have different preferred styles in any given situation, and I think this may relate to the issue you have raised.
I should detour here for an apology and an explanation. I deliberately left the table at the end of 'Responsible Spirituality' [RS] simplistic, partly in order to ensure that there would be something to debate, and partly because I thought, lazily, that I could think it through properly in the context of the debate when it came. I now realise that this wasn't really an ethical thing to do, and for this I apologise. Part of the slipshod nature of my approach was labelling the columns of the table 'Primary', 'Secondary' and 'Tertiary' when, on reflection, my intention was less to give priorities or a hierarchy than to set out a chronological scheme, relating to the beginning, middle and end of a process. (Again, the process is a unity more than three separate steps.) In some of the examples given, eg where mind is devalued or will is not always exercised, there is a hierarchy in practice, but this was not my intention for RS.
A further refinement of the table results from my belated realisation that (at least in RS) we are not talking about mind, will and emotion so much as about the ideas of truth, response and experience. Though related to mind, will and emotion, these are at a different level and interact with mind, will and emotion in a complex way, which I'll attempt to sketch.
The reason RS must begin with truth is contained in a point in your letter: we need God's wisdom rather than human wisdom. Of the three elements, truth, response and experience (which I'll abbreviate as T, R and X - X to distinguish from e for emotion), T comes from God, while R and X are human elements of the process. (God is involved here too: he gives us a new nature capable of obeying him, and the grace to help us choose to; and what I have labelled 'experience' is partly another way of looking at the sanctification process, which is the work of God. But there is a strong human element involved still, hence responsible spirituality; God doesn't do it all. He is at work in us, but we will and act according to his good pleasure.)
Since truth comes from God, it makes a better starting point than something which comes from us; it gives us a foundation known to be reliable. Certainly, if we start with something impure, it's possible for the truth to purify it, which is why other approaches sometimes work. For example, we may start with an experience and interpret and apply it correctly because of the input of truth. But it seems to me that the best and most reliable results will arise from beginning with what God supplies to the process.
An analogy may help. Auckland has three motorways, the Northern, Southern and Northwestern. If I start from the centre of town to go to a point in the outer suburbs, my most important choice is which motorway to start on. If I start off in the right direction, any subsequent mistakes, such as taking the wrong exit or heading left instead of right from the exit, will be relatively easily corrected; but if I head off in the wrong direction initially, it will be much harder to reach my destination.
Now, as you correctly point out, truth is appreciated in different ways by different people. I believe (based on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, a personality classification for which I've developed considerable respect as a tool for understanding human behaviour) that there are two main ways. These are referred to in Myers-Briggs as 'thinking' and 'feeling' for shorthand, but really have to do with whether our response to information is in terms of facts and logic ('thinking') or values ('feeling').
You appear to be primarily a 'values' person, where I am into facts and logic as my basic way of information handling (though both of us will do both).
Let's work an example and see how both of these approaches do actually work with TRX, and where mind, will and emotions fit into this more developed model.
TRUTH: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
My process works like this:
These are facts, appreciated with the mind (though there are elements of will and emotion present).
RESPONSE: I will obey God and not commit adultery. (Will)
EXPERIENCE: I become a person who has chosen what is right and so is more likely to do so again; I also have not become an adulterer.
I will have thoughts and feelings about my experience; I will think 'that was the right decision,' for instance, and be pleased that I made it (though, being a sinner, I will probably feel regret as well).
Using the same truth, someone else's process might begin with:
These are values, but the response and the experience will probably be much the same. I approach God's truth in terms of fact: 'Committing adultery is wrong' (in a different way from 'Saying that it never rains in Auckland is wrong,' but by using the same word there is a resonance with the sense 'not in accordance with truth'). Another person may see it more in terms of value: 'Committing adultery is bad'. Each of us would agree with the other's formulation; it's just that our own tendency is to formulate it one way rather than another. In reality, I hold the value that adultery is bad as well as the fact that it is wrong (in fact I feel quite strongly on the issue), and the whole process involves an interplay of mind, will and emotions far more complex than I have represented. The important thing is that we start with the truth of God, make an obedient response, and are changed a little in who we are thereby (experience). As Lewis says somewhere (I think in Mere Christianity), we are continually in the process of becoming more heavenly or more hellish people by the responses we make to God.
This is the essential process, however we perceive it and whatever mix of mind, will and emotions attends it. We will often have intellectual doubts, indecisive wills, and emotional turmoils. We will not, for instance, always do what 'feels good' emotionally at the time. This is very important, since it is a real danger of beginning with experience. Any number of Christians who have believed a spiritual-sounding, theologised version of 'if it feels good, do it' have defended their adultery, and other practices, because it 'felt so right'. (See John White's Eros Defiled for some examples.) Any one of mind, will and emotion can be illegitimate when it sets itself above the truth of God.
So, how do we know the truth of God? Clearly 'know' can't just have intellectual content; but neither, I think, can it have no intellectual content. Even if we live our lives by values, they must have some content which the mind can grasp or they are merely vague whims. (This is what I really meant by 'how can we obey what we do not know?' Even with the mother and child, the child cannot obey until the mother has given it some command to obey.)
Some people who are very good at values will not necessarily take them straight out of Scripture, and are likely to protest that 'everyone knows' or 'it's obvious' that such-and-such is right or wrong. But my contention is that without God's revelation, whether through Scripture (the ethics of which have become, to some degree anyway, incorporated into the ethics of our society so that 'everybody knows' them) or conscience, we can't derive these values. Societies never exposed to Scripture, or people who refuse to listen to their consciences, don't know them or find them obvious.
We are to seek God's wisdom, not human wisdom; but because of the way God communicated to us, through the words of people who did not live in our time and culture, we often end up with more and not less human content to our understanding of his truth if we don't put in some hard work on the Scriptures to understand what they say. Some are better equipped than others, by personality and background, to do this, and they have a place in the Body in service to the whole (not in superiority). Others, less intellectually cluttered, may see the issues of values more clearly; their role in the Body includes calling for repentance from intellectual pride and arrogance (there is also anti-intellectual pride and arrogance, incidentally), and for a focus on the important things which affect the issues of life for real people, not on fiddling intellectual games. We are all commanded to let the Word of Christ dwell in us richly, and to teach and admonish one another with all wisdom (Col 3:16), though our outworking of this command will be different depending on what kind of person we are.
God called the 'simple' rather than the 'wise' at Corinth because the 'simple' were able to realise their need for God's wisdom, whereas the 'wise' weren't (the same reason that Jesus called not the 'righteous', but sinners). However, as Jesus didn't call the sinners to remain sinners, God didn't call the simple to remain simple, but to become wise (see Proverbs 8 and the context of Paul's words to the Corinthians). Some anti-intellectual or anti-mind people in the Church have (mis-)used these verses to imply that it's OK to remain ignorant and do silly things, which wasn't Paul's point at all. (More on this below.)
On the Kierkegaardian 'leap of faith': this is my 'Response' step, though it is not human-centred (as I think Kierkegaard may have tended to be) but God-centred. 'Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ' (Ro 10:17) - ie, by the truth.
We don't understand God's communication to us perfectly, but we do understand it (or at least, have no excuse for not understanding it) adequately, as Bruce Waltke puts it. We understand it enough to know that we ought to obey it, as in your mother-child example; or, to put it in relational terms since God is truth and God's truth is his self-revelation, we understand God well enough to obey him. The point Kuyper was making is that as we obey him we also come to understand him better.
Speaking of seeing things in terms of relationships: I presume (I hope!) that this is what you mean when you say that our feelings help create objective reality. Regardless of my feelings about gravity, I can't fly. Regardless of my feelings about adultery, it's wrong (or bad). But my feelings about myself and about other people affect my relationships. If you feel offended by what I said (for which I apologise), you actually were offended (and if I don't feel offended by your response, which I don't, I actually am not offended). I think this is a special case and not what Friesen was on about, though he might point out that we can be offended when no offence is intended and we have misunderstood the other person, and that we should strive to avoid this (in your case, the misunderstanding was largely my fault). The perception 'I am offended' is true; the perception 'he was putting me down' may be untrue.
What I've laid out doesn't actually seem that profound. We seek to understand God's truth (adequately, not perfectly), so that we can obey it and be gradually transformed into his image. This is what Jesus was talking about when he told the Eleven, 'Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them' (Jn 13:17); it is also the underlying structure of most of the New Testament epistles: these things are true; therefore do this [and blessing will result].
So why do I bother if this is nothing new or deep? Basically because in many parts of the Church less appropriate patterns are being followed, and as a result people are weaker and less mature Christians than they might otherwise be. They are encouraged to know the truth and expect to be transformed by it without much emphasis on putting it into practice, leading to powerlessness and ineffectuality; or they are legalistically urged to do certain things without prior understanding or transformation, leading to self-righteousness; or they are meant to have experiences which they then act on, sometimes checking them (generally in a slapdash and ineffective fashion) against the truth in passing, sometimes actually deriving 'truth' from them, leading to outright error. I'm concerned at all this and hope that by clarifying the issues and showing how the process should work I will enable some at least to grow stronger and bring more glory to God.
Thanks for your letter; it was helpful.
Ian: I'm a bit disoriented at the moment in a number of ways, including all this intellectual God-stuff. I find these discussions useful in hopefully re-orienting myself.
While I do find Myers-Briggs interesting and useful, I also have some reservations about it. I think it brings out well the truth that everybody's different, but that it's not so hot on the paradoxical truth that everyone is the same, as in 'All have sinned. . . .'
You seem to be arguing that the best way to proceed is from Truth to Response to Experience:
T->R->X
Mike: I am.
Ian: I wish to argue that things are more circular, and that experience is intimately tied up with knowing or discovering Truth. So:
[Sorry, I don't have the software to do the diagrams. Imagine the letters "T", "R" and "X" as the corners of a triangle, with arrows running T to R to X to T again.]
Take the adultery situation. Say I know of an adulterous situation, and this turns out badly. (Yes, yes, I know, this is a feeling/values word not a thinking/facts word.)
Mike: That's perfectly valid.
Ian: This becomes part of my experience, from which I take the truth that adultery is wrong (thinking/fact word), which is confirmed by Scripture, and I don't commit adultery. This is a much better lesson and it becomes for me a deeper truth than the Scriptural statement of it, because I have experienced it. I'm not advocating that we should all go out and find ourselves people involved in adulterous relationships. I am also aware that an adulterous relationship could turn out well from my standpoint and that this does not make it Scriptural Truth (without some very selective reading and manipulation of the text). The only conclusion I can draw from this is that what you call Truth is propositional (facts/thinking) and that I want to argue the importance of experiential truth as well. I'll come back to this later.
Another example. There have been a couple of people in my Christian experience who now consider themselves to be gay or bisexual. Now I still hold to the propositional Truth that homosexual activity is sinful, but my experience is that these guys are important to me and are my friends and are trying to follow Jesus. One of them in particular has been through all the attempts to 'cure' his homosexuality unsuccessfully for many years. They are both pretty mixed up in terms of God and personally. It is debatable, though, whether this is because of their homosexuality or church and society's rejection of it. If I meet what I consider to be a spiritually growing and active Christian who claims to be gay I may change my mind on this issue. How can I do this in the light of Scriptural truth? Well, I have heard that some scholars have interpreted Paul's comments in Romans 1:26-27 as opposing homosexual lust and prostitution, not homosexuality as such. Manipulation of the text? Would not many people have accused those pushing for the rights of women to take leadership positions of the same thing 20 years ago?
Mike: Not just 20 years ago; today.
Ian: I am not entirely certain of all this, but what I'm arguing for is an increase in respect for the work of God in human experience as well as through Scripture. (This argument is outlined in the last chapter of Joyce Hugget's Listening to God, which Ross referred to in Symposium 1.)
Let me redraw my diagram:
[I'll do this one as a table. A Y indicates that there is an arrow leading from the item down the side to the item along the top.]
| Experience | Human Error | God's Work | Scriptural Truth | Response | |
| Experience | Y | ||||
| Human Error | |||||
| God's Work | Y | Y | |||
| Scriptural Truth | Y | ||||
| Response | Y |
Note, however, that the arrow goes from X to T still, not the other way around. So Scripture is still the fixed authority. (I'm not entirely happy with this, but I'll be coming back to it later.) Maybe this is all you've been saying anyway.
Mike: No, this is a fresh contribution, and I think your idea and diagram have merit. Reading Edward de Bono's book I am Right, You are Wrong has pointed up for me the influence that experience has on our thinking; in fact, de Bono (a neurologist by training) argues that the basic way the brain works is by being altered by previous information/experience in a way which then affects the way we handle subsequent information/experience. This makes the perception issue central. However, it also points up a problem; as de Bono says, there is effectively 'no truth in perception'. This is why I am wary of experience being introduced too strongly into spirituality. If I let you read my journals (which I won't, because they're so embarrassing) you would see a worked example of someone whose perceptions were completely at odds with reality (and swung back and forth wildly). I am still sometimes unable to perceive things because of an existing emotional commitment to a certain interpretation, and I haven't been able to overcome this. I think I differ from other people not so much in having this problem as in being aware of it.
One difficulty of experiences is that they are not self-interpreting (hence confusion of the type you have outlined). I read a book a while ago on conversion to the Moonies (which concluded, incidentally, that while there was emotional pressure there was no 'brainwashing' as such going on), in which several 'testimonies' were recorded, such as:
'(This) experience [of intense happiness and a sense of freedom] caused me to join the Unification Church and gave me strength to remain in UC despite many difficulties.'
'When I first met someone from the Family in the street. . . . I felt drawn to go [to the centre]. . . . I felt very welcome by the members. I. . . . heard a lecture on the first chapter [of Divine Principle]. I immediately felt a deep peace and joy. I could accept the teachings in heart [sic]. When I went home I felt incredible joy and happiness and somehow I just knew God existed. . . . I have never had such a wonderful experience in my life and it is on that basis that I could accept the existence of God.'
An American convert had been praying for guidance, for a 'sign' as to whether the movement 'was God's will' for him. He wrote:
'I was deep in prayer with my eyes firmly closed and my head touching the earth, then there was a flash of white light (it was a very cloudy day) and I felt great peace, tranquillity, as if my prayer had been heard. Another brother who was also praying experienced the same at the same time and felt the same way.'
Over half of the large number of Moonies interviewed for the study on which the book was based claimed experiences of this general kind and said that this was what had convinced them that they had to commit themselves to the movement. (Eileen Barker, The Making of a Moonie - Brainwashing or Choice?, Basil Blackwell, 1984, pp 69-70.)
All of which goes to give me some sympathy with Dr Duncanson, uncle of MacPhee, the skeptical Ulsterman in C.S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength. He was Moderator of the Scottish Presbyterian Church, and when people came to him 'prating' about religious experiences, he'd slap the big black Bible down on the desk and challenge them to 'Show it me in the Word of God'. I can just imagine the prickly old Scot rolling the 'r' of 'Word' and looking at them from under his bushy eyebrows; it's no wonder they didn't use to take it any further.
Many people - in fact, according to some studies, even most people have religious or mystical experiences of some kind at some time (or at least experiences to which they attach the label 'religious' or 'mystical'). I've had some myself, though nothing very spectacular or interesting, and have learned to attach no significance to them. Other people's experiences may line up with reality more closely, but mine bear no apparent relationship to my spiritual state (as judged from Scripture).
I'm glad you included 'human error' in your diagram, as I think a lot of this is inevitable.
Ian: Partly I want to argue the case for experience because I believe that Matthew Fox hit a nerve with his Creation Spirituality by stressing that God created humanity good. (I am generally opposed to Fox, however; he went overboard.) Much particularly Evangelical theology stresses the utter degradedness of humanity (Lewis was prone to this). Mike Warnke caricatures this in his rendition of a hymn in this tradition:
'I stand before your throne of grace
And promptly fall upon my face;
Oh Lord, you know I'm but a worm,
So step on me and watch me squirm.'
A lot of the reason I have left evangelical churches which sang choruses is that I found I couldn't handle being told I was scum and then being told to be happy about God's goodness in relation to me. (I still consider myself an evangelical, but only for lack of a better category.)
The goodness of humanity is necessary if God is to interact with it today and work through human experience. If, however, we're all scum, then God can't deal with our sinfulness and therefore can only work through Scriptural propositions (Scripture having been written by specially good people).
Mike: It's interesting that you should raise this point, as another friend of mine, Steve Ball, thinks similarly both about experience and about the goodness of humanity. He sees people, Christian and non-Christian, behaving decently and asks how I can believe in the total depravity of man.
The answer is complex (and much of it will have to wait until the next issue, when I'll interact with the rest of your letter and what it has to say on the subject of Scripture). Briefly, I would say that, along with a number of evangelical theologians, I see 'total depravity' not as meaning that the Fall affected the whole of our faculties, but that it did affect each of them. (I've often thought the 'Fall' should have been called the Jump, incidentally, but I suppose it's too late now). In other words, we are not total scum (we still bear an image of God), but the image is defaced in every part (though not erased in any). We sin; we get sick and die; and we make mistakes of judgement, of logic, and of perception. We all fall short of God's standard (we all fall short of our standard, if we're honest). This is a fact of human life as much as the fact that we were created good in God's image (both facts being known to us primarily through Scripture, and confirmed by experience to a greater or lesser degree). Reflect on Galatians 2:21, which says, in effect, that there was no need for Christ to die if we could make it on our own.
There is much in what you say about God only being able to work effectively through human experience if we are good. I would say that one reason that human experience is dubious as a basis for belief is that the Fall has affected our ability to judge, not only because we are sinners and tend to choose what is wrong and then justify it, but because we are finite and prone to error and may go off the track with the best will in the world.
This doesn't necessarily imply that God can't deal with our sinfulness. He has given us a new nature (which the churches you mention seem to have forgotten; the image of God in us has been partially restored by the work of Christ, and we're not in the awful condition which the first part of Ephesians 2 describes any longer, but in the condition set out in Ephesians 1). In this way, he is currently (progressively) dealing with our sinfulness; and he will finally deal with it at the return of Christ.
'The fact that conversion and salvation are of God, is an humbling truth. It is because of its humbling character that men do not like it. To be told that God must save me if I am saved, and that I am in his hand, as clay is in the hands of the potter, "I do not like it" saith one. Well, I thought you would not; whoever dreamed you would?'
- C.H. Spurgeon, quoted in Iain Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon, Banner of Truth, 2nd edn, 1973, p 60.
Again, I'll take up your remarks about Scripture next time, but I will say here that I think the writers of Scripture were not so much specially good people (David, after all, broke several commandments quite drastically), but were the subjects of special grace from God with a special purpose, which we shouldn't necessarily expect in our own day-to-day lives. Not that we are second-class Christians or anything, just that the special purpose of revelation is now completed, and God is using a different way of working to display his glory in the Church. (More on this in Symposium 3A.)
Jonathan: Thanks very much for Symposium. It was very enjoyable and thought-provoking. Actually, in some respects it wasn't "enjoyable", for reasons which will shortly become obvious. Anyway, while I'm in the mood I thought I'd respond to a few things raised by the whole RC/ RS discussion.
You've tried to be humble enough to say "Oh, I'm sorry, I'm wrong" or "I didn't explain myself very well". A very good thing when you're editing your own opinions. One small criticism is that you have a tendency to write very long (especially when you use brackets or lots of semicolons) sentences; somewhat after the fashion of the old-time writers- one thinks of John Owen - who didn't seem to know where to put full stops and begin another sentence; and therefore, you can be, as a consequence, rather hard to follow.
Mike: I know. Sorry, everyone. I'll try to do better, but I see ideas as connected in complex ways, a bit like one of those ball-and-stick molecular models, and tend to base my sentence structure around the structure of reality that I perceive. Hence, they are large and complex.
Jonathan: Further suggestions for Symposium:
Mike: I'd love to have cartoons, if anyone can provide them (personally I'm severely artistically impaired).
Jonathan: The RC debate raises issues which cover anthropology ("What is a Human Being?"), the work of the Holy Spirit, devotion, mysticism, prayer, predestination, guidance. . . Such is the way of things when you start trying to analyse one small part of life. Perhaps we should encourage BCNZ staff to join in. Perhaps they'd say "Read Abbot, Bloggs and Crumb. This debate was resolved in the 3rd century."
I think it was Winkie Pratney who said he had "abandoned" rather than "completed" his book on the nature of God. So too with my response. I'm very much an amateur theologian, and I'm still developing my ideas. Nevertheless I'll put pen to paper so that you can see the direction I'm heading in.
I'm in sympathy with Ian. Your ideas made me uncomfortable because I felt the inevitable result of RC and RS was the dangers you mentioned "it can become overly skeptical, deistic. . . ."
Having said that, I do want to say that I agree with the responsibility aspect. Myself, I tend to be very emotionally driven and need a bit more mind-driven responsibility. Interestingly, Peter Marshall believed that the emotions were the primary motivating aspect of our personality, not mind or will. He therefore sought to appeal to the emotions in his preaching. However, one would hardly say he denigrated the intellect. (See A Man Called Peter by Catherine Marshall.)
I want to respond by looking at the "relationships" side of spirituality. (I note that "trendy" theologians are into the Orthodox emphasis on the Trinity as a personal God perpetually relating to himself. Harold Turner has a concept of relationships actually being the building blocks of ultimate reality. I don't know much about this so will only mention it.)
1. Christians often talk about having a "personal relationship" with God. That sort of thing is very attractive to me and it is this area that concerns me most with RC/RS:
What sort of relationship do we have with God?
And,
How do we achieve emotional satisfaction in our relationship with God?
To begin to answer this, let me give an overview:
1. Relationship at the beginning.
In the garden, Adam and Eve talked face to face with God. Note: it appears that God was not with them constantly (ie they were not tangibly aware of him - Genesis 3:8).
2. Relationship at the end.
". . . then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known".
"Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them".
"They will see his face".
(1 Cor 13:12, Rev 21:3, 22:4)
We began our existence knowing God, and we will end it knowing him face to face. I won't go into more detail, but I think it can be shown that knowing God - in the sense of intimate relationship - is God's intention for us.
So what is to be made of this brief period sandwiched in the middle? What is our relationship with God to be like during this fallen period?
Note that if the above is true, it means that a yearning for heaven and a longing for intimate communication with God is right and proper. This is what we were designed to do. This desire for God gives me motivation to see if there is scriptural reason for expecting intimacy with God in the present.
At the fall, all our faculties were marred, including our ability to relate with God. They may be marred to different degrees - our sexuality may be more fallen than other parts of us, as C.S. Lewis suggests. But all of us is marred (total depravity).
However, each faculty is still partially functioning. For example, we get sick but our bodies have not been completely destroyed by the Fall. Our love for others is impaired, but even sinners can manage some altruism (through God's general grace to everyone).
So it is reasonable on this general view to think that we can still relate to God in a very personal way to some degree, even if imperfectly.
Therefore, I make two preliminary conclusions:
1. God may still talk to us.
Implication: We shouldn't automatically write off claims that "God spoke to me".
2. Due to the fall, this talking will be imperfect.
Implication: We shouldn't accept any alleged communication from God willy-nilly.
I'm putting things very simplistically, and find myself struggling to find adequate words to convey my meaning. I want to avoid "Pentecostalism" for the moment while retaining the idea that our relationship with God is more than mere obedience, that we can experience God to some degree. I don't believe this necessarily leads to Pentecostalism, though I agree it opens the way. So be it. (I regard myself as a lapsed charismatic, ie someone who finds the concept of a God who still speaks and acts satisfying and necessary but is fed up with some of what he has seen of charismatic practice.)
In fact, I regard the most important thing to be a sense of the presence of God, which I feel RC leaves out. I'm told that Tom Smail has a good theology of "presence", but I haven't read him.
I'm not arguing for an experience-BASED Christianity. I am arguing for an experience-INCLUSIVE Christianity: A recognition that in the lives of believers there are times when God is very close, and that this is a real event, not just "subjective feelings". These events may not be frequent, but they do happen. Should one seek them? I'm not sure. I believe that in contemplative prayer and meditation, based on the Bible, we may experience emotional satisfaction with God. This IS subjective, but it is also right to call it "from God" as it is based on scripture.
I also think one of the greatest areas of weakness in the Church universal is the lack of vital, Bible-based, theologically informed teaching.
I wanted to carry on with a deeper treatment of what I mean by a "relationship with God", for which I have copious notes. Basically I feel that RC/RS cannot provide emotional satisfaction, as it is based on "obey God and one day you'll get to experience him". There is no sense of contact with a personal being here and now. Given time, these ideas would be far more developed (and far too long for Symposium). But I'm tired and want to go to bed. What I WILL do is give a few quotes which made me think.
I'm glad you appreciated Packer's Knowing God. Here's some of what he says, by way of reminder:
"Now when the New Testament tells us that Jesus is risen, one of the things it means is that. . . any man anywhere can enjoy the same kind of relationship with Him as the disciples had in the days of his flesh." (p 36.) [Emphasis mine.]
"But knowing Jesus Christ still remains as definite a relation of personal discipleship as it was for the twelve when He was on earth". (p 37.)
"But for all this, we must not lose sight of the fact that knowing God is an emotional relationship, as well as an intellectual and volitional one, and could not indeed be a deep relation between persons were it not so." (p 39.)
Charles Hodge (a REFORMED theologian!) writes in his Systematic Theology (1888):
"All evangelical Christians admit a supernatural influence of the Spirit of God on the soul. . ." (p 63.)
". . . the Christian ideas of illumination, revelation, incarnation, regeneration, the sacraments and the resurrection, are essentially mystical elements." (p 64.)
"God, therefore, does hold immediate intercourse with the souls of men." (p 67.)
"The inward teaching of the Spirit is to be sought by prayer, and the diligent use of the appointed means" [by which I take it he means scripture, sermons, wise counsel, etc].
And there I'll have to leave it.
A word to Ian: Having studied a reasonable amount of postmodernism, sociology of knowlege etc, I have to say the Emperor has no clothes. Yes, they are fascinating and challenging areas. Had I done my Master's I would have done my thesis in this area. But you can't LIVE a thoroughgoing skepticism. It's this aspect that helps me not to worry about it too much, though I admit my coping mechanism is to ignore various issues because I simply don't [yet] have the time or the strength of faith to investigate more deeply.
Mike: It's a number of years since I read Packer, and when I did I held quite a different theology. Maybe I don't agree with him so much after all, if your quotations are typical. It's clearly an exaggeration to say that present-day Christians enjoy the same kind of relationship with Jesus as the disciples did in the days of his flesh, without adding much qualification (which he may provide; my copy is lent out and I can't check).
I, too, want to see an experience-inclusive Christianity (but not an experience-based one). However, part of the experience it needs to include is the experience that many of us have, that we don't 'sense the presence of God' often (or at all). I think the point needs to be made quite strongly that the presence or absence of such a 'sense' doesn't necessarily relate to the degree of our spirituality or the state of our relationship with God. I have a friend who experienced major frustration in his relationship with God, and still has rather a negative attitude towards him, because he had been taught that he had to hear from God and sense his presence if he was going to be spiritual, and for some reason (possibly his honesty and good sense) he didn't 'hear from God' or 'sense his presence'. Because he is rather an emotional person, and because he sees experience as a better way of gaining access to truth than the Scriptures, he concluded (quite wrongly, I believe) that God had left him, didn't love him, and wasn't a very nice person.
'We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove lid. She will never sit on a hot stove lid again and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore.'
Mark Twain
I'd say that sometimes when we seem to sense these things, it is God; but it's almost impossible to judge in any specific instance. Either 'this is definitely God' or (except in cases of extreme foolishness) 'this could not possibly be God' are insupportably arrogant statements.
I disagree with Charles Hodge on the existence of 'illumination' and an 'inward teaching of the Holy Spirit' available partly through prayer. As you'll see when I go on to discuss the Scriptures and the Church, I don't so much disagree with the idea that God speaks and acts and relates, but with the individualistic way in which this has been traditionally presented.
A couple of (similar) examples. Some years ago, now, when I was a charismatic, I was one of several people who were asked to lead sub-groups of a home group we were part of. We were told to pray about who should be in our groups and come back together the following week and discuss it.
I prayed, heard no inner voice, briefly flirted with the idea of 'casting lots' by rolling a couple of dice which were sitting on my desk, realized that this was the proscribed procedure of divination, thought and prayed some more, and eventually came up with a list. I was the only one, when we reconvened, who had a list; so we started from scratch and discussed each member of the group and who they would go best with. At the end of the evening, I realised that the group I'd ended up with was the same as my list.
My explanation is that I had taken the same factors into account when making my list as the group of leaders had when assigning members to me (though I was not aware of it at the time); also, I was a part of this second process. This does not exclude God's participation in ways I've talked about before.
More recently, I approached my pastor saying that I'd like to do more in the church, and suggesting that I lead a group focussed on knowing and supporting each other and incorporating Bible study on issues that arose in the course of this process. It turned out that the eldership had been discussing starting groups of this nature, and that my name had been mentioned as a potential leader.
Now, I had been listening to the sermons which were being preached, and much of the motivation for my offer came from recurring themes in them; so there is nothing really surprising here. However, I believe that this is at least part of the way God speaks, acts and relates: in the context of a body of believers who are living lives informed by the Scriptures, and seeking to obey them. As I say, more of this in future issues.
Several people that I know of have described RC, as it was developed in Symposium 1, as 'arid'. This is quite accurate. I can live with some aridity, but that doesn't prove that an arid approach is true, or workable for other people even if it is true. All of this needs a lot more development yet, and I'm very open to ideas, providing they don't simply repeat the errors of the past which caused us problems and got us questioning in the first place.
Dean: I like your three-tiered approach to 'belief' in the discussion on RC: beliefs you hold, those you don't, and those you say you don't but do. Taking it one step further and using it as a criticism of your own summary of Towards RS, I [also] tend to think your untitled chart Primary to Tertiary falls short.
I say this because I think that Jesus engaged the mind and emotions of his hearers with the intent of engaging their will. Surely, if engaged wills are the effect, the primary cause that led to this is of little consequence.
Another suggestion, only briefly pursued in the RC Symposium, is that we are all different; therefore, we have Christians whose will is engaged by RC means and those whose will is engaged by 'L[istening to] G[od]' means. And so long as the will is engaged and there is obedience to the behavioural requirements of Scripture, both OT and NT, that is surely the desired end.
With your diagram, I think that there are those 'Christians' who are non-RC in the broadest sense (whether tending to RC or LG in 'personality') who have not at any stage got to a point of changing their wills and bringing themselves into submission to Christ and the Scriptures. Hence, they are not, in my book, even much more than into the milk of the Word, let alone the meat (if indeed they are Christians at all; for how can you be Christ's and disobedient to his will?). So, in your diagram, the will needs to be engaged; in many cases this is not the case.
To highlight the differences of personalities, look at two Spirit-filled men, our Lord himself and Paul, as they faced the insults and questions of Ananias. Each reacted differently, but each was led by God to do so: Paul rebuffing his accuser, Jesus standing in silence. Yet both had wills engaged to do God's will.
From a personal example: my mother is very emotional and intuitive, while Dad is objective and tends towards your RC view of behaviour. (Hence, I am a strange mix, alternating between the two styles.) Yet, in my view, both are becoming obedient Christians and both have their strengths and weaknesses. So long as the behaviour is Christian (ie scriptural) and the will engaged to God's, surely the LG and RC 'temperaments' can both be useful for God's purposes.
Further, to add another aspect to 'engaged wills', 2 Co 1:4 talks of the 'comfort given by which we ourselves were comforted by God.' If our wills are engaged, it is not for our own sakes (as Scripture so often reiterates), but to bring benefit to those around us too. If this is not the case, has the will indeed been engaged?
I think your own process of development (or pilgrimage) from immaturity in Christ to RC is a useful tool in bringing the same 'comfort' to others who are at the beginning of the growth curve or who need the same reassurance about where they are now; indeed, I am one too.
However, Scripture is full of 'supernatural' happenings: Peter's escape from prison, Paul's viper bite, Paul's visitation from the Lord both in his conversion and at later times (Acts 16:7-10, 18:9, 23:11), not to mention countless healings; and one has to be very careful one is not throwing out all supernatural experiences on account of one's subjective experiences of immature Christians and an immature Church (which we Kiwi believers generally are, having mostly given our lives to material gain over and above advancing the Kingdom of God here in our land).
We do need RC, but we also need to beware we are not rejecting aspects of God's dealings because we don't understand them or because he doesn't come to us in visions and dreams as he did in Scripture (and may still do with our friends).
Surely, the secret is not to look for the supernatural to happen to us regarding God's leading, but not to be put off by it or surprised if it comes our way. For example, Paul was told at least three times not to go to Jerusalem, but he did as he felt was right (against all the spiritual advice), and so the disciples said 'God's will be done'. It was; he got to witness in Rome (at Government expense) according to the vision he was given (Acts 23:11). He acted as he ought and the spiritual advice also proved true.
Mike: To take your second point first, it's certainly dangerous to say God must or must not do this or that. It would be as presumptuous for me to say that God will never heal, for instance, as it is for someone else to say that he always does (providing the right people apply the right formula). God is in heaven and we are on earth, and he does as he wishes. However, he does act consistently; and it seems to me that his consistent (although not inevitable or unalterable) behaviour in this age of the world is to go light on the supernatural manifestations.
My point also stands, that the miracles of Scripture were for very specific purposes and affected just those people who were central to the continuation of the plan of God (which in those days was often a very small number, sometimes as low as one). With the people of God now numbering in the millions spread all over the world, and, perhaps more importantly, with the fully adequate revelation of Scripture available to (almost) the whole Church, that level of unusual guidance and activity is no longer necessary on a regular basis.
On your first point, engagement of the will: I think it's important to consider what the will is being engaged by. If it is being engaged by the truth, certainly this is valid Christianity; but if it is not, it is anything between futility and idolatry. Your model assumes that the truth is understood, but I don't believe that this is a safe assumption in the modern western Church; perhaps not in any part of the Church throughout history, including the NT. Look at the time Paul spends saying 'Do you not know?' and 'I do not want you to be ignorant'.
Jesus makes parallel remarks to the Jews: 'Have you not read?' He underlines the lack of understanding which the Pharisees in particular (though also the Sadducees) had of the Scriptures, despite the amount of time they spent reading and even memorising them. The Pharisees were very notable for the engagement of their will, but they were engaging it in sacrifice rather than mercy; in outward rather than inward obedience; in obedience to their own man-made rules rather than the commands of God; and without an appreciation of the principles involved (which are four ways of saying almost the same thing in some cases).
As I explained to Ian, I may have given a false impression by heading the columns of my table 'Primary', 'Secondary' and 'Tertiary'. I wasn't meaning to imply a heirarchy, but the stages of a process in which all three elements play an indispensable part. Certainly, the response of the will is absolutely essential to the process of RS. But it is also essential that it arises from an understanding of the truth, and results in a change within us (furthering the change which must have occurred in us if we are to obey God at all). You are right to highlight the role of the will, but not to the exclusion of the other elements.
Dean: I'm inclined to agree with your response. I guess I saw your diagram as a model with a key element missing, ie the will.
However, I do agree with the comment that the will can be engaged in the most unhelpful ways. My idea was that the will was engaged by Christ and his revelation by the Scriptures - ie Truth. But, granted, even some Christians have a 'superstitious' way of living their lives. That is not RC at all but, as you say, idolatry.
Where Next?
In the light of what's been discussed, we seem to need a closer look at some issues of truth and how it is known, which fits in well with the theme of this issue's second article: Dealing with Secular Philosophies.
MIKE McMILLAN works as a freelance writer and editor. He loosely co-ordinates Think-Link.
IAN BURN is a student in Christchurch, and a staff worker and member of a Christian therapeutic community. He lists his interests as secularism, postmodernism and Christianity, environmentalism, and substitutionary atonement.
DEAN EMMERSON is a Salvation Army officer in pastoral ministry. He was formerly in social work roles with the Salvation Army.
JONATHAN BEAZER graduated in philosophy and sociology from Auckland University. He initiated the course 'Introduction to Christian Thought' through the University chaplaincy, and the ArtLink network, a sister organisation to Think-Link.
Contributions to Symposium, including the editor's, do not necessarily represent the opinion of anybody else other than the contributor.
More articles.
I love |
You are visitor number to this page since
29 November 1997.