When Spirituality Goes Wrong
Responding to Errors and Excess in Spiritual Formation
Imagine two people, both equally concerned about something they see going on in the church. One, full of worry, and perhaps not a little bit of anger, decides to speak against them, drawing a firm line in the sand and telling everyone who will listen who is “good” and who is “bad.” Then imagine the other person, who decides to ask questions, learn what sorts of worries, concerns, and logic govern the movement, and then seeks to speak into these things with wisdom.
These two individuals, admittedly a bit too polished to be archetypes, are nonetheless two models of engaging error, excess, and maybe even outright heresy.
In the ministry of Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), he was confronted by similar sorts of problems with the revivals. In the revivals they saw error, excess, and heresy, and so you would imagine a theologian like Edwards would simply jettison the movement like the first individual. But he didn’t. Edwards was the second. He wanted to understand, guide, and speak wisdom into the revivals to steer it back to faithfulness, because he understood that even in the midst of error, excess, and heresy, God was at work.
That is an amazing claim really. In his preface to his famous work, The Religious Affections (1746), Edwards tells us that wherever God is at work, you should expect to find errors, excesses, and heresies. Why would that be? Wherever God is at work, Edwards asserts, you should expect to find Satan there trying to mimic it, undermine it, and dilute it by sowing seeds of excess, error, and heresy.
Pause and consider what Edwards is saying here, especially in the age of hot takes on social media. To come out against a movement because one sees errors, excess, and heresy, might be to align with Satan’s work to undermine the work God is doing by refusing to consider discernment and wisdom. Edwards suggests that there is a more faithful path available.
The path Edwards takes is to do the hard biblical and theological work to come alongside the revivals to help establish proper discernment of God’s action. In other words, Edwards comes alongside as an ally, showing how deeper forms of discernment are needed for the revival to be purified of its misunderstandings.
To do so, Edwards’s work starts with a theory of affection. If you remember my understanding of spiritual theology, I asserted that the spiritual theologian is one who always begins with good theoretical work in scripture and theology. But this is not enough. Rather, we need both practical and existential content to expound the theoretical. To do so, after expositing the nature of religious affection, Edwards does a ground-clearing exercise, showing that what people call discernment, is not really discernment at all.
To do this ground-clearing” work, he begins with what we now call the “twelve negative signs,” even though the word “negative” here might be slightly unhelpful. As used here, “negative” does not mean bad or wrong, but simply that using these signs to discern the work of the Spirit simply won’t work. What are these signs? Edwards names them for us as:
1. “’Tis no sign one way or the other, that religious affections are very great, or raised very high.”
2. “’Tis no sign that affections have the nature of true religion, or that they have not, that they have great effects on the body.”
3. “’Tis no sign that affections are truly gracious affections, or that they are not, that they cause those who have them, to be fluent, fervent and abundant, in talking of the things of religion.”
4. “’Tis no sign that affections are gracious, or that they are otherwise, that persons did not make ’em themselves, or excite ’em of their own contrivance, and by their own strength.”
5. “’Tis no sign that religious affections are truly holy and spiritual, or that they are not, that they come with texts of Scripture, remarkably brought to the mind.”
6. “’Tis no evidence that religious affections are saving, or that they are otherwise, that there is an appearance of love in them.”
7. Persons having “religious affections of many kinds, accompanying one another, is not sufficient to determine whether they have any gracious affections or no.”
8. “Nothing can certainly be determined concerning the nature of the affections by this, that comforts and joys seem to follow awakenings and convictions of conscience, in a certain order.”
9. “’Tis no certain sign that the religious affections which persons have are such as have in them the nature of true religion, or that they have not, that they dispose persons to spend much time in religion, and to be zealously engaged in the external duties of worship.”
10. “Nothing can be certainly known by the nature of religious affections by this, that they much dispose persons with their mouths to praise and glorify God.”
11. “’Tis no sign that affections are right, or that they are wrong, that they make persons that have them, exceeding confident that what they experience is divine, and that they are in a good estate.”
12. “Nothing can be certainly concluded concerning the nature of religious affections, that any are the subjects of, from this, that the outward manifestations of them, and the relation persons give of them, are very affecting and pleasing to the truly godly, and such as greatly gain their charity, and win their hearts.”
After clearing the ground of the various ways we try to find discernment falsely (the negative signs), Edwards turns his attention to a positive account of discernment. He does this though the “twelve positive signs,” which are:
1. “Affections that are truly spiritual and gracious, do arise from those influences and operations on the heart, which are spiritual, supernatural and divine.”
2. “The first objective ground of gracious affections, is the transcendently excellent and amiable nature of divine things, as they are in themselves; and not any conceived relation they bear to self, or self-interest.”
3. “Those affections that are truly holy, are primarily founded on the loveliness of the moral excellency of divine things. Or (to express it otherwise), a love to divine things for the beauty and sweetness of their moral excellency, is the first beginning and spring of all holy affections.”
4. “Gracious affections do arise from the mind’s being enlightened, rightly and spiritually to understand or apprehend divine things.”
5. “Truly gracious affections are attended with a reasonable and spiritual convictions of the judgment, of the reality and certainty of divine things.”
6. “Gracious affections are attended with evangelical humiliation.”
7. “Another thing, wherein gracious affections are distinguished from others, is, that they are attended with a change of nature.”
8. “Truly gracious affections differ from those affections that are false and delusive, in that they tend to, and are attended with the lamblike, dovelike spirit and temper of Jesus Christ; or in other words, they naturally beget and promote such a spirit of love, meekness, quietness, forgiveness and mercy, as appeared in Christ.”
9. “Gracious affections soften the heart, and are attended and followed with a Christian tenderness of spirit.”
10. “Another thing wherein those affections that are truly gracious and holy, differ from those that are false, is beautiful symmetry and proportion.”
11. “Another great and very distinguishing difference between gracious affections and others is, that gracious affections, the higher they are raised, the more is a spiritual appetite and longing of soul after spiritual attainments, increased. On the contrary, false affections rest satisfied in themselves.”
12. “Gracious and holy affections have their exercise and fruit in Christian practice. I mean, they have that influence and power upon him who is the subject of ’em, that they cause that a practice, which is universally conformed to, and directed by Christians rules, should be the practice and business of his life.”
If we are going to engage false ideas and movements in the church faithfully, I think Edwards serves as a particularly helpful model for how we should do so. If you are interested in a chapter outlining his Religious Affections in more detail, see my chapter here.