Keswick Preaching and then Practical Perversion: the Unaffiliated

Because I'm leaving town here Wednesday until next Monday, while getting my classes and other responsibilities ready for when I'm gone, I listened to the audio from a recent unaffiliated Baptist conference.  At this juncture, I don't want to go into what  or where the conference was or its characters.  This is not supposed to be a guess'em game either.  I listened to four sermons.  Three of them were very good.  Very.  Those three, I have to admit, I picked out because I thought they would be good, so that's not a very scientific sample (not to the level of quackery though).  I talked to someone who attended the conference, and he said the preaching was good at the conference.  Good doesn't mean, "every sermon good," but "higher percentage good than normal for one of these conferences."

A fourth sermon was laced with Keswick.  I don't know if this preacher even knows it.  I'm guessing the Keswick theology he believes, right now he's sold on it, and thinks it's the answer or solution for everyone to hear.  Of great interest to me was that one of the four sermons, preached before the fourth, dealt head-on, smack-dab, bullseye with the Keswick sermon.  If it had followed the Keswick sermon, it could have been pulverizing it with its content.  It was so right on that it looked planned, purposeful, like someone who was dealing with something he knew was coming in advance.  I know it wasn't, but it was greatly needed, and I appreciated it.

Someone preached a sermon that was smashing Keswick before someone came along and preached just the opposite.  What I'm saying is that two different theologies were being preached in two of the four sermons I heard.  From the sounds of the crowd, both were being given big "amens," even while they contradicted one another.  Some, I'm sure, did not know they were listening to sermons that were diametrically opposed to one another.  If there was hearty, audible support for the first one, the second one should have received crickets.  It didn't.

The man crushing Keswick even mentioned Keswick theology.  I haven't talked to anyone about a particular sermon at the conference.  All I heard was that in a very general way that the sermons were overall very good.  However, I know this man, just from hearing the preaching, is concerned about the perverse Keswick teaching, and was eviscerating it.  Then came along a man later and preached just the opposite.

That the man preached against Keswick theology -- that should happen.  That two men could contradict each other in the same conference on something so vital -- that should be very rare.  It's something unaffiliated men need to talk about.  They need to get settled what is their thinking about these doctrines.

I'm going to call the fourth man, Keswick Man.  The other I'm calling Sufficient Man.

The style of Keswick Man was a Keswick style.  I can handle yelling.  I can even enjoy some, if it is within the context of an authentic communication of the text of scripture.  This was a lot of yelling of the nature of performance art.  It's actually a kind of "art of preaching," that I've written about, that people think is endued in some way because of the style of delivery.

The sermon of Keswick Man drew from the passage to which he referred.  He didn't preach the passage.  He launched from the passage into some practice, some of which he read into the text. One of the other four sermons was a sermon from Nehemiah on preaching from the Bible, moving into a biblical theology of preaching.  It was a terrific short presentation.  That sermon came ahead of Keswick Man, and exposed his preaching as well.  Part of Keswick preaching is a dependence on the Holy Spirit for the sermon that circumvents the authority of scripture.  You are hearing the effects of a mystical experience, understood as being key to the process of preparation.

I will not divulge the theme of Keswick Man's message or even what Testament to which he referred. However, Keswick Men bring a tension that comes from not having arrived at sufficiency in Christ. They do not rest in the grace of God.  I'm not endorsing quietism, but I'm referring to a pursuit of greater blessing that takes the form of non-stop pressure.  This is revivalism.  They push and push to get there, and that desperation displayed itself throughout the message.  They've got to make it happen, producing the tension in many aspects of sanctification.

Keswick Man spoke of a person in his life that he's been working and working on.  This is what it takes with Keswick -- lots of work.  It's you working.  This is not to say that you don't work.  However, Sufficient Man stressed it was God that was working.  We work out, because God is working in.

Sufficient Man preached on a theme again I won't say, but is the antidote for Keswick thinking and belief.  He emphasized that the justified person was already complete.  This person has all that he needs.  He knows it is all grace, so he enjoys obedience and whatever results it brings, because He depends on God -- actually depends on God.  Keswick is faux dependence on God.

One of Keswick Man's points was, "Don't be afraid to ask for miracles."  Some might think that's a rather innocuous or innocent point.  Should believers be praying for miracles?  He followed with "I've got to see God do stuff."  There were many "amens."  Maybe he was joking, but he said, "I even had a miracle this morning," before telling a story of avoiding a traffic ticket.  He reiterated, "Don't be afraid to ask for miracles."  For the third time, he said, "Don't be afraid to ask for miracles."  That was the central point of the sermon.  He related the reception of the miracles to a "secret place" and "power."  He said that they're miracles, and because they are, you won't see them all the time, or they wouldn't be miracles.  Actually, Jesus saw them all the time.  During eras of miracles, they occurred all the time.  That's actually what we should expect if were to expect them.

I'm sure Keswick Man believes that he'll receive miracles.  He was probably taught that.   He might think he's received them and that others should too.  Believers are not to pray for miracles. The Greek word for "miracles" is semeion, also translated "signs."  It's the same word.  "Signs" and "wonders" are "miracles."  This is sheer continuationism.  Jesus said in Matthew 16:4 among other occasions, "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it."

Jesus said, "Don't seek miracles," so don't pray for miracles.  Someone shouldn't ask for miracles. Who would ask for miracles?  The religious leaders did.  People who ask for miracles are wicked and adulterous.  Why?  God has done enough.  If Jesus says you are wicked and adulterous for seeking after miracles, then you should be afraid to ask for miracles.  Was this challenged by the unaffiliated Baptist preachers?  Or are they really fine with continuationism?  It should be shocking for them to hear what he said.

Believers don't need miracles.  They have all the power they will ever get at the moment they are justified.  They have every spiritual blessing.  They fall behind in no gift.  They need to submit to God, obey the Word of God.  The just shall live by faith.  Miracles were signs for unbelievers before the completion of scripture.   I'm not saying that God doesn't intervene.  We know He does, because God's Word says He does.  We don't pray for miracles.  We don't depend on miracles.  Miracles had their place.  We depend on the Word of God, the grace of God, the gospel, the means God intends for us in this age.

Sufficient Man didn't say anything about miracles, but he preached about the sufficiency of Christ and the ordinary means that God uses to accomplish His work in this age.  Believers need to understand how the work of God is accomplished.  They need to understand a proper view of sanctification.

Are unaffiliated Baptist churches fine with Keswick theology?  Are they fine with revivalism?  Do they have a biblical view (which is historic Baptist too) of sanctification?  Judgment must begin in the house of God.

*************

I'm at the airport in Oakland right now, and I reread this post to see what I thought of it.  That's important sometime in writing -- go back and read what you wrote to see if you still like it.  Edit it after some time has allowed you to come at it with a slightly different perspective.  I didn't change anything.  However, I'm going to add something.

From a positive standpoint, people can grow.  They must be humble, but they can grow, if they are willing to change.  Many men are into Keswick, are deceived, don't know it in other words, but they can change.  I encourage that.  I am leaving out names and places with hopes that will make it easier for someone.

Keswick Man, as I wrote above, said, "I've got to see God do stuff."  This discontent fuels Keswick.  It is covetousness, which is why it is for a wicked and adulterous generation.  God is "doing stuff" all over, about a trillion at any given moment.  He's doing so much stuff that we couldn't keep up thanking Him if we had a thousand tongues.  I see God do stuff.  What Keswick Man means, however, is that he needs to see signs and wonders.  What occurs is that people then manufacture those wonders, and then say God did them.  This is all over the place.  What is manufactured is a fraud.  I'm saying it's a lie.  It is a pernicious lie that is as bad as any lie told by the worst politician.

Unaffiliated Baptists need to be training their people to enjoy the stuff that God already gave them.  I'm not saying that Keswick Man wouldn't say that.  He'd agree, and probably feel like this post is misrepresenting him, because "he's not saying what I'm saying -- he's not saying that!"  They have the gospel.  They have the Holy Spirit.  They have a complete, authoritative, perfect Word of God.  They need to just use the stuff God gave.  Instead, they invent new stuff, because the old stuff isn't good enough.  Because they need stuff so much, they make up stuff.  This is rampant everywhere, but it is also all over with unaffiliated men.  If you criticize it, they pull the autonomy card.  Or they just attack back, or become political, I've noticed.  What do you think?