Hell is eternity in the presence of God without a mediator.
Heaven is eternity in the presence of God, with a mediator.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Revivalism in the American Church (and Christian)
At our respective seminaries, my friend Ryan and I have been immersed in American Church History. This post is the fruit of a conversation we had earlier this week during which Ryan mentioned how a revivalist spirit is natural to us as humans. The question I would like to pose is: To what degree are we, as American Christians, influenced, consciously or not, by a revivalist spirit?
Now, I realize that it is virtually impossible for one to weigh-in about the way in which something affects them that they are not conscious of. So, clearly, my question is a loaded one. But, nevertheless, one that needs to be addressed. My hope, as we address this issue and others in the future, is that we will further understand the way in which our situatedness in various Christian contexts (Churches, small groups, seminaries, schools, families, etc...) has influenced, to lesser and greater degrees, our Christian theology, piety, and practice for better or worse. It is my hope that this blog will allow both those who engage, as well as those who simply wish to observe, a further understanding of God, His Church, and themselves through the various conversations taking place herein.
In Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice R. Scott Clark contrasts Reformed piety with the piety of both revivalism and pietism:
"Judged by confessional Reformed piety, religious subjectivism (e.g. revivalism or pietism) is illegitimate because it seeks what is by definition an extraordinary providence of God, which is not promised in Scripture. This desire for the extraordinary tends not only to devalue the ordinary providence of God but also the expressed promises of God. He is most free to work all manner of wonderful things; there are, for example, instances of an intense sense of the divine presence, a surprising understanding of the application of Scripture to a given situation, or some other blessing; but they cannot define the Christian life, and they are no proper standard by which to measure sanctification or Christian maturity. It is a significant mistake to make the religious experience envisioned by revivalists the organizing principal for Reformed piety" (107).
I appreciate how Clark, while acknowledging God's freedom to work as He pleases, rightfully argues against the expectation of an "extraordinary providence of God" as normative for the Christian life and maturity.
Is it fair to say that pietist and revivalist pieties are based upon a theology of glory while Reformed piety is based upon a theology of the cross? It seems to me most American Christians, myself included, have been raised and weaned on what Martin Luther would call "a theology of glory" rather than "a theology of the cross"?
Comments and questions are encouraged :)
Now, I realize that it is virtually impossible for one to weigh-in about the way in which something affects them that they are not conscious of. So, clearly, my question is a loaded one. But, nevertheless, one that needs to be addressed. My hope, as we address this issue and others in the future, is that we will further understand the way in which our situatedness in various Christian contexts (Churches, small groups, seminaries, schools, families, etc...) has influenced, to lesser and greater degrees, our Christian theology, piety, and practice for better or worse. It is my hope that this blog will allow both those who engage, as well as those who simply wish to observe, a further understanding of God, His Church, and themselves through the various conversations taking place herein.
In Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice R. Scott Clark contrasts Reformed piety with the piety of both revivalism and pietism:
"Judged by confessional Reformed piety, religious subjectivism (e.g. revivalism or pietism) is illegitimate because it seeks what is by definition an extraordinary providence of God, which is not promised in Scripture. This desire for the extraordinary tends not only to devalue the ordinary providence of God but also the expressed promises of God. He is most free to work all manner of wonderful things; there are, for example, instances of an intense sense of the divine presence, a surprising understanding of the application of Scripture to a given situation, or some other blessing; but they cannot define the Christian life, and they are no proper standard by which to measure sanctification or Christian maturity. It is a significant mistake to make the religious experience envisioned by revivalists the organizing principal for Reformed piety" (107).
I appreciate how Clark, while acknowledging God's freedom to work as He pleases, rightfully argues against the expectation of an "extraordinary providence of God" as normative for the Christian life and maturity.
Is it fair to say that pietist and revivalist pieties are based upon a theology of glory while Reformed piety is based upon a theology of the cross? It seems to me most American Christians, myself included, have been raised and weaned on what Martin Luther would call "a theology of glory" rather than "a theology of the cross"?
Comments and questions are encouraged :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)