John Armstrong is a dear friend, daring thinker, and clear communicator though deep at times. As I've indicated in other posts, he has, more than any other Christian leader, taught me by living for me the gospel in action when it comes to handling those I may disagree with. I understand the "unity of the Spirit" when I listen to and watch John in action.In this week's Act 3 Weekly entitled, "The Mystical Element in True Faith" I have received yet another awakening challenge to revisit again the mysterious element of my relationship with Christ. Like John I have walked down a variety of roads teaching different sanctification theologies and promising their subsequent results. From the "balanced Christian life" of Ryrie, to the "not I but Christ" theology of the Keswicks, to "kill sin or be killed by sin" theology of Reformed sanctification....there is some truth in all of it, and more truth in some than others. But there is truth in the statement, "In opposing experience, we have ended up with rationalism. In opposing rationalism, we can easily end up in in mysticism."
I heartily recommend about two readings of this article to get the point John seems to be after: the gospel recommends a true, mystical unity between God and us in a way that does not replace us with God (as Keswick theology teaches), or turn us into God (as mysticism teaches), but unites us in God and He in us (John 15:1 ff.) in such a way as to give living explanation to what Paul meant when he described "Christ in you, the hope of glory." John has attempted to recapture the mystery of my relationship with Christ from its normal bent toward rationalism, yet protecting me from my pendulum swing of mysticism in pointing me back to a biblical tension that is achievable, while increasing a hunger of "losing onself and finding oneself again in God."
Posts
1 comments:
Generalizations. Be careful, Rob.
I have studied mysticism in the past. Been there, done that. Some of it is good, lots of it is bad. Lots of practicioners seek to replace God with self. Like the Prince of Tyre, they seek to be like the most High. But not all of them. St. John of the Cross, for example, was a mystic, as was Teresa of Avila. Neither of them sought to oust God from his throne.
I have been a rationalist in the past. A very little of it is good; the rest of it replaces God with self. You don't think so? Look at it this way: the Protestant churches use reasoned arguments to argue their way out of many of the mandates of scripture. Reason seeks to say, "This scripture has lordship over that scripture, and therefore we must interpret the scriptures this way." Which, of course, sets the arguer up as the lord of the scriptures. Example: 'Love your enemies" Jesus says. Reasoned argument: "Well, we do love them, but we love our families more, so we can kill our enemies." Sounds an awful lot like the Corban argument that Jesus roundly condemned.
I have been an occultist in the past. None of it is really any good.
We have been given a spiritual part to our nature ("There is a spirit in man").
We have emotions & feelings. Those were created in us.
We have minds.
We have bodies.
To emphasize any one of those to the detriment of the others is idolatrous; to excise any one of them from our religious beliefs is idolatrous as well (saying God must have made a mistake, in essence).
To emphasize reason is to lose one's heart; if one has no heart, one cannot worship God with it.
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, with all your strength."
All parts are important. Not just reason, or emotion, or spirit, or strength.
Post a Comment