Adrian Warnock and I have been going back and forth on the place of emotions in the Christian faith recently - with him defending the heretical unorthodox position that the Christian faith is nothing more than a feeling and me defending the biblical and orthodox view that God has called us to be stoical, machine like creatures who simply will their way through the Christian life.
OK, maybe that's not the exact way this debate is going, but in discussions like this it is easy to go to extremes. I just want to point out that neither one of us really fits the extremes - I am not arguing for a stoic Christianity and he is not denying the sufficiency of Scripture.
He has also been interacting with Dan Phillips from the Pyros lately on the broader issue of the whole charismatic-cessationist debate. He did one post called "It is impossible to elevate emotions too highly," relying on some words from John Piper and another called "Charismatic Debate - Responding to Dan's Objections" where he expressed sadness that I did not affirm that I affirm the validity of a real emotional relationship with God. And today, he did a post where he thinks he finishes Dan off.
I don't have the time or the interest right now to get into the whole charismatic debate, except for three brief comments. First, if you must be a charismatic, then be a charismatic like Adrian. Adrian, like his American friends from Sovereign Grace ministries is driven by fidelity to the Scriptures and places a high premium on doctrine, thus keeping himself from the wackiness of much of what goes on in some charismatic circles. Secondly, I think alot of the issues in the charismatic debate are answered well by Richard Gaffin in Perspectives on Pentecost. He effectively shows that much of the biblical data on which charismatics base their expenses has an objective redemptive historical significance rather than subjective-personal-experiential-exemplary significance. Thirdly, I would encourage Adrian and my charismatic friends to re-examine their views in light of N. T. Wright's comments on healings as a means of "reconstituting those healed as members of the people of Israel's god." See my post from yesterday on this.
But for now I want to share a few thoughts on this whole issue of feelings.
First of all, I am not sure we are getting the fullness of Piper's thoughts on emotions here, or maybe not the fullness of nuance in Piper's views. Also, as an aside, I think it is worth pointing out that though Piper is great, he is not "inspired" and his views are not authoritative. Having said that I recognize that Piper is a far greater exegete than me and most of us so it is right to take him very seriously.
I remember reading, a few years back, a discussion on "affections" and "emotions" in the work of Jonathan Edwards. I think it may have been in one of Piper's books, but I am not sure. Regardless, the point of what I read is that Edwards regarded an "affection" as something which could include emotion but transcended emotion. An "affection" as I remember is an inclination of the heart toward an object. It is to be drawn to it's object. I can probably illustrate it better than I can explain it.
In the family, we go through myriads of emotions in regards to our spouses and children. At times we feell all warm and gooey toward them, sometimes we are angry at them, other times we feel kind of indifferent to them, and most of the time our emotions are just on some kind of even keel. But our affections (generally) remain constant so that we are inclined toward them at all times. Thus, even when I am angry at my wife and kids I am still drawn or inclined to them. Let's say we just had a big fight and I am furious at my wife and kids. Pretend they leave the house, get on a bus with several of our closest friends and the bus gets in a wreck a few miles down the road. Even though I was furious at them when they left, it will be their welfare I am most concerned with. Even though several of my closest friends may have been on the bus, the ones I will be the most worried about will be my wife and kids. Or, with a happier example, let's say my son plays little league (assuming I would let my kids waste their time on baseball). He plays right field, never gets a ball hit to him and strikes out three times in the game. Pretend that in that same game, my son's team pulls out a victory when some other kid hits a homer in the ninth. While the rest of the team and fans will be celebrating that kid, it's going to be my kid, the one who nearly lost the game for the team, that I am going to be drawn to.
My point in this is to say that when we pull Edwards and Piper in as witnesses to the primacy of emotions let's be sure we understand the totality of what they are saying. I think that "elevating the affections" is not the same as "elevating the emotions."
Secondly, I think we ought to critique all of this stuff Adrian is saying about emotions with the same filters by which we critique mysticism. As Charles Hodge says, all Christians are by definition mystics, because mysticism is simply the belief that a divine influence can be exercised on the soul. Yet, mysticism goes bad when it seeks an unmediated experience with God. Fortunately, I'll give my brother Adrian credit, he does not divorce experience from the Word of God.
On the other hand, one of the valid criticisms of mystics is their experiential orientation. In a prior post I argued that we ought to change the way we talk about experience because there is no such thing as a "non-experience." But having said that, I would narrow my comment about mystics and experience to say that mystics get high on a feeling (they're hooked on believing . . .). The dangerous part of this is that spirituality is then measurd by subjective criteria, by how "close" I feel to God, or how joyful or at peace I am.
I think this is the greatest danger in what Adrian is saying. I don't see how it can't lead to a subjective orientation toward Christianity where our feelings become the barometer of our standing with God, and growth in grace.
One of the most refreshing things about coming to a reformed point of view was the objective orientation of reformed theology. In other words, it affirms that Christianity is not about what I do for God, nor what I feel toward God, but what God has done for me in Christ. Christianity says "look outside of yourself to Him" rather than "look inside at your feelings."
Many of us fled evangelicalism mysticism with its subjective emphases and finally found peace in the reformed tradition with it's objective emphases. It gets tiring to continually take your spiritual temperature by your feelings because they are all over the map. What we need is to constantly be reminded of our inclusion in the beloved because of the work of Christ on the cross. It reminds us that even when I am feeling bad, because of Christ I am still as close as I can be to the Father.
Insofar as Adrian and Piper and Edwards affirm that, I am all for it. Insofar as they say "look to the cross and let the cross shape your emotions," that's great. But I think they need to be careful about making emotions the measure of spirituality.
One final comment and I wil close. There is no "canon of emotions" that is prescribed for the Christian. There is not a single emotion that is prescribed by the Bible that should be apparent at all times in the life of a Christian, nor is there a canonized list of specific emotions that should be present in particular situations. Thus, by what criteria am I to judge what emotion we should be experiencing at any given time?
Related Tags: Religion, Theology, Faith, Charismatic, Charismaticism, Cessationism, Experientialism, Reformed, Mysticism
Recent Comments