So says Doug Philips.

Our ‘theology’ is essentially the set of controlling beliefs and thoughts that we have about God and how we are to relate to him. So, again, we are all theologians. The difference lies in whether or not our theology is intentionally (and increasingly) shaped by Scriptural teaching.

Read the rest of the article.

Kevin DeYoung has some great quotes from Herman Bavinck on “anabaptist mysticism.” You may not have a clue as to what anabaptist or mysticism refer to, but if you’ve been in American evangelical culture much at all, you’ve surely heard (or yourself spoken) a contemporary version of it.

What is it? According to Bavinck:

Its fundamental idea, although modified in a Christian way within Christian circles, is essential to all mysticism, wherever it has appeared–whether in India or Greece, in Persia or Egypt. Simply stated, it is this: in order to find truth or life or salvation–in a word, to find God–a person need not go outside of himself but need only descend within himself. God dwells within a person, making His abode within the person either through nature or through a special, supernatural descent into the person. After all, religion does not involve doctrine or activity, thinking or doing, but religion involves living in God, union and communion with God, which can be enjoyed only in the depths of one’s psyche, in the immediacy of one’s consciousness.

After Bavinck explains that that line of thinking has not been without some fruit in the Anabaptist tradition, he nevertheless warns of where it subtly leads:

When this notion has been expressed at any time in history by a person of deep seriousness and firm conviction, finding warm and enthusiastic agreement within any circle small or large, it frequently give birth to exuberance, courage, enthusiasm, and deep and glorious mysticism. This was the case at first with the Anabaptists as well. At that time there were many upright believers among them, many genuine children of God. Whatever one might say about the Anabaptists, one must never forget that in large numbers and with remarkable courage of faith, they sacrificed their goods and their blood for the cause of the Lord.

So Kevin concludes:

Without an outer, objective Word, the internal Word always gives way to rationalism, because in appealing to our inner sense of things, we end up just appealing to our own reason. Over time, then, Scripture is increasingly silenced, as we continue doing and thinking what we want, and Scripture is consulted only to confirm what we already “know.” The result is a cold, lifeless church, without the power of God or the truth of God’s word.

Related to the question of God’s leading and our decision making, see Kevin’s book, Just Do Something: How to Make a Decision Without Dreams, Visions, Fleeces, Open Doors, Random Bible Verses, Casting Lots, Liver Shivers, Writing in the Sky, etc. Zach also recently did an interview with Kevin about the book.

Josh Harris makes a good case for resisting the temptation to tweet during the worship service … further proving the connection between the words twitter and twit (Merriam-Webster: \twit\ noun: a silly annoying person).

In anticipation of our Lord’s Supper service tonight, here’s a meditation from Paul Tripp:

“The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise” (Psalm 51: 17).

God doesn’t want you to come to Him empty-handed.

No, you can’t come to Him full of yourself,

And you can’t come to Him based on your track record

And you can’t use your performance as a recommendation.

No, you can’t come to Him based on your family,

Your personality,

Your education,

Your position in life,

The successes you’ve had,

The possessions you’ve accumulated,

Or the human acceptance you’ve gained.

But God requires you to come with your hands full.

He requires you to bring to Him the sweetest of sacrifices,

The sacrifice of words,

He calls you to bring Hosea’s offering.

“Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God.

Your sins have been your downfall!

Take words with you

And return to the Lord.

Say to Him

“Forgive all our sins

And receive us graciously,

That we may offer our lips as the sacrifice of bulls.”

God doesn’t want you to come to him empty-handed.

He asks of you a sacrifice.

Not a grain offering,

Not a lamb or a bull.

No, that requirement has been satisfied

By the blood of the Lamb.

Yet God asks of you a sacrifice

It is the offering of words,

Words of humility,

Words of honesty,

Words of moral courage,

Words of moral candor,

Words that could only be spoken,

By one who rests in grace.

Words of confession are what you must bring.

Place words,

Free of negotiation or excuse,

On His altar of grace,

And receive forgiveness and cleansing.

Uncover your heart,

Exposed by words, and say:

“We will never again say, ‘Our gods’

To what our own hands have made,

For in You the fatherless find compassion.”

What David willingly did He requires of you,

Come with words,

It is the way of grace,

It is the way of freedom,

It is the way to God.

–Whiter Than Snow: Meditations on Sin and Mercy, pp. 25-26.

In our recent Clarus weekend, on “The Convergence of Doctrine and Delight,” several references were made to the thought of Jonathan Edwards and especially his work, Religious Affections (which you can read online for free, or purchase in hardcopy, or you can start with Sam Storms’ excellent summary of it).

Though less famous, Edwards several works on The Great Awakening (nicely combined in Vol. 4 of the Yale edition of his Works) are perhaps equally important for this theme ‚ especially The Distinguishing Marks of Revival (1741) and Some Thoughts Concerning Revival (1742).

Here are a few exemplary paragraphs from the latter work on the relationship of “light” (truth) and “heat” (affections) for preaching:

One thing that has been complained of, is ministers addressing themselves rather to the affections of their hearers than to their understandings, and striving to raise their passions to the utmost height, rather by a very affectionate manner of speaking and a great appearance of earnestness in voice and gesture, than by clear reasoning and informing their judgment: by which means, it is objected, that the affections are moved without a proportionable enlightening of the understanding.

To which I would say, I am far from thinking that it is not very profitable, for ministers in their preaching, to endeavor clearly and distinctly to explain the doctrines of religion, and unravel the difficulties that attend them, and to confirm them with strength of reason and argumentation, and also to observe some easy and clear method and order in their discourses, for the help of the understanding and memory; and ’tis very probable that these things have been of late, too much neglected by many ministers; yet, I believe that the objection that is made, of affections raised without enlightening the understanding, is in a great measure built on a mistake, and confused notions that some have about the nature and cause of the affections, and the manner in which they depend on the understanding. All affections are raised either by light in the understanding, or by some error and delusion in the understanding; for all affections do certainly arise from some apprehension in the understanding; and that apprehension must either be agreeable to truth, or else be some mistake or delusion; if it be an apprehension or notion that is agreeable to truth, then it is light in the understanding. Therefore the thing to be inquired into is, whether the apprehensions or notions of divine and eternal things, that are raised in people’s minds by these affectionate preachers, whence their affections are excited, be apprehensions that are agreeable to truth, or whether they are mistakes. If the former, then the affections are raised the way they should be, viz. by informing the mind, or conveying light to the understanding. They go away with a wrong notion, that think that those preachers can’t affect their hearers by enlightening their understandings, that don’t do it by such a distinct, and learned handling of the doctrinal points of religion, as depends on human discipline, or the strength of natural reason, and tends to enlarge their hearers’ learning, and speculative knowledge in divinity. The manner of preaching without this, may be such as shall tend very much to set divine and eternal things in a right view, and to give the hearers such ideas and apprehensions of them as are agreeable to truth, and such impressions on their hearts, as are answerable to the real nature of things: and not only the words that are spoken, but the manner of speaking, is one thing that has a great tendency to this.

I think an exceeding affectionate way of preaching about the great things of religion, has in itself no tendency to beget false apprehensions of them; but on the contrary a much greater tendency to beget true apprehensions of them, than a moderate, dull, indifferent way of speaking of ’em. An appearance of affection and earnestness in the manner of delivery, if it be very great indeed, yet if it be agreeable to the nature of the subject, and ben’t beyond a proportion to its importance and worthiness of affection, and there be no appearance of its being feigned or forced, has so much the greater tendency to beget true ideas or apprehensions in the minds of the hearers, of the subject spoken of, and so to enlighten the understanding: and that for this reason, that such a way or manner of speaking of these things does in fact more truly represent them, than a more cold and indifferent way of speaking of them. If the subject be in its own nature worthy of very great affection, then a speaking of it with very great affection is most agreeable to the nature of that subject, or is the truest representation of it, and therefore has most of a tendency to beget true ideas of it in the minds of those to whom the representation is made. And I don’t think ministers are to be blamed for raising the affections of their hearers too high, if that which they are affected with be only that which is worthy of affection, and their affections are not raised beyond a proportion to their importance, or worthiness of affection. I should think myself in the way of my duty to raise the affections of my hearers as high as possibly I can, provided that they are affected with nothing but truth, and with affections that are not disagreeable to the nature of what they are affected with.

Though as I said before, clearness of distinction and illustration, and strength of reason, and a good method, in the doctrinal handling of the truths of religion, is many ways needful and profitable, and not to be neglected, yet an increase in speculative knowledge in divinity is not what is so much needed by our people, as something else. Men may abound in this sort of light and have no heat: how much has there been of this sort of knowledge, in the Christian world, in this age? Was there ever an age wherein strength and penetration of reason, extent of learning, exactness of distinction, correctness of style, and clearness of expression, did so abound? And yet was there ever an age wherein there has been so little sense of the evil of sin, so little love to God, heavenly-mindedness, and holiness of life, among the professors of the true religion? Our people don’t so much need to have their heads stored, as to have their hearts touched; and they stand in the greatest need of that sort of preaching that has the greatest tendency to do this.

– Some Thoughts Concerning Revival, Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Volume 4, The Great Awakening (Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University, 2008), pp. 385-388.