The Gospel and “Religious Experiences”
During chapel recently on my campus, I witnessed something truly religious.
Our speaker sculpted a head of Jesus while telling of his betrayal (with a little bit of theatrics and exaggerations). Then he explained how Jesus was beaten and crucified. He thrust a crown of thorns on the clay Jesus’ head and sprinkled it fake blood. It was meant to evoke a highly emotional response, and it did. As he brought up a pianist to play some music in the background as he made the altar call. One young female briskly strode to the front of the auditorium and began uncontrollably weeping. The speaker continued to call people forth to have an experience. Then this young woman started screaming, at the top of her lungs. I could not make out exactly what she was saying. She continued for a few minutes saying the same two or three words over and over again. The speaker was pleased, and affirmed her experience as true.
At first I felt on edge, awkward. Then for a moment I almost thought I could laugh, but quickly I became angry. I was angry with the speaker for milking the emotion in the room to turn it into a “religious experience” devoid of the whole truth that is the gospel. I was angry with pure emotional existential Christians for putting forth such folly, misguiding people, and misrepresenting Christianity. I was even angry with Christian teachers of the last century for allowing such emotional vomit to substitute for the abiding word of God.
Finally, I felt sorrow. An emotional religious high may provide substance for a while. “It was just what I needed” one student said. But it does not last. When the emotional high wears off we are left alone again. Basing one’s life off such emotional experiences is dangerous.
“I can’t explain it, but I have experience it” said the speaker, and this is the position taken by the existentialist. There is a form of existentialism (which has many varieties) entrenched in the Church. Unfortunately, most people do not recognize it when they see it. This existentialism recognizes that pure reason cannot provide meaning for the individual. It also recognizes that experiences cannot be put in neat prepositional statements. In order to get around this and retain meaning in life, existentialism says that the individual can experience meaning for himself or herself only apart from reason. All that is left are experiences that cannot be shared. There is no propositional truth (meaning truth that can be explained using language). This is contrary to Biblical Christianity, and it leads to some serious problems.
Peter wrote to several Christians who were being persecuted to give them hope. Peter did not have the religious emotionalism I saw in mind, but we can still grasp something from his commandment. He writes,
“But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect…” (1 Peter 3:14-16a).
Peter does not recommend that his readers go spend the next hour chanting the same mantra. He does not tell his readers to get a religious experience. He tells them not to be afraid or troubled, and to be ready to defend the gospel. Existentialism leaves one no room for giving a reasoned account, it is entirely subjective. If anyone asked the existentialist for a reason for the hope that is within, he would have to respond “I have no reason, I cannot explain it to you, but when you experience it you will believe too.”
The religious experience may feel good for a time, but it is evanescent. If we base our beliefs on such experiences we leave ourselves no spine to discount one experience over and against another. There is no way to discern what is genuine and what is false, and when the going gets tough and we feel like God is not there, we must say He is not.
Thank God there is not only my religious experience! There is the reality of the gospel outside myself. I can explain it (though I would encourage you to experience it as well). The reality of the work of God is not bound up in me, it is bound up in Him, and we can access it.
Posts
Something I have noticed in youth ministry is that Thursday effect. The students are tired of a week full of activity and little sleep and often get caught up in emotion of the time. One will start sharing and it keeps going. I think many times the teens get caught up in the emotion of the moment and forget God.
I think it must really depend on what you want to get or think you ought to get from your religious experience. I never got the “emotional experience” in a place that seemed, to me, as commonplace as church. Certainly church was a sacred, holy place, but being there three times a week for three or four hours at a time made it less unique in my eyes. This meant that church rarely elicited a strong emotional response from me. Going to church, I felt content and calmed.
yet another reason I loved the Mormon church: they were very intent on each person having their own level of emotional attachment to church. They understand that some were seeking a logical, educational environment, while some were seeking a community to join, and others still were seeking a time to get fired up about God.
but some people are pumped by church. Like, CRAZY pumped. I respect that, because they have these feelings nearly every week that I have only had maybe five or six times in the past ten years, and they aren’t, by and large, insane people. They are generally stable, solid-thinking folks.
“…but being there three times a week for three or four hours at a time made it less unique in my eyes.”
Holy crap. I don’t think I’m in class at seminary that much during a given week (11 hours this semester). I imagine.
In general, I would agree with you. It is only when one variable is stressed to the exclusion or neglect of the others (in this case, emotions), does there start to become a problem.
Personally, I’m charismatic-sympathetic (but not charismaniac-sympathetic). I love seeing people get lost in God, but when that becomes the only foundation for their interaction with God, we start to have problems. Conversely, many in reformed churches make the mistake of being SO rational and so intellectual, that they discount or distrust emotional response.
As is usual in topics like this, it is the moderate middle ground that is most stable and reliable. Biblical authors were incredibly deep thinkers and debaters (especially in Paul’s case), yet they also expressed intense love and emotion in their writing.
but being there three times a week for three or four hours at a time made it less unique in my eyes
Only time I’ve been at church that much at in one week excluding VBS, and mission trips was when I was on staff at a church and when I used to go to church with my dad while he was working.
ummm…..we Mormons are HARD CORE. In case everyone wasn’t already aware. lol
I mean, when I was a Mormon, I was seriously hard core.
“we Mormons are HARD CORE. ”
lol yeah, was definitely aware of that. I guess I didn’t realize they were THAT hardcore… the only mormon I knew decently well was kind of a nominal one.
Kyle-
I respect that some people like being very emotional in their worship. The thing is that Christianity is making a truth claim, it does not exist merely to be a religion. Reverence for the sake of religion (whether it be Christianity, Mormonism, Islam, or another) has very little value. It may help someone live a “good life” (whatever the hell that is), but is there really a basis for such abstract religion?
I think emotional reactions are proper and good in the right context. An emotional response to propositional truth is a beautiful thing.
I grew up in the Pentecostal/Holiness tradition, although we did not believe in speaking in tongues, we could get quite enthusiastic. I’ve had more than my share of the altar experiences you have described.
Many years, lots of study, and various denominations later, we now attend a Bible church. We love the enthusiastic worship, but then we settle down to hear a verse-be-verse study - and no more altar calls. It’s a good mix.
If the experience cannot be validated by scripture, it’s the experience that is invalid, not the scripture. That understanding was instrumental in us leaving our existential form of christianity.
there’s a real sour recognition of existentialism going on here. Where does that come from for you all?
I understand the point that existentialism says truth is within (or truth is defined by what is within), and I understand how that philosophically removes power and knowledge from God, but this feels like maybe people have a personal distaste for it, too. Like they are naturally predisposed against it.
Kyle-
Good question. I cannot criticize something because it is existential. We must address the claims of existentialism. Interestingly enough, I recently struggled with Christianity because I thought it may be a special form of existentialism. It is not that existentialism isn’t Christianity, but that I think it is illogical.
Existentialism admits the absurdity of the universe. But its pointing to the individual to assert himself/ herself to create meaning is foolish (I think). If the world is full of absurdities, and there no real basis for meaning, we should admit there is no meaning.
My problem with existentialism is that it sees how fragmented, messed up, and absurd the world is, but it refuses to submit to this reality. The existential “leap of faith” is one I cannot take, even if it means submitting to Nihilism.
Josh,
“The existential “leap of faith” is one I cannot take, even if it means submitting to Nihilism.”
Can you explain this more, given that we Christians all assert that we can never know everything there is to know about God. In other words, God is far bigger than my brain, so there is bound to be mystery. Would it not then require a leap of faith to trust that something bigger than my mind exists? (mainly just looking for some clarification)
Good question Mike. The phrase “leap of faith” was really introduced by Kierkegaard (the theistic existentialist) and many Christians today do believe it is necessary for belief in God.
For clarification on my statement: certainty is a farce, confidence is right (Esther Meek). However our confidence is not a “leap” of faith. It is more like a step of faith. We can have confidence that God exists. We do not have to rely upon the irrational. On the issue of the mystery of God, yes God is far bigger than my brain. However, this does not mean that God is irrational. Perhaps it means God is super-rational (meaning above reason).
Does that help at all? Anything to add?
Josh,
I appreciate the clarification. I might ask for your definition of irrational, though. We would hold to God being eternal and yet working in time, things that appear contradictory. Does that make it irrational?
Again, good question. By irrational I mean non-reason (Francis Schaeffer among others uses this term to apply to New Age Mysticism and other worldviews). God is not irrational because in order to be irrational we must say that the law of non-contradiction (A cannot be not-A at the same time in the same relationship) can be directly broken. The example you give does not fall into this.
God is eternal (true). God acts in temporal time (true). How these two statements are true at the same time blows my mind. There are many ways to account for this. Peter Kreft argues eternality encompasses temporal time. At any rate, in order for God to be irrational, He would have to be both perfect and not-perfect at the same time and in the same relationship. I think we can agree this is not the case.
This being said, there are moments when paradoxes occur. A paradox does not violate the law of non-contradiction, but it (usually) leaves no means for a perfect resolution. A good example would be the trinity, which says:
1. God is one
2. God exists in three persons
3. There is only one God
Non of these are in direct A non-A conflict, but piecing them together is a beast, a good example of the mystery of God.