Rationalism and Revivalism

In his essay entitled “Paedo Baptism and Baptismal Efficacy: Historic Trends and Current Controversies,” Rich Lusk defends his thesis that the diminishing occurrence of paedobaptism of the last two hundred plus years is a result of a concurrent diminishing of views toward sacramental efficacy in general. This lower view of sacramental efficacy in turn is due in large part to two trends in American Christianity, namely enlightenment rationalism and revivalism.

At first blush, these two trends, rationalism - which would seem to elevate the human mind above scripture itself, and revivalism - which would seem to elevate the human emotion, would appear to be in conflict. It is difficult to see how these two apparently contradictory movements could ‘conspire’ to affect a single purpose. However, as I attempt to demonstrate, these two streams do coalesce at a certain point. The result of that coalescence is that the experience of conversion becomes the defining trait of a true Christianity. A view that an experiential Christianity is definitive then forces such ‘supernatural’ phenomena as sacramental efficacy to become superfluous. If the sacraments are then stripped of their power, and the experience of rebirth is put in its place, then the sacraments cease to be sacramental, and become symbols only. Symbols are at best ‘extras’, and at worst, useless.

But how, when, where, and why do the elevation of the intellect and the elevation of the emotion come together to carry off such a conspiracy? We shall here examine rationalism to its end, and emotionalism from its beginning. Here, we shall see that the end of one forms the beginning of the other.

Enlightenment Rationalism

Without repeating the detailed study of Reverend Lusk and others here, it is safe to simply say that the historic humanistic trend of the enlightenment was to place the power of the human mind, its ordering, systematizing, and reasoning capabilities, to the forefront. The enlightenment itself was an attempt to return to the philosophizing of the ancients, with modernism thrown in as well. Man’s investigating, studying, sorting and so forth of natural phenomena was to be the basis for all beliefs and practices. At its core, enlightenment rationalism was devoid of any place for the living and true God. It could possibly posit a deistic god, or gods, to account for original conditions. From there, however, once conditions exist, the human mind can study them and possibly understand all things.

Around the same time that this trend was occurring among those outside or on the fringes of the church, another separate movement was taking place, namely the reformation. Unlike rationalism, the reformation exalted God and His Word above all. Any reasoning capability man had came from God, and unless grounded firmly in Him and His word, this reasoning ability could not truly understand anything. Humanistic rationalism elevates the mind of man such that he can achieve true knowledge of his own accord, while reformational thought elevates the Word of God as man’s only true source of knowledge.

However, these two seemingly contradictory trends did have a few commonalties. Both questioned the outright authority claimed by the church of the day. The medieval church claimed an infallible ability to interpret the Word of God. The common man, it was believed, could not fathom such without the church’s instruction. Perhaps it is safe to say that reformational thought denied the infallibility of the church, and rationalism denied any authority or power in the church. However, these two tends danced dangerously close together at times. The resulting ‘tango’ was that rationalism affected reformational thought patterns. At times, in fact, rationalism appeared to be ‘leading’ the dance, and reformational thought, proper lady that she was, followed.

Wittingly or unwittingly, some within the arena of reformation theology believed that the Word of God itself could be ordered, reduced, and sytematized into a neat, tidy package of doctrines, each fitting with the others and forming a type of jigsaw puzzle. Such doctrines as that of God, the Holy Trinity, the Scriptures, creation, fall, election, redemption, justification, sanctification, adoption, etc. became as so many pieces of the puzzle. As we know, pieces of jigsaw puzzles do not overlap. Each piece is its own separate entity, taking up its own space, and adding to the final picture.

In and of itself, this systematizing of doctrine is not altogether a bad thing. It simply must be kept in its place. It should be viewed as one helpful way to look at scripture, but not the only way. By nature, if we form such a system, then use it alone to interpret scripture, we have allowed the system to trump the scriptures. This systemization of theology as the norm, instead of as a help, has resulted in many controversies in the past, and continues to today.

One major example that has current ramifications is in the area of the relationship between justification and sanctification. It may be a healthy spiritual exercise to isolate justification from sanctification and study it in some ways as a stand-alone concept. However, when we return to our Bibles, we often see that the Bible is not always so neat and tidy as all this. To state as an inerrant fact that justification and sanctification are two completely separate pieces of the puzzle, and never the twain shall meet, pushes us into many dead ends. The rationalistic approach is to stick with the concept, at all costs, that the two are entirely separate. Rationalism as a system will not allow the meshing of the two, or any dependent relation of the two in any way. Rationalism says that justification is one thing – what happens to an individual when he reaches a point of professing faith in the Risen Savior. It is an event that happens at a particular point in time. Sanctification is another thing – the life of the individual believer after he has been justified. This clean separation is not always apparent in the Bible.

Many examples could be cited, but only a few will. Saul apparently was ‘justified’. He was filled with the spirit, had faith in God, even prophesied. However, as we follow the remainder of his life, we see that he eventually fell away. His sanctification was not complete. He died a broken, and apparently eternally lost individual. Rationalism would tell us he was never actually justified. Had he been, then his justification would have infallibly lead to sanctification. The Bible, however, seems to paint a different picture. Other similar examples might include Judas, as well as several named by the apostles who were at one time followers of Christ in good standing, but who ultimately fell away.

Christ Himself provided examples, both in His parables, and in His warnings. Some seeds (the Word of God) we are told, fall on certain types of ground (hearts of men) where they are accepted and sprout up quickly. However, because the soil itself was not good, they quickly fell away. Christ also warns us that there would be those who would say “Lord, Lord,” but who, on the last day would be sent away.

The apostles warn us not to forsake our salvation, to work out our own salvation, to make sure our election, and that those who forsook such a great salvation would be worse off than those of the Old Covenant who did the same (such as Saul, maybe?). It tells us that there would be those who were “enlightened…have tasted of the heavenly gift…were made partakers of the Holy Ghost…have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come…” but that shall “fall away.” Dare we say now that either those who had been “enlightened…have tasted of the heavenly gift…were made partakers of the Holy Ghost…have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come…” were never really justified in any sense? Or shall we say that the danger of ‘falling away’ is really a hypothetical warning that is actually impossible for those who have actually been “enlightened…”?

Again, rationalism tells us that that these two, justification and sanctification (with the ultimate end of glorification) are completely separate. The Bible is not nearly so clear.

However, when we do follow rationalistic thought patterns, and separate justification as a single entity tied to a particular moment in time, the fallout is great and it affects so many other aspects of the Christian life. If justification is a particular moment in time, is based on some type of conversion experience, and infallibly results in sanctification and glorification, then causing this particular point in time to come about for the individual becomes the most important thing in all of our activity as the church. Therefore, preaching is reduced to compelling the individual to have such an experience. He must come to terms with his being a sinner, repent, and believe.

Now, coming to terms with being a helpless sinner in the hands of an angry God, repenting, and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ and Him alone for salvation, certainly is of utmost import. The rub is this, though. Is this a one-time event in the life of every believer, which infallibly results in sanctification and final glorification, or is this a constant, ongoing process that occurs along with sanctification and glorification in the life of believers? When we separate our theology into puzzle pieces, never to allow them to overlap, then the one time experience becomes the norm.

This affects the way we view our children. As infants, we rationally posit, they can not see their utter sinfulness and their need to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, as infants, (and young children below some supposed age of accountability) they can not be justified, in the puzzle piece sense of the word. They must, as they grow in intellectual capacity, have a moment of conversion. Before this moment, they must be viewed as unjustified sinners. The fallout from this, though not to be discussed here, is incredible and costly. Not the least of this, though, is what do we say of those dying before such an age of accountability? What do we say of those with mental weaknesses such as the retarded or brain damaged? If we suggest that they are somehow treated under a different economy, then our whole system falls apart!

The end result of all of this is that rationalism reduces Christianity (or is it rather true Christianity? or rather the church? or rather the true “invisible” church?) to only those who have had such an experience. Therefore, bringing those who have not had such an experience to the point of having such an experience becomes our top priority. Evangelism is defined by this paradigm. Since we care about a lost and dying world, our main goal is to bring men into a saving knowledge of Christ. This can only be done by bringing them to a conversion experience. This, in turn, can only be done by the preaching of the Word. The preaching of the word, therefore, is reduced to evangelistic sermons based on bringing about a conversion experience. We must always expect that there are those even within our congregational midst who have not had the proper experience. So, weekly we must preach in such a way as to bring about this experience.

Emotionalism

This then brings us to the intersection of rationalism (intellect) and revivalism (emotion). For a person may be reached by their intellect – that is by bringing them to the rational conclusion that they are sinners in need of salvation. But also, a person may be brought to such a conclusion emotionally. Usually, a persons emotion causes them to react much quicker than their intellect. So, if we must bring a person to the point of having an experience of conversion, to do so through an appeal to their emotions may well be a more efficient means.

The sum of all of this is this: Rationalistic systematizing results in emotionalistic preaching. The one ends where the other begins. Rationalism demands in every instance a conversion experience. Emotionalistic preaching brings about such an experience efficiently. The river of rationalism leads inevitably to the waterfall of emotionalism. What becomes of the flow after the waterfall is then seen as secondary. It is assumed by all that if the experience truly takes place, the river will flow aright (sanctification) afterwards. If it does not, that must mean that the experience was not a “true” one. Therefore, what is needed is still more revivalist preaching.

It is true enough that this paradigm fits well with Arminianism, but not necessarily with Calvinism. The Calvinist might argue that since all is in God’s hands, the emotionalistic ferver of the preaching is not so important. Simply a pure preaching of the Word of God will bring about true conversions. But, this is simply the last gasp of the rationalistic tendency before the revivalist waterfall. Held consistently, a single point in time conversion experience (which is required for a rationalistic single puzzle piece justification) will result in more and more pressure to reach the emotions of men. Perhaps the best among Calvinist preachers will hold out and continue to attempt to reach the intellect with the word of God. However, while they are doing so, their churches stifle. The revivalistic movements in the meantime, are enrgetic, constantly ‘winning souls for Christ.’ However, a realistic review reveals that much of this ‘soul winning’ is of the revolving door type. People have the experience, but once the newness of the emotional experience wears away, they wither and die. New people then move in to take their place. Sometimes, though, people come back and ‘re-dedicate’ their lives to Christ, only to fall away yet again.

A good example of this was revealed by a sign I once saw on a local mega-church steeped in revivalist tendencies. The sign read “New Members for April – 76.” Now, if this was anywhere near typical, and if the majority of these people stayed the course, then in short time, that church would be overflowing and possibly starting new congregations. However, that particular church has stayed within its current walls for several decades now. It has a huge sanctuary that is not filled on a regular basis. The revolving door is spinning out of control.

However, revivalists have one trick up their sleeve to keep the game going. They simply keep intensifying the emotionalism. Once a person has an emotion based conversion experience, he needs to keep feeding the beast. More and more emotionalism will keep some coming back again and again. You just keep raising the stakes. The end result if that path is chosen can be seen in the world of Pentecostalism.

Again, the best of the Calvinistic rationalists will be quick to point out here that what I am describing is not even close to describing the scene in their particular congregations. They do not appeal to the emotions above all. They do not reduce preaching to even an intellectual plea for conversion and nothing else. Several things can be said in response to this, but one will suffice here.

If their particular congregation believes consistently the rationalistic, systematic, justification as a single point in time phenomena, yet they do not preach that way, then they are simply being inconsistent with their presuppositions. Fortunately, this inconsistency may be pronounced enough in some congregations to allow for a relatively healthy congregation. If that is the case, we rejoice with them in their success. But we must insist that they examine themselves and see the inconsistencies. Hopefully, doing so will lead them to a more holistic view of Christian life and worship. However, it also runs the risk of setting them on the path outlined above.

However, one question yet remains for even these type congregations…..

Where are the sacraments in all of this?

It should be clear that once we accept the notion of justification as a one time event based on some type of experience, that any working of God through sacraments is unneeded. The sacraments become, as it were, superfluous. The sacrament of baptism may be preached simply as an institution to demonstrate the persons willingness to submit in obedience to Christ, thus providing further evidence of the legitimacy of that persons experience. The sacrament of the Lord’s Table may be occasionally used to further the intellectual or emotional reflection of the person on their experience. But, there is no real power of God active in the sacrament.

I witnessed the latter first hand once while attending a particularly rationalistic Reformed congregation. The Lord’s Supper was ‘celebrated’ at the conclusion of the worship service. However, it was a very somber, reflective experience. The major theme seemed not to be the congregation’s communion with the Lord and with each other, but instead to be several minutes of ‘naval gazing.” The power of the sacrament, apparently, was not to be found in God’s sovereign power working through the elements and activity of the celebration, but through each individual’s sovereign power and ability to look within himself and find…something. What he was to find, I am unsure. But it almost seemed taboo to look anywhere outside oneself, or, heaven forbid, to actually have on a happy face. Again, they may retort that what I am saying is a caricature of what was really going on. I respond by saying that appearance is a reflection of reality. Whether they realized it or not, this is what was happening.

Infant baptism in particular becomes a useless activity. With the construct described above, what possible motive is there in sprinkling water on an infant? It obviously does not do anything. At best, it again provides the parents an opportunity to display that their own conversion experience was real. But what does it say about or do for the child? Absolutely nothing.

Many reformed theologians would deny that this is their belief. However, it is their practice, and if they are to be consistent to their experiential presuppositions, they have to admit that this belief is consistent with that. This, I believe, is what Reverend Lusk was driving at. This is a major cause in the decline of infant baptism. When the reformed-minded pastor follows rationalism to its end, they either become revivalists, or the revivalists in our midst pick up where they leave off. Either way, the efficacy of the Sacraments is denied.