Experiencing God

We hold that an experimental [i.e. experiential] knowledge of Christ crucified and interceding, is the very essence of Christianity.

...

We hold that, as an inward work of the Holy Ghost is a necessary thing to a man's salvation, so also it is a thing that must be inwardly felt... there can be no real conversion to God, no new creation in Christ, no new birth of the Spirit, where there is nothing felt and experienced within.

J.C. Ryle, quoted in Faithfulness and Holiness by J.I. Packer, p.32

I find this very interesting. Of course, I agree with him. And so did George Whitefield.

But every Christian must be an Enthusiast! That is, he must be inspired by God, or have God in him. Had I mind to hinder the progress of the Gospel and to establish the kingdom of darkness, I would go about telling people they might have the Spirit of God and yet not feel it.

George Whitefield, quoted in Pollock's biography of him, p.86

But when did what is now called conservative evangelicalism stop having this stress on the importance of a personal experience of God? So often we look back to great men of God like Ryle and Whitefield and forget that in many respects they were quite a bit more charismatic (in today's terms) than many of those who now look back to them as spiritual ancestors. Was it simply an over-reaction against some of the excesses of early Pentecostalism that drove so much of contemporary evangelicalism into such an unemotional state?

J.C.Ryle - feeling things

To suppose that people do not feel things because they do not scream and yell and fill the air with their cries, is simple nonsense.

...

To feel trouble deeply and yet submit to it patiently is what is required of a Christian.

J.C. Ryle, quoted in Faithfulness and Holiness by J.I.Packer, p.24, 26

Calvin - Delight in God

Here's John Calvin sounding like John Piper:

But although our mind cannot conceive of God, without rendering some worship to him, it will not, however, be sufficient simply to hold that he is the only being whom all ought to worship and adore, unless we are also persuaded that he is the fountain of all goodness, and that we must seek everything in him, and in none but him.

...

For, until men feel that they owe everything to God, that they are cherished by his paternal care, and that he is the author of all their blessings, so that nought is to be looked for away from him, they will never submit to him in voluntary obedience; nay, unless they place their entire happiness in him, they will never yield up their whole selves to him in truth and sincerity.

Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.2.1

Random Thoughts

I was in a supermarket the other day, and was disturbed by just how much more space is given to fizzy drinks than to fruit juice. I mean - who drinks more fizzy than fruit juice anyway? I think I might have done for about a year when I was a teenager.

Today I've sung two great songs about the cross - And Can it Be and Oh to see the dawn. And what struck me was just how little we often pay attention to the words of great hymns we're used to, especially when they've got lively tunes. I remember years ago reading through a hymnbook with a new Christian - teaching them hymns and so on. We got to "And Can it Be", and my reaction was just to sing it quickly and skate over it. But my friend broke down in tears, because she actually paid attention to the words...

And can it be, that I should gain
An interest in the Saviour's blood? Died he for me, who caused his pain, For me who him to death pursued? Amazing love, how can it be, that Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

Now it is that "Oh to see the dawn" has a better tune for the words, or is it just that we're less familiar with it? Because I'm always moved when I sing it, and I just welly And Can it Be out without getting moved so much...

Ryle - trusting in anything except Christ

In himself [the regenerate person] sees nothing but unworthiness, but in Christ he sees ground for the fullest confidence, and trusting in Him, he believes that his sins are all forgiven, and his iniquities put away. He believes that for the sake of Christ's finished work and death upon the cross he is reckoned righteous in God's sight, and may look forward to death and judgment without alarm. He may have his fears and doubts. He may sometimes tell you he feels as if he had no faith at all. But ask him whether he is willing to trust in anything instead of Christ, and see what he will say. Ask him whether he will rest his hopes of eternal life on his own goodness, his own amendments, his prayers, his minister, his doings in church and out of church, either in whole or in part, and see what he will reply. Ask him whether he will give up Christ, and place his confidence in any other way of salvation. Depend upon it, he would say, that though he does feel weak and bad, he would not give up Christ for all the world...

J.C. Ryle, Knots Untied

Candles

Candles are great for helping people to relax and for helping people achieve ecstatic experiences (trances, etc).

I reckon it's because of all the carbon monoxide they produce.

 

Seriously, the yellow flame means there's incomplete combustion of carbon, producing carbon monoxide, which latches onto red blood cells, preventing them from carrying oxygen to the brain. Complete combustion gives a blue flame, producing carbon dioxide.

Friends

I only trust people who are willing to criticise me.

People, especially Christians, are too often too nice. If people only ever say nice things to me, I have no reason to believe that they mean them.

If people sometimes say nice things to me and sometimes say hard things to me, then I have more reason to believe that the nice things are actually meant.

Of course, there are some people who are just too negative, and some people are wrong. I don't trust everyone who criticises me, just the people who get it right.

It's kind of the corollary from that famous verse in Proverbs:

The wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.
Proverbs 27:6, NIV

I count people as close friends when I can trust wounds from them.

Of course, the corollary to that is that I should be a good friend by giving trustworthy wounds, which I'm not always very good at. I need to be the change I want to see in others.

The people who only ever say nice things, comfortable things, to other people are actually enemies, because they are in it entirely for what they get out of it. Real friends give wounds.

Charismatics, Preaching, Dodgy Doctrine, etc

It's often far too easy to blame other people (especially for men). I find it much more helpful to blame myself for stuff...

I subscribe to the Briefing, which is a frequently thought-provoking and sometimes well-thought through read from a very conservative Christian perspective. For those who know what such labels mean, they're evangelical but not fundamentalist, with a strong overlap with Sydney and Oak Hill Anglicanism, which is a position I nearly share. Their latest issue was mostly a fairly well-informed and theologically astute discussion of Hillsongs Church in Sydney. I agreed with the analysis of the theological weaknesses (trying to appeal to lots of people, no real content), but disagreed with their understanding of why it is like that and how we should respond.

I disagree with large swathes of charismatic theology, but recently I've got to know quite a few theologically-inclined charismatics, and I agree with them on pretty much everything. The simple truth of the matter seems to be that most of the charismatic "heresies":

• Saying that singing draws us into the presence of God (rather than into an experience of his presence)
• Emphasis on knowing joy without knowing suffering
• Lack of order in church
• etc, etc.

Most of them are simply examples of bad wording by people who haven't thought it through properly. The charismatics I know who think about things theologically and Biblically seem to agree that these are weaknesses when asked, but know "what people mean by the language" because they're used to it.

The difference seems to be down to two distinctives of the charismatic movement, both of which can be argued to be the fault of less charismatic people like me.

Greater Participation by the Theologically Illiterate

As evangelicals, we're great believers in every member ministry, but all too often that just means a select few people with the right sort of Bible training. I'll be blunt - I don't remember Paul making doing a Cornhill course a prerequisite for preaching in the church. My experience is that charismatics are in general much better at letting everyone contribute to meetings, but that this (of course) does create issues when people who haven't got the basics straight do stuff up front.

Valuing Singing over Preaching

And I can see why.

How many sermons are over-long, dull, avoiding the passage, not applied properly, aimed at people other than the congregation, arrogant, obvious, infantile, boring? How many sound like someone's reading an essay or that they haven't thought beforehand about what to say?

Most preaching is rubbish, and that's just the evangelicals. I can see why people prefer singing - if the songs are decent you'll often get more Scripture better applied in the songs than in the sermons.

On the other hand, when the preaching is good, often the music does not engage the emotions properly - it doesn't apply the word to our hearts, and so again we fail.

So how should we respond? If we don't like the songs, then write better ones, ones which engage the emotions properly in response to God's word. If we don't like the theology, preach God's Word powerfully, clearly, relevantly and with our whole selves so that people other than conservative evangelicals come to value Biblical preaching again. But don't judge other people because they try to avoid our problems and fall into ones of their own.

Yes, I know in this I've assumed that there are two groups - charismatics who value singing and conservatives who value the Bible. I know that isn't true. I hope that one day as well as meeting charismatics who value the Bible as much as I do, I might attend a service where the Bible is preached properly and emotions properly engaged. But I can't remember a single one...

British Culture

Imagine two quite different people meeting. Maybe one of them is a bit taller than the other, and the other a little heavier. But their facial features look similar, although they use them differently. Maybe they were twins, separated at birth and brought up in very different families. One of them might be a public school university educated respectable middle class person (and there are plenty of them round here), and another person might be a dissillusioned state-school educated (but left at 16) working class person who has difficulty holding down a job. Neither of those people has necessarily consciously chosen to be the way they are, and they'd probably disagree on many things simply because of background. Both might well be able to give a partial critique of the other person's culture - whether pointing out one person's arrogance or the other's lack of aspirations, but both would find it hard to give a good critique of their own.

Most cultures have at least some good aspects in. Many of the aspects of most cultures are fairly neutral. Most cultures also have some bad aspects, and it's often difficult to point those out, either because we share them, or because we'd risk being accused of arrogant racism if we did. For example, some aspects of working class Afro-Caribbean culture in the UK are good and commendable. It also is notorious in educational circles for being frequently strongly anti-intellectual with boys, which leads to very poor grades for pupils in that group. This is widely recognised among educationalists, but they are afraid to say so openly because it goes against the idea of multiculturalism and so the problem sadly goes unaddressed.

What I'm going to try and do here is to criticise some aspects of my own (white, heavily educated, fairly traditional, middle class) culture which I think are bad, as measured against the Bible.

1. Intellectual Arrogance

We tend to place a high value on intellectual achievement and education, which is good. However, that sometimes spills over into valuing the intellectual achievers and the educated more than those who are not - those who conform to our stereotype of a successful person more than those who conform to a homeless Jewish manual labourer.

Of course, the Bible does tend to suggest that while God loves everyone, he especially values and cares about the poor and the weak, and that he uses those who seem foolish to humble the wise.

[God's] mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.
He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.
Luke 1:50-53, NIV

2. Emotional Detachment

We tend to follow the Stoics in thinking that

self-control, fortitude and detachment from distracting emotions, sometimes interpreted as an indifference to pleasure or pain, allows one to become a clear thinker, level-headed and unbiased.
Wikipedia, Stoicism

Yes, self-control, fortitude and the ability to keep going however bad the situation is are important and valuable skills. But emotional detachment is not a price worth paying for it. Emotional detachability, quite possibly. In some ways we remind me of Michal daughter of Saul in 2 Samuel 6

So David went down and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-Edom to the City of David with rejoicing. When those who were carrying the ark of the LORD had taken six steps, he sacrificed a bull and a fattened calf. David, wearing a linen ephod, danced before the LORD with all his might, while he and the entire house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouts and the sound of trumpets.

As the ark of the LORD was entering the City of David, Michal daughter of Saul watched from a window. And when she saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD, she despised him in her heart.

2 Samuel 6:12-16, NIV

Not only do we detach ourselves from our emotions too much, we teach others to do so too. Those who are reading who are from similar backgrounds to me, how often do we look down on little children dancing in church? How often do we expect or require that when people grow up, they lose their exuberant enthusiasm for Christ (or indeed for anything else)?

In many African cultures, they don't seem to discourage dancing (as just one example) at all. Are those cultures less healthy for that? No.

Even Paul wrote

Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervour, serving the Lord.
Romans 12:11, NIV

Quick application to the whole question of musical styles. If our musical styles don't allow the kind of expression of passion that David showed, then they're probably being unhelpful. Are we keeping our spiritual fervour? Are we allowing and encouraging others to do the same?

3. Pharisaism

Closely linked to this is the whole area of Pharisaism, both in making and in keeping rules.

Here's a (heavily adapted) version of some of Matthew 23. In the original, it was Jesus speaking about the Pharisees. Here, I've made it more of a personal corporate confession.

So much of what we do is done for men to see: We make our Bibles large and our public prayers long; we love people to think that we are intelligent and know our Bibles well; we love to be greeted at church and on the street and to have people respect us.

When it comes down to it, we recognise that we only have one Master and are all brothers, we know that we all only have one spiritual Father - and he's in heaven. Likewise, there's only one who is really qualified to teach the truth about God. It's not us; it's Jesus. We know that the greatest among us is the one who is the servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. But we don't live like that.

We shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. We ourselves do not enter, nor will we let those enter who are trying to because we expect them to become like us before they become like God.

Even if we travel over land and sea to win a single convert, when he becomes one, we make him twice as much a son of hell as we are.

We elevate trivial issues like styles of music to top priority, while completely ignoring the whole purpose of music - to praise God with everything that we are.

We make sure not to fiddle our tax returns, yet we completely ignore the whole idea of giving ourselves completely over to God. We give to Caesar what is Caesar's, but we try holding onto what is God's. We should have done both, but we only bothered to do the less important one.

We make a huge effort to look respectable to other people on the outside, but inside we are sinful, compromised and failing. What hypocrites we are, what whitewashed tombs! We look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside we appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness, which we often don't even admit to ourselves.

We respect and honour great Christians who have gone before, without realising that if they were here today, they would slate us for our materialistic, arrogant, passionless, unloving, worldly pretence at faith. We fail to see that it was people just like us who opposed the great Christians of the past, who crucified and murdered Jesus. How on earth do we think we can escape?

And yet, we recognise that you still love us, that you still long to gather us together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but all too often we are not willing.

May God open our eyes and turn our hearts back to him!

Singing

One of the distinctive things Christians seem to do a lot is singing. Yesterday, I went to two churches with two very different approaches to singing.

Why Sing?

Because the Bible tells us to:

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.
Colossians 3:16

Because singing expresses joy in a way that words without singing don't seem able to:

Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.
Psalm 95:1, NIV

All the lands are at rest and at peace; they break into singing.
Isaiah 14:7, NIV

Sing, O Daughter of Zion; shout aloud, O Israel! Be glad and rejoice with all your heart, O Daughter of Jerusalem!
Zephaniah 3:14, NIV

Because it is a good and pleasant thing to do:

Praise the LORD, for the LORD is good;
sing praise to his name, for that is pleasant.
Psalm 135:3, NIV

Praise the LORD.
How good it is to sing praises to our God,
how pleasant and fitting to praise him!
Psalm 147:1, NIV

So basically, the point of singing is largely to express gratitude and joy at our relationship with Jesus.

Now when I think about the way that singing has often been done in churches I've been to, I find that it doesn't seem aimed to do that at all. The "hymn sandwich" model (hymn then something else then hymn, then something else, etc) seems designed to express a bit of joy, then get on with something else, then express a bit more joy, as if it was somehow wrong to express lots and lots of joy and actually get excited about Jesus as we express our joy in him.

And don't even get me started about hymn singing in school - I'm still not sure what the point of that is. Why should people who don't have a relationship with Jesus be excited about it?

Now I think there are things we've still got to be careful of. We've got to be careful that we don't sing stuff that isn't true or that we don't believe, coz we don't want to be hypocrites any more than we already are; we should be careful that everything is done in an ordered way rather than chaotically.

However, I think it's important that if we're singing to express joy, then we should express joy in our singing - in the way that we sing, in what we sing, in the way that we put songs together. And the way that people work, it seems that it's somehow easier to express more joy by singing for 10 mins at once than it is for singing for two chunks of 5 mins with a 5 minute break in between to sit down in silence and listen to some boring notices.

Just a thought...