Martin Luther complained about the radicals of the Reformation who invoked the fullness of the Spirit that they had “swallowed the Holy Ghost, feathers and all.” Justin Taylor’s recent quote from John Piper about worship makes me wonder if fire-eater would occur to Luther as the name to describe the oldest of the Young, Restless, and “Reformed.” Here’s the quote that lights Taylor’s fire:
The fuel of worship is a true vision of the greatness of God;
the fire that makes the fuel burn white hot is the quickening of the Holy Spirit;
the furnace made alive and warm by the flame of truth is our renewed spirit;
and the resulting heat of our affections is powerful worship, pushing its way out in confessions, longings, acclamations, tears, songs, shouts, bowed heads, lifted hands, and obedient lives.
Fire metaphors aside, some of what Piper writes is sensible, such as the idea that God’s greatness undergirds worship, or that true worship depends on the work of the Holy Spirit. What is troubling is the criteria Piper uses to evaluate Spirit-filled worship. Do we really want to put shouts and tears and lifted hands on a par with confessions and songs? In my-all-about-me-church the only person raising his hands is the Reformed pastor at the beginning and end of the service.
To put Piper’s spiritual arsonry in perspective, confessionalists may need a little spiritual quenching from the teaching of Reformed churches:
Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations. (Confession 7.6)
This is a significant difference between confessionalism and pietism. Pietists believe that for worship to become white hot, the work of the Spirit must be visible, even tangible. Confessionalists, in contrast, actually believe that the more the Spirit is at work in worship, the simpler and more invisible the Spirits work will be.
But Piper’s version of “Reformed” worship is what happens when you redact the 16th through the 18th century. Cherry picking indeed.
Old Life 
Eighteenth century being Jonathan Edwards (October 5, 1703 – March 22, 1758). From whom Tim Keller learned this—“we must preach for the effects”
This idea fits with the romantic contrast of heart vs head. Instead of drawing confessional boundaries based on doctrine, we come to need emotional jolts to keep what sovereign grace put in us working. Why be one of those churches who keep talking about atonement for the elect alone (that “tulip” stuff) when you can see more results with a famous preacher who has more effect than an entire denomination of churches?
Jonathan Edwards: “We are really saved by perseverance…the perseverance which belongs to faith is really a fundamental ground of the congruity that faith gives to salvation…For, though a sinner is
justified in his first act of faith, yet even then, in that act of justification, God has respect to perseverance as being implied in the first act.”
LikeLike
“Confessionalists, in contrast, actually believe that the more the Spirit is at work in worship, the simpler and more invisible the Spirits work will be.”
This is where Luther’s theology of the hiddeness of God is also helpful. The Spirit’s power in worship is shown in the weakness and simplicity of Word, Sacrament, and prayer.
LikeLike
One of many reasons why they were right to tie the beasts in their cages and hang them from the lantern.
LikeLike
Disclosure: I worship in the church pastored by Piper.
It seems to me that there are plenty of examples in scripture where worship is expressed with the body, including shouting, clapping and dancing, songs, and obedience. If worship is Holy Spirit generated, and if we see these examples in scripture, why do we need to worry about ranking these expressions in importance? I don’t believe Piper is ranking them. Scripture doesn’t seem to rank them. Do you have scriptural basis for this ranking?
LikeLike
So much of what Piper says feels like a command to have his personality. Deifying human impulses is a chronic problem of revivalism.
“Spiritual arsonry” – nice phrase.
LikeLike
The “powerful worship” Piper describes, ironically requires less faith from the worshipper–not more.
LikeLike
What does all of this mean? I am not trying to be funny here. I read these quotes and I hear these pretty, flowery words and then I wonder what it all actually means…
LikeLike
Of course it would be good to think about the sixteenth century. The violent wing of the Munster anabaptists put in those visible cages were simply attempting to take dominion and transform their culture, based on their collective reading of OT case law. Now, as one who takes sides with the “come-outer” non-violent side of the Radical Reformation, I of course do not approve. But there was no inherent structural difference from other Reformers using the Magistrates to deny other people the practice of their religion.
The difference was that the existing Magistrates were murdered by those who came to take over Munster, whereas Luther and Calvin collaborated with their existing Magistrates. And in the case of the New England puritans (especially the non-separatist variety) in the next century, they exterminated the pagans and took over as magistrates themselves, and then denied others the practice of their false gospels.
As much as I disagree with the false gospel of Piper’s two-faced Calvinism, I do not think the answer should be putting enthusiasts in cages.. But Todd, perhaps that was not your agenda either. Maybe you only wanted to suggest that all credobaptists are people who want to force everybody else to be credobaptist. But to be fair,.maybe you were simply being nostalgic for the good old days when unitarians could be executed (by the natural law kingdom) as a threat to civil peace.
LikeLike
Gary, biblical worship also includes kneeling and silence. If confessionalism has an allergy to going erect, pietism seems to have trouble laying low and being still. You suggest that ranking is out of order, but that seems to me naive. Pietism clearly ranks doxological posture, so why can’t confessionalism, which is marked by reverence and awe, do the same?
But if it helps, I’ve no problem as a confessionalist with raising holy hands, so long as it follows the dialogical principle and is done as a response to God’s bidding and everyone does it together to receive the benediction, which has a delicious way of suppressing exuberance and spontaneity and fostering reverence and awe. So do kneelers, which makes me wonder why Reformed churches never have any.
LikeLike
Zrim, kneelers defeat the purpose, don’t they? A little too comfortable? How about scattered broken glass?
LikeLike
I have been reading your blog for a several weeks now because I read With Reverence and Awe in seminary, and I am genuinely interested in your perspective on other matters. I must admit, though, I am troubled by your negative methodology. Every post I have read begins with a theological disagreement with some other reformed pastor or group. By doing this, you attract those who agree with your criticism and you repel those who disagree. Therefore, I suggest that you state your theology positively instead. For example, this post could have been titled: “It Only Takes a Spark: How simple confessional worship glorifies God in a surprising way.” But you chose to spend the post excoriating John Piper. In doing so, you have missed an opportunity to teach the reader A Better Way. As a fellow pastor, I sincerely urge you to consider changing your methodology by putting your views positively.
LikeLike
JP Sibley,
The fact that emotion based and driven ‘worship’ is now the main factor in many evangelical churches, something which is reflected in the quote from Taylor, should give us great cause for concern. I see it that evangelicals have been taken in very much by denoting the ‘success’ or blessing upon a church meeting by the emotions felt in times of fellowship. And John Piper, with his predominant idea of desiring God in the felt sense having a priority, has only added greatly to this false idea.
It is not being negative to highlight this matter or other issues; in fact when done in a respectful manner even when the point being made is a significant one this should make us appreciate those who bring these topics to our attention.
It is good to see you are helped by Reverence and Awe, but the church has a massive amount of work to do to turn around the charismatic worship which now infects most places and replace it with worship of a better order.
LikeLike
Now I’m sure you could have made this link to John Frame.
LikeLike
This is not an original observation, but I think an applicable one. It is amazingly ironic how closely revivalistic categories shadow Roman Catholic ones. Substitute the “infused grace” of a conversion experience for that of sacerdotal baptism. Keep “stoking the fires” of that infused grace by way of “white hot worship experiences” instead of the “sacrament” of penance. For the revivalist, mortal sin is apparently the quiet, reverent, well-ordered worship of the historic liturgy.
LikeLike
The fire quote reads like much of pentecostal/charismatic understanding of the Spirit as He is divorced from Christ. Westminster gets it right because the divines understood the external works of the Trinity are one. Practically that means they have most of the Spirit (and His benefits) who speak most of Christ.
LikeLike
GAS, I thought the objection to kneelers wasn’t that they are too comfortable but too Catholic.
LikeLike
Seriously, you guys are a bunch of miserable complaining curmudgeons. This is ridiculous and completely inappropriate. It’s all Luther and Edwards and Confessionalists, with absolutely no appeal to the Scripture and its absolute authority. Paul said worship should be orderly. What in Piper’s comments contradicts the Word? You make it out like he’s asking folks to role in the aisles barking or something. I read the quote and the phrases that stand out are:
“the greatness of God”, “the quickening of the Holy Spirit”, “resulting heat of our affections is powerful worship, pushing its way out in confessions, longings, acclamations, tears, songs, shouts, bowed heads, lifted hands, and obedient lives.”
Off the top of my head, I can think of plenty of places where Paul and others in the NT note the proper response to the greatness of God is just those things. I know there is concern of emotionalism in churches (to me it is the biggest problem in the American church), but to jump on a quality preacher like Piper over this statement comes off as Pharisaical. There are better places to look for Popes and Anabaptists than John Piper. I appreciate UK Pauls note. There should be dialouge on what orderly may be, but you’d be foolish to say Piper’s church is inappropriate. The problem is the improper preaching and place of the Word of God in churches. Not the wrong kind of worship. Pick on the problem, not the symptom.
JP Sibley has it right above, the approach here is flat out wrong. It’s so easy to sit around and complain about what’s not right. Just way too easy.
LikeLike
I am pretty sure Piper isnt referring to the Church’s confessions. I think he is referring to personal confessions, or confessing sin to one another in pursuit of sanctification.
LikeLike
R-l, the problem is that Piper wants to mandate how we should feel during worship. Thou shalt have “longings, acclamations, tears, songs, shouts” if thou wouldst truly be in touch with the Spirit.” It sounds so upbeat, but he’s actually putting a law-burden on people. And now you tell us to carry it without complaint.
LikeLike
Ramath-lehi, it’s also easy to toss around miserable names about those who might take reasonable exception to certain religious celebrities. Something about logs and eyes comes to mind. But I wonder if your enthusiasm got the better of you when you say that to you emotionalism in is the biggest problem in the American church but then say the problem is bad preaching instead of improper worship. That’s a little confusing.
So is the idea that improper worship is negligible. When it came to the reform of the church, Calvin considered how God is to be duly worshiped prior to the teaching of salvation is to be obtained (worship before preaching). Something tells me you’ll huff, but it is a little curious how the only tradition that has something like the RPW doesn’t make doxology the fourth mark of the true church.
LikeLike
Piper is very much like Lloyd-Jones. He preaches for effects and he prioritizes the work of the Spirit over the work of the Son.
Galatians 3:13 —“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles, so that they would receive the
Spirit through faith.” As Bruce McCormack has so ably pointed out ( What’s At Stake in Justification), regeneration does not precede justification in the Galatians 3/4 text. The forensic work of Christ outside the elect is the cause of the life of faith connected with justification.
The promise of the Spirit through faith comes because “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law” SO THAT the work of the Spirit WILL happen.
But Piper dislikes the inference. “If you assume we believed, why don’t you assume we received the Holy Spirit? ….You talk as if there is a way to know we’ve received the Holy Spirit different from
believing” Piper answers: “A person who has received the Spirit knows it not just because it’s an inference from his faith in Christ.”
Piper: “for the NT people, the Holy Spirit was a fact of experience. For many Christians today it is fact of doctrine….Don’t expect to notice any difference; just believe that you have experienced the Spirit.”
“Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” Now that is a remarkable question for contemporary American evangelicals who have been taught by and large that the way you know you have received the Holy Spirit is that you are a believer. We have been told that you can
know that you have the Holy Spirit because all who believe have the Holy Spirit. It’s a logical inference. So if we want to know if someone has received the Holy Spirit, we would ask, “Have you believed on Jesus?” If the answer is yes, then we know the person received the
Holy Spirit. Receiving the Holy Spirit is a logical inference, not an experience to point to.
But Paul’s question isn’t like that, is it? Paul says, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” We scratch our heads and say, “I don’t get it, Paul. If you assume we believed, why don’t you assume we received the Holy Spirit? We’ve been taught that all who believe receive the Holy Spirit. We’ve been taught to just believe that the Spirit is there whether there are any effects or not. But you talk as if there is a way to know we’ve received the Holy Spirit different from believing. You talk as if we could point to an experience of the Spirit apart from believing in order to answer your
question.”
“And that is, in fact, the way Paul talks. When he asks, “Did you receive the Spirit when you believed?” he expects that a person who has “received the Holy Spirit” knows it, not just because it’s an inference from his faith in Christ, but because it is an experience with effects that we can point to. That is what runs all the way through this book of Acts. All the descriptions of receiving the Holy Spirit are experiential (not inferential).”
End of the Piper quotations.
mark mcculley:Maybe Piper needs to learn the difference between believing and “sacramental indwelling” at many occasions. Two different effects? What about believing and being “baptized” with the Spirit at a different time, but only one time? Two different effects?
While I look for my Occam’s razor, perhaps others of you can fire up your light on the topic….
LikeLike
Thank you, Mr. Mann. However, a few things. I think it’s hard to determine Piper putting a mandate in the form of a “thou shalt” based on what was quoted here. I grew up in a church that looked down upon expressions that Piper notes here and it led to other trappings.
Also, it’s so easy to take pot shots at quotes like this that are born out the original posters minute selections from what appears to be a favorite book (that, honestly, I’ve never read). I’m very new to Reformed theology. My guess is that he’s driving at an outward expression of what is being worked in. I’ve got lots of exposure to the emotionalism of the modern church and know its trapping. It why I find blogs like this because of my search out of that. Piper has written extensively on the Soverignty of God which, for me, has the ultimate solution to the issue.
Also, he is using fire as a metaphor, and I’ve heard Piper talk of the influence that Pascal had on his life and in light of that, he is, consciously or unconsciously, probably invoking some of the same imagery that Pascal hid from his conversion.
I also don’t ask it to be carried out without complaint. But the complaining as pointed out else where is or comes off as condecending. A word well spoken is like apples of gold in settings of silver. Part of the reason Reformed lost so much footing is the conception of misery and rigidity that is associated with it. Men like Piper have gone a long way to reduce that conception.
LikeLike
It reminds me of something I recently read. Forgive the drive-by:
“Any contruction by which the Spirit as a principle of unstructured freedom and unformed spontaneity is set in conflict with considerations of established order and stable structure is not based on New Testament teaching but in most instances reflects the alien problematics of post-Enlightenment, post-Kantian ontology and epistemology (even where the Enlightenment and Kant may never have been heard of!).”
Gaffin, Perspectives on Pentecost, 51.
LikeLike
R-I and JP, boo! Not everyone agrees with you or with Piper. The world would be a better place if we all recognized that everything is contested.
LikeLike
R-I, are you aware that for 250 years, at least, revivalists have been making lots of Christians feel guilty for not “feeling” religion the way they do? Are you aware that revivalists have called critics of revivals unconverted and enemies of God? If you knew some of this history, you might understand why confessionalists are a tad sensitive about Piper’s and Taylor’s assumed innocence. And if Piper and Taylor knew anything about past controversies over revivals, they might try to put a different face on revivalism.
LikeLike
Ramath,
I feel your pain and the struggle to come to terms with the various forms of worship you find in differing faith traditions in the churches in America. Having gone through what you obviously are going through now I would suggest you continue to search and don’t let the angry rhetoric on both sides of the debate get the best of you or turn you away from seeking the truth about how most appropriately and biblically to worship the Holy God of the Christian faith. I am a Lutheran, but since you have some leanings towards the reformed faith I would suggest you read Darryl Hart’s book on worship, WITH REVERANCE AND AWE, if you have not already. I contend that worship with reverance and awe, along with a proper liturgy, becomes an aquired taste after a period of time of adjustment to reformation theology and a reformational theology of worship. Once you actually see it done properly, and begin to understand the theology behind the liturgy and why they worship the way they do, you begin to see how God comes down and feeds our needy souls through the means of reformed worship. It no longer becomes us trying to bring God down to us but God coming down to us through Word and Sacrament to minister his grace to us.
It seems to me what Piper has done is try to mix charismatic worship with reformed theology which causes all kinds of problems. I understand the desire to want to express your thanksgiving in exuberant worship but the problems that ensue because of that in a worship service become a cause for concern. With that I will stop and let others more authoritatively in the know about how to defend reformation worship comment further.
LikeLike
Hey, Yeazel, when did you become the voice of reason??
LikeLike
R-l: Yes, this is one quote, but it’s not inconsistent with the way Piper’s version of Edwards’ Religious Affections permeates so much of what he says. If you go over to Zrim’s Confessional Outhouse you’ll see that Finney promoted a very particular view of the the effects of the Spirit; the parallels give us the willies.
I read Pascal from time to time. Can you clarify what he said that ties into Piper?
LikeLike
DGH & co – I wonder if the critique of this kind of worship could be sharpened if it was made on more overtly doctrinal grounds and less on (what sometimes feels like) preferences arising from differences of temperament (as in, your highly charged emotional atmosphere unfairly excludes my preference for calmness and restraint).
Specifically, there is a critique here of Piper’s Christian hedonism which makes the discomfort over shouts and tears and figurative language look like it relates much more to a troubling symptom than the underlying cause. (“By making pleasure the overarching theme of the Christian life, Piper … has missed the point not only in degree but in kind …”)
Sticking up for Jonathan Edwards isn’t going to be part of this evening’s fun, but I can offer a different 18th century theologian who makes the same point. I recently got hold of a volume of the sermons of Ebenezer Erskine, and the difference between the ‘best of’ selections (published for devotional purposes) and the full works is sometimes quite striking. There’s a sermon he preached in 1742 where he rampages against the damage being done in the church by false doctrines of various kinds – Infidelity, Deism, Arianism … and “the doctrine of self-love also.” The elaboration:
“We have long been taught that the chief end of man is to glorify God, and that whether we eat or drink, or whatever we do, we ought to do all to the glory of God. … But now it is a doctrine sustained by the National Assembly that our own delight, pleasure, and satisfaction in glorifying God is the chief motive of all virtuous and religious actions, whereby the creature’s happiness is preferred unto the glory of God, who made all things for himself.”
I’m not sure if there’s maybe a case to be made that the greater excesses of ‘Christian hedonism’ have been toned down since its early days, but if it’s true that the philosophy as a whole misses the point not in degree but in kind, then here, surely, is a more serious reason to worry about worship styles – not so much the ick factor which exuberance introduces for the decorous, but the underlying mistake in thinking about God and the purpose of worship. Not so much, Turn down the volume already with this elaborate rhetoric about white hot burning blah blah, as, Fix a fundamental flaw in understanding how human devotional experiences relate to giving glory to God.
LikeLike
When these charismatics start talking about fire and catching a pump in church, the only thing I can think of is the lesson of Nadab and Abihu. They certainly caught on fire for God.
LikeLike
Give me a break Mann, as I have stated before, I just eat the crumbs that fall from the Calvinist tables.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart – Boo? As one out of only two or three “contesting” voices in the comments, I am making the world a better place. Maybe I should have been more positive. 😉
LikeLike
To the contesting voices,
There is room at the table for the curmudgeonly uncle; you might not like how he says it but you cannot deny his is often right. To put it another way, some people respond to the gentle corrections of their mothers, others to stern fathers and some to football coaches. All voices have their role. I get enough saccharine elsewhere. I appreciate a kick in the pants that we get here. Besides, we all can’t be Justin Taylor.
LikeLike
Cath, it’s a fair enough point, but it also seems to me that form is just as relevant as content. And sometimes being able to discern right from wrong doxology by the form is sufficient. My children may not be able to articulate the fundamental doctrinal flaws that undergird the worship of their revivalist grandparents, but regular orthodox Reformed worship is quite enough to equip them to know something very different is going on when they have a weekend with Grandma and Grandpa.
Who could argue with believers needing to know why reverence, order and decorum are appropriate in Christian worship as opposed to exuberance and spontaneity? But at the same time, I can’t help but think even more important than that is to actually practice the sort of worship God demands, even if we don’t know why all the time.
LikeLike
Cath, since I contrasted Piper with doctrinal material from the Confession of Faith, I’m not sure why you’d think the critique here is more icky than doctrinal. I believe the first table of the law — not only doctrine, but morality — should make any proponents of worship affects wary of prescribing norms not prescribed by Scripture. But I believe experimental Calvinism opened up the interior of Christian soul craft and that was the opening through which Edwards and Piper have run. There are plenty of doctrines that should nurture greater sobriety and restraint in worship and personal devotion. But the revivalists generally get upset when you bring those up.
LikeLike
JP, I don’t mind negativity. But it would be useful if you considered the point, which was the difference between Piper’s criteria for worship and those that should characterize Christian worship according to the Confession of Faith. No reason to make this personal. Oh. Now I see how difficult that might be for an experimental Calvinist.
LikeLike
Interesting comments. To rephrase an old 1930’s Hollywood caption used to caricature actor James Stewart, my experience has been that you can take the evangelical out of the Methobapticostal, but you can’t take the Methobapticostal out of the evangelical; sooner or later they’ll come back around to works, law, and exuberance.
BTW, anyone who uses a photo of Robert Johnson superimposed against the bookshelf of a pastor’s study for his blog moniker can’t be all bad….
LikeLike
I’m with Sibley; you could sprinkle in a positive post or two. You know, once a year or something. Just to keep us regular readers off balance…
LikeLike
Danny, but that’s why God gave us Justin Taylor.
LikeLike
Doug Wilson’s definition of true worship: surrender to God. http://player.vimeo.com/video/27503357
If your heart (to some degree) isn’t in your worship, if there is no love (to some degree) for God and toward God in your worship, I seriously doubt that you are worshipping. I believe that my statement is in harmony with the scriptures.
LikeLike
Gary, since we’re talking about fire, does your heart (to some degree) have to burn, or does it (to some degree) have to be warm?
LikeLike
George, I’ll gladly take “can’t be all bad.” FYI, the torso on my blog page belongs to Blind Willie McTell.
As for worship I’m still stuck on words like “honor” and “reverence.” It’s consistent with the hymns and songs I sing, anyway.
LikeLike
MM: Hmmm…your comment about Willie McTell seems inconsistent with web searches I’ve done on that photo which all seem to indicate that it belongs to Robert Johnson. But if you can point me to an authoritative site I’ll be happy. Doesn’t matter either way – Wille McTell wrote one of my favorite blues songs, “Statesboro Blues. ‘Course, I prefer what the Allman Brothers did with it.
And never mind about that worship stuff; I’d much rather talk about blues and jazz. (whoops, wrong blog!)
LikeLike
George, my avatar is RJ, then I used the same bookshelf for BWM on the blog. See http://www.htbackdrops.com/v2/displayimage.php?pid=14361
BWM can be a lot of fun – check out Travelin’ Blues and Atlanta strut for BWM in full fun mode.
LikeLike
Now I see the light!! The torso on your blog site is different from the one you use for blogging elsewhere. And yes, I can see where that belongs to BWM.
Also, BMW does a great job with “Georgia Rag.”
LikeLike
I am beginning to wonder who had more “fire”? Was it the congregationalist Jonathan Edwards or the Anglican J C Ryle? And which was the more “masculine” and the less “formal”?
And what should we say about the role and vocation of a man who has less fire even than a woman?
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/the-frank-and-manly-mr-ryle-the-value-of-a-masculine-ministry
http://www.biblebb.com/files/ryle/pract11.txt
LikeLike
D.G., To borrow an analogy from the physical body: a spiritual body, having been “born again” or “given new life” or “regenerated” should for sure be warm. “Burning” a live body seems counter-productive and would just lead to more death!
LikeLike
Desiring God recently published this from a revivalist jesuit—
Please notice just how humble he is in his knowledge about other people being pharisees. It does not sound very much like he lacks self-confidence in his own knowledge of his own soundbites
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/you-cannot-serve-both-god-and-theology
Knowledge about God can replace an authentic knowing of him to our destruction, especially for the theologically refined and convinced. We all should want our theology to be not only true, but Spirit-filled and fruitful.
We have often loved what we’ve learned about God more than God himself….
Be committed to having a right theology, but be as committed to having a relational theology — a growing, humble, and heartfelt intimacy with God. Do not simply search the Scriptures for soteriology, but search for salvation
Journal as a way of stimulating your heart over the things your mind is beginning to understand.
We will never be truly satisfied by knowing about God. We need to know him. If that dichotomy doesn’t make sense to you, beware.
Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison—“the heart in the biblical sense is not the inner life, but the whole man in relation to God”…..The Christian must therefore really live in the godless world, without attempting to gloss over or explain its ungodliness in some religious way or other. He must live a ‘secular’ life, and thereby share in God’s sufferings. He may live a ‘secular’ life (as one who has been freed from false religious obligations and inhibitions). To be a Christian does not mean to be religious in a particular way, to make something of oneself (a sinner, a penitent, or a saint) on the basis of some method or other, but to be a man –
LikeLike