Is not this the most serious thing about us as modern Christians? When did you last see someone weeping because of sinfulness? Is there evidence of brokenness of spirit amongst us, and humility?
We are all so healthy, we are so glib. Why this essential difference between the type of piety that you see so clearly in the ‘7th and 18th centuries and what we have today? Can what we have today be truly called piety? Can it be called ‘godliness’? It appears rather to be an intellectual acceptance of certain propositions, accompanied by hardness, an absence of feeling, a distrust of feeling, a dislike of feeling. As if the whole man were not involved, not only in faith, but in salvation!
The result is that you get a mechanical performance of duties; and people are taught to evangelize and to do ‘personal work’ almost by numbers, and are drilled to pray. Everything is organized and arranged, you pass examinations in them, and so all these duties are done in an external mechanical manner instead of rising out of the heart.
What a contrast this is with what we are told in Acts 8 about the people who were ’scattered abroad from Jerusalem because of the persecution’- the ordinary Christians, remember, the apostles being left in Jerusalem. What are we told about these ordinary Christians?
‘They went everywhere preaching the Word’ (verse 4).
That does not mean proclaiming it from pulpits; it just means ’speaking’ it. And then we are told in the next verse that Philip ‘heralded’ it. He was an evangelist and a preacher. But they all spread the gospel. Not because they were trained to do so, or because they were told, This is what you have to do now that you have been saved. There is no sign of the mechanical stages we are supposed to go through. You take your decision, then you are given some work to do. You are taken from step to step; and it is all organized and arranged. And it is all done in this mechanical manner.
We expect that kind of thing from the cults, and that is always their great characteristic, but it is not the New Testament way. But if you start with a definition of faith which makes it something notional, and naked, and intellectual, and deliberately exclude the feelings and the emotions, that is the inevitable result. So you get a hardness, a coldness, a mechanical type of Christianity. What makes this so serious is that t is so discouraging to a true visitation of the Spirit of God. You cannot read the accounts of the revivals of the past without observing that the emotional element was always prominent.
But, today, so many are terrified of emotion and have almost a phobia concerning excesses. Indeed I fear that it can be said of many that they seem to be so afraid of what they call excesses that they are ‘quenching the Spirit’. When have you known a congregation to be really moved? When have you heard a congregation crying out?
Are you explaining away the great phenomena accompanying the revivals of the past in terms of the 20th century, and saying that the people at Llangeltho listening to Daniel Rowland were a sort of primitive people lacking education, and just emotionalists?
The Apostle Paul reminds the elders of the church at Ephesus of how he preached ‘with tears’. And Whitefield used to preach with tears. When have you and I last preached with tears? What do we know, to use the phrase of Whitefield, about preaching a ‘felt Christ’? Is not this the cause of the trouble today?
————
Martyn Lloyd Jones pg 188 The Puritans
————
My reflection on this is that unfourtunately today we also have the other extreme.
We have the Charismatic circus. Where it is all noise and emotion and no substance. No change. no repentance. No heart breaking for our sinful state and our lost world.
All people seem to get excited about is extra-biblical manefestations.
Balance is the key to life