mysticism
Someone wrote a letter in a recent issue of the English Churchman which seemed to say that the idea of Christian 'experience' was an error along the lines of pagan eastern mysticism.
Needless to say, prioritising people's individual feelings or ideas over the revelation provided in God's word is a mistake, and fair enough, we all know cases of people deciding on what they believe only by the yardstick of what they'd like to believe - picking churches on the basis of what makes them feel good.
But still, all the things which are objectively true need to be accepted personally before it counts as saving faith. So although there are truths and propositions which are necessary to be accepted before you can be saved, accepting the propositions isn't sufficient: the truths of the gospel have to take root inside a person subjectively, in their personal experience, otherwise they're not real Christians. Any truth in your head has to travel those eighteen inches to your heart if it's going to be any use to you (that's a highly gender specific measurement of course: I make it more like thirteen myself).
People do criticise the puritans for being too introspective, over-analysing the goings on in their spiritual life, and encouraging too much focus on the internal inward aspects of religion. But there is most definitely a role for looking inwards, because you need to know whether the truth-out-there has really become truth-in-here, for you. And it wasn't just the puritans who cared about the subjective things - The Days of the Fathers in Rosshire defends the nineteenth century Scottish Highlanders against the same accusations, and an article by a Dutch minister written sometime last year still felt the need to make the same points.
There's a joint response by Maurice Roberts, Malcolm Watts, and William Macleod in the current issue of the English Churchman, which pointed out the misguidedness of the "experience = mysticism" position, and there's also a response available here, with a helpful quote from Rabbi Duncan.
Needless to say, prioritising people's individual feelings or ideas over the revelation provided in God's word is a mistake, and fair enough, we all know cases of people deciding on what they believe only by the yardstick of what they'd like to believe - picking churches on the basis of what makes them feel good.
But still, all the things which are objectively true need to be accepted personally before it counts as saving faith. So although there are truths and propositions which are necessary to be accepted before you can be saved, accepting the propositions isn't sufficient: the truths of the gospel have to take root inside a person subjectively, in their personal experience, otherwise they're not real Christians. Any truth in your head has to travel those eighteen inches to your heart if it's going to be any use to you (that's a highly gender specific measurement of course: I make it more like thirteen myself).
People do criticise the puritans for being too introspective, over-analysing the goings on in their spiritual life, and encouraging too much focus on the internal inward aspects of religion. But there is most definitely a role for looking inwards, because you need to know whether the truth-out-there has really become truth-in-here, for you. And it wasn't just the puritans who cared about the subjective things - The Days of the Fathers in Rosshire defends the nineteenth century Scottish Highlanders against the same accusations, and an article by a Dutch minister written sometime last year still felt the need to make the same points.
There's a joint response by Maurice Roberts, Malcolm Watts, and William Macleod in the current issue of the English Churchman, which pointed out the misguidedness of the "experience = mysticism" position, and there's also a response available here, with a helpful quote from Rabbi Duncan.
posted by cath at
4:38 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home