Considering a Contemplative View of Sanctification

The final view of sanctification addressed in Christian Spirituality is that of the contemplatives. The Church has a long history with contemplatives, or mystics, that transcends geography and denominations. Some well-known names were contemplatives: Bernard of Clairvoux, St. John of the Cross, Teresa Avila, Thomas Merton and more. In my younger days as a Christian I read Brother Lawrence and The Great Cloud of Unknowing. How does E. Glenn Hinson describe contemplative Christianity?

Contemplatives try to balance the inner and outer life. They usually assert that being will result in doing (which is a far more biblical idea than doing will result in being). They do spend most of their time addressing the inner life: being. Its focus is on communicating, communing and contemplating with God internally. Like Wesleyian sanctification the focus is on one’s love for God. Instead of gaining this thru a second blessing, one pursues it, so to speak, through a series of activities that leads one thru the stages of increasing communion with God. I’m trying to do this justice on its own terms.

“Contemplation has to do with this loving attentiveness to God.”

In contemplation there is an assumption that God is immanent in the created order. He is inescapably near to us. There is no disputing this, the question is “how is He near?”.

In Hinson’s description, there is a “naturalness” to this pursuit of the Divine Lover. He does not clarify and it can sound awfully Pelagian to many ears. Since contemplatives typically eschew theological distinctions, lots of things are vague enough to be misunderstood. Or properly understood.

At the very best, it is typically Arminian. God is a gentleman who never knocks our door down but respects the freedom He gave us. There is a resistibleness to this “grace.” Let me clarify: in Reformed Theology God does not violate the will of the creature, but in regeneration changes the character/nature of the creature so the person’s will is changed. We cannot thwart God’s purposes and plan. In most contemplative theology we, not God, are in the driver’s seat.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Reformed Confession Part 3

In the 3rd chapter of Recovering the Reformed Confession, R. Scott Clark tackles the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience.  In this chapter he addresses inroads of mysticism into Reformed practice.  It was here that I learned that I am part of the problem.  He lays much of the problem at the feet of … Jonathan Edwards.  As a result, people like Tim Keller, John Gerstner and R.C. Sproul (under whom I studied the Theology of Edwards’ Sermons in seminary) are unduly influenced by this quest and part of the problem.

But first, he mentions Reformed people seeking God’s moral will through listening for the “still small voice.”  It seems illegitimate to make a crisis out of a few people who might do this.  I’m more familiar (though not supportive) with people “listening” for God’s will in matter upon which Scripture does not speak: this person as a spouse? this job or that one?  I would disagree that this is a widespread problem in Reformed Communities.  There are no data to substantiate his view of the “crisis”.

“If someone asks, ‘What is God teaching you these days?’ one has the sense that the expected answer is not to be a summary of this week’s sermon or reflection on the significance of baptism or the Lord’s Supper, but an insight derived from a special experience or private experience.”

This troubles me.  First, because it unfairly represents the person who asks this question.  Second, it neglects one of the ordinary means of grace- personal reading of the Scripture (I also find prayer conspicuously absent from his discussion).  He bases his criticism on what “he feels”, subjectivism.  From my subjective experience, when I ask someone this question, I mean “what is God teaching you from His Word.  When someone asks me this, that is how I answer.  As we read God’s Word, the Spirit is at work.  Themes emerge from Scripture that we need to pay attention to.  This is not private revelation, but the illumination of the Scriptures (which we see in WCF I).

He then lets his personal agenda take control regarding the worship service.  Since the Scriptures contain 150 Psalms, there should not be a problem with a church that wants to sing to God (I’ve never been anywhere where there was not some introduction, Scripture or liturgical element to break up the songs).  Is there something wrong with Power Point in a context in which people don’t read music?  Must we cling to the form of hymn books and paper when the point is to actually sing?

Where are all these Reformed churches with dramatic presentations?  Where is the liturgical dance?  Have they happened?  Yes, these examples happen.  But I find no reason to think that they are now common place among Reformed Churches.

While I agree that the quest for an unmediated encounter with God is illegitimate, I’m not convinced how prevalent this is in our community.  But that is because of how differently we view revival.  He seems to  equate revival with revivalism.

I have been influenced by Iain Murray’s book Revival and Revivalism ( which Clark criticizes).   Murray argues that revivalism is grounded in Pelagianism and the use of illegitimate means for coerce a “decision” and the focus on the subjective experience.  Many people, like Murray, use “revival” to describe what Clark terms reformation.  Revivalism is a technical term for a movement which has been, and should continue to be, rejected by the Reformed community.  But Reformed Communities have witnessed, and affirmed, revivals.    Clark’s unfortunate use/change of terminology clouds the issue.  But he also takes issue with how a large segment of the Reformed Community, through Jonathan Edwards, has seemingly been bewitched into holding a type of mysticism.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Reformed Confession Part 1

I’ve begun reading R. Scott Clark’s Recovering the Reformed Confession after someone recommended it to me.  I will confess that I am leery as I begin to open the pages.  While confessionally in agreement with the folks from Westminster West, I find I am not in agreement practically or theoretically.  In other words, we seem to differ on how to apply the theology we hold (mostly) in common.

But, I will attempt to give a fair reading to the book.  I hope I will not be unnecessarily critical.  I hope to remember what I wrote on a post-it note some years ago-

Discernment is recognizing both what is true and what is false.

Therefore, I will attempt to affirm that which is true as well as reject that which is false.  Or at least responding to that with which I disagree (since I am not the ultimate authority on what is true).

Clark begins with identifying the mainline, borderline and sideline denominations.  I am not sure why he calls some “sideline” but that’s not important now.  We are familiar with the mainline Reformed denominations (the PCUSA, RCA & UCC) which have largely squandered their theological heritage.  While there are surely some faithful congregations, as a whole they would appear to have become apostate as they begin denying essential orthodox doctrines.

He identifies the borderline denominations as the CRC and the EPC.  He (this was written in 2008, to be fair) identifies the CRC as moving toward the mainline and the EPC to be moving toward the sideline.  With a large number of former PCUSA churches entering the EPC since that time, I think they are shifting back to the mainline.  The recent approval of female pastors would be a case in point.

Clark right points out the confusion as to what “Reformed” actually means.  It now means nearly anything.  Some use it so narrowly as to identify their position on creation, law or music.  There is a great variety of practice among those churches taking the name Reformed.  There would also appear to be a great variety of theology among them.  I suspect he would disagree with me, but I think our theological system should be the same (therefore preferring the older term Particular Baptists to Reformed Baptists), but there is no need for uniformity of practice (which is what I am reading, fairly or unfairly, between the lines).

“It is the argument of this book that the Reformed confession is the only reasonable basis for a stable definition of the Reformed theology, piety and practice.”

I have no qualms with that.

He refers to Phillip Schaff’s (he of the 8 volume History of the Christian Church) inaugural address.  There he identifies rationalism and subjectivism as the 2 great diseases that threaten to kill the church, including the Reformed Heritage.

Rationalism results in the question to know all as God knows it.  They want to be right, to have absolute certainty  on matters about which Scripture is less than clear.  They do not distinguish between essential matters and matters for the well-being of the church.  All become equally important and you must toe the line.  This group would be the TRs (truly Reformed or thoroughly Reformed).  If you’ve had a bad experience with a Reformed person, it was probably one of these.

Subjectivism (or sectarianism) is the pursuit of the immediate experience of God apart from the appointed means of grace.  Where I suspect Clark and I may differ is the number of appointed means of grace.  But maybe I’m wrong.  Either way, these people place their emphasis on the emotional, the experiential.  They fail to see that Scripture guides our spiritual experience lest we have a counterfeit spiritual experience.

Clark notes how a growing number of younger people are beginning to embrace more traditional forms of worship.  The modernistic experiment of the boomers is insufficient for them.

Read Full Post »

Considering Children of the Promise

This was my final article for Tabletalk Magazine, published after I left Ligonier Ministries.  It is a short review of Randy Booth’s book Children of the Promise.

I read many books on the subject of infant baptism, but their arguments never connected with my experience.  When I read that Robert Booth used to be a Baptist minister, I thought he could explain it in a way I could understand.  I was not disappointed this time.

He begins his argument with a thorough explanation of covenant theology.  The question of how to interpret the Bible in regards to covenant theology cannot be minimized.  We tend to read the Bible as post-enlightenment, 20th century, individualist Americans.  The original audience(s) understood covenants and the idea of headship.  Keeping this in mind makes the going easier.

Booth then argues for the continuity of the covenant community between New and Old Covenants.  He does this from a variety of New Testament passages.  This is an important part of the argument, and the biblical evidence must be reckoned with before reaching a conclusion.

The ideas which had presented a problem for me were those of signs and seals of the covenant.  Booth explained them in a way which made sense and made infant baptism nearly unavoidable.  His comparision of circumcision and baptism was most helpful.  They are not identical, but the continuity is important.  There is much misunderstanding concerning the meaning of circumcision today.  This chapter is useful in correcting this problem.  He also reminds us baptism represents what God has done, not what we do.  Here, too, there is much confusion to be removed from the conversationn.  Booth’s presentation is clear and powerful.

The last sections of the book deal with the concept of household baptism followed by a summary of the argument for infant baptism.  In these chapters, indeed the whole book, Booth interacts with the ideas of baptistic theologians like Jewett, Kingdon and Strong.  Booth answered all of the objections to infant baptism I had.  This book, published by P & R, can help those who struggle with this issue.

Read Full Post »