So this response should finish up my reactions to Lane’s first critique of the first article in the FV issue of Credenda. And in this last installment, I do have a few things to say, even though I don’t believe there is a great deal of disagreement at this point.
On the question of introspection, Lane asks this:
“Firstly, were the Puritans better off or worse off for their obsession with self-examination (which, by the way, is grossly exaggerated, in my opinion)? Were they more holy in life or less holy in life for examining themselves?”
My answer is that the Puritans were a large group. Some of them were magnificent on this subject. Those who were really solid are usually still in print (Watson, Burroughs, et al.), and those of us in the ministry today should be striving to be their careful and attentive students. I want few things more than to be be a contemporary version of this kind of Puritan. When I grow up, maybe I will be. But there was also another kind of Puritan, sad to say. Think of Handkerchief Moody, a preacher who wore a cloth over his face all the time so that the people would not be able to look upon his shame. Like Jesse James robbing a train. We should do everything in our power to not be like that kind of Puritan. Or that Wigglesworth poet guy, who was another head case.
“Secondly, how many people are actually out there who morbidly self-examine themselves? My question would be rather along these lines: who examines their inner spiritual life at all these days? I, for one, am not exactly pressed for time to minister to people who cannot seem to get past their own sinfulness. I am far more occupied with trying to get people to realize that they are sinners at all.”
I agree completely that ours is generally a complacent era, and that sins of laxity and lack of devotion take up most of my pastoral energies as well. But there are still several things to note. First, in certain sectors of the Reformed world, the problems that attend introspection are still a screaming problem. Second, even in this complacent era, this is enough of a problem that pastors have to deal with it regularly. I have been counseling people for over thirty years, in a community that has strongly leaned against morbid introspection, and I have still had to deal with assurance issues many, many times. Just last week, a parishioner in my office was joking with her husband about how many years of preaching it took to convince her that she might, in fact, be a Christian. And third, the real problem here in our churches is the experiential standard that our churches require before bringing our young people to the Table. When the conservative Reformed world stops losing her sons and daughters to the world, then I would be willing to say we don’t have a version of this problem any more. Lack of assurance is a two-edge sword. There are people who don’t have assurance who desperately want it. There are others who don’t have it (and don’t really want it anymore) because the church chased them away. The Master is busy with the regenerate people, we said.
“By Wilson’s words, is he implying that the critics do not preach grace? When I preach justification by faith alone, and by that I mean that faith distinct from faithfulness is the instrument that lays hold of Christ’s righteousness, am I preaching something that will lead people to gospel rest, or will it lead to morbid self-examination? How can it, when the object is Christ?”
It will lead some to rest, and thank God for it. It will lead others to doubt. This will not happen because “the object is Christ,” but will rather happen because the listener is a sinner. A faith that is distinct from faithfulness is saving faith. A faith that is separate from faithfulness is damnable, as we both agree. So another point to be made here is that a faith that is separate from faithfulness is also invisible. This means that an average listener can wonder all kinds of things about it, and attribute all kinds of things to it. Can get himself tied up in knots. And some do.
“At the same time, when the Bible says to examine ourselves, we are to do that. And what we usually find is sin. That should drive us back to looking towards our Savior. There is not a single FV critic who would disagree with what was just written about introspection. Therefore, in the regard, the FV was created to fix a problem that doesn’t exist at all in modern confessional Reformedom.”
Yes, we are to examine ourselves. And when we do, we should be looking for sin. Our liturgy at Christ Church has this built into our weekly worship, and this is because we believe it ought to be part of every Christian’s daily practice. But what sin? How is this sin to be defined? I have no problem with self-examination. Every Christian ought to regularly weigh himself in the balances. But he needs to take care that he is not using false weights and measures — because those are an abomination to God. God hates them. So don’t just measure yourself — use His standard, and not your psychological traditions. A Christian with a bad porn habit needs to examine his heart, his head, his life, and his computer. A Christian with a bad habit of examining his heart all the time instead of loving his neighbor . . . needs to do what exactly?
And the fact that pastors who are FV critics and pastors who are FV men would probably agree on a bad case of morbid introspection proves nothing. Lane’s point here simply does not follow. FV critics and FV men all agree that God hates divorce. That doesn’t mean we don’t have a problem with it in our churches.
“One last word. I have been a bit sharp in this post, rhetorically speaking. Most of it is sparring, and definitely some of it light-hearted. I trust that Wilson will not consider this sparring as being below the belt.”
Not at all. And if I am sometimes tart in response, I am only doing it to provide MarkT with something to write about. I would hate for thoughtlessness on my part to take away someone’s reason for living.