If you've just joined us, in these Saturday posts we've been looking at classics from The Briefing archive on the Holy Spirit. First we learned about the signs and wonders ministry of John Wimber. Last week, we looked at the issue of Christian experience and what the Holy Spirit has to do with it. This week, John Woodhouse lays the foundations for how we should think about Christian experience:

In the first of these articles, we looked at the current confusion surrounding the topic of Christian experience. We noted that there is confusion about what counts as Christian experience; about what authority experience should possess; and about the place of the Holy Spirit in Christian experience (and vice versa). We concluded that there is even confusion about how the very subject of theology and experience should relate. So if you finished the first of these articles feeling somewhat confused, then I can only claim to have been successful thus far.

In this article, I will attempt to get beyond the confusion to some clarity. But where to begin?

The wrong starting point

As I’ve already suggested, much of the muddle regarding Christian experience begins at the starting point—the wrong starting point, that is. Much of what we hear and read about this subject starts with, and is preoccupied by, the reported experiences of Christians. If we want to understand the nature of Christian experience, it is argued, then let us begin by analyzing what Christians have actually experienced.

This approach has its highbrow exponents in theologians such as Schleiermacher, who began his inquiry by studying Christian piety. Indeed, the substance of his theological work was to describe and explain the nature of Christian piety, even though this eventually led him to a theology that was basically pantheistic.

At a more popular level, this is also the problem with much of John White’s recent writing and teaching. He has become fascinated with the phenomenon of revival, and has used his skills as a clinical psychiatrist to analyze the experiences of Christians in the great revivals. He has tried to determine whether the experiences of various contemporary Christian movements qualify them to be seen as revivals. Notice that he focuses on the experiences of the Christians concerned, and argues out from there. At various points (such as in his book, When the Spirit Comes with Power), he argues that certain experiences are simply inexplicable in psychological or other terms, and therefore must be attributed to the work of the Holy Spirit. John White acknowledges that this approach is liable to lead to a Holy-Spirit-of-the-gaps problem, but this doesn’t seem to stop him from falling into precisely this error.

Ultimately, nothing is to be gained by this sort of analysis (cf. 2 Cor 12:1). It fails because you cannot deduce the cause of an effect by looking only at the effect. You cannot understand a relationship by looking only at one side of it. Introspection (looking inwardly at our own experience) is therefore not an adequate or reliable means of understanding Christian experience.

There are numerous examples of this tendency in Christian circles today—most notably people’s penchant for labelling activities as ‘in the Spirit’. We have laughing in the Spirit, the silence of the Spirit, the weeping of the Spirit, slaying in the Spirit—perhaps speculating in the Spirit might be added to the list. The experience has been interpreted by looking primarily at the experience and not to the supposed author of the experience. I suggest that this will not lead to any useful or reliable conclusion.

Read the rest of the article online (3,703 words).

Add Comment »