Fallen and Flawed

Demian, this is one of the finest concise evaluations of this topic I have read. Maybe THE finest. Thank you.
-
A couple of considerations:
-
First, I have found the phrase “Classical Christianity” to have a very broad base of interpretation, often including cathedrals, the papacy (always at its seediest), the Crusades (likewise), and the Inquisition. These thoughts inhabit the minds of those unbelievers who suppose themselves to be attacking the true Faith of Jesus Christ. Therefore, “a steadfast, earnest defense of classical Christianity” must be very careful in its terminology, to establish clarity and avoid rote misinterpretation.
-
Second, your statement, “Enthusiastic religion has few resources to protect itself from itself,” is absolutely true and well borne out within the context you provide. It is, in fact, the religion OF enthusiasm, as one pentecostal believer told me years ago, “The man with an experience is never at the mercy of the man with an experience.” Or, as I have often heard it stated, “It’s better felt than tell’t.”
-
On the other hand, one of the primary reasons this problem exists in America is that generations of American professors of Christ have not found the truth of Scripture sufficient to produce a fitting expression of enthusiasm. Many consider their Bible-based churches to be places of dry, dull deadness, and are drawn away by the exuberance and passion of those who have been stirred up by experience, no matter what its basis. This, then, raises the question, are those unimpassioned churches truly Bible based?
-
We must remember that the church is not a place, but a body of people who are spiritually joined and indwelled by the Spirit of the living God. If that isn’t enough to at least begin to enliven us, we should be begging of Him to know why not!

Al, thank you for the kind words. And you are correct about precision in terminology. And I think churches like Bethelem, Redeemer and Mars Hill are both Bible-based and alive, demonstrating the community, both in spirit and flesh. [Btw: Dull deadness can also be an indicator of Bible baselessness.] As always, appreciate your thoughtful comments.

Demian,
I’m a bit confused. And let me say up front that I’ve not read Machen or Horton. But you seem to be making rather sweeping, polarizing statements here. You mention “salvation through community or congregation.” While there is fellowship, ministry, worship and the expression of complimentary spiritual gifts within a functioning body of Christ in community and congregation, there is only salvation through being born again. Each of us as individuals need to go through the “womb” of salvation. And we do this alone. Why do personal experience and community need to be diametrically opposed? Don’t we need both?
And I’m not really sure what Woodstock has to do with Christian sects. While I understand the point you were making, it seems a bit of a reach to lump this in.
Isn’t the literal definition of what you’ve termed “historic Christianity” simply those who “follow Christ?” Are you saying that historic or European Christianity is one in which only the intellect should be engaged, and one where this can only take place within the context of community?
Here’s where I have a bit of a problem with your position, or perhaps its Machen’s and Horton’s. I met the Lord and “grew up” for five years in a Pentecostal church. While the experience of the gifts of the Holy Spirit was evident, our theology did not consist only as purely personal, “violently emotional” feelings. It was indeed built upon a creed. One that included deep, reflective Bible and theological study.
Perhaps I’m missing something here. But is it fair or wise to paint all of American religion with the same either/or brush? Is an intellectual-only approach to Christianity the only “approved” approach? Because that’s not what I see when I read Scripture. I see plenty of examples where it was both “felt and tell’t.”
Particularly when I read the Book of Acts, or verses like 1 Thessalonians 1:5, “because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit, and with deep conviction.”
I guess I simply disagree with the general assessment of the state of American faith. Perhaps my view is rather narrow, but those churches I’ve been part of over the last thirty eight years seem to be made up of people with deep and rich personal experiences that serve to feed and compliment the rest of the community. It doesn’t appear to me to be an either/or premise, but in fact both. I simply don’t agree that an enthusiastic individual experience automatically equates with blind self reliance, exploitation or a lack of community. I’m living proof.

Richard, part of the argument that Machen, Horton and Bloom are making is that American religion is dominated by an attitude of me and my Bible and no more. Wholesale subjectivity fully removed from objectivity, tradition, community and reason. Bloom, a non believer, applauds this. Machen and Horton mourn it because it abandons the historic Christ of the NT and replaces it with a being of their own making. And that’s the problem: many people say they “follow Christ,” yet pushed to define that Christ and he doesn’t resemble what we know about Christ through the OT, NT or tradition.
–
And I’m not saying historic Christianity is just intellectual Christianity. Loving God with your mind is part of the “heart, soul and mind” Christ encourages to love God with. I’d say the prevailing context of Chrisitanity has left the mind out. I’m with you…there needs to be a balance. The argument is that currently its not balanced.
–
One thing I need to point out is I’m not painting all American religion this way. Only those movements that favor the subjective, personal, enthusiasm, like Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, Mormons. In fact, Bloom was horrified of anything that sniffed of Calvinism, Augustinian, doctrinal, creed…anything with objective, historic substance…stuff that’s got the stigma of being dry, dead.
–
Now, I have to take Bloom and Co’s scholarship on Mormons and So. Baptist, but when it comes to Pentecostals, I know from firsthand experience. I not only cut my teeth in this movement, but faithfully absorbed it for ten years. And I have to confess that from liturgy to literature, Bloom, Horton and Machen’s indictment on Pentecostalism sticks.
–
Honestly, I’m not really sure where you picked up on this either/or premise, but if I was making that mistake, I apologize. Not my intention. Bottom line, it’s the fanaticism, the singular leaning on emotionalism, the subjective enthusiastic experience mistaken as the essential, primitive missing element of Christianity that’s in my cross hairs.
–
I’m a believer in conversion being both a personal and communal experience that’s rooted in experience, tradition, reason and emotion. The weight I give those elements probably differs from yours, and I don’t think they’re all equally important…but I do believe they all need to be there.
–
But the fact that we do differ in how we would weight those elements is just another case for fellowship, debate and discussion because we all fall out of balance at times. So, to conclude, I apologize if I positioned this as an either/or statement. I do believe we can have balance. I want balance. That’s my goal.

Demian,
Thanks for clearing this up for me. I feel I’m often at a disadvantage for not having read the folks you are often referencing. As a result I sometimes hesitate to jump into the discussion.
I’m not all that sure you presented your case as an either/or, it could very well have been my interpretation of what you wrote. If so then I too apologize.
I’ve not read these writers’ take on Pentecostalism, but I suppose in its purest form, it does tend to have very strong subjective leanings. For me, my five-year Pentecostal experience was with a church who’s pastor was apparently much more balanced than most. Perhaps being located in Boston had something to do with that.
But from other conversations we’ve had, I don’t think you and I are very far apart at all. I too believe God wants us to engage him fully with our intellect, will and emotions, just as he engages us in all these areas.
If these are weighted differently for me, it’s not a theological choice per say, but has more to do with how I’m built, the way I was raised (another story for another time), and one of the reasons I’m an artist. I tend to feel first, think later. I’m guessing you’re a think first, feel later kinda guy.
But I believe we’re both aiming for the same thing–trying to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, struggling to peel off the layers that get in the way of our living in the child-like state that Jesus said we must find in order to enter the kingdom. It takes a child-like faith to be free enough to jump out of the boat and run across the lake when we’re called.
I’m looking forward to jumping out of the boat with you, Demian.

“I’m guessing you’re a think first, feel later kinda guy.” 100% true, Richard. That’s why I need friends like you. I appreciate your mercy now and in the future. And I’m looking forward to racin’ across that lake with ya.