Thank you for your counsel. I believe I am open to good counsel. You are correct in pointing out that I have only participated on this board for a few months, and you are clearly in a better position to judge whether or not what has been presented here since it’s inception clearly and consisting and in a truly balanced way presents the discriminating truths with the same force and rigor in the same way that these men of the past presented it.
I am sure that I have been overzealous and imperfect in my attempts to bring forward what I believe is a signal problem in the church today. I have no doubt, that being human, I will continue to err in those efforts. However, I believe that the source of our divergence of views in this matter stems from more than my error and infirmity. Perhaps you will indulge me to try and explain a little further?
I believe that the source of our divergence of views on this issue has to do, in large part, with a differing opinion of how to correct an imbalance that we both seem to agree exits. I believe that the imbalance that exists today, and has existed for some decades now, has both a qualitative and a quantitative component.
With respect to the qualitative component, I mean that the quality of the preaching and writing of the men I have mentioned from the past was much more direct, heart searching, and discriminating with respect to true and false conversions, and the full range of evidences that a person was to use to examine themselves to determine whether or not they were “in the faith”. In my view, these men did not limit the experimental part of religion to the emotional component and thus they were more willing to address clearly and directly such things as worldliness, as manifest in a love of things and money rather than God
With respect to the quantitative component, I believe if one examines the whole of their writings and their sermons one finds a balance in terms of the amount of time or words devoted to each of these three components. So, for example, it is true, that taken as a whole, these men’s teachings are examined one will find nearly equal effort expended on the mental, emotional and behavioral aspects of true religion.
Therefore, it seems logical to me, that if you agree that there is an imbalance, and you have repeatedly stated that you do, it would seem necessary, in order to bring things back into balance, to begin to stress that which has been neglected. Could this approach be “misconstrued” as a “singular focus” on the “experimental” as a “prescribed remedy”? Yes, indeed it could. In fact, I have no doubt that it will.
Let me bring the argument into sharper focus by using a specific example. By using Pastor Coles, I mean no disrespect, for, in fact, I respect his honesty and willingness to be open about his errors and the need for change and to share this with others. I admire and respect this very much and think we need more of it. My purpose, therefore, in using his church as an example is because he has graciously brought before us an example of the precise problem in both it’s quantitative and qualitative components.
For example, when I read the sermons and writings of the men you agree were more balanced I find a willingness to state clearly from the pulpit that those who have never felt the love of God to be unconverted. I find sermons that dwell on this subject and don’t simply mention it in passing. I find the subject is not couched in words that might lead the unconverted to rely on a false hope, but fully developed and clearly and unequivocally presented. Is Pastor Coles willing to do these things? Is he now willing to emphasize this area because it was so long neglected? In other words, it would seem to me that taken as a whole, his teaching and his hearers need some “imbalanced” teaching for a while in order to correct an existing imbalance.
I have gone back and read most of the letters, memoirs, histories, and sermons and writings of the authors (with the exception of Owen) I have mentioned and while it is true that taken as a whole these men taught the “whole counsel” of the Word of God, and their writings were balanced overall, there clearly were times in their ministries that they addressed an imbalance in the way I describe above. There were times when they believed that their people were “asleep” and needed an “awakening” and they set about to do that in the way I have described. And when they perceived that there was some necessary balance reestablished, then they returned to a more normal balanced approach to their preaching, as you seem to be suggesting.
I also notice that each of these men were criticized for being too experimental, for being too “enthusiastic”, that their prescribed remedy was misconstrued by the “conservative church of their day”.
So, it would seem to me that you believe the existing imbalance needs to be addressed differently than I do. I respect that. And I respectfully disagree.
Finally, not with standing what I have said above, I have gone back and reviewed all of my posts on this site and I think a fair review would find that, while I have emphasized a “heart” religion, to imply that I have not also stressed the effects of such a religion in the walk or fruit in the life would reveal a bias. In His Grace,
